shuffle machines

And I will tell you something else. I think the team or group of AP's that were playing this second casino when I went public, involved some people that we know and post on this forum. I always thought a good possibility Maxpen and/or Axelwolf was involved and among the group really mad at me when I went public. I received a really nasty even threatening email. :(

I think I even asked Maxpen and he said it wasn't him. That is what I would have expected him to say publicly. And now our relationship is so bad, who knows what he would say publicly or privately. And no one is required to disclose that. It just was a really bad situation. I had no idea and very unintentionally sabotaged an active play. I hope and think that is now understood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Dude, you have no proof of the things you are saying. It is your opinion. Prove to me that I didn't purchase a machine and sell it to another AP. Right now! Prove it. Not just speculate or state your opinion. PROVE IT! YOU CAN'T!

---

Prove that you did buy one.
Right now! PROVE IT!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray Finkle

Prove that you did buy one.
Right now! PROVE IT!

---

Even easier...prove that you received a threatening email about it.

That's not something anyone would delete, so post it here...Right now! PROVE IT!

Coach Belly, prove that you are not a sex offender. Ray Finkle prove...I don't know what?

These are anonymous gambling forums. Nobody is on trial, and need prove anything. Read that again. As much as you people would like...I am not on trial.

It so happens I could prove I purchased the ASM, but it would involve someone else that doesn't want to be involved. And he happens to be a good friend, and I won't do that, nor even ask him. It is actually illegal, or at least was to even have possession of that machine. The company has strict safeguards in place so that it is very difficult to get into the public's hands, and for obvious reason.

You people are just nuts, demanding proof of anything from anyone, not just this specific situation, as if someone is on trial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

These are anonymous gambling forums. Nobody is on trial, and need prove anything. Read that again. As much as you people would like...I am not on trial.

It so happens I could prove I purchased the ASM, but it would involve someone else that doesn't want to be involved. And he happens to be a good friend, and I won't do that, nor even ask him. It is actually illegal, or at least was to even have possession of that machine. The company has strict safeguards in place so that it is very difficult to get into the public's hands, and for obvious reason.

You people are just nuts, demanding proof of anything from anyone, not just this specific situation, as if someone is on trial.

---

I am very surprised to know it is illegal to have a shuffler. It is not really a gambling device. It literally just shuffles cards. Perhaps you are right.. perhaps you are just flailing around trying to excuse your unbelievable stories.

But my point here is that yes this is an anonymous forum. What does this mean? It means that anyone can make up some bullshit story. It also means that people should be highly skeptical and ask questions.

You never want to prove anything because you can't. What the fuck other approach could you possibly have when cornered? It is either throw your hands up and say asking for proof is some big no-no or you provide proof. You can't do the latter so you stick with the former. (I mean the other option would be just to stop talking about it but you're not going to do that either)

He is a "good friend" yet you have stated elsewhere that networking is a bad idea. You've spent a decade with this stuff on these forums. Always making excuses how you can't meet anyone or mention anyone who has met you. Yet somehow you always have these secret people when it is needed by you for credibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray Finkle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Dude, you have no proof of the things you are saying. It is your opinion. Prove to me that I didn't purchase a machine and sell it to another AP. Right now! Prove it. Not just speculate or state your opinion. PROVE IT! YOU CAN'T!

---

Prove that you did buy one.
Right now! PROVE IT!

---

Yea, never a picture or anyone backing him up. One would think he'd have taken pictures of video of the machine in action. The whole thing is just so nonsensical.

Not only does Kewl not provide proof he doesn't even provide any EVIDENCE outside of his claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Nobody is on trial, and need prove anything.

---

When someone makes an accusation about another, the burden of proof is on the accuser.

The burden is not on the accused to prove a negative. Don't you understand that?

When someone makes a claim about themself, the burden of proof is on them.

You made a claim that you received a threatening email, so the burden is upon you to produce the email.

If you're not willing to do that, then the claim becomes just another one of many tewlj fabrications.

Here is the thing about proof on these forums: It doesn't prove anything and will never satisfy those who have made up their mind on something.

Lets look at the people that have "proved" things here.

Rob Singer has "Proved" he owned an RV by showing a bill of sale printed from the internet with no letterhead from the company selling a 1.6 million dollar Rv and all signatures in the same handwriting. He later "proved" he owned an RV by taking pictures of an RV at the dealership showroom. :confused:

Mdawg "proves" he is a winning player by posting cash, chips, and casino checks. These things prove nothing about wins and losses. They prove he has money and plays higher stakes, which to my knowledge no one doubted.

Singer has "proved" (or I guess proven) a 1.5 million dollar jackpot by posting pictures of a computer screen, with curser, with somebody's reflection on the screen that is not him, in the storage area of a house, next to some exercise equipment.

So what is your proof actually worth?

It wasn't on this forum, but shortly after I bought my first condo in 2009, I posted a picture from my balcony looking towards the strip a block away. I wasn't really trying to prove anything, I was just an excited kid taking a picture he was proud of. Within a day, someone made a post stating where the picture was taken from, the building, floor, right down to 1 of 2 units. They said they did this by reversing the angle. I have no idea of this kind of thing. So just that innocent posting of a picture amounted to me posting my address. A year later I was robbed at gunpoint right outside that building. Was that related? Who knows. maybe maybe not.

Another time on this very forum, I posted a picture of something....I forget what it even was. I received a PM from Owner Dan Druff that that picture contained some identifying information. Ask Druff to verify.

So there is NO good that can come from posting pictures of anything. And there is no reason to. It means nothing and anyone with half a brain shouldn't need that kind of thing to know who knows what they are talking about.

And it gets even worse. I think you all KNOW that I know what I am talking about, you KNOW I play mid-level blackjack for a living and have for well lets say 13 years since I moved to Vegas. (The prior years were lower level in Atlantic City). So even though you KNOW these things some weird hate and demonization prevents you from accepting it and all I get is attacks and things like male prostitute, works in a burger joint, doesn't own his condo, Sugar daddy bullshit and most recently that I am a Pacific Islander.

Is this humorous? I guess somewhat, but it really isn't. It is hate so strong that you are willing to keep this up really trying to drive someone away? is this normal, decent behavior from what are supposed to be adult human beings?

Because a former President of the United States behaves like this, does NOT make it normal or acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Here is the thing about proof on these forums: It doesn't prove anything and will never satisfy those who have made up their mind on something.

Lets look at the people that have "proved" things here.

Rob Singer has "Proved" he owned an RV by showing a bill of sale printed from the internet with no letterhead from the company selling a 1.6 million dollar Rv and all signatures in the same handwriting. He later "proved" he owned an RV by taking pictures of an RV at the dealership showroom. :confused:

Mdawg "proves" he is a winning player by posting cash, chips, and casino checks. These things prove nothing about wins and losses. They prove he has money and plays higher stakes, which to my knowledge no one doubted.

Singer has "proved" (or I guess proven) a 1.5 million dollar jackpot by posting pictures of a computer screen, with curser, with somebody's reflection on the screen that is not him, in the storage area of a house, next to some exercise equipment.

So what is your proof actually worth?

It wasn't on this forum, but shortly after I bought my first condo in 2009, I posted a picture from my balcony looking towards the strip a block away. I wasn't really trying to prove anything, I was just an excited kid taking a picture he was proud of. Within a day, someone made a post stating where the picture was taken from, the building, floor, right down to 1 of 2 units. They said they did this by reversing the angle. I have no idea of this kind of thing. So just that innocent posting of a picture amounted to me posting my address. A year later I was robbed at gunpoint right outside that building. Was that related? Who knows. maybe maybe not.

Another time on this very forum, I posted a picture of something....I forget what it even was. I received a PM from Owner Dan Druff that that picture contained some identifying information. Ask Druff to verify.

So there is NO good that can come from posting pictures of anything. And there is no reason to. It means nothing and anyone with half a brain shouldn't need that kind of thing to know who knows what they are talking about.

And it gets even worse. I think you all KNOW that I know what I am talking about, you KNOW I play mid-level blackjack for a living and have for well lets say 13 years since I moved to Vegas. (The prior years were lower level in Atlantic City). So even though you KNOW these things some weird hate and demonization prevents you from accepting it and all I get is attacks and things like male prostitute, works in a burger joint, doesn't own his condo, Sugar daddy bullshit and most recently that I am a Pacific Islander.

Is this humorous? I guess somewhat, but it really isn't. It is hate so strong that you are willing to keep this up really trying to drive someone away? is this normal, decent behavior from what are supposed to be adult human beings?

Because a former President of the United States behaves like this, does NOT make it normal or acceptable.

---

With "half a brain" you can determine what to post versus not post. Videoing the shuffler doing as you claimed on a table would not reveal anything.

It is quite ironic that you put up Singer and MDawg's "proof" as a reason why you shouldn't do it. Why THAT comparison? You yourself say they're not believable? Are you putting yourself in their category?

"There is no good reason". The "good" reason is for you to have credibility that you so desperately crave.

You may very well support yourself off blackjack. I wouldn't be terribly surprised but you've said so much other nonsense. If I was you I'd just give up trying to defend all that. Your best approach would be to fess up on all your lies and proceed forward with the mid-level blackjack counter story.

I'm not trying to drive you away. I'm just doing what you do to Mdawg and Singer. You lied. You told me lies in private which I believed and repeated. You won't fess up to the lie you just continue to double-down. How is what I am doing any different than what you have been doing?

You'd be lined up to be on the bullying side if people cared to go after Singer and Mdawg. The Singer stuff was more or less settled and you don't see him continuing to bring it up. Wise up and follow Singer's lead and that aint no joke.

I guess everyone has their delusions on some level.

If you'd provide evidence at least people could have a good chuckle like they did with Singer and all his pictures. Singer has put more smiles on my face than any forum poster that I can remember. I'm starting to think it wasn't intentional but at the end of the day who cares. You though? You're no Singer. ;)

Ok, I'll bite. What 'lie' did I tell you in private that you repeated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Ok, I'll bite. What 'lie' did I tell you in private that you repeated?

---

This whole story about the shuffler and what happened.

Maybe that part is independently true from the rest of the related story but this whole hiring a dude to hack it is a complete fabrication. So given that is a fabrication I have no reason to think the rest of it isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

---

This is an interesting website. They claim to approach everything in a truthful manner but it is completely anonymous. No names attached. Nothing like that. Just a 'poor us we pay for this out of our own pocket' but it looks well financed and trustworthy. What is going on? Is there really a cover-up on ivermectin !?! I love conspiracy theories.

https://www.ndm.ox.ac.uk/news/moru-s...-against-covid

So the study seems to say that the outcome is not a positive for ivermectin yet the website seems to categorize the outcome differently.

THe other negative ivermectin study I found had some list of like 20 vague errors to justify the exclusion. I didn't note the study. Just worked backwards to see how your website would be biased.

I didn't go too deep but man you got me going down a rabbithole again. The first and only 2 aren't very promising for the website being sincere.

I still don't know why they don't present the data in a way that a reasonably interested person could examine their biases. I'd like to see a tally of what studies they decide to exclude vs include and whether they showed any statistically valid result. The whole thing is very hokey but incredibly believable. I picked 2 anti-ivermectin studies that seemed to be popular to see what the site says about them and they were either discounted or your site had different conclusions than the authors.

Kinda sad really. So many resources put behind something with some weird agenda that no one quite knows. What group of people are going to make such a website in their spare time? Doesn't make sense... oh well if you know who is behind it please message me. Not very convincing.

People actually like uncovering the truth. There is no reason the authors should be hiding IMO. They're going to be killed? Nah doesn't really happen currently in the US. Ostracized and/or cancelled? Possibly but if you can stand behind your work even better opportunities will occur. Just not why no one wants to put in this effort over a moot point without any pay? You think there would be at least one public face even if the rest of the group is anonymous. I'd love to know what is really going on with that site.

Anyway... I have to self-ban myself for 1 week. Apparently I've chased off Kewl again and Redietz is back in the bushes looking at the big dogs on the porch.

Get a life AIQ. Stop avoiding work. Do more work. Stay off forum. Thatta boy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

---

This is an interesting website. They claim to approach everything in a truthful manner but it is completely anonymous. No names attached. Nothing like that. Just a 'poor us we pay for this out of our own pocket' but it looks well financed and trustworthy. What is going on? Is there really a cover-up on ivermectin !?! I love conspiracy theories.

https://www.ndm.ox.ac.uk/news/moru-s...-against-covid

So the study seems to say that the outcome is not a positive for ivermectin yet the website seems to categorize the outcome differently.

THe other negative ivermectin study I found had some list of like 20 vague errors to justify the exclusion. I didn't note the study. Just worked backwards to see how your website would be biased.

I didn't go too deep but man you got me going down a rabbithole again. The first and only 2 aren't very promising for the website being sincere.

I still don't know why they don't present the data in a way that a reasonably interested person could examine their biases. I'd like to see a tally of what studies they decide to exclude vs include and whether they showed any statistically valid result. The whole thing is very hokey but incredibly believable. I picked 2 anti-ivermectin studies that seemed to be popular to see what the site says about them and they were either discounted or your site had different conclusions than the authors.

Kinda sad really. So many resources put behind something with some weird agenda that no one quite knows. What group of people are going to make such a website in their spare time? Doesn't make sense... oh well if you know who is behind it please message me. Not very convincing.

People actually like uncovering the truth. There is no reason the authors should be hiding IMO. They're going to be killed? Nah doesn't really happen currently in the US. Ostracized and/or cancelled? Possibly but if you can stand behind your work even better opportunities will occur. Just not why no one wants to put in this effort over a moot point without any pay? You think there would be at least one public face even if the rest of the group is anonymous. I'd love to know what is really going on with that site.

Anyway... I have to self-ban myself for 1 week. Apparently I've chased off Kewl again and Redietz is back in the bushes looking at the big dogs on the porch.

Get a life AIQ. Stop avoiding work. Do more work. Stay off forum. Thatta boy.

---

What can't be covered up is the fact that ivermectin is used all the time in human beings safely. Whereas the main stream media tried to conflate its use in humans with its use in horses and promoted it as an unsafe horse drug. When in fact it is on the World Health Organization's Essential Medicine List (for human beings not horses - maybe it is essential for horses too, but I didn't investigate that). So people can decide for themselves if they think it is effective against Covid-19, but to believe the media that it is unsafe for human use is totally wrong.

I'm wondering.....will giving kew a few doses of Ivermectin FINALLY shock the envy out of him, and get him to stop lying about everything he does--and continually repeats about himself and others?

Or will we just get more horseshit? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

---

This is an interesting website. They claim to approach everything in a truthful manner but it is completely anonymous. No names attached. Nothing like that. Just a 'poor us we pay for this out of our own pocket' but it looks well financed and trustworthy. What is going on? Is there really a cover-up on ivermectin !?! I love conspiracy theories.

https://www.ndm.ox.ac.uk/news/moru-s...-against-covid

So the study seems to say that the outcome is not a positive for ivermectin yet the website seems to categorize the outcome differently.

THe other negative ivermectin study I found had some list of like 20 vague errors to justify the exclusion. I didn't note the study. Just worked backwards to see how your website would be biased.

I didn't go too deep but man you got me going down a rabbithole again. The first and only 2 aren't very promising for the website being sincere.

I still don't know why they don't present the data in a way that a reasonably interested person could examine their biases. I'd like to see a tally of what studies they decide to exclude vs include and whether they showed any statistically valid result. The whole thing is very hokey but incredibly believable. I picked 2 anti-ivermectin studies that seemed to be popular to see what the site says about them and they were either discounted or your site had different conclusions than the authors.

Kinda sad really. So many resources put behind something with some weird agenda that no one quite knows. What group of people are going to make such a website in their spare time? Doesn't make sense... oh well if you know who is behind it please message me. Not very convincing.

People actually like uncovering the truth. There is no reason the authors should be hiding IMO. They're going to be killed? Nah doesn't really happen currently in the US. Ostracized and/or cancelled? Possibly but if you can stand behind your work even better opportunities will occur. Just not why no one wants to put in this effort over a moot point without any pay? You think there would be at least one public face even if the rest of the group is anonymous. I'd love to know what is really going on with that site.

Anyway... I have to self-ban myself for 1 week. Apparently I've chased off Kewl again and Redietz is back in the bushes looking at the big dogs on the porch.

Get a life AIQ. Stop avoiding work. Do more work. Stay off forum. Thatta boy.

---

What can't be covered up is the fact that ivermectin is used all the time in human beings safely. Whereas the main stream media tried to conflate its use in humans with its use in horses and promoted it as an unsafe horse drug. When in fact it is on the World Health Organization's Essential Medicine List (for human beings not horses - maybe it is essential for horses too, but I didn't investigate that). So people can decide for themselves if they think it is effective against Covid-19, but to believe the media that it is unsafe for human use is totally wrong.

---

First of all, for the last 18 months or so, I have taken Ivermectin when traveling in crowded places. There did not seem to be a downside.

Most of the studies that previously said Ivermectin did not work vis-a-vis Covid used dosing and timing rules that, frankly, no Ivermectin advocate would have recommended. The studies seemed to use dosing and timing that were purposefully not what was recommended. I recommend searching Bret Weinstein's podcasts for that history.

It's impossible to exaggerate how bad corporate media has been regarding Ivermectin. CNN did a terrible hit piece about three years ago that I have filed away as the worst propaganda I have ever seen on US national news. The reasons were pretty simple. Ivermectin isn't expensive. More than 60% of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox ad revenue comes from pharmaceutical firms. The majority of FDA funding comes from fees paid by pharmaceutical firms. Thirty years ago, it was more like 10-15% of the funding came from pharma fees.

You have to go outside US media for any objective perspectives, and really for any historical reporting that doesn't fit a US pharma narrative.

More important than any of this, when Stanford designed their current Covid treatment protocols, Ivermectin was part of their recommended package. This was more than a year ago. Stanford tends to know what they are doing.

Joe Rogan and others blew up the US anti-Ivermectin narrative pretty thoroughly. It's a shame you have to go outside the major news organizations to get information that's not from co-opted institutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Anyway... I have to self-ban myself for 1 week. Apparently I've chased off Kewl again and Redietz is back in the bushes looking at the big dogs on the porch.

Get a life AIQ. Stop avoiding work. Do more work. Stay off forum. Thatta boy.

---

Great! You should make it two weeks. Then some of us, ie, me and my split personalities, can finally get to work putting up the condensed theory of everything ... in a couple of days.

Oh, I thought to check out that one. Ha.

Quote:

---

Great! You should make it two weeks. Then some of us, ie, me and my split personalities, can finally get to work putting up the condensed theory of everything ... in a couple of days.

---

---> The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements.

https://anagram-solver.net/GreatYous...0?partial=true


Glad I did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

First of all, for the last 18 months or so, I have taken Ivermectin when traveling in crowded places. There did not seem to be a downside.

Most of the studies that previously said Ivermectin did not work vis-a-vis Covid used dosing and timing rules that, frankly, no Ivermectin advocate would have recommended. The studies seemed to use dosing and timing that were purposefully not what was recommended. I recommend searching Bret Weinstein's podcasts for that history.

It's impossible to exaggerate how bad corporate media has been regarding Ivermectin. CNN did a terrible hit piece about three years ago that I have filed away as the worst propaganda I have ever seen on US national news. The reasons were pretty simple. Ivermectin isn't expensive. More than 60% of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox ad revenue comes from pharmaceutical firms. The majority of FDA funding comes from fees paid by pharmaceutical firms. Thirty years ago, it was more like 10-15% of the funding came from pharma fees.

You have to go outside US media for any objective perspectives, and really for any historical reporting that doesn't fit a US pharma narrative.

More important than any of this, when Stanford designed their current Covid treatment protocols, Ivermectin was part of their recommended package. This was more than a year ago. Stanford tends to know what they are doing.

Joe Rogan and others blew up the US anti-Ivermectin narrative pretty thoroughly. It's a shame you have to go outside the major news organizations to get information that's not from co-opted institutions.

---

I'm really not looking to argue but I really like to know when I have been taken. I believed the Biden laptop couldn't be real but I was wrong. That guy is really that inept. It also seems fairly likely that COVID originated in a lab. So now I am curious about Ivermectin.

None of these really have much relevance to my life though but this ivermectin thing actually could. So I have been going down this rabbithole to see about the cover-up. Google is biased in what comes up in searches simply because it just repeats what appears popular on the web so I don't get that far.

Could you show me where Stanford promotes the use of Ivermectin? I'm trying to find some sound evidence that there really has been a cover-up. I end up with stuff like this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8684188/ which just seems to solidify that Ivermectin isn't a thing.

Really not trying to get in an argument here or any trolling crap - Also I am not supposed to be posting for a week so I am not looking to get in any back and forth. I would just like to know the context of stanford's recommendation.

If there's one thing that the Covid debacle showed us... it's that pharma OWNS our media now. This is a big problem.

Perhaps, if not for Covid, Trump would have focused on rewriting the constitution, and, then, might have been re-elected.