An apology to all
I won't be posting all that often in the future, but I will chime in from time to time. My workload and schedule will be much greater after the school year resumes in January, so I'll be much busier. In any case, I will not respond to personal attacks, nor will I originate them.
A few other members have said some fairly nasty things about me (and others) in response to these disruptions, but I realize that the recent poisoned environment has lowered the level of EVERYONE'S discourse. In other word, no hard feelings from my end---if I got called names, it was at least partially my own fault.
I have certain approaches to gambling, advantage play, and Las Vegas itself. I fully acknowledge that those approaches are not for everyone. For one thing, advantage play is a lot of work, and though that sort of work is also fun for me, to most people, that would be the antithesis of fun. Anyone who plays solely for fun and doesn't really care about losses may actually be getting more out of the whoie experience than I do.
Again, my apologies to all.
While I'm among the group that plays for fun, I most certainly care about losses.Quote: mkl654321Anyone who plays solely for fun and doesn't really care about losses may actually be getting more out of the whoie experience than I do.
I merely accept the fact that I may never find the angle that puts me on the plus side. But it's fun to try.
---
That's a very nicely worded, taking the high road, apology.
For the record, I always thought you were unfairly victimized in this whole mess. After you got sucked into the vortex of doom, you tried to fight your way out, rather than walking the other way.
I agree with this entire post.Quote: DJTeddyBearWhile I'm among the group that plays for fun, I most certainly care about losses.
I merely accept the fact that I may never find the angle that puts me on the plus side. But it's fun to try.
---
That's a very nicely worded, taking the high road, apology.
For the record, I always thought you were unfairly victimized in this whole mess. After you got sucked into the vortex of doom, you tried to fight your way out, rather than walking the other way.
Quote: DJTeddyBearWhile I'm among the group that plays for fun, I most certainly care about losses.
I merely accept the fact that I may never find the angle that puts me on the plus side. But it's fun to try.
That's a very nicely worded, taking the high road, apology.
For the record, I always thought you were unfairly victimized in this whole mess. After you got sucked into the vortex of doom, you tried to fight your way out, rather than walking the other way.
I play for fun; I care about losses. We're on the same page.
What's "the plus side" here? I'm always on it even if I lose, BECAUSE I have a great time.
The apology may seem exciting to you, but then again you weren't the victim of name-calling, profanity-filled rants that kept me up all hours of the night. So just how "high" a road has he really traveled with it?
Your "For the record"? Cry me a river.
Quote: DJTeddyBearWhile I'm among the group that plays for fun, I most certainly care about losses.
I merely accept the fact that I may never find the angle that puts me on the plus side. But it's fun to try.
---
That's a very nicely worded, taking the high road, apology.
For the record, I always thought you were unfairly victimized in this whole mess. After you got sucked into the vortex of doom, you tried to fight your way out, rather than walking the other way.
Thank you; I appreciate what you said. I have felt that when many people equated me and JL, that was grossly unfair. However, I do accept at least an equal share of the blame, because I have been acting out of character, and Jerry, I daresay, has not. Therefore I should be holding myself to a higher standard. Obviously, the best thing to do was ignore the vortex of doom altogether.
I don't mean to imply that people who weren't APs didn't care about their losses; certainly, everybody would rather win than lose. I just meant that winning is my goal, and my measure of success is the bottom line; but for most recreational gamblers, the measure of success is whether they had a good time. So a -$500 weekend might be highly successful for a rec gambler if they enjoyed playing; for me, it would be pretty much a failure. (Though I should point out, that since a weekend's worth of play is short term, I'm not that bothered by a loss over such a period, as long as I was playing at an advantage. Advantage doesn't mean certainty of a win.)
Quote: mkl654321I wanted to take this opportunity to apologize to everyone for disrupting this forum.
You mean for disrupting it now? Will you be including this disclaimer every time you post? (I'm so clever sometimes even my dog is impressed)
Quote: EvenBobYou mean for disrupting it now? Will you be including this disclaimer every time you post? (I'm so clever sometimes even my dog is impressed)
You must have an easily impressed dog.
Quote: mkl654321However, I do accept at least an equal share of the blame, because I have been acting out of character
1) Your resume of posts stands for itself. As much as you may not like how you acted, it is disingenuous for you to call it "out of character". It is there. All you can do now is make it as small a part of your character as you can, by outposting it in proportion to its proper weight. We're all parts good and parts bad.
Quote: mkl654321and Jerry, I daresay, has not.
2) You are already starting again. You can't read the man's mind, and you don't know him. You may not like the persona he has taken here, but you don't know him. This is another shot at him. You don't like him, I get it. But let each of us judge how much of what he writes is actually him for ourselves. I think we're capable of deciding without help... after all, his resume of posts stands for itself as well.
Quote: MoscaCareful.
1) Your resume of posts stands for itself. As much as you may not like how you acted, it is disingenuous for you to call it "out of character". It is there. All you can do now is make it as small a part of your character as you can, by outposting it in proportion to its proper weight. We're all parts good and parts bad.
2) You are already starting again. You can't read the man's mind, and you don't know him. You may not like the persona he has taken here, but you don't know him. This is another shot at him. You don't like him, I get it. But let each of us judge how much of what he writes is actually him for ourselves. I think we're capable of deciding without help... after all, his resume of posts stands for itself as well.
Now, wait a minute. If you equate me and Jerry (which, amazingly, you seem to do), then you should have an equal opinion of both of us. YET---you say in one breath, that MY "resume of posts" SHOULD serve as an indictment of my character, but that JERRY'S resume of posts should NOT serve as an indictment of HIS.
Do you see the contradiction??????
You also fail to take into account that there IS a difference between mine and Jerry's "resumes", but I won't point out the difference if you truly don't perceive it. In any case, please listen to yourself when you say that you can't judge a person's character by his internet posts. While that might be true or not, it certainly isn't true for one person but untrue for another.
Quote: mkl654321Now, wait a minute. If you equate me and Jerry (which, amazingly, you seem to do), then you should have an equal opinion of both of us. YET---you say in one breath, that MY "resume of posts" SHOULD serve as an indictment of my character, but that JERRY'S resume of posts should NOT serve as an indictment of HIS.
Do you see the contradiction??????
You also fail to take into account that there IS a difference between mine and Jerry's "resumes", but I won't point out the difference if you truly don't perceive it. In any case, please listen to yourself when you say that you can't judge a person's character by his internet posts. While that might be true or not, it certainly isn't true for one person but untrue for another.
Yada yada yada....come on. Stop talking about me but if people can't, then at least tell me how great I am for picking winners in the NFL the past few weeks.
Quote: mkl654321Now, wait a minute. If you equate me and Jerry (which, amazingly, you seem to do), then you should have an equal opinion of both of us. YET---you say in one breath, that MY "resume of posts" SHOULD serve as an indictment of my character, but that JERRY'S resume of posts should NOT serve as an indictment of HIS.
Do you see the contradiction??????
You also fail to take into account that there IS a difference between mine and Jerry's "resumes", but I won't point out the difference if you truly don't perceive it. In any case, please listen to yourself when you say that you can't judge a person's character by his internet posts. While that might be true or not, it certainly isn't true for one person but untrue for another.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we are fully capable of understanding his resume without any help.
In both of your cases, we are dealing with the persona that has been chosen. I don't know JerryLogan, and I don't know you, either. All I know is what you've chosen to show, and I know what he's chosen to show. Yours may be very direct; nevertheless, it is not the same as knowing you. Likewise with JerryLogan.
Everyone here can read and decide for themselves just how much of the person is in the persona. For you to say, "I daresay..." is presumptive, and assumes that we can't.
Really, you're better off letting anyone hoist themselves on their own petard, so to speak, lest you accidentally do so yourself. That's what I was trying to tell you.
Quote: MoscaNo, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we are fully capable of understanding his resume without any help.
In both of your cases, we are dealing with the persona that has been chosen. I don't know JerryLogan, and I don't know you, either. All I know is what you've chosen to show, and I know what he's chosen to show. Yours may be very direct; nevertheless, it is not the same as knowing you. Likewise with JerryLogan.
Everyone here can read and decide for themselves just how much of the person is in the persona. For you to say, "I daresay..." is presumptive, and assumes that we can't.
Really, you're better off letting anyone hoist themselves on their own petard, so to speak, lest you accidentally do so yourself. That's what I was trying to tell you.
It's too bad no one can ascertain, summarize, conclude and then identify how much of your psycho-analysis is pure BS or not.
Quote: ElectricDreamsmkl, Jerry - do you two ever feel like you're going in circles? Like big ol' ones that just loop around and around and around, with no net gain?
Seems to me all the critics, aka psycho-analysts, of he & I are the ones "going in circles". I'm happy to sit back and watch the money roll right in during Sunday's game! As usual.
*Jerry brings in a unique perspective that has some value.
*I suspect Jerry plays up the less socially acceptable views he holds to get a rise out of folks.
*Your off-topic posts are probably more disruptive than Jerry's.
Remember, this board isn't made up of highschool students. Most of us can form opinions of text after reading it. But in addition to constantly letting Jerry bait you into arguing, you seem unable to let many posts pass without reminding us of your opinion of Jerry and how you think we should feel about him. Then when youre called on this pattern of behavior, basically unique to you, you get defensive. I really like and respect the posts you've made on vp strategy, advantage play, and hotels and restaurants. Sometimes I think though that those quality contributions get drowned out by the other stuff.
One other quick piece of advice from a random guy on the Internet: this is at least twice now that you've apologized for past behavior and promised to change. You seem like a really professional and together guy, so don't develop a reputation as someone who makes grandiose promises he can't keep.
Quote: JerryLoganSeems to me all the critics, aka psycho-analysts, of he & I are the ones "going in circles". I'm happy to sit back and watch the money roll right in during Sunday's game! As usual.
Oh, sorry - I didn't know two weeks in a row counted as "usual". Thanks for the info.
And I would definitely call your constant bickering with mkl as "going in circles" - do you honestly feel like you've gained any ground in your near incessant arguing with him? I will admit, however, that the "psycho-analysts" are going in circles too - they're just along for the ride.
The ride that goes around in circles, you see.
Quote: JerryLoganIt's too bad no one can ascertain, summarize, conclude and then identify how much of your psycho-analysis is pure BS or not.
LOL, well, of course! It's worth the time it took to read, is all. Still: in the end, we're all just walls of text to each other.
Quote: ElectricDreamsOh, sorry - I didn't know two weeks in a row counted as "usual". Thanks for the info.
And I would definitely call your constant bickering with mkl as "going in circles" - do you honestly feel like you've gained any ground in your near incessant arguing with him? I will admit, however, that the "psycho-analysts" are going in circles too - they're just along for the ride.
The ride that goes around in circles, you see.
I'm sorry for having a big head right now. But it is "big".
Please explain where I've been arguing with mkl since we came back. I've made several comments about how his apology first & foremost should have been directed towards me since I was the butt of his name-calling & profanity, but we haven't argued about it at all. In fact, what I said was such a direct hit on common sensibility that everyone's afraid to address it now.
Quote: MoscaEveryone here can read and decide for themselves just how much of the person is in the persona. For you to say, "I daresay..." is presumptive, and assumes that we can't.
No, it was a statement of what I think, not an admonition for anyone else to think one way or another. It isn't "presumptive" for me to have my own opinion, nor to express that opinion.
Certainly, any internet persona could be a total construct. I vacillate between Jerry being exactly that, and his posts reflecting his true nature. The latter seems improbable because his chosen persona seems so drastic. But his posts COULD be a true, honest expression of the thoughts of an actual person.
Quote: mkl654321Now, wait a minute. If you equate me and Jerry (which, amazingly, you seem to do), then you should have an equal opinion of both of us. YET---you say in one breath, that MY "resume of posts" SHOULD serve as an indictment of my character, but that JERRY'S resume of posts should NOT serve as an indictment of HIS.
Do you see the contradiction??????
Read that again, MKL. Mosca used the phrase "resume of posts stands for itself" equally for both of you, and in no way indicted either of you but for that reference. The difference, I think, is that you care about that resume in a very different way than Jerry does (which seems to be not at all). Like I said before you were suspended, if you dance with trolls you'll get your toes stepped on. Only you can decide if you want that.
Quote: ElectricDreamsmkl, Jerry - do you two ever feel like you're going in circles? Like big ol' ones that just loop around and around and around, with no net gain?
Yep. Here it is, December 3, and the sun is in the exact same place in the sky it was last December 3. No net progress at all.
Jerry will be going around in his own private circle from now on, though. Why dance when your partner keeps puking on you (and deliberately, at that)?
Quote: MathExtremistRead that again, MKL. Mosca used the phrase "resume of posts stands for itself" equally for both of you, and in no way indicted either of you but for that reference. The difference, I think, is that you care about that resume in a very different way than Jerry does (which seems to be not at all). Like I said before you were suspended, if you dance with trolls you'll get your toes stepped on. Only you can decide if you want that.
You perhaps should do the same. Mosca passed judgment on me by saying that I was "disingenuous" to call my "resume" "out of character". He then took me to task for judging Jerry (implicitly) by the same benchmark. So Mosca thought it was OK for HIM to make a negative comment on my character, based on my posts, but that at the same time, I was wrong to do so about Jerry, on the exact same basis.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to submit to a double standard. Mosca's comment was, at the very least, logically inconsistent. In any case, the fact of the matter is that we all DO draw conclusions about an individual, warranted or not, based on what he says. I'm sure EVERYONE here has felt free to concoct such conclusions about the both of us, again, warranted or not.
Quote: mkl654321You perhaps should do the same. Mosca passed judgment on me by saying that I was "disingenuous" to call my "resume" "out of character". He then took me to task for judging Jerry (implicitly) by the same benchmark. So Mosca thought it was OK for HIM to make a negative comment on my character, based on my posts, but that at the same time, I was wrong to do so about Jerry, on the exact same basis.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to submit to a double standard. Mosca's comment was, at the very least, logically inconsistent. In any case, the fact of the matter is that we all DO draw conclusions about an individual, warranted or not, based on what he says. I'm sure EVERYONE here has felt free to concoct such conclusions about the both of us, again, warranted or not.
How about trying this and you can end YET ANOTHER MEANINGLESS ARGUMENT with the pretend shrinks: Ignore what they tell you UNLESS they deliver it with profanity. Then, rip 'em a new one!
Quote: mkl654321I'm sorry, but I refuse to submit to a double standard. Mosca's comment was, at the very least, logically inconsistent. In any case, the fact of the matter is that we all DO draw conclusions about an individual, warranted or not, based on what he says. I'm sure EVERYONE here has felt free to concoct such conclusions about the both of us, again, warranted or not.
Shrug. I tried.
Quote: JerryLoganHow about trying this and you can end YET ANOTHER MEANINGLESS ARGUMENT with the pretend shrinks: Ignore what they tell you UNLESS they deliver it with profanity. Then, rip 'em a new one!
I can't add anything here. When a man is right, he's right. Put down JerryLogan for winning another stone cold lock.
Quote: JerryLoganHow about trying this and you can end YET ANOTHER MEANINGLESS ARGUMENT with the pretend shrinks: Ignore what they tell you UNLESS they deliver it with profanity. Then, rip 'em a new one!
No one's shrinking you; i.e., they're not guessing why you are the way you are. They're telling you how they react to you.
My reaction is: you seem to set up lots of strawmen (saying you're being shrunk when you're not, saying that if people react to you then they have no lives) and you seem to be self-centered to the detriment of the forum you like to be self-centered in (you'll react how you damn well please, damn what effect it has on other posters or the efficacy of Wizard's purposes).
I'm not guessing why you do this. I'm saying, this is who you are. If you're fine with that, fine, but I can't imagine having an entire forum full of what seem like pretty normal and good people disliking you and giving little weight to what you say (not the same as frequency of communicating their reaction to you) is fun for you.
But hey, to each his own.
Quote: MoscaShrug. I tried.
Actually, I wish you HAD tried. But you seem to define "judgmental" differently when YOU are doing it, and when someone else is doing it. I refuse to believe that you didn't understand that that was my point. If I can't validly judge Jerry (or myself) by a series of internet posts, then you can't judge me (or him) either. I actually disagree with that premise, but it's either true for you AND for me, or false for you AND for me, n'est ce pas?
Quote: mkl654321Actually, I wish you HAD tried. But you seem to define "judgmental" differently when YOU are doing it, and when someone else is doing it. I refuse to believe that you didn't understand that that was my point. If I can't validly judge Jerry (or myself) by a series of internet posts, then you can't judge me (or him) either. I actually disagree with that premise, but it's either true for you AND for me, or false for you AND for me, n'est ce pas?
You have no idea how I feel about JerryLogan, or you; I have scrupulously avoided showing any personal feelings about either of you.
One more time: If you just stop, it will go away. If you don't, no one hangs you but yourself. Same for him, but you misinterpreted what I wrote when I wrote that.
Quote: mkl654321So Mosca thought it was OK for HIM to make a negative comment on my character
That didn't happen. He said you were being disingenuous in suggesting that what you wrote isn't reflective *of* your character, but that's neither a commentary on what you wrote nor on your character. If not by words, how is one to judge another's character on a written forum?
Quote:I'm sorry, but I refuse to submit to a double standard.
And that's why you're still having these arguments. This is the Internet. I suggest learning to not care about a totally anonymous stranger's opinion of you.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerNo one's shrinking you; i.e., they're not guessing why you are the way you are. They're telling you how they react to you.
My reaction is: you seem to set up lots of strawmen (saying you're being shrunk when you're not, saying that if people react to you then they have no lives) and you seem to be self-centered to the detriment of the forum you like to be self-centered in (you'll react how you damn well please, damn what effect it has on other posters or the efficacy of Wizard's purposes).
I'm not guessing why you do this. I'm saying, this is who you are. If you're fine with that, fine, but I can't imagine having an entire forum full of what seem like pretty normal and good people disliking you and giving little weight to what you say (not the same as frequency of communicating their reaction to you) is fun for you.
But hey, to each his own.
Permit me to laugh.
Your reaction is I irritate you and you just can't get enough. Filling your post with enough psycho-babble that only Obama could quote if he had his teleprompters fired up, somehow sends a thrill up your leg.
Let it go.
Quote: MathExtremistThat didn't happen. He said you were being disingenuous in suggesting that what you wrote isn't reflective *of* your character, but that's neither a commentary on what you wrote nor on your character. If not by words, how is one to judge another's character on a written forum?
And that's why you're still having these arguments. This is the Internet. I suggest learning to not care about a totally anonymous stranger's opinion of you.
For the record, what I said was:
"However, I do accept at least an equal share of the blame, because I have been acting out of character, and Jerry, I daresay, has not."
Mosca, by accusing me of being disingenuous for saying that, was making a veiled commentary on my character. The fact that he won't admit it is irrelevant; the fact that you don't acknowledge it is irrelevant. To reiterate more simply: I was saying that the uncivil tone of my posts aimed at Jerry wasn't reflective of my personal nature. Since Mosca, by his own admission, doesn't know me one way or the other, he had no basis to call me "disingenuous" for saying that; he had nothing to go on one way or the other, given his premise that you don't know anything about a person simply by reading his internet posts.
In any case, what I was really objecting to was his chiding of me for applying the same evaluation to Jerry, because I don't know anything about Jerry other than what I can infer from his posts. But if MY evaluation wasn't valid, then MOSCA'S wasn't, either; conversely, if MOSCA'S evaluation was valid, then so was mine. THAT is the double standard I referred to: don't say that you can't judge someone by their internet postings and in the same breath, judge me to have been "disingenuous" in my claims about my character. To be even more explicit: he could only say I'm "disingenuous" if he somehow KNEW that my posts were NOT, as I said, "out of character", and to know THAT, he would have to be privy to that very information which he says is impossible to obtain merely by reading someone's posts, i.e., their true nature/character.
Capiche?
Quote: MoscaYou have no idea how I feel about JerryLogan, or you; I have scrupulously avoided showing any personal feelings about either of you.
One more time: If you just stop, it will go away. If you don't, no one hangs you but yourself. Same for him, but you misinterpreted what I wrote when I wrote that.
You made a negative comment on my character. You refuse to admit it. Fine n' dandy.
Rather disingenuous of you. However, that's your right. You don't like me. That's your right, too. C'est la bloody vie. Hopefully, that won't affect future discussions.
Step back and take another look at this thread.
It looks to me like you're being sucked back into the vortex.
Quote: mkl654321Mosca, by accusing me of being disingenuous for saying that, was making a veiled commentary on my character. The fact that he won't admit it is irrelevant; the fact that you don't acknowledge it is irrelevant.
But the fact that you responded is highly relevant:
Quote: mkl654321In any case, I will not respond to personal attacks, nor will I originate them.
If you hold everyone on the Internet to some impossibly-high standard of internal logical consistency, you shouldn't be surprised when they hold you to the same standard (or an even higher one). This isn't a federal grand jury inquisition with lives or personal freedoms on the line. This is just an Internet forum. I again suggest examining why you care so much about what anonymous people say about you (or even what you think they say about you) on the Internet.
Edit: over a decade ago, on rec.gambling.blackjack, there was a lengthy flame war between several members, including a frequent troll named Doug Grant. Besides Doug, one of the prime instigators turned out to be an automated software program written specifically to bait people into angry responses. It worked great on Doug because he expected to be criticized, and the software did exactly that.
The moral of the story? On the Internet, nobody knows you're a perl script.
As you may recall, Doug shut down rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated with a law suit claiming libel. It wasn't that his case had merit (obviously, it had none), it was that the moderators didn't want to be bothered with the time and expense. My take on this is that MKL is the type of person who could do the same here. He really does come off as *that* paranoid.Quote: MathExtremistEdit: over a decade ago, on rec.gambling.blackjack, there was a lengthy flame war between several members, including a frequent troll named Doug Grant. Besides Doug, one of the prime instigators turned out to be an automated software program written specifically to bait people into angry responses. It worked great on Doug because he expected to be criticized, and the software did exactly that.
But more to the point, why do you care about pointing out to MKL the things you are pointing out to him? What's your motivation here? Obviously he's the kind of guy who will never get it. And on top of that, he shouts "insult" and appeals to Mr. W. about any intelligent and politely worded observations of his character.
Mr. S.F., you live close enough to MKL to have a coffee with him, you should do that.
--Ms. D.
Quote: DJTeddyBearMKL -
Step back and take another look at this thread.
It looks to me like you're being sucked back into the vortex.
I feel like Frankenstein's monster being pursued by villagers holding torches :)
Quote: DorothyGaleBut more to the point, why do you care about pointing out to MKL the things you are pointing out to him? What's your motivation here? Obviously he's the kind of guy who will never get it. And on top of that, he shouts "insult" and appeals to Mr. W. about any intelligent and politely worded observations of his character.
Wrong, Dorothy. I've never appealed to the Wiz about ANY post that was at least decently worded. And how would you know, one way or the other?
And many of the posts aimed at me (not just by JL or EB) have been neither intelligent nor politely worded.
It's a seventh-grade debate class tactic to belittle someone's concerns by calling them "paranoid".
Not to worry, mkl. It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you. Keep a close watch behind you -- someone might be weilding a sharp house edge.Quote: mkl654321It's a seventh-grade debate class tactic to belittle someone's concerns by calling them "paranoid".
By the way, I think I forgot to say, "Welcome back."
Quote: DocNot to worry, mkl. It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you. Keep a close watch behind you -- someone might be weilding a sharp house edge.
By the way, I think I forgot to say, "Welcome back."
Thanks, Doc. I've outrun the villagers with torches and am cowering in a nearby barn. Fortunately, it has internet access.
And I think they really ARE out to get me---they are making me paranoid by calling me paranoid. Aieeeeeeee!
Quote: mkl654321I feel like Frankenstein's monster being pursued by villagers holding torches :)
Finally, somebody refers to the monster properly! I've been waiting years, no decades, for the day. Almost every refers to it as just Frankenstein. No, Frankenstein was the scientist who created the unnamed monster.
You may be getting chased by the mob with pitchforks and torches, but you deserve a compliment for your knowledge of science fiction literature.
It is a great book by the way. Not just in a Pride and Prejudice kind of way, in that it has to be respected as a classic, but few people voluntarily read, but truly a good page turner as well.
Quote: WizardFinally, somebody refers to the monster properly! I've been waiting years, no decades, for the day. Almost every refers to it as just Frankenstein. No, Frankenstein was the scientist who created the unnamed monster.
You may be getting chased by the mob with pitchforks and torches, but you deserve a compliment for your knowledge of science fiction literature.
It is a great book by the way. Not just in a Pride and Prejudice kind of way, in that it has to be respected as a classic, but few people voluntarily read, but truly a good page turner as well.
Wow, really?? You would think that anyone who had seen "Young Frankenstein" would have figured that out...
I agree that it's an excellent book. All the more amazing because it was written by a 19-year-old woman in the early 19th century--women didn't have a lot of opportunities for expression back then.
Quote: DorothyGaleAs you may recall, Doug shut down rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated with a law suit claiming libel. It wasn't that his case had merit (obviously, it had none), it was that the moderators didn't want to be bothered with the time and expense. My take on this is that MKL is the type of person who could do the same here. He really does come off as *that* paranoid.
But more to the point, why do you care about pointing out to MKL the things you are pointing out to him? What's your motivation here? Obviously he's the kind of guy who will never get it. And on top of that, he shouts "insult" and appeals to Mr. W. about any intelligent and politely worded observations of his character.
Mr. S.F., you live close enough to MKL to have a coffee with him, you should do that.
--Ms. D.
As I sit back, relax, and watch the this show of hypocrites who just love to whine about mkl & myself yet they JUST CAN'T LET IT GO, methinks their spines were a heck of a lot harder when no one could respond to their babbling. All that self-righteous chest-pounding down the drain with one simple thread.
Instead of carrying on with this nonsense, let's hear praise for me being a super sportsbettor and cheer me on in my two bets tomorrow!
Az. +3.5 over St. L.
Az/St. L. OVER 43
$1000 on each bet.
If you have more or less than that available for betting I urge you to make yourself happy with money by game's end!
J.L.: I missed the "self-righteous chest pounding", but I still wish you well on your sports wagers. And congratulations on your recent wins. I don't bet on sports myself, so I won't be joining in your fun.Quote: JerryLoganPosted on my other thread as follows:
Az. +3.5 over St. L.
Az/St. L. OVER 43
$1000 on each bet.
If you have more or less than that available for betting I urge you to make yourself happy with money by game's end!
Quote: JerryLoganInstead of carrying on with this nonsense,
Indeed.
Quote:let's hear praise for me being a super sportsbettor
Weak sauce comment. That's a claim in the same league as others you have derided for making stupid claims.
I sense irony in the force, though.
Quote:and cheer me on in my two bets tomorrow!
And, meh. I'll be cheering on the Lions, like I do every Sunday. It's a series of disappointments, it's true, but that's the way it goes. And I'd be cheering on MY bets if I had any riding this weekend. The only one I see I like is the -3.5 on the Bears... against the Lions.
