Proactive, Stance Aganist the "Just Plain Stupid" Driver....
It was interesting to note, the Feds now have a new official classification along with driving 'impaired, drugged, drunk or distracted' it is officially entitled and labeled "JUST PLAIN STUPID"! Since there is no fixing stupid and stupid kills people out on the highways, those people now have their very own designation. Lots of you will say I made all this up, please refer to the pictures I included from the certification course the other day.
We will now block all lanes involved +1 or +2. As well private sector responders can coordinate with the DOT for complete road closure. The priority as of March 1st, has shifted from quick clearance and leaving the road open to Responder and Scene Safety as its number 1 priority.
So, congrats to the many many hundreds of thousands if nor millions and millions of motorists who are not drunk, drugged, or driving distracted. You are official now recognized.
6 pics included-click on the following:
http://i1382.photobucket.com/albums/ah247/glenbac08/IMG_0241_zpshzm6ttvt.jpg
Quote: Baccaratfrom79Well yours truly was made part of the Regional Major Incident Response Team" the other day. I attended the Federal Highway DOT 'Traffic Incident Management' (TIM) certification course and also became part of a proactive response team primary responder [funded by your tax paying dollars--so be sure to pay those irs and state taxes owed :)!] that will protect public and private sector responders on our interstate's, 4 and 2 land state highways and any other local road that has a incident where emergency workers put themselves at risk.
It was interesting to note, the Feds now have a new official classification along with driving 'impaired, drugged, drunk or distracted' it is officially entitled and labeled "JUST PLAIN STUPID"! Since there is no fixing stupid and stupid kills people out on the highways, those people now have their very own designation. Lots of you will say I made all this up, please refer to the pictures I included from the certification course the other day.
We will now block all lanes involved +1 or +2. As well private sector responders can coordinate with the DOT for complete road closure. The priority as of March 1st, has shifted from quick clearance and leaving the road open to Responder and Scene Safety as its number 1 priority.
So, congrats to the many many hundreds of thousands if nor millions and millions of motorists who are not drunk, drugged, or driving distracted. You are official now recognized.
6 pics included-click on the following:
http://i1382.photobucket.com/albums/ah247/glenbac08/IMG_0241_zpshzm6ttvt.jpg
Here is the full document:
http://aztransportationboard.gov/downloads/presentations/2015-012715-DPS-Handout.pdf
From what I can tell, the time stamp on the document in 10/31/2013 (lower left corner).
I couldn't find "Just plain stupid" in the document anywhere. "Stupid" refers to someone's mental capacity overall, as in "intellectually insufficient." Dumb is when, for example, a driver tries to pass another vehicle on a two-lane road around a curve and has a head-on crash. Dumb also refers to aggressive drivers and road-rage type of stuff. There is a lot of stuff that is dumb. I do dumb stuff all the time when I drive, like cut in front of other drivers on an off/on ramp with a long queue.
I couldn't find the federal classification and definition of "dumb" driving and would appreciate a reference.
Quote: teliotQuote: Baccaratfrom79Well yours truly was made part of the Regional Major Incident Response Team" the other day. I attended the Federal Highway DOT 'Traffic Incident Management' (TIM) certification course and also became part of a proactive response team primary responder [funded by your tax paying dollars--so be sure to pay those irs and state taxes owed :)!] that will protect public and private sector responders on our interstate's, 4 and 2 land state highways and any other local road that has a incident where emergency workers put themselves at risk.
It was interesting to note, the Feds now have a new official classification along with driving 'impaired, drugged, drunk or distracted' it is officially entitled and labeled "JUST PLAIN STUPID"! Since there is no fixing stupid and stupid kills people out on the highways, those people now have their very own designation. Lots of you will say I made all this up, please refer to the pictures I included from the certification course the other day.
We will now block all lanes involved +1 or +2. As well private sector responders can coordinate with the DOT for complete road closure. The priority as of March 1st, has shifted from quick clearance and leaving the road open to Responder and Scene Safety as its number 1 priority.
So, congrats to the many many hundreds of thousands if nor millions and millions of motorists who are not drunk, drugged, or driving distracted. You are official now recognized.
6 pics included-click on the following:
http://i1382.photobucket.com/albums/ah247/glenbac08/IMG_0241_zpshzm6ttvt.jpg
Here is the full document:
You are looking at one for Arizona. But that was the 2013 revision. THE one we used was a 2014. EACH state has to implement if they want FEDERAL Highway y Funds and grants, etc.
BUT seriously, all the newest stats are the dumb ones plowing into the scenes as well as the other people (Like you, assume a smart cautious driver) but a dumb person not drugged or drunk doing 75mph not looking and texting or reading his email and then looks up and you are nearly stopped=new crash site.
BTW, things take 1 or2 years to be implanted, it is all over funds and i will sure as hell get mine. Rule of the thumb with DOT, FEDS and anything highway related, forget about the current year and the next one. Implementation takes time.
IN most stated this is all just coming about. thanks.
http://aztransportationboard.gov/downloads/presentations/2015-012715-DPS-Handout.pdf
From what I can tell, the time stamp on the document in 10/31/2013 (lower left corner).
I couldn't find "Just plain stupid" in the document anywhere.
stupid=lacking intelligence or common sense
dumb=lacking intelligence or good judgment; stupid; dull-witted.
Quote: Baccaratfrom79You are looking at one for Arizona. But that was the 2013 revision. THE one we used was a 2014. EACH state has to implement if they want FEDERAL Highway y Funds and grants, etc.
I claim these documents are the same. You can see that the layout of the two documents is identical, at least in the part of the document in your image. It would be extraordinarily difficult to create identical layouts over the given region and not have identical content throughout (at least the first page). This course was created and delivered by an outside contractor who would have little incentive to redo a seminar already approved. There is no mention of Arizona on the document.
Quote: 1BBThe link shows a photo of a book or manual that has a heading that reads D-Drivers. D for drunk, drugged, drowsy, distracted or just plain dumb. One of these letters is not like the others. Hint: everything starts with the letter D. I don't see a Federal agency having stupid as an official classification. Got to pay attention in those important classes.
I don't see them having "dumb" as an official classification, either. Someone is bound to be insulted by that and I am sure it will need to be toned down.
The OP should have used "dumb" instead of "stupid" to be 100% accurate but maybe his editorial position on the issue is to use the stronger word. Who knows, but they mean about the same thing in reality when it comes to driving. If you don't do stupid or dumb stuff when you drive, things go better. The problem is that almost all of us do them at least once in a while...
The TIM/ECO document is the feds and assume they want to be politically correct in printing it. Everyone teaching the class had no problem saying it. Okay.
It's a nuance, and not really relevant; I think the OP makes his point using stupid and dumb interchangeably.
Quote: MoscaSmart people do dumb things. stupid people do dumb things a lot.
It's a nuance, and not really relevant; I think the OP makes his point using stupid and dumb interchangeably.
Very well said...
Quote: teliotFirst of all, please fix your quote in the previous. It's all messed up.
I claim these documents are the same. You can see that the layout of the two documents is identical, at least in the part of the document in your image. It would be extraordinarily difficult to create identical layouts over the given region and not have identical content throughout (at least the first page). This course was created and delivered by an outside contractor who would have little incentive to redo a seminar already approved. There is no mention of Arizona on the document.
Yes the same, but different revision dates. As far as the D-Drivers, yes correct. Still means the same and as Ron says, in class they stress the 'stupid' stronger aspect. BTW, you try being on the highway and be one of the first on the scene and you are blocking the road and watch the vehicles and their operators close up. SEE how close they come to may be plowing into the scene and literally killing someone already disabled and injured (forget about the highway worker-your not related to me or my family or co-workers) but maybe the person disabled already on the highway is your family or friend we are trying to protect. Then what is the motorists texting and eating that is sliding into the accident scene because he failed to pay attention. Is he dumb or stupid?
Highway accident scene worker, screaming--"HEY asshole your f*****ING 'dumb'!" or "Hey asshole your f****ING stupid'! When he comes to a final screeching stop, opening his door and pulling him out so the trooper can write him a multiple tickets. Okay he is dumb. Not what we call them and not what any one will. I am telling you from experience, I an out there numerous times every week. Dumb is P.C. and way too nice.
http://www.waukeshanow.com/blogs/communityblogs/220133741.html
This YouTube is titled: "Drunk or just plain dumb?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC0F9piWoo0
The argument rages.
The one you pulled is from the Arizona Transportation Board implementing it in Arizona.
That one was final on Halloween (LOL) 10-31-13.
The one we had was revised in 2014. SEE picture of dates. ( still the D's are the same, never said they were changed, I admit and I word my thread with the way we talk and they way things are done on the street, reality)
Their ticket does not say dumb or stupid on it. IT is merely a reaching category. Their tickets says, failure to obey basic rule, or failure to slow down, or reckless driving or the felony class of 'endangering a highway worker', etc.
Doesn't matter, a lot of drivers are plain stupid and I am all the state police and fire and emt's I work with will call them that or worse. We are not by any means whatsoever P.C. or nice out there on the highway.
There are many revisions, not the D Designations and once again, yes the printed word is DUMB so it fits in with the others, Drugged, Drunk, Distracted, etc.
As far as your claim there is only one base core doc and it is the same one, it was not, see the link below. (I hope I am incident command if you choose to exercise your supposed right to be driving stupid and happen upon my scene.)
http://i1382.photobucket.com/albums/ah247/glenbac08/IMG_0244_zpsk3fmuadi.jpg
Quote: teliot[
I couldn't find the federal classification and definition of "dumb" driving and would appreciate a reference.
It is the definitions as to what we deal with from the motoring public such which includes you. They are the designations we can stop or take measures to control the vehicle until L.E. can deal with the infractions. Once again, violation of basic rule, unsafe driving condition, endangering highway workers, violation of move over laws, failure to obey traffic control devices, etc. and so on.
In my words, that would be anything that the motorist does in conflict with the temporary legal MUTCD signage installed, causing an unsafe situation/condition, or failure to follow any instruction giving to the motorist or driving in an unsafe manner.
and then dumb:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dumb?s=t
Quote: Baccaratfrom79As far as your claim there is only one base core doc and it is the same one, it was not, see the link below. (I hope I am incident command if you choose to exercise your supposed right to be driving stupid and happen upon my scene.)
http://i1382.photobucket.com/albums/ah247/glenbac08/IMG_0244_zpsk3fmuadi.jpg
Again, that is identical to the document I posted, in both language and layout. The only difference is the time stamp.
Quote:I hope I am incident command if you choose to exercise your supposed right to be driving stupid and happen upon my scene.
I interpret this to mean that you would not treat me appropriately to the circumstance. The fact that you would use your position of authority to take out some sort of vengeance is incredibly offensive and possibly illegal. I hope this is not typical of your character.
Quote: teliot
. "Stupid" refers to someone's mental capacity overall, as in "intellectually insufficient."
.
Whatever, like I said before. You would be better off to block me or petition the wizard to ban me. It is not nice the thoughts I have for you at all.
Better you guys go talk about ATM machine problems, racism, stupid things at the gambling table (NOT dumb you guys said stupid things, lol), jury duty gripes and vending machine problems. Okay, carry on mister intelligence and the AP'er that corrects the dictionary.
Quote: teliotAgain, that is identical to the document I posted, in both language and layout. The only difference is the time stamp.
I interpret this to mean that you would not treat me appropriately to the circumstance. The fact that you would use your position of authority to take out some sort of vengeance is incredibly offensive and possibly illegal. I hope this is not typical of your character.
I would enforce across the board, restrain and block without regards to color, creed, gender or ethnicity anyone that jeopardizes others. IS that clear or enough or perhaps I am just being stupid?? You call it.
Quote: teliotAgain, that is identical to the document I posted, in both language and layout. The only difference is the time stamp.
I interpret this to mean that you would not treat me appropriately to the circumstance. The fact that you would use your position of authority to take out some sort of vengeance is incredibly offensive and possibly illegal. I hope this is not typical of your character.
What cant you understand? I said, once again, "exercise your supposed right to be driving stupid and come into my scene". What is it that would be illegal when I get your car stopped and have the LE do what he has to do???
So do I know assume a trait of AP'ing is being stupid, dumb or just plain ignorant?????
So what you were saying is that you hope I happen upon your scene so you could show me how competent you are. I already know how competent you are. You've made that very clear.Quote: Baccaratfrom79What cant you understand? I said, once again, "exercise your supposed right to be driving stupid and come into my scene". What is it that would be illegal when I get your car stopped and have the LE do what he has to do???
Quote: teliotSo what you were saying is that you hope I happen upon your scene so you could show me how competent you are. I already know how competent you are. You've made that very clear.
Why don't you go to the wizard and request to ban me?? Why the distaste and the challenges?
Quote: Baccaratfrom79Why don't you go to the wizard and request to ban me?? Why the distaste and the challenges?
Before you get banned (If you ever do) can you please tell us who your original moniker was?
Quote: Baccaratfrom79
Highway accident scene worker, screaming--"HEY asshole your f*****ING 'dumb'!" or "Hey asshole your f****ING stupid'! When he comes to a final screeching stop, opening his door and pulling him out so the trooper can write him a multiple tickets.
Someone squeals to a stop in an emergency zone full of your guys and state troopers. And when he does, your guys scream at them and physically remove them from their cars and detain them?
I hope your guys are incredibly aware of what constitutes a crime. I am not, but I know that speeding, texting, and failure to obey "move over laws" for emergency vehicles all fall under vehicle and traffic code and not criminal. I also know that citizen's arrests only cover felonies, or misdemeanors in which the arrestor is present and witness. Any other falls under "breach of peace" and is a very weak defense when you are sued for false arrest, unlawful imprisonment, assault, or kidnapping.
I trust you know what you're doing. But in the lawsuit capitol of the world and given the state of our litigious society and our penchant to pursue the lawyer lottery, I'd sure be thinking twice before I allowed an employee to arrest and detain a citizen.
Quote: GWAECan you please tell us your original moniker?
If his name is Glen, as in Glenbac08@yahoo.com, then perhaps it's JoyGlen, who wen MIA at VMB and others a couple of years ago.
I don't recall the style of posting from the other boards, but JoyGlen (or GlenJoy?) was a similar mid-range to high level player with a lot of experience in the field.
Did "B52" say the name of his wife(s)?
Quote: Baccaratfrom79Why don't you go to the wizard and request to ban me?? Why the distaste and the challenges?
It seems you have chosen this forum as a place for you to emotionally vent.
edited
Quote: KerkebetIf his name is Glen, as in Glenbac08@yahoo.com, then perhaps it's JoyGlen, who wen MIA at VMB and others a couple of years ago.
I don't recall the style of posting from the other boards, but JoyGlen (or GlenJoy?) was a similar mid-range to high level player with a lot of experience in the field.
Did "B52" say the name of his wife(s)?
I believe it is the same person.
There was one board years ago, on which I had hoped for him to stay. It was truly an uncensored board, aside from copyright infringement, spamming, and was moderated by only it's owner. One person. Did quite well for about a year or two after it became popular with the baccarat players, until format, etc, was changed in an attempt to make it suddenly appear overly mainstream. Perhaps, to make it more profitable to the owner. Good people left or where squeezed out, and were replaced with some very strange people desperate for the "spot light".
I think the formula for simple internet success shouldn't place emphasis on either the players or the games, but on balance. Nice to have regulars, and different games to compare about strategy, but not anyone in specific who might dominate both the direction of the conversation and the game. Otherwise, there aren't going to be a lot of spontaneous or candid "this is what I actually did/do in that situation" discussions for either camp. And the owner(s) of site has to worry about where things are going.
The basic problem with a name-board, you're going to end up with 90% yes-people who fundamentally inherit the niggling or vexing problem which is the reversal of "protest friends". Enemies who work together to erase a worse opponent over the short-term have little trouble rationalizing what they're doing and "living with it"; but not so for the ones who "just" agree on building up a single thing or person for the sake of itself over the long-term. A matter of, how can we have so much in common, but actually agree on little else. Ceaseless niggling about stuff which in my experience, frankly, rarely comes up on boards supposedly about most of the games with fairly anonymous posters. Yes-people are individuals too.
In addition, the basic or organizational bias of the quick 90% can lead to long-term stagnation of membership; and, a host of other socially technical problems which can "become evident only as pop up".
Quote: GWAEBefore you get banned (If you ever do) can you please tell us who your original moniker was?
I've no reason, either computer-magic or observation based, to think he's a sock. Writing style, sentence structure, colloquialisms and vernacular, none of his made me think he was anything but genuine.
I did feel his personality was a near mirror image of Ahigh. But everything else leads me to believe he's legit. Perhaps after meeting some folks in person he will find reason to return.
I have been hinting this was going to happen anyways, and well Bob came right out and said it.Quote: FaceI've no reason, either computer-magic or observation based, to think he's a sock. Writing style, sentence structure, colloquialisms and vernacular, none of his made me think he was anything but genuine.
I did feel his personality was a near mirror image of Ahigh. But everything else leads me to believe he's legit. Perhaps after meeting some folks in person he will find reason to return.
You can almost see him trying to sabotage himself off the forum. It seems to me he didn't want to awnser some tough questions regarding the legitimacy of some of his stories.
It's a no win situation for evryone. If it turns out evrything is true then people will come out of the weeds and start blasting the doubters. If it's all BS then all the doubters will start laughing and calling evryone fools.
Im on the fence about this guy, I cannot believe evrything he has claimed, but somethings I believe are legitimate.
Perhaps there is some truth to evrything he said, but evrything is over exaggerated. TBH im rooting for the guy, if even half of what he claims is true then he is a fairly interesting guy. Let's just hope this isn't all just some elaborate BS.
I do find it odd that he hasn't made any efforts to pony up some good faith money since he claims to have plenty of it. He said, put up or shut up. I made a post regarding this and he avoided the conversation.
He avoided many questions. Especially the burning building story. He really enjoys telling stories and that sounded like the most interesting one. why not elaborate on that story?
Quote: AxelWolf
He avoided many questions. Especially the burning building story. He really enjoys telling stories and that sounded like the most interesting one. why not elaborate on that story?
He had lots of stories and lots of former
jobs and started lots of threads, a little
under a thread a day for the time he was
here. Yet he let most questions go largely
unanswered. Kinda odd. He said 'put up or
shut up', Axel put up, and B79 shut up and
didn't put up. That's really odd.
Quote: AxelWolf
Im on the fence about this guy, I cannot believe evrything he has claimed, but somethings I believe are legitimate.
Perhaps there is some truth to evrything he said, but evrything is over exaggerated. TBH im rooting for the guy, if even half of what he claims is true then he is a fairly interesting guy. Let's just hope this isn't all just some elaborate BS.
For what it's worth, I don't think he was here just to BS and rile everyone up. People who enjoy doing that don't easily give up on it. They're here to rile, so they rile to the end. Bac79 gave up far too easily and quickly for that to be his goal.
Quote: AxelWolfI do find it odd that he hasn't made any efforts to pony up some good faith money since he claims to have plenty of it. He said, put up or shut up. I made a post regarding this and he avoided the conversation.
I thought he did? Didn't he say "his lawyer" (I assume aceofspades) had his money in holding? In any case, he and ace seem to be cool, and I expect them to meet when they said.
Quote: AxelWolfHe avoided many questions. Especially the burning building story. He really enjoys telling stories and that sounded like the most interesting one. why not elaborate on that story?
This was strange, and a slice of why I said he reminded me of Ahigh. I've been challenged plenty of times, often by the one and only 1BB (formerly benbakdoff). Whether it was my divorce which he claimed was a hoax or my 170mph jaunt down I-86 which he suggested was boastful exaggeration, I have been challenged. And in both cases, I was able to meet those challenges with details lending credibility to my claim. That jaunt was some 8 years ago and I can vividly remember everything about it. Everything from what caused me to begin, to how many cars I passed to the lead up, to how I became disoriented by driving at such a high speed for so long that I entered a corner still going 150 and almost wound up in the Allegany River, are all details I can recall to this day. 1BB was right; you should have vivid memory of detail for such a striking memory. In my case, I could understand his disbelief and simply provided the details he requested. I didn't become offended or defensive or reply with snark; I just gave one post with the details and that ended it. Bac79, like Ahigh, seemed to take offense that 1BB dared questioned him and became defensive. That didn't make sense. It doesn't make sense.
Many here disparage the actions of our "Fact Finders", claiming they are incendiary and chase off good posters. While I can see that, I still think they do the forum a service. Their questioning is an establishment of credibility and integrity, something all should desire as many of you enter into wagers with one another. If someone claims to have been in a strikingly horrible disaster, yet can't or won't provide a single detail about it, it does raise some questions. And since Bac79 has been very open about many other very personal details about himself, the unwillingness to delve further into this fire makes it look a little hinky. Hinky enough to give pause when contemplating entering into several hundred dollar wagers with him.
I guess we'll see. Whether he returns or not, I'm sure AoS will and we'll have our answer one way or another. I just hope the Gods of Variance smile upon them and the monkey prevails. I could use the dose of hilarity that will provide =)
Quote: FaceFor what it's worth, I don't think he was here just to BS and rile everyone up. People who enjoy doing that don't easily give up on it. They're here to rile, so they rile to the end. Bac79 gave up far too easily and quickly for that to be his goal.
I thought he did? Didn't he say "his lawyer" (I assume aceofspades) had his money in holding? In any case, he and ace seem to be cool, and I expect them to meet when they said.
This was strange, and a slice of why I said he reminded me of Ahigh. I've been challenged plenty of times, often by the one and only 1BB (formerly benbakdoff). Whether it was my divorce which he claimed was a hoax or my 170mph jaunt down I-86 which he suggested was boastful exaggeration, I have been challenged. And in both cases, I was able to meet those challenges with details lending credibility to my claim. That jaunt was some 8 years ago and I can vividly remember everything about it. Everything from what caused me to begin, to how many cars I passed to the lead up, to how I became disoriented by driving at such a high speed for so long that I entered a corner still going 150 and almost wound up in the Allegany River, are all details I can recall to this day. 1BB was right; you should have vivid memory of detail for such a striking memory. In my case, I could understand his disbelief and simply provided the details he requested. I didn't become offended or defensive or reply with snark; I just gave one post with the details and that ended it. Bac79, like Ahigh, seemed to take offense that 1BB dared questioned him and became defensive. That didn't make sense. It doesn't make sense.
Many here disparage the actions of our "Fact Finders", claiming they are incendiary and chase off good posters. While I can see that, I still think they do the forum a service. Their questioning is an establishment of credibility and integrity, something all should desire as many of you enter into wagers with one another. If someone claims to have been in a strikingly horrible disaster, yet can't or won't provide a single detail about it, it does raise some questions. And since Bac79 has been very open about many other very personal details about himself, the unwillingness to delve further into this fire makes it look a little hinky. Hinky enough to give pause when contemplating entering into several hundred dollar wagers with him.
I guess we'll see. Whether he returns or not, I'm sure AoS will and we'll have our answer one way or another. I just hope the Gods of Variance smile upon them and the monkey prevails. I could use the dose of hilarity that will provide =)
IMO, the fire story fell victim to timing; that was first mentioned the same day Bac79 got grilled over his Bacc play and got offended enough to say he was leaving. When he decided to return, it was to pursue that grilling in an aggressively defensive manner, not to share a lot of new information. I think it's more than possible that he was at the MGM as a 21 year old when it happened and chose not to explain himself further on that and other matters because of the heckling. I don't know him personally, so can't really vouch for him either way, but I'm also one of those who's not very impressed with the actions of several other people here, and what little I do know has checked out on Bacc79.
EDIT: I also have to wonder how much detail a newly-of-age guy, in Vegas with his buddies, probably seriously drunk/sleeping it off, can remember of a fire that started very early in the am and was completely chaotic with the alarms malfunctioning. There might not be that much more to tell. He just said he was there and got out, not that he did anything heroic or unbelievable.
Quote: beachbumbabs
EDIT: I also have to wonder how much detail a newly-of-age guy, in Vegas with his buddies, probably seriously drunk/sleeping it off, can remember of a fire that started very early in the am and was completely chaotic with the alarms malfunctioning. There might not be that much more to tell. He just said he was there and got out, not that he did anything heroic or unbelievable.
But that was the source of my personal confusion and surprise. While he was indeed young and likely hammered, I thought he said he was rescued from the roof by an Army helicopter? Having personally done an incredible amount of drugs and suffered a not insignificant amount of brain damage, I would surely remember many details of such an experience.
Edit: Indeed.
Quote: Baccaratfrom79I started going to Vegas in the very late 70's, maybe 79. I worked in Southern Cali for a movie/tv studio and once in awhile on weekends we would go. I remember a couple of days before Thanksgiving of 1980, I was barely 21. We were at the original MGM which was further north up the strip @ what is now Bally's property. I was rescued from the roof by an army helicopter I think, early in the morning when the place was engulfed in flames and smoke. Yeah Vegas was a different story then and all the way up to the mid 90's or so. Then the play-dough crowd and the hip-hopsters came in the adult playground. Found memories of many things in the desert.
Quote: Baccaratfrom79We were kids. I believe I was just 21. We were sleeping in the room, just getting up. Tried staying in the room but busted out the windows. I remember being lifted to an Army helicopter after several hours on the roof. A bunch of us were on the 20th floor I think. Went to the hospital with smoke inhalation and released later that night.
Quote: FaceBut that was the source of my personal confusion and surprise. While he was indeed young and likely hammered, I thought he said he was rescued from the roof by an Army helicopter? Having personally done an incredible amount of drugs and suffered a not insignificant amount of brain damage, I would surely remember many details of such an experience.
Edit: Indeed.
I appreciate that you pulled up the narrative. I don't know what more there is to tell. Woke up confused. Tried to stay in the room. Went up to the roof at some point. Waited for hours with 1000 others (according to news sources) who were pulled off the roof. Went to the hospital and got treated for smoke inhalation. What else has there ever been to say? I wouldn't blame him if he took "requests" for more info as incredulity rather than interest, based on the crap he was taking in other quarters.
86 people died. 10 from burning, 3 from jumping, the rest from smoke inhalation. 1000+ lived. Fire started in first floor kitchens, alarm system burned first and malfunctioned. The building was where Bally's is today (not sure if it's that building rebuilt or a post-fire structure).
EDIT: This video gives slightly different details than the account I was quoting, but has a lot of graphic footage.
have a thick skin to post here or you won't last.
B79 was easily offended and took everything
personally. There be sharks here, and on every
forum that's mostly men, always looking for a
weak spot and going on the attack. Unless I
get personally insulted at least once a day, I
check to make sure I'm in the right place.
You can't let it bother you or you'll become a
neurotic mess. Just ignore it and move on.
Let me repeat HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY MONEY TO ACE OR ANYONE!!! He said he was going to do so, however he hasn't yet(haven't we seen this play out before? ). I'm sure his original plan was to give AOS the money just before the bet. Under normal circumstances I would accept that. However this is different. He/we created a ton of antisipation, controversy and interest over this bet. People have things to do Work, Vacations prior commitments etc etc.Quote: FaceFor what it's worth, I don't think he was here just to BS and rile everyone up. People who enjoy doing that don't easily give up on it. They're here to rile, so they rile to the end. Bac79 gave up far too easily and quickly for that to be his goal.
I thought he did? Didn't he say "his lawyer" (I assume aceofspades) had his money in holding? In any case, he and ace seem to be cool, and I expect them to meet when they said.
This was strange, and a slice of why I said he reminded me of Ahigh. I've been challenged plenty of times, often by the one and only 1BB (formerly benbakdoff). Whether it was my divorce which he claimed was a hoax or my 170mph jaunt down I-86 which he suggested was boastful exaggeration, I have been challenged. And in both cases, I was able to meet those challenges with details lending credibility to my claim. That jaunt was some 8 years ago and I can vividly remember everything about it. Everything from what caused me to begin, to how many cars I passed to the lead up, to how I became disoriented by driving at such a high speed for so long that I entered a corner still going 150 and almost wound up in the Allegany River, are all details I can recall to this day. 1BB was right; you should have vivid memory of detail for such a striking memory. In my case, I could understand his disbelief and simply provided the details he requested. I didn't become offended or defensive or reply with snark; I just gave one post with the details and that ended it. Bac79, like Ahigh, seemed to take offense that 1BB dared questioned him and became defensive. That didn't make sense. It doesn't make sense.
Many here disparage the actions of our "Fact Finders", claiming they are incendiary and chase off good posters. While I can see that, I still think they do the forum a service. Their questioning is an establishment of credibility and integrity, something all should desire as many of you enter into wagers with one another. If someone claims to have been in a strikingly horrible disaster, yet can't or won't provide a single detail about it, it does raise some questions. And since Bac79 has been very open about many other very personal details about himself, the unwillingness to delve further into this fire makes it look a little hinky. Hinky enough to give pause when contemplating entering into several hundred dollar wagers with him.
I guess we'll see. Whether he returns or not, I'm sure AoS will and we'll have our answer one way or another. I just hope the Gods of Variance smile upon them and the monkey prevails. I could use the dose of hilarity that will provide =)
Example I'm sure the Wizard is a busy guy. perhaps he might want to join the fun. I will offer him action. I get the impression he dosent love battling the strip traffic and parking. I'm sure he doesn't want to make plans to do something that may be a complete farce.
Baccaratfrom79 claims to have more money than God. Just putting up $400 using Western Union to any trustworthy member would take no time at all. Certainly that would've Added a TON of credibility and put evryone at ease had he done that, I assume a few more members would actually make plans. I even offerol pay the WU Fee. Explain 1 logical good reason for him not to do this.
My only guess is.... he's not serious or dosent have the money. He was so intent for us to believe in evrything he has said. why not make one small jesture that you actually can prove/control?
I guarantee you there's something fishy with all of this. I'm not sure what it is, but somthing is amiss.
I have dealt with guys who have far better stories "proof"
and credibility than Baccaratfrom79. They make all kinds of claims promises statements. They even meet up with you. But once you get down to the money and brass taxes they are flat F*ing broke with a billion ecexcuses. Next thing you know they are trying to borrow money with big promises to pay you back.
Didn't a member on this forum get stalked harassed conned or something like that?
Ps you really think Bob made a luck guess that Baccaratfrom79 would do something to distance himself from the forum. Didn't I say something similar?
Quote: AxelWolf
Ps you really think Bob made a luck guess that Baccaratfrom79 would do something to distance himself from the forum. Didn't I say something similar?
No luck involved. You see this all the
time on gambling forums. Big Hoss
rides into town with a million stories
and a system that beats the casino.
He says he'll tell all about it and weeks
go by and all he does is talk around it.
When he starts to get challenged, he
all of a sudden gets a thin skin, is
offended over nothing, and leaves in
a huff. It happens again and again.
They want attention, and to be admired.
When that starts to backfire, they disappear.
Quote: AxelWolfLet me repeat HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY MONEY TO ACE OR ANYONE!!! He said he was going to do so, however he hasn't yet(haven't we seen this play out before? ). I'm sure his original plan was to give AOS the money just before the bet. Under normal circumstances I would accept that. However this is different. He/we created a ton of antisipation, controversy and interest over this bet. People have things to do Work, Vacations prior commitments etc etc.
Thanks for the clarification. And yes, we have seen this play out before, and rarely (never?) has it gone well for the members. This is why I made comments defending the actions of 1BB earlier. While I don't always understand his objective, in this case, I am glad for it. From Aye getting screwed to several members not paying their promised football pools to the thousand+ posts in the 98Steps thread, there are examples beyond count that mirror this scenario. Guy makes outrageous claim, huge interest and bets are made, and it winds up being little more than pomp and pageantry with no end result, other than several members being out their time, energy, and money.
What seems a witch hunt to some looked in this case to be a vetting process. A necessary vetting process, IMO.
Quote: beachbumbabsIMO, the fire story fell victim to timing; that was first mentioned the same day Bac79 got grilled over his Bacc play and got offended enough to say he was leaving. When he decided to return, it was to pursue that grilling in an aggressively defensive manner, not to share a lot of new information. I think it's more than possible that he was at the MGM as a 21 year old when it happened and chose not to explain himself further on that and other matters because of the heckling. I don't know him personally, so can't really vouch for him either way, but I'm also one of those who's not very impressed with the actions of several other people here, and what little I do know has checked out on Bacc79.
EDIT: I also have to wonder how much detail a newly-of-age guy, in Vegas with his buddies, probably seriously drunk/sleeping it off, can remember of a fire that started very early in the am and was completely chaotic with the alarms malfunctioning. There might not be that much more to tell. He just said he was there and got out, not that he did anything heroic or unbelievable.
Maybe this thread should be split to the "How Much I Miss Him" thread.
That's why I suggest a put up or shut up "rule" obviously it can't be an official rule but as member's we can. Once a bet offer starts to pick up traction and the basic terms are agreed on along with an arbitrary. The thread should be locked until the money is secured. Then open up the thread. If a legitimate problem comes up the arbitrator can deside what to do. I think that would help weed out the BS and make people more comfortable in partisipating. obviously $10 bets or bets with known members are not an issue.Quote: FaceThanks for the clarification. And yes, we have seen this play out before, and rarely (never?) has it gone well for the members. This is why I made comments defending the actions of 1BB earlier. While I don't always understand his objective, in this case, I am glad for it. From Aye getting screwed to several members not paying their promised football pools to the thousand+ posts in the 98Steps thread, there are examples beyond count that mirror this scenario. Guy makes outrageous claim, huge interest and bets are made, and it winds up being little more than pomp and pageantry with no end result, other than several members being out their time, energy, and money.
What seems a witch hunt to some looked in this case to be a vetting process. A necessary vetting process, IMO.
Quote: 1BBMaybe this thread should be split to the "How Much I Miss Him" thread.
Maybe you should take a break from this board. Never saw such a bunch of made-up crap from the lot of you. Nobody who's involved in the bet has any reason not to think it's going to go ahead, regardless of people's wild speculations and accusations. The guy wanted to come here, tell some stories about his life, meet some gamblers, hear their stories, amuse himself, make some friends. Instead he gets a flock of crows pecking his eyes out over stuff that doesn't even matter. So he left; big surprise. Good job, all. Especially you, 1BB, the self-appointed arbiter of authenticity and how to treat a new member. Sterling leadership you've demonstrated on that oft-expressed criticism.
Quote: beachbumbabsInstead he gets a flock of crows pecking his eyes out over stuff that doesn't even matter. .
This happens on every board that's 99% men
that I've been on for the last 20 years. It's
how men are, we have a very low BS tolerance.
If we sense it, or see a weakness in someone,
we pounce on it. We start it in grade school
and it never ends. We have a combative nature
and are always competing.
Women never understand this. They're aware
of it, but they don't like it or understand it. I don't
like Teliot much, but I completely understand why
he questioned the document that this thread was
started about. It's what men do.
Quote: beachbumbabsMaybe you should take a break from this board. Never saw such a bunch of made-up crap from the lot of you. Nobody who's involved in the bet has any reason not to think it's going to go ahead, regardless of people's wild speculations and accusations. The guy wanted to come here, tell some stories about his life, meet some gamblers, hear their stories, amuse himself, make some friends. Instead he gets a flock of crows pecking his eyes out over stuff that doesn't even matter. So he left; big surprise. Good job, all. Especially you, 1BB, the self-appointed arbiter of authenticity and how to treat a new member. Sterling leadership you've demonstrated on that oft-expressed criticism.
I don't think I'm the one that needs a break but thank you for the suggestion. Nothing to get worked up over, Barbara. I never said one word about the bet, I haven't followed the bet and I have no opinion about the bet. I made no accusations, made no insults and made nothing up. His posts speak for themselves.
If he left because he was asked about the four workers that he lost or the MGM fire then something's wrong. You can't expect to post things like that and not have follow up questions. Glad we cleared the air.
