This week at Rational Review, there is a symposium on gambling. "Is it
rational? CAN it be rational?", as Tom Knapp questions in his
introduction today in the Monday issue of RRND. He goes on, "Paul
Wakfer and I have been discussing the subject, and in my opinion we've
barely scratched the surface. Grab your shovel and help dig out the
truth: http://www.rationalreview.com/content/17949 "

Actually, with Paul's reply late last night to Tom's initial
"article", I think Paul has done a lot more than "scratch the
surface". I think readers will find much of value to consider, whether
or not they gamble, since the relation to lifetime happiness is a
major portion. However, as Paul implies in the online published
exchange, the subject of gambling is not directly on his list of items
to address; there are much more important tasks to accomplish -
completion of the Natural Social Contract being paramount. Paul thinks
that the maturity gain necessary by people before they are ready to
embrace a society based on the theory of Social Meta-Needs would
automatically cause them to see that gambling is not an optimal
lifetime happiness increasing action.

So how is it that Paul and Tom are discussing the subject of gambling?
Some background as to how this came about......

About a month ago I was searching the Rational Review News website for
a link to arrange a monthly payment for the news digest (RRND) we get
daily. (We've been making at least yearly value for value transfers to
Tom but decided to respond to his public request for scheduled
payments to help him have a certain amount he could "count on".) The
PayPal logo I clicked went to a PayPal form that showed that
leisuregambler@... would be the recipient of funds sent. I was
confused .... So I emailed Tom and included the following:
"I can envision some people being turned off when they see that
payments they make with the other method [website front page rather
than the special summer fundraiser he was promoting with its own
logos] will go to leisuregambler@.... I sure wouldn't use
it. This warrants a change, correction or a public explanation..."

Tom's email explanation:
"That's me -- or, more precisely, me and my significant other, Tamara
Millay. I think that I've actually publicly explained it before, and I
always respond to inquiries about it (it's actually nice that people
have a careful look and ping me when they find something questionable).
...
"That account was initially registered to leisuregambler@...,
because I had written and e-published a booklet titled _Roulette for
the Leisure Gambler_ (there were supposed to be sequels on blackjack
and craps, but I haven't ever done them -- I only made a few hundred
dollars on the roulette book, excluding a secondary job that it got me
writing some help files for an online casino)."

In my response to Tom, Paul inserted a line after the last item above:
"Paul here: I have always been negative about the value and
rationality of gambling, so I would like to sometime see why you seem
to be positive about it."

Tom's reply later that day was the beginning of the exchange that has
developed into this week's symposium at RRND.
http://www.rationalreview.com/content/17949

**Kitty