posted
I have watched here for some time, as well as I watch other things and this is what I find to be true:
Never expect to win at a casino. They are games of chance and rarely have more than two table games that will offer decent odds of winning.
Never try to be famous. Every crack pot with a camera and a mouth full of the first amendment will shove a camera in your face, sometimes from literally inches away and you're expected to put up with it.
No body is perfect all the time, just as no one is famous forever. If they were, our mother's would have told us it was ok to scratch where it itches rather than waiting to do it in the privacy of our own homes.
Well, today, rejoice. Scratch where you will, when you will, and for how long is comfortable. The media has long denied us the legacy of a true hero, so, who cares?
Posts: 19 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We will merely have to learn to follow the Imperfect, the Almost-perfect, the Worthy, the Better-than-I-am rather than the mythical absolute created by word-of-mouth and incorrect storytelling.
The age of the mythical absolute is (almost always) over.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Never expect to win at a casino. They are games of chance and rarely have more than two table games that will offer decent odds of winning.
I'd like to amend that by changing it to say: "Never play against the house at a casino."
I've always found my trips to casinos to play against other people quite profitable (mainly No Limit Hold'em). Though, I guess I never "expect" to win - but I have confidence that in the long term skill will triumph luck. (Again, playing against others, not against the house... and ideally against others of lesser skill.)
quote:Never expect to win at a casino. They are games of chance and rarely have more than two table games that will offer decent odds of winning.
I'd like to amend that by changing it to say: "Never play against the house at a casino."
I've always found my trips to casinos to play against other people quite profitable (mainly No Limit Hold'em). Though, I guess I never "expect" to win - but I have confidence that in the long term skill will triumph luck. (Again, playing against others, not against the house... and ideally against others of lesser skill.)
Just sayin'.
Seconded. I've made over $40,000 - $28k of it in a single year - playing cards.
Even gambling against the house is profitable, if you know the rules and are smart enough not to get caught "cheating" - which, these days, is becoming increasingly difficult without resorting to espionage tactics on level with good surveilance teams.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
She never killed any heroes though, did she?
---
I don't think media has denied true heroes. They may have denied the delusion that certain people are true heroes, but I still find there's plenty of true heroism out there. It's just much less flashy than what many people seem to prefer.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Unhappy is the land that has no heroes." "No. Unhappy is the land, that has need of heroes."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: We will merely have to learn to follow the Imperfect, the Almost-perfect, the Worthy, the Better-than-I-am rather than the mythical absolute created by word-of-mouth and incorrect storytelling.
The age of the mythical absolute is (almost always) over.
How can people with imperfect judgement select who among them is Worthy?
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:How can people with imperfect judgement select who among them is Worthy?
First of all, with regards to the topic, the people as a whole are just as qualified to chose/follow a hero as a single storyteller, so it's no different.
And you can never be sure who is actually Worthy, because, in the present day, it's almost* totally subjective.
Heroes are tricky things: some heroes have (and will) turn out to be terrible villains in disguise; some people regarded as villains are heroes after their death. A Hero can be turned into a villain simply by a quirk of history, or the way history is recorded, or who won the battle.
Controversial figures who fought for something they believe in generally reach hero status long after their death. It's a bit like Sainthood. The legend has to have time to grow, the extent of the Hero's influence to become clear, before true hero-hood can be bestowed.
*I say almost because I believe, in the long run (as I said above), there are true heroes who emerge ahead of the crowd simply because of the extended effect of good on the world that stretches on long after their death. They were just as good during life, just no one really paid as much attention as they should.
The same, in reverse, goes for villains.
So I suppose my answer to your question is that history- ten years, twenty, a hundred, five hundred- is the force that divides the wheat from the chaff, as it were**. In the present, we can only use our best judgement of who is Worthy and who is not.
** Even more so, we cannot be even sure. Richard the Lionheart was a hero for hundreds of years- but was he really? Our perspective changes, and even our great heroes are liable to fall through the cracks of time.
(Of course, some, (perhaps most?), heroes work so quietly we never hear of them except in a tiny obituary on the back page of the newspaper.) Who knows who did what backstage work/tweaking that changed everything?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Unhappy is the land that has no heroes." "No. Unhappy is the land, that has need of heroes."
Truthfully, I think the first one is more accurate. Which would you prefer?
In the context of European wars, I would definitely go for having no need of heroes. I love my continent, But I have to admit, we're not very nice.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
