Club-based gambling web sites
- Thread starter Coxy
- Start date
What does that even mean? I told Coxy his baiting made him look like a dick, and then you claimed my actions were silly after simply calling it a good debate.
So in the midst of a good debate, someone jumps in with some untruthful comments solely placed to get a rise out of the other side, and that's all sweet? Yeah, nice.
I'm sure there was some sort of official thing telling people not to troll and get into personal insults outside of General Talk, regardless...
So in the midst of a good debate, someone jumps in with some untruthful comments solely placed to get a rise out of the other side, and that's all sweet? Yeah, nice.
I'm sure there was some sort of official thing telling people not to troll and get into personal insults outside of General Talk, regardless...
- Thread starter
- #58
mick! said:
LOLZ, so every topic I post you disagree with is me trolling and baiting? Deadset, read the first post again.
"In hard financial times such as these, more people seem to gamble so it makes sense to benefit off that"
People struggle for money.
People turn to gambling in the hope of making a quick buck.
We, an NRL club, will benefit from our fans' misery.
Tell me how that's not honourable?
Tell me how online gambling provides any benefit to our society?
You casual punters can walk into a TAB and do it that way, or over the phone.
It's not necessary online and I'd 100% support any government who outlawed internet gambling in Australia.
Coxy, you will also notice that I brought nothing up at all about baiting. Until this.
"Yep, it's ok Nashy, these guys love pissing their money away on sinful gambling. Good luck to them. It's they who have to face up to their wives, girlfriends and boyfriends when they have to declare bankruptcy."
SO.... can you please accept ONE thing and, for once in your life, admit that someone else is right when they tell you something you didn't initially agree with? Seriously, when you know that I, at least, rarely gamble and never ever in large amounts, then it is clearly a statement made only to get a response, and not something you know to be true.
"Yep, it's ok Nashy, these guys love pissing their money away on sinful gambling. Good luck to them. It's they who have to face up to their wives, girlfriends and boyfriends when they have to declare bankruptcy."
SO.... can you please accept ONE thing and, for once in your life, admit that someone else is right when they tell you something you didn't initially agree with? Seriously, when you know that I, at least, rarely gamble and never ever in large amounts, then it is clearly a statement made only to get a response, and not something you know to be true.
- Thread starter
- #60
Yes, but it was also noticeable that you and the other known gamblers here were like dogs with a bone on this topic, even though, as I just pointed out, my concern is not about casual gamblers, but that a club is knowingly trying to take advantage of addicts or people on the brink of financial ruin.
So no, you're not right. This service should not be available just so you can spend your $5 or $10 a week you want on gambling. There's other means to do it which are much better and more closely regulated.
So no, you're not right. This service should not be available just so you can spend your $5 or $10 a week you want on gambling. There's other means to do it which are much better and more closely regulated.
Coxy said:
Again, change of subject.
We've agreed on all of that. Even "me and the other known gamblers" would love for there to be some way that gambling wasn't a problem for anyone and ruined no lives. To be honest, I think the whole thread can be put to bed, with us mostly agreeing. just once, though, when people make good points during debates on the other side from where you're sitting, you might want to try and actually acknowledge this, rather than simply stopping altogether or bringing out the bait/insults. Which brings me back to the point that I raised two posts ago - your comment was clearly baiting. Agreed?
- Thread starter
- #64
What, admitting to a bait? LOLZ. I'm more than happy to admit a bait! It's fun, especially when chumps chomp on it :P
I'm still not convinced, and never will be, that online betting has a place.
Nor do I think it should be legal to buy alcohol online etc.
I'm still not convinced, and never will be, that online betting has a place.
Nor do I think it should be legal to buy alcohol online etc.
When those assertions are first cast, Rocky, you'll find people getting uptight about it.
For instance...
I say we make it illegal for people who aren't married to have a kid. Of course, you'd debate this - but is it from your personal experience of indeed having a child without being married, or because of common sense?
I call for divorce to be made illegal and Coxy quite rightly debates the other side out of common sense. But, hell, I'll just claim that's because he's instigated a divorce before.
Nothing quite like making it personal when it *can* suit your argument, hey?
Btw... I guess I should also ask if someone is still a chronic gambler if he hasn't had a punt in over two months...
For instance...
I say we make it illegal for people who aren't married to have a kid. Of course, you'd debate this - but is it from your personal experience of indeed having a child without being married, or because of common sense?
I call for divorce to be made illegal and Coxy quite rightly debates the other side out of common sense. But, hell, I'll just claim that's because he's instigated a divorce before.
Nothing quite like making it personal when it *can* suit your argument, hey?
Btw... I guess I should also ask if someone is still a chronic gambler if he hasn't had a punt in over two months...
Jeba
International
- Mar 4, 2008
- 6,501
- 244
The Rock said:
No, we presented our arguments with factual information and a good basis on why online sports betting should not be made illegal.
Also, "chronic gambler"? That to me suggests that you don't know what you're talking about when you argue against online sports betting. You refer to me and Mick as "chronic gamblers", well I can assure you that is not the case. I, myself, bet within my limits and stick to a budget that allows me to have a bet, and I am sure Mick would have the same sort of arrangement. If you think that's "chronic gambling", then 100% of the gamblers in this country would have to be "chronic gamblers". Even those who just bet on the Melbourne Cup.
Again,
For instance...
I say we make it illegal for people who aren't married to have a kid. Of course, you'd debate this - but is it from your personal experience of indeed having a child without being married, or because of common sense?
I call for divorce to be made illegal and Coxy quite rightly debates the other side out of common sense. But, hell, I'll just claim that's because he's instigated a divorce before.
Nothing quite like making it personal when it *can* suit your argument, hey?
Sums it up for me.
For instance...
I say we make it illegal for people who aren't married to have a kid. Of course, you'd debate this - but is it from your personal experience of indeed having a child without being married, or because of common sense?
I call for divorce to be made illegal and Coxy quite rightly debates the other side out of common sense. But, hell, I'll just claim that's because he's instigated a divorce before.
Nothing quite like making it personal when it *can* suit your argument, hey?
Sums it up for me.
Beachy
QCup Player
- Mar 6, 2008
- 652
- 0
The Rock said:
I can guarantee you that there aren't as many as you think.
What restrictions do you think there should be? A limit on the dollar amount of bets that can be turned over in one week? A limit on the amount that can be deposited from a credit card? An obligation for gambling organisations to stop people who may be intoxicated from gambling? Am I on the right track?
