Bob,
1) No toe stepping was involved. You were fine.
2) No, I was not referring to myself at all. As you know, I have been on television for numerous tournaments and documentaries on casino gambling as well as had a part in a movie and a few television shows. I do not care if I am shown in the film. In fact, I think that I like it! I was disputing that the show was a documentary, and I stated why.
3) The reason for my statement in the latter part of number 2 above is as you state so eloquently "it's a long stretch between two people knowing each other and both of them being equally guilty in something". It seems like the producer needed to throw in some filler to complete about 50% of this movie, so he just made things up. About Joe Pane and Ken to the largest extent.
4) Great shows, as always. You and Munchkin please keep up the superior work.
In a message dated 11/3/2013 12:18:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, bobdancervp@hotmail.com writes:
Yes Countgr8's post was somewhat cryptic. Let me fill in some back story, hopefully without stepping on his toes.
The rules of evidence in a documentary are not the same as they are in a court of law. The fact that Russ Hamilton was significantly guilty in the Ultimate Bet fiasco isn't in dispute. He has been the public fall guy for the scandal. Exactly who else was involved is less clear.
The director of UltimateBeat, Scott Bell, apparently took the point of view that if you knew Hamilton more than casually, there's a good chance you were somehow involved in the scandal. There's one place in the film where Countgr8 is shown in the same scene as Hamilton --- and presumably that is what he is objecting to on this forum. (I would too if that happened to me, although probably not so crypticly!)
Munchkin and I noticed a number of people we knew who were included in the documentary without apparent good reason (including Countgr8). At the end of the show, Munchkin asks why one of them is included --- specifically Joe Pane (who is not the same guy as Countgr8). Scott Bell gave a list of reasons Pane was included --- including that it was very clear Pane knew Hamilton. (That part is true but it's a long stretch between two people knowing each other and both of them being equally guilty in something.) It was somewhat random that Richard asked about Joe Pane specifically. There were a significant number of other people we could have asked about.
Joe Pane asked to come on the show and rebut what was said. Munchkin and I have booked him for the show November 21. (The intervening dates were already booked. November 7, video poker writer and player "Royal Cat". November 14, Michael Shackleford talking about football parlay cards.) Only 3-5 minutes of the November 21 show will be spent on the rebuttal. (That part is important to Pane but not particularly interesting radio to most other people.) Pane has lots of other interesting things to talk about.
Bob
