Subject: Re: Magic Psychology? Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 15:08:08 -0800 From: "Rex Plunkett" As the latest and mostly final responder to this thread, I'd like to add a little detail to your posting, Brian. For instance, take football for example. Sure you spend tons >of money initially on pads, helmets, shirts, balls, etc. But after you >have all that, its all you. Your own skill. Not to mention football camps, kickbacks, advertizing for beers, and the legal fees after you're caught doing drugs or beating your girlfriend. What about Chess? The >granddaddy of all international games. You buy the chessboard and then >its all you. Your skill. You don't periodically have to spend money to >buy new chess pieces to stay competitive. You focus on your skill. >Some of the best chess players I know have never spent a cent on a >chessboard. Hmmm, then all of those chess books I bought when trying to be a decent tournament chess player, as well as the time spent studying with other players was mere fluff stuff? I would be willing to bets (yes, gambling) that a person, no matter how good his or her native intelligence, can't consistently compete with a tournament chess player unless he has grounding in theory of openings only found in books, or in play at the highest level. P.S. I have paid 12.00 for a fifteen page paper-bound book on a single opening before. As for the cool, expensive cards -- NOT NECESSARILY TRUE ! ! ! With my compliments to Aaron Teague, he smoked a decent type I deck with a goblin deck in my earlier days of tourney chess. Total cost of his deck was maybe $20.00. ----- Good players with cheap cards can still go to tourneys, and expect to compete. I suggest you look at any one of three or four decks (counter burn, sligh, white weenie). As an additional note, it is apparent that WOTC has made a concentrated effort to make at least some of the BEST cards in each commons and uncommons. Now, on to the spending behavior of young people -- in a single phrase, blame the parents. It was pleasing but not surprising that my son (a magic player, by the way) still had over half of his summer earnings in his hands at Christmas time. It was also not surprising that he saved for and bought a MOX PEARL two or three years back, all without any permanent fund check money. Why? Because he has been exposed to the VALUE concept of money for his whole life. In at least one narow, private sliver of society (my household), it is known that if you want to spend money, you have to earn it. Yes, we still shower our kids with gifts -- BUT not money. I would suggest that a look at the sources and uses of funds might reveal that very little EARNED money is used by compulsive-buying young kids. Lunch money, candy money, gift money, stolen money, YES, but not earned money. Overall, a good example that a percieved societal problem blamed on either business or society can also be traced to at least one alternative source when the source of the money spent is traced. REX Plunkett -- old, cheap dinosaur. P.S. At least Brian had the guts to present a fairly well thought out argument of a viewpoint that I am sure he does not necessarily agree with. PPS -- It must be noted that Jeff won't pay good money (earned money) for seven pieces of cardboard -- but then again, the legal profession knows what the true value of paper really is.