Re: Repost-- first 3 of 124 questions

[TGJB]

Okay, here are Alydar's rebuttal to my response, his answers to my questions, and my response. Anyone who makes it through all of this stuff has a lot of stamina, or a lot of coffee.
 
 
 Alydar:

On his board, JB wrote \"This is an Alydar special-- an arcane point\"

You should have consulted a dictionary before you wrote that. The whole point is that it is arcane (known to only a few). Mandown works for you. You pay him. He makes vicious anti-David Patent posts in which he claims DP is biased. On the SHEETS board, as you know, he posts as \"Thermador\" and kicks the hell out of The Sheets. You know he is your employee. You keep this quiet. Your reply to my question could not be more dishonest. How many times did you point out that Howard Dennis worked for The Sheets? Where did Jason Litt go to school? How do you sleep at night? And Marc\'s question, which you ducked Who else, JB? Who else works for you and attacks The Sheets on both boards?

Amazing. Simply amazing. I will get to the rest of this insanity later.


JB wrote

\"I offered him the chance to e-mail me questions which I would post and answer under certain guidlines, and he has sent me the first three, so here they are, unedited.\"

Unedited indeed. You misspelled \"soliciting.\" I taught you how to cut and paste. What happened?

\"So I had two guys listen to the audio intro tape, and I watched the video version myself (quite an experience-- it was made 10 years ago, and I hadn\'t seen it in 8. I had more hair then,\"

I had more money then.

\"in general it held up pretty well.\"

Did you notice that on the video you mispronounced \"comparable\"? You punched the wrong syllable.

\"If someone does have an idea of a study we could do, I would love to hear about it.\"

Since you believe that tighter means more accurate, you can vary the weight correction based on the category of race and see whether you can get a tightening effect. Do this with old sheets. It\'s risk free.

\"As an aside, I love Friedman\'s defense of the weight correction as being absolutely accurate.\"

Absolutely false. Friedman did not call it absolutely accurate. I remember his post very well. He left a little room for error.

\"You do this by trial and error, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT RAGOZIN DID AS WELL.\"

This is false. Ragozin had a trial but no error. He never had to adjust his father\'s weight correction. Read his book.

\"\'To answer the question of how much (weight matters), we have studied tens of thousands of races to measure how much effect weight has\". That is correct.\"

This has an omission that could launch a thousand ships. I distinctly remember you saying you found that weight was more important than most people thought. Please give me this quote. It changes everything. Your story does not add up, JB. When the omission is reinserted, you end up saying something like this We studied thousands of races, found that weight is more important than most people think, and concluded that five pounds = one point. Do you see the problem here? All you did was keep Ragozin\'s weight adjustment. What the hell is the \"more than people think\" business doing in there. It seems designed to mislead, to make it look as if you were some sort of an inventive iconoclast. Nonsense. You kept Ragozin\'s weight adjustment. Why didn\'t you quote the whole thing, JB?

\"Alydar originally tried to make it look like I was violating the rules by betting the race in such a way that I would cash even if the filly I managed didn\'t win (she ran second), \"

Wrong. All I did was ask you a question and admit that I didn\'t know much about the rule. When you didn\'t answer, I got suspicious. Restraint is not your hallmark.

\"He is trying to make it look like I did something dishonest\"

BS. Quote what I wrote. What you are doing here is dishonest. I wanted to hear you say that you select horses, manage them, pick spots for them, tell the rider how to ride them, and then, on occasion, bet against them. And you admit that you do. Not for one second do I think you don\'t give 100% effort for your clients\' horses. I have never written a bad word about Rising Graph on any message board. Period. I even have to remind myself to stop rooting for the damn RG horses. Old habits and all that...

\"by a guy who has no direct dealings with any horses I have ever managed, and is just throwing crap against a wall to see what sticks.\"

Watch your mouth, Dimmsdale.

\"remeniscent of Friedman\'s slimy insinuation that I was advising Graph racing to sell a filly while telling another client to buy her (in reality, the buyer was not my client).\"

Let\'s talk about slimy. Why did you suggest (on your board) that Ragozin lied about his treatment during the McCarthy era? Do you have evidence, JB, or is this just you being yourself?

\"1- Do you have INDEPENDENT information about Ragozin employees lying about me or my company, or doing other things to us that you consider nasty or unethical?\"

Yes, from someone I trust more, even, than I trust myself. If he wants to discuss it, he is welcome to do so. But if you\'re not nice to him, I will burn down your house.

\"Did you watch the last Breeder\'s Cup Mile, and did you see where Touch Of The Blues was on the second turn? Did Ragozin\'s trackman get it right? After I brought this up, did you believe Friedman\'s response on the Ragozin site was accurate and truthful?\"

Yes, of course I watched it. I agreed--and agree--with you on this subject. But I don\'t think Friedman lied about how they do ground.

\"3- This one only requires a one word answer-- Since you are definitely not known to have a bias in my favor, I would like to know whose figures you think are more accurate, Thoro-Graph or Ragozin?\"

I don\'t know.




Herewith my reply:

1—I'm glad you brought Howard Dennis up, because I was going to myself. When Howard posted (lied) here that Ragozin outsold us 10-1 (among other falsehoods), he was TESTIFYING as to facts. As such, his credibility (and bias) was very much at issue. This is not true for one who is ARGUING a point (an advocate), because an argument stands up on its own two legs, or else doesn't.

     One does not have to be employed by anyone involved to act in a partisan fashion, and I have labeled several people who posted on both sites as such, with no belief they were Ragozin employees—it's not relevant. Marc is (horrors!) really good friends with one of the dogs in this fight, which biases him, motivates him, and makes him a pain in my butt, but has nothing to do with judging his credibility, UNLESS he testifies as to a matter of fact—his arguments, opinions (and logic) will get judged on their merits by all who are unbiased, as will mine.

     Almost exactly a year ago, Alydar got into it with David Patent on this site (so did I, but that is beside the point here). We both were carving up David over his obviously intentional spinning, ducking, slick playing with the truth, and in general BSing that was intended to make Ragozin look good, and me bad. It was obvious to Alydar and everyone else because of what David DID (meaning said) that he was a partisan. THIS is what Mandown meant when he said David was biased—and Mandown's position, like David's, stands or falls on logic and evidence, on its own merits. It doesn't matter what the NATURE of the bias is (employment, friendship, indoctrination), and it doesn't matter for credibility unless an issue of fact is at stake.

     I would like to ask Marc this—by the end of this post (and lots more like it) it will be clear that a guy who you respect a lot has direct evidence of serious bad acts by the Ragozin operation. Are you going to discuss them with him, and more importantly, will that information alter your position regarding that operation and its credibility? If not, who is the biased one? If you respond to this post, please respond to these questions.


2—"Friedman did not call it absolutely accurate. I remember his post very well. He left a little room for error."

I don't remember it word for word, but, so what? That wasn't the point—the point is that Friedman's evidence supporting the weight correction, in several posts, is one race (the Fall Highweight), one field of maybe 10 horses, all of whom are mature males, not 2 year old fillies. Logically, that's a joke, which WAS my point.    

3—"Ragozin had a trial but no error. He never had to adjust his father's weight correction. Read his book."

To someone who knows of several deliberate falsehoods in that book, this one is a howler. By the way, I had given away my copy, but someone brought in another. I'll be taking it with me when I go away next week, and will comment in detail somewhere down the line.

   On the specific point—again, even making the assumption it is true-- so what? The point was that Ragozin (or perhaps his father) did the SAME THING we did. And as you know, NEITHER of us changed it.

    Out of order, but on a related subject—what I said about Ragozin and the McCarthy era was "but seriously (not that it really matters here), how do you know he really was blacklisted, since you only have his word, and he's a proven liar in the same book? I'm sorry that seems harsh, but it's true."

    My point was that given Ragozin's record in the veracity department, everything self-serving he says is suspect. In that very book alone, just off  the top of my head: he detailed his betting experiment in Atlantic City, saying he won. In fact, HE LOST, as reported in DRF at the time, which covered it, and Brad Free pointed out the \"discrepancy\" (ahem) when he reviewed the book for DRF. There will be more on the veracity issue below, and in future rounds of this "debate".

4—On the weight issue, Alydar is making one of the great "distinctions without a difference". The exact quote was, "To answer the question of how much, we have studied tens of thousands of races to measure how much effect weight has, and it is much more than MOST people think." (emphasis added).

The context of this quote is a 30 minute intro video, made in 1992, telling NON sheet players how the figures are made and used. There were far fewer sheet players then, and the seminar wasn't made for or watched by them. It was seen by the general public, which had no idea what to do with weight (especially then), and Ragozin was a non-issue—I had no reason or motive to distance myself from him on this issue, to these people, and it's hard enough to explain weight in the minute or so we had out of 30 minutes total without going into history. And if we did go into it, why stop there? Why not the history of every aspect of figure making, making it a  6 hour seminar for NEW, non-sheet players? Please.  

5—If Alydar knows I give 100% to my clients when managing their horses, what was the point of bringing the issue of my betting up in the first place? It was, as I said, a slimy attempted smear—he was throwing crap against the wall.

   Okay, on to Alydar's "answers" to my questions. He gets about a "B" here—I didn't think he would answer at all, but he certainly wasn't forthcoming with his answers.

1—Alydar said yes, he did have independent information about Ragozin employees lying and doing unethical things to me and my company. But he didn't re-print or respond to the other part of the question—what were the activities? He could have answered this without compromising his source, or at least asked his source if it was okay to answer.

    Since that would be only fair, I look forward to receiving that information via email, and posting it.

2—Alydar didn't want to lie outright but tried to diminish the impact of the Touch Of The Blues issue, so he only quoted part of the question, and tried to move on by just saying "I agree".

   This is what he is agreeing to—Ragozin's trackman got the ground wrong, FRIEDMAN LIED ABOUT WHERE THE HORSE WAS ON THE TURN AFTER REVIEWING THE TAPE, then didn't change the ground or the figure, and Alydar agrees that it tells you volumes about the Ragozin operation's ethics, true interest in accuracy, and respect for its customers.

3—Alydar answered the question about his opinion on the relative accuracy of Thoro-Graph and Ragozin by saying "I don't know". Well, not really. Less than 3 weeks ago he posted the following on the board (he was blocked at the time, so it didn't appear, but I have it): "If I had to choose between using your figures forever or using Ragozin's, I would choose yours." He went on to say some positive things about Ragozin, but that is the part that directly addresses my question. Now he is saying he doesn't know—do you think his opinion has changed in the last 3 weeks, or that it is personal?
   
     Okay, that's it. The terms of this "debate" were that Alydar would not get rebuttal but I did give him that, and now this one is closed. Look at how long this post is, and think how much time it took—any questions why I banned this guy?

    I look forward to the next 3 questions, but there is no rush. As it stands now, I won't be able to do this again until very late June, or early July.

[HP]

I will only add that anyone who thinks that JB\'s employer/employee relationship with Mandown has ANY influence over what Mandown posts or says does not know Mandown. I can vouch for this 1,000%. HP

[Marc At]

\"I will only add that anyone who thinks that JB\'s employer/employee relationship with Mandown has ANY influence over what Mandown posts or says does not know Mandown. I can vouch for this 1,000%.\"

HP-
1) Do you or have you ever had an employee/employer relationship with TGJB? Since you\'re doing some \"vouching,\" I thought I\'d ask.

TGJB-
I reject the characterization of my relationship with anyone I know strictly on e-mail as \"really good friends.\" I just don\'t think it\'s possible (for me, at least), to be \"really good friends\" with anyone who I\'ve never met in person.

Also: Are you going to answer my follow up question or not?

Also too: While I\'ve heard stories about Ragozin employees speaking poorly about TG, it\'s always been told within the context of there being a lot of justifiable anger towards TG by Ragozin employees. I don\'t know whether to believe this or not. Hearing a variety of sides of these stories has not cleared anything up.

[Marc At]

I\'m not sure if you really want to get into this, TGJB. You keep mentioning what I\'ve heard about Ragozin, and as I think back about it, I realize I\'ve heard things about the Ragozin operation AND the TG operation. The Ragozin information was relayed to me second-hand, but the TG information was relayed to me first-hand. Shall I relay these comments in their entirety?

Also: Reiterating one last time that I\'d like to hear an answer to the follow up questions about those being directly compensated by you posting on this and competitors\' site without acknowledging as much.

[HP]

Do you or have you ever had an employee/employer relationship with TGJB? Since you\'re doing some \"vouching,\" I thought I\'d ask.

I was a TG employee years ago. HP

[TGJB]

Marc--

1-- HP\'s answer doesn\'t go far enough. He said ON THIS BOARD that he had worked for me (he now pays for his sheets, although he did since give a seminar for us when we were in a pinch), and I agree with you that the relationship matters because he was vouching (testifying) for someone. I would also add that he is anything but a blind loyalist-- he has come at me hard on this board, including one of the most personal attacks in the history of this board, which we deleted. He apologized, and we are friends.

2-- You really want to split hairs over whether you are a really good friend, a good friend, or just a friend? You think my point depended on that?

3-- Now now, that\'s twice, and I\'m trying very hard to keep an open mind about you. The point is that you have information from an UNBIASED source about FACTUAL incidents of Ragozin employees lying and committing other bad acts towards us, NOT just bad mouthing us. You haven\'t answered my questions about your response to that yet.

4-- Yes, I would LOVE to hear the things that we have done that are similar or the equivalent, and where you got your information-- when I first started this board I made a point of saying one of my goals was to get that stuff out in the open.

5-- As it happens I can\'t think of anyone  other than Mandown and HP who has worked for this outfit and has posted, but I wouldn\'t out them if I did because it doesn\'t matter, except in the situations I mentioned. But why ask me-- I certainly have a financial interest in this company, and I AM testifying here.

6-- On a quasi-related subject--what did you think of Friedman\'s post taking me (and my character) to task for allowing \"toady sickos\" to post \"slander and lies\" here?

[TGJB]

Correction to number 5 in my response to Marc-- it has been brought to my attention (by Alydar, who of course called me a liar, because this is such a deep dark secret that I would obviously feel compelled to lie about it) that there is at least one guy who does ground for us who sometimes posts on both sites, although I don\'t remember him getting into any of the figure related arguments, but I could be wrong about that. I didn\'t think of this guy because I never deal with him directly, and have only spoken to him twice in my life. Could be others I\'m not thinking of, for all I know, and for all it\'s relevant, as I have made clear.

[Marc At]

I\'m going to retire from this dialogue after this post. It\'s overlong, and if we\'re only through 3 of 124 questions that I find mildly interesting, I have no interest in typing out several hundred thousand words by the time we would get to 124 of 124.

\"He said ON THIS BOARD that he had worked for me\"

Sorry, I must have missed that one-- I wonder why it even came up. \'d bet a bunch of others who read this stuff not all that closely missed it, too. No problem with you, HP, but I think it\'s worth reminding the few that are following along what we\'ve got going on here-- current part-time employees and recent employees vouching for each other, attacking the competition, etc. It\'s meaningless stuff. No less meaningless if/when Ragozin employees do it, either.


\"You really want to split hairs over whether you are a really good friend, a good friend, or just a friend? You think my point depended on that?\"


No, I just don\'t like it when you\'re quantifying my friendships with people, is all. You\'ve never  met me.


\"The point is that you have information from an UNBIASED source about FACTUAL incidents of Ragozin employees lying and committing other bad acts towards us, NOT just bad mouthing us. You haven\'t answered my questions about your response to that yet. 4-- Yes, I would LOVE to hear the things that we have done that are similar or the equivalent, and where you got your information-- when I first started this board I made a point of saying one of my goals was to get that stuff out in the open.\"


I have second-hand information about low-level Ragozin employees acting unethically in Florida, nothing more-- this is the truth. I\'ve also heard equally credible allegations about the ethics of higher-level Thorograph employees. When I heard both of these sets of allegations, it\'s made me realized that if it were a war, and I had to make a choice between which of these two camps I\'d want in my trench, I\'d have no idea who to choose-- and so it has no effect on my customer loyalty. If you want specifics, give Alydar a day pass and he can go over it with you-- he\'s heard the same stuff, from what I gather. I really think it\'s fruitless, because you\'ll deny what I\'ve heard about TG and exacerbate the charges against Ragozin. It will prove nothing-- your responses to this stuff must be taken with a grain of salt by any rational human being.

\"As it happens I can\'t think of anyone other than Mandown and HP who has worked for this outfit and has posted, but I wouldn\'t out them if I did because it doesn\'t matter, except in the situations I mentioned.\"

I\'m glad you thought of at least one other since this post. I can\'t wait to see how many more there are out there...

\"On a quasi-related subject--what did you think of Friedman\'s post taking me (and my character) to task for allowing \"toady sickos\" to post \"slander and lies\" here?\"

A great way for me to exit this ugliness. I think that since he started the Sheets B-board,  Friedman has never gotten used to the criticism he\'s received from you, people who work for you, and those who enjoy picking on him for their own reasons, however just or unjust. I think that there probably is some ivory tower element of Friedman, making him not realize that guys like Tiznow should be much more heavily discouraged on his site from posting the way they do, making him not realize how haughty he can sometimes sound (I say \"sound\" and not \"be\" because I don\'t know the guy). I think there\'s clearly some similarities to your own personality when you\'re  allowing a toady sicko (accurate description, if there ever was one) like Silver Charm to post the sort of bullshit he posts to your site without calling him out on it consistently. Moreover, I think that Friedman and his employees are confused enough by the attacks on their own board that they\'re probably paranoid to the extent that they think you\'re directing all of this stuff, when you\'re probably not. Some of the childish behavior has of course originated/emanated from Ragozin loyalists, but that\'s at least partially spurred by these people being fed-up about the criticisms being tossed Ragozin/Friedman\'s way. Why ANYONE would feel this sort of loyalty to a brand of speed figures is well beyond me. Saying to a Brown or a Friedman \"you\'re the man!\" for anything less than an enormous score or a victory in a huge handicapping contest strikes me as bizarre behavior. I got this note on Monday from a sharp horse owner who uses sheets sparingly and is a wonderful judge of character:

\"Re: the neverending pissing contest between Rags/TG--after perusing both sites over the weekend, I must say that the whole us vs them thing that both perpetuate is the most monumental waste of time I have ever seen supposedly professional people engage in. I have virtually no respect for TGJB or Robespierre. These guys are utter and complete assholes who deserve to spend all day, every day, throwing acid at each other. The lack of insight or self-criticism, and the mendacity, is truly astonishing.\"

I\'m neither surprised with the conclusions he came to, nor could I even begin to craft a response to try to change his mind.

[HP]

Marc,

If you think Mandown\'s posts regarding David Patent are motivated or influenced by the fact that he works or has worked for TG you are welcome to your opinion. If you think my past employment is a relevant factor in my posts, I don\'t think I could convince you otherwise.

I would imagine Mandown read David\'s posts and had a reaction and decided to post it. Knowing what a total wiseass he is, the idea that Mandown\'s posts were tainted or in ANY WAY influenced by his present/former employment is laughable, and I felt compelled to post as much, but I would hereby retract anything that you could call \"vouching.\" Mandown posted what he did because he is/was an employee and a suckup. Also a foreigner. Have it your way.

To get back to the (I think) original subject, I don\'t think David Patent\'s posts are always partisan. What I object to is that David\'s posts change according to his venue. Over here he posts and has some reasonable dialogue. Then, sometimes on the SAME DAY, he will post on the SHEETS board and adopt a wholly different tone and attitude. As he knows that Jerry can\'t respond over there, that seems like dirty pool, and doubly so since there is nothing stopping him from continuing his dialogue over here. I think \"partisan\" would be a charitable way to describe David\'s conduct.

You wrote that you

\"think it\'s worth reminding the few that are following along what we\'ve got going on here-- current part-time employees and recent employees vouching for each other, attacking the competition, etc. It\'s meaningless stuff. No less meaningless if/when Ragozin employees do it, either.\"

Congratulations on reminding them. Now that that\'s over with, I think there is SOME distinction between the kind of behavior David exhibits (as I\'ve spelled out above) and some of the other \"vouching\" and whatnot that you refer to.

But you know what? Who cares! I can\'t figure out what\'s happening in my own house half the time, so I don\'t expect to get to the bottom of what makes David tick anytime soon. Life is full of injustice, and Jerry will fight his own battles. If this kind of thing makes David happy more power to him.

Obviously we have a different point of view on this. I can live and let live and I have an important meeting with the idiots I work for now.

Regards, HP

[mandown]

Hi HP,

Good to see you\'re still full of it. For a moment I was worried that I would be tainted by your compliment but now we\'re back to reality I can sleep easy. It also saves me from having to lie through my teeth and return the favor. Just as well. Couldn\'t figure out how I\'d make a brown-nosing poseur out to be some sort of paragon.

See, Marc, we kick the brown stuff out of each other on Varick Street. If only you could have seen us when we were in the office together. It was only JB\'s calming influence that stopped TGAB from calling Don King.

Marc,

I know you\'ve retired from this string and I think that\'s very wise - though it would have been better if you could have passed up on a couple of the more perjorative digs. They did you know who credit. I\'ve had enough too, but before I go I\'ll set the record straight on a few points, though.

(i) Everything I posted was totally without JB\'s input.

(ii) Despite Alydar\'s accusation that I was somehow trying to gain a commercial advantage for TG, the purpose of my posts (and the vast majority of the content) was to take exception to (a) DP\'s practice of projecting different views on different boards (he would attack JB on the Sheets board knowing there could be no response and then project himself as a reasonable man on this board) and (b) Friedman\'s practice of attacking or allowing attacks on JB and then denying him the right to reply. I think both of those approaches unfair. If you see someone being attacked but unable to defend themselves what do you do?

(iii) I posted anonymously because I thought, given the petty level of the debate, that if I revealed any connection my views would be dismissed because of that connection. Clearly I was not wrong. I don\'t think I ever gave an opinion on whose figures were better. If that had been my purpose then I would, of course, have declared an interest. I wanted my posts to be judged on their principles, not on who made them.

(iv) I agree with the horse owner you quote. I\'ve told Jerry similar stuff for months, virtually since he started getting into these pissing matches, though, of course, given that I am beholden to him I have to watch what I say. That\'s a joke, BTW, Marc. In my view it doesn\'t matter how many enemies Jerry makes because none could be worse than himself. Guess who said this: \'Listen, pal, I lead the world in Pyrrhic victories.\'

(v) I\'m sure that nothing you write is influenced by your employment at the DRF or instigated by Steve Crist. Why then do you think HP and myself post only because we are part of some sort of conspiracy and in awe of JB? You\'re obviously a far better man than I am, Gunga Din.

Regards,
Mandown

[TGJB]

Marc--

I\'m hoping not to spend too much time on here today, but we\'ll see.

1-- HP said he he had worked for me, about a year ago (?)on this board, because I asked him to, which in turn was because Alydar raised the issue when I mentioned it to him in an e-mail when he was feuding with HP. It is meaningless stuff EXCEPT if someone testifies factually, or VOUCHES for something or someone. When Howard Dennis said Ragozin outsold us 10-1, along with a lot of other crap, it was EXTREMELY relevant. When Florida Jim (Brant, etc.) \"testified\" about certain goings on in Florida, his relationship with Charlie Nebel, and Charlie\'s history,  were very relevant, whether Brant was employed by Ragozin or not.

2-- On the \"hair splitting\", then why bring it up in the context of this discussion?

3-- Read what you just wrote-- you have INFORMATION about Ragozin employees, and \"credible\" ALLEGATIONS about TG employees. Give me a break, will you? I have put the Ragozin bad behavior out there where they can have a chance to refute it, and offered you the chance to do the same with my dastardly acts. My lawyer, you also might recall, sent a transcript of conversations taped by a private investigator, to Ragozin. In it he caught two Ragozin employees, ONE OF WHOM WORKED IN AND WAS SPEAKING FROM RAGOZIN\'S OFFICE, lying about TG. We made this public, so Ragozin and Friedman had a chance to refute it. Do you remember hearing them do so?

4--\"I can\'t wait to see how many more there are out there...\"

You are a real cutie-pie. I\'ve made it clear why, except in certain cases, the issue is irrelevant. Why not taking on that argument, instead of \"sliming\" me?

5-- When I walked in an hour ago, there were NINE NEW posts attacking me directly on the Rag board, ones that were not there last night. My point was the unbelievable hypocrisy of Friedman\'s post-- the attacks on me there run at least 10-1 to the posts attacking them here. On top of that, I said several times there that if they would delete the attacks I would have no reason to respond and protect my interests. He did not, and the attacks continued, BECAUSE HE WANTS THEM TO. Get it?

And are you seriously going to posit that the Rag operation is so confused they think I am posting attacking myself so that I can respond to it, then would take the responses down but leave up my attacks on myself, and think that I would continue to do it knowing only the attacks would stand? How many times did you read Catch 22?

Silver Charm is COMPLETELY different than the jerks who attack me on the Ragozin board. You know why? BECAUSE HE ORIGINALLY ATTACKED FRIEDMAN ON THE MERITS, NOT PERSONALLY. Do you remember when Silver Charm began posting? He was at the track the day Chilukki debuted, saw the varied track maintenance and weather, and asked Friedman (along with yours truly) how he came up with a figure. Len took a stab at an answer, got his head torn off when it became instantly clear he didn\'t have the slightest idea what he was talking about (\"Friedman Fires Smoking Gun, Shoots Foot\", 2/4/03 this site, in the archives), and ran for cover. Silver Charm had every right to go after him on character after that display. Certain Rag guys, on the other hand, ARE sickos and toadies, because they NEVER fight it out on the merits, and always use ad hominem attacks. They outnumber SC maybe 15-1, and as I have said, are ENCOURAGED by Friedman, in that he doesn\'t take them down, but DOES TAKE DOWN THE REPLIES, giving them a free shot. Get it?

[dpatent]

I find it utterly hilarious the protestations from the paid and formerly paid partisans that their affiliation with Brown has had absolutely no influence on their opinions.

Let\'s put it this way, if Jake from the Sheets were posting on this or any other board would you cut him the same slack you are asking your readers to cut HP, Mandown and God knows who else saddles up in the morning wearing their Thorograph silks?

But let\'s take HP and Mandown at your word.  You still had an obligation to disclose your relationship to TG so that others could make their own decisions about your credibility.  If you ever read a story on a web site or watch a piece of news where there is an ownership overlap -- say MSNBC when it covered the Microsoft anti-trust trial -- there is always a disclaimer posted, just so people know.  Even investment bankers, the most amoral group of individuals ever to exist, now have to disclose investment banking relationships in their analyst reports.  Why?  Because you need to avoid an \'appearance of impropriety\'.

If you worked for the guy, then a reasonable reader could conclude that you either had a stake in the outcome of the argument, an inherent bias, or both.  And you do not get to decide whether it\'s relevant or not, Jerry.  That\'s for us to decide.

[TGJB]

In the early days of this board the Ragozin office posted here under aliases, and I did point it out-- they were attacking the results of our picks while defending, on their board, not taking any positions that could be judged. We figured it out because Paul knew who their ISP was, and pointed it out because it was hypocritical.

If Jake posted here under an assumed name, the question would be, as I have made abundantly clear, what was the nature of his post? If he is attacking an argument on the merits, no, it would not matter. As an aside, with few exceptions, when I post on the Rag board I make it clear it is me, by using the first or second person. The exceptions are when I pose questions, as opposed to making a case (as far as I can remember).

Funny thing about this issue-- the only ones who seem to think it\'s important are the ones who have attacked me and TG previously.
Which brings us to-- David, I know it\'s not nearly as significant as Mandown not revealing his affiliation, but what did you think of the Touch Of The Blues ground stuff (lies), the letter from my lawyer concerning Ragozin employees lying about us, Alydar\'s admission that he has knowledge of Ragozin employees bad acts, etc.? Obviously, since (contrary to Mandown\'s contention) you are unbiased, you must have really gotten upset by all that stuff. Did you post somewhere admonishing Friedman about it? If you did, I missed it.

[dpatent]

Jerry,

Interesting attempt to change the subject.  Luckily, this is not important enough to spend much more time on.

To answer your question -- of course it bothers me when people do unethical things.  But since no one has handed me the evidence on any of the above and all I have are allegations -- a lawyer\'s letter is not evidence, and I do not have the B.C. tape at home with which to judge TOB\'s trip -- I\'m not sure why I should admonish anyone on the above.  I have admonished Friedman on his bad condition reads and wishy-washy betting jargon from time to time.  That\'s where I find value.

But you do suggest an interesting conundrum.  What if I had irrefutable evidence that the purveyor of the product I prefer was a complete scumbag who had permanently damaged and/or destroyed the lives of innocent people?  Say, John Tesh.

Would I 1) continue to buy from him; 2) begin to buy from his rival, whom I felt offered an inferior product, or 3) stop playing the game?  Since I am not in Philosophy 101 I don\'t have to answer that and I won\'t but it is an interesting hypothetical.

[mandown]

David,

You just don\'t get it do you? You find my protestations hilarious What does that mean? If you think I\'m a liar call me one.

Read what I posted. As far as I am aware I never made any comments on the relative merits of the figures. I objected to your dissembling - we never did get to the bottom of why \'simply\' and \'just\' are not synonyms -and Friedman\'s practice of attacking Jerry (or allowing others to post even more vicious statements) and denying him the right to reply. In my world if you give it, you take it. Your world is obviously very different.

With hindsight maybe I should have said that I had a commercial relationship with Thorograph but given the banality of the contributions from some of the more extreme Raggies (not you) then the exchange would have been reduced to \'You\'re only saying that because you work for him.\' That\'s shallow and would render anything I\'d written pointless. Rather than trying devalue my comments with weak slurs about bias, re-read what I posted and argue with the logic. If all you can do is call me names then we all know who has made the stronger case, don\'t we?

Mandown

P.S.: Given that you\'re so keen on the principle of disclosure why don\'t you raise the same matter on the other board? How many of those posts are internal? And why not also criticise some of the more extreme posts on that site whil you\'re at it? God knows JB is an easy man to fall out with but the hatred expressed for him by some people on the other side I find distasteful to say the least. Surely a man of your principles has a similar view? Or are you also such a committed member of the Church of Ragozin that the organisation is beyond question or criticism? My worry is that one day we\'ll wake up and discover there\'s been a mysterious mass suicide in the East Village.