BTW, the three murderers I played with… multiple times… Absolutely terrible poker players.
Do you think Robbi Jade Lew cheated? Poll (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sprouty
- Start date
Try citing a definition instead of an opinion appended to a definition.
Yeah, there are people who sloppily use “illicit” to mean “anything I personally think is shady,” and eventually sloppy usage becomes standard. But that is not its traditional or proper usage.
And anyone who confuses illicit and elicit is just clueless about language. That note seems to have been written for them.
Last edited:
And anyway, what exactly do you consider immoral about playing poker?
It can also be defined as “prohibited” (against the rules but not illegal) or “against social norms” (culturally inappropriate but not illegal). It is also used, arguably inappropriately, to imply activities performed “in the dark” or “behind closed curtains”.
Two parties may disagree on what’s considered illicit (e.g., poker), but not what’s illegal.
Once again, I’m curious: What is culturally inappropriate or against social norms about poker today?
If anything it’s more acceptable than ever. Even ESPN broadcasts it.
By some estimates something like 75% of American adults have tried poker at least once, and more Americans play poker than golf.
P.S. Golf is shady.
I 100% agree that poker should not be considered illicit today.
These language problems arise from people hearing words casually and then repeating them loosely.
If you hear a judge, police officer or news report mention “illicit activity,” they mean something illegal: Prostitution, drug dealing, etc. People then come to freely associate anything disreputable with the word, even though it is not actually illicit.
Over time the bastardized usage becomes common, and lexicographers have to grudgingly acknowledge the expanded or even misinterpreted meanings—although dictionary editors often disagree over whether to take a prescriptive or descriptive approach.
A prescriptive definition says “This is what the word traditionally means.” A descriptive one says “This is how people tend to use it.” Eventually the two converge.
Unfortunately illicit is probably headed in that direction, like the word “literally,” which is so commonly misused that it has pretty much changed meaning. Annoyingly.
(Yeah, so my mother was also a journalist, who among other things wrote a weekly column about words. But it’s eCricket’s fault I got rolling on this here :&))
If you hear a judge, police officer or news report mention “illicit activity,” they mean something illegal: Prostitution, drug dealing, etc. People then come to freely associate anything disreputable with the word, even though it is not actually illicit.
Over time the bastardized usage becomes common, and lexicographers have to grudgingly acknowledge the expanded or even misinterpreted meanings—although dictionary editors often disagree over whether to take a prescriptive or descriptive approach.
A prescriptive definition says “This is what the word traditionally means.” A descriptive one says “This is how people tend to use it.” Eventually the two converge.
Unfortunately illicit is probably headed in that direction, like the word “literally,” which is so commonly misused that it has pretty much changed meaning. Annoyingly.
(Yeah, so my mother was also a journalist, who among other things wrote a weekly column about words. But it’s eCricket’s fault I got rolling on this here :&))
HaRDHouSeiNC
Straight Flush
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,475
- Reaction score
- 15,407
ekricket
Royal Flush
I wouldn’t play if it wasn’t illicit. That’s the allure that separates us from mere mortals.
But thank you for taking the time to correct the internet.
However I live and breath in a world that uses terms ambiguously and not in a world of lawyers and legalese. It’s obvious that my use of some words break your laws of English, so basically my opinions become illicit.
You “quite literally” used the phrase “quite literally” in your original statement, yet here we are
Goalpost, officially moved. But I guess you have permission to accept or deny current definitions based on your own study & interpretation since you and your mom had jobs writing things.
ekricket
Royal Flush
I just get a kick out of using the word illicit to elicit a response.
To be fair, if you have liquid coke available, coffee is just..peasantry.
You “quite literally” used the phrase “quite literally” in your original statement, yet here we are
Goalpost, officially moved. But I guess you have permission to accept or deny current definitions based on your own study & interpretation since you and your mom had jobs writing things.
There is a way to use it correctly, which is what I did.
And yeah, I do know and care about words. It’s my living. One of my best friends from my 20s even became the first American editor of the most prestigious dictionary in the world, the OED. Used to host adult spelling bees together; the event is still going 25 years later. So I’ve spent a lot of time writing and discussing and thinking about language. So sue me.
But sorry, guess I should apologize for having interests and some expertise in that area.
Would you say to a plumber, “Ohhhh, Mr. Bigshot, thinks he knows something about drains just cuz he works on pipes”?
That would be moronic.
Last edited:
No, they don’t.
It’s not illegal to sound illiterate.
It can even get you elected President.
Last edited:
LGB
Samuel
Straight
Just curious, what is your definition (or examples) of "hard drugs" and where are the "some places"?
Hmm. Interesting question. Surely not cannabis. I would not consider psychedelics to be “hard drugs” but they’re the best thing that’s been decriminalized anywhere in the US, as far as I can know. When I think “hard drugs” I’m thinking opioids, barbiturates, benzos, amphetamines, coke, stuff like that. Some of that can stuff be prescribed, so in that regard it’s legal?
Lil Tuna
4 of a Kind
Samuel
Straight
I would agree with most of what you wrote (although I would categorize psychedelics to be "hard drugs") but it's not Your definition I'm interested in, it's ek's (since he posted it) and while I also agree that some controlled substances can be prescribed, that would fall under "certain conditions" or "specific circumstances" rather than a general "some places" (which would suggest legality under all circumstances/conditions)...
12thMan
Full House
No kidding. Poll should be re-worded to ask:Holy shit, this thread is wild.
"Do you think Robbi's actions were illegal or illicit?"
We can all sleep at night now
Results of the investigation .
https://hustlercasinolive.com/pressrelease/
Results of the investigation .
https://hustlercasinolive.com/pressrelease/
In before "of course it says she didn't cheat, it's a cover-up."
I had honestly forgot about all of this.
forgot/ stopped caring/ don't care. same.
The media contact at the bottom of the press release works for a company called "LAG Strategy"... 
Chippy McChiperson
Straight Flush
Did anyone ever think the results would be anything else? Of course an investigation by the Hustler Club won’t find anything amiss. And I’m not saying she definitely cheated, I still don’t know. But only an impartial investigation carried out by an independent party would ever have any significance.
What do you think Garrett will do now?
If he stands by his assertion that she definitely cheated, he's basically saying the investigation HCL did is bunk and then I can't see them inviting him back on HCL. I'm sure he has plenty other private games to play in, but playing in those private games does not get you noticed and invited to play in games like High Stakes Poker.
Or does he accept the results, swallow his pride and apologize, blame his actions on stress not related to the game, and give her the money back?
Last edited:
Meddler2
Full House
I don't think he'll return the $$. New poll?
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
