Let's assume that you are 100% correct, then my comment would change to this.
Would you not be better off framing the scenario as a straight career choice as opposed to bringing marriage into it ?
One could have simply stated the whole thing as to how to determine if you have the goods to become a professional gambler.
I'm not saying that it was a bad article. I'm just saying that it could have been clearer as to it's objectives. Regards
A.P.
From: "h_dunbar@hotmail.com [vpFREE]" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2015 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 6 OCT 2015
That's true, Albert. But Dancer also didn't mention asking if the boyfriend had a record of abuse, or tax evasion, or ate like a pig. Dancer didn't ask if the suitor had cat allergies, or backlogged dental work, or a known history of belching in public.
The scope of the column was clearly how Dancer would go about determining whether the suitor was likely to turn out to be a successful professional gambler, capable of supporting a family. Nothing more, nothing less.
--Dunbar
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <ehpee@...> wrote :
Whether you set your own hours or not is one thing, and i agree that you go and you play when the best opportunities present themselves. I just found it strange that in a scenario where marriage is being contemplated that these sort of matters would be significant, yet in the article they weren't even considered.
Regards
A.P.
Posted by: Albert Pearson <ehpee@rogers.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (10) |
