Trip Report: Lost the girl, won at craps

[redietz]

I don't disagree that's what it is today. It's a shell of its former self, and after just one year of publishing my column it enjoyed it's most popular and prolific time ever--straight through until the day I quit sending in articles.

Today, the paper has not only shrunk in length & width--it's got less than half the # of pages. It's truly pathetic, but then again, I couldn't write my column forever, and Eileen D. didn't really think like her genius husband anyway. As a result, the GT of today is a joke. There were sponsors who bought ad space back then that would never even give it a thought without my Undeniable Truth column. And the reason it's a skeleton paper today is because the sponsors said bye-bye. Chuck knew how to run a successful paper. His wife does not.

So Gaming Today downsizing had more to do with the lack of Rob's column than with the internet stressing a weekly tabloid as a news source. Interesting theory. It also had nothing to do with the Las Vegas economic crash of 10 years ago. It had to do with Rob's column.

Now here's something I don't quite understand. I don't see any difference between Gaming Today content today and 20 years ago. Rob, explain the vast differences in the paper under "genius" Chuck and "non-genius" Eileen. The only difference between the two is really the lack of your column, which leads us to the inevitable conclusion that not maintaining Rob's column clearly profiled Eileen as a "non-genius."

I will be sure to pass this forum posting onto Gaming Today, so they can appreciate their current folly. Maybe they will reward me with a free subscription.

Rob, one other question. That comment, "There were sponsors who bought ad space back then that would never even give it a thought without my Undeniable Truth column."

Would you care to name one still living? You know, one of them thar sponsors who would not advertise in GT without your column?

I find that quite a claim. Sounds almost narcissistic bordering on nuts. So could you name one? You said "sponsors" plural, so you must have some folks in mind. I know you wouldn't make that up off the top of your head.

Could we have a name? So, you know, we research types could verify the undeniable truth about it?


Thanks in advance.

Your friend,

Bob

P.S. If Rob doesn't provide a name, you know that I'll be dropping into the GT office to hand them this post and see if they know any sponsors who might have ceased advertising because of a "lack of Rob."

Too many words again, which means you're failing yourself. I told you your writing style is poor. You should heed the word. Lucky for you this place is loaded up with doofuses.

You either dodged the fact about the paper's significant size reduction--or you are making your statements up just like you try to get away with on your so-called resume'.

It would be nice if you went to see Eileen when you can afford to get to LV again. It'll make her think back to GT's glory days, and force her to again recognize her husband's greatness. But alas....I also can't help but think of the fiasco of words you'll once again subject us to as you try so hard to make some point.

Rob, how is the content of Gaming Today different today than 20 years ago, your column aside? Not number of articles, but content?

Do you seriously think the size reduction in Gaming Today is due more to the lack of your column than to print downsizing in general or the 2008 Las Vegas recession?

"When I can afford to get to LV again?" What the heck does that mean? You know I usually give you a heads up so we can meet-and-greet.