Printable View
I haven't been following this forum for awhile so don't really know what's going on lately.
However, a couple of days ago an email showed up in my inbox titled "BOZ, UNKEwlj, MrV, REDietz" and goes on to say "all four of them low life doxxing jealous pieces of shit.". I won't mention who sent it, but it looks like I've been missing out on some nasty name calling stories. I'm just wondering if a lot of members here got the email and whats going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwest Player
Cliff Notes:
MDawg, who has basically taken over the WoV forum as flagship poster, alleges to have won for years at baccarat, winning by reading "the flow of cards" and such, and gives day-by-day summaries of 50-day LV trips on multiple forums. He claims to have won 40 out of 41 or 50 out of 52 sessions, more or less, recently, while winning going back years.
Well, some folks felt it necessary to roll their eyes at his claims. He started off slow, but of course when you then report that you won 40 out of 41 sessions (ballpark), some folks tend to no longer be amused.
Anyway, he got called out and nicknamed "MFraud" and such, but he and Boz got into it a bit more intensely. So Boz, as a stockholder, wrote letters to various casino management to report that some dude (whose name Boz probably got correct) was claiming that he was winning hundreds of thousands playing baccarat while also getting tens of thousands in comps for years. Boz did not dox MDawg on this forum, but did name him in the letters. No readers are privy to MDawg's name from Boz's posts.
For me personally, I'm on the hatred list because my policy in life is everybody should post under their actual name because otherwise it's all junk. Unless you're in China or other authoritarian regimes, for example, you put your real name on academic papers. Hell, in Johnson City, I have to put my name on letters to the editor. Anyway, I'm always in favor of doxing. It keeps people real and eliminates a lot of childish mouth flapping. So my being fine with doxing got me on the list.
In my reply to MDawg's PM to me, which referred to me as "a low-life, jealous asshole, "I explained that I was fine with "low life" and "asshole," but I am not jealous of MDawg no matter what he claims or what his allowance might be. I'm not wired that way.
That's the scenario from my perspective. The Dawg came on gambling forums with no gambling credibility, proceeded to make bizarro claims while posting hundreds of times at WoV and employing cheerleaders/socks, stepped on Boz's toes, and figured life would proceed smoothly. He is shocked, shocked, to see consequences.
So get some popcorn. MDawg seems to be off his meds.
I am sure most or at least many members got that email and yes we all know who sent it. I am not sure but I think that kind of thing may be against the rules, but who even cares. All it is a this guy proving that they people that have doubts and challenge his claims are right. No one telling the truth does a smear campaing like this. No need to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwest Player
I have people that publicly say they don't believe me or my claims all the time. You know what my response is? "You are free to beleive whatever you like". If there is some misunderstanding that is contributing to their wrong beleif, I might try to clear it up, for example if someone says, I don't see how you can play only or mostly Las vegas and get away with it for 12 years, I will try explain some of the things I do that have allowed me to achienve some longevity, but other than clarifying something like that, I am not trying to change anyone's mind. They can think whatever. I don't go to "war" with everyone that doesn't belive me and list 27 people I am at war with because they don't beleive me, like this Mdog did. So that is what this is about.
I will say that me being jealous is about the silliest thing I have ever read. I am pro AP and anti-casino. I don't like the casino industry, I think they are slimey and take the low road every single chance they get. And to that I want all AP's to succeed and do well. I want all non-AP's to do well and win money. Unfortunately there aren't many blackjack players on this forum. I encounter a few at BJinfo, where you at least read. I wish them all success and many are more successful than me in terms of making money. I am a grinder and usually at the lower end of making a living. I am absolutely fine with that because I don't measure myself against anyone else, only against myself and my goals.
Here I engage with many AP's that are not blackjack players, or if they are they don't do what I do (jbjb, who is more successful). Ap's that do other things like Mickeycrimm, Axelwolf, Maxpen, BoSox (who is mostly BJ I believe), even Monet to name a few, I am pulling for and wish nothing but success. AP's that I don't know exactly what they do like darkoz, the same. I'll bet each of these guys that I just named, make money money than me and have made more money than me. Not jealous of any of them. I am not competeing with them. I compete with myself. So that is pretty silly.
Now do I get along with all these folks on every topic, of course not. Some of them call me names (sometimes about things total unrelated to AP or casino play). I still respect all AP's, anyone who can make money vs the casinos and honestly wish all well.
Now, yes, I do have a problem with a very few individuals who make claims that can't be, that defy math. Many of these claims I ignore. But the ones that keep going on and on and on with claims that can't be and defy math, I will challenge, like a T3, Rob Singer, and now Mdog. I think professional players and gambling math experts have a right to do that. It isn't personal with me, it is defending the math. It often becomes personal because these guys response is always to attack. That seems to be the playbook. If you have no legitimate answer for the challenge to the math, you attack on a personal level and name call. To me, that just confirms, their claims are BS. They can't answer so they attack and that includes sending mass PM's around.
>implying the united states of america isn't under an authoritarian regime worse than chinaQuote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I believe it is 106 winning days or sessions, out of 108 days or sessions over two trips now.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I am sorry to tell you this, but this just shows a total lack of understanding of what some of us do. I know you are a little different in what you do, but I woiuld think you would understand that if posting under real name were a requirement, there would be no AP's posting here. No mickeycrimm, no MaxPen, no Bosox, No monet, no kewlJ. If I were to post under my real name, it would pretty much be the end of my career. I wouldn't be able to get a game in Las Vegas. It is astonishing to me that you don't get that.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Your and other's perspective about everyone being anonymous is also wrong. While AP's don't post under their real name for obvious reasons, most know one another, if not by name, by face even where they live. I know for a fact a number of members of this forum know my name and where I live and could pick me out of a line up, even though I have never told my name where I live or introduced myself to anyone here. Point being, we are not as anonymous as you and others may think. Just trying to stay anonymous to the casinos who would shut us down.
When I say everyone should post under their own name for the greater good, I'm referring to the country and life in general.
AP's who need to stay anonymous should just create their own private forums. Doesn't cost much. A small donation from each would cover it. Then it's a private club. You wouldn't have to deal with people claiming to win at baccarat 40 out of 41 sessions or stop loss nonsense.
yes, everyone with controversial political views should definitely post under their real name, it's not like we live in a world where someone can call your boss and get you fired and even have your bank accounts canceled so you have literally no way to live in society.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
fun fact thomas paine published common sense anonymously, it didn't come out that he was the author until AFTER the revolution.
So we should have 100's of forums with only a few members each? That sounds silly. if that's the case, there is no need for a private forum just get a group chat. But then your ability to meet new and interesting people from around the world is stifled. if a private forum gets too big somome always infiltrates it, and that's even worst since people might think they are in a safe place and say too much when in fact they are not in a safe place.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
,
Had you not gotten into sports touting thing (or whatever you want to call it) a business where your name attached to provable stats is key and u want that to follow you, you want the credit attached to you, but instead, some other form of AP, you might feel differently.
I think there's a big difference between someone using a handle and someone 'hiding' behind a handle in complete anonymity.
it even goes beyond just having a nickname for the forums, it helps you and others who may address you in a casino not to use your real name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfSo we should have 100's of forums with only a few members each? That sounds silly. if that's the case, there is no need for a private forum just get a group chat. But then your ability to meet new and interesting people from around the world is stifled. if a private forum gets too big somome always infiltrates it, and that's even worst since people might think they are in a safe place and say too much when in fact they are not in a safe place.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
,
Had you not gotten into sports touting thing (or whatever you want to call it) a business where your name attached to provable stats is key and u want that to follow you, you want the credit attached to you, but instead, some other form of AP, you might feel differently.
I think there's a big difference between someone using a handle and someone 'hiding' behind a handle in complete anonymity.
it even goes beyond just having a nickname for the forums, it helps you and others who may address you in a casino not to use your real name.
I get a kick out of you guys. You live in a country with First Amendment rights, and you refuse to exercise them. I was originally trained as a journalist. That means you put your name on your work. And yes, I think "unnamed sources" are hugely overused. If you don't put your name on what you have to say, you're just babbling.
Academic papers and medical papers have names attached and for good reason. If you're going to provide and argue data, your name has to be vetted and attached. The rare exceptions are papers occasionally coming out of a place like China. The United States is not China.
I find it absurd that many on the right choose anonymity online when they are simultaneously criticizing journalists and scientists, who shoulder the responsibility and have the courage to attach their names to everything. So you have conservatives arguing for the Constitution who are scared to exercise First Amendment rights while journalists and scientists are required to exercise First Amendment rights constantly.
I think this is going to go down in history as the freak show generation -- a full generation of allegedly anonymous experience with online porn (which, let's face it, has been the primary usage of the internet for a generation) and a bloated expectation of online anonymity. So if this generation's cover is blown to family and friends, folks find themselves in embarrassing situations.
A generation from now, and certainly two, the expectation of online anonymity will be extinct. So what is occurring now is going to be a freakish exception to online history.
That's funny, because you've complimented my articles before. Not only do I disagree, but much more importantly, so does Bob Dancer...and he's not the only example I could give.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I also wrote under my name and lost offers as a result and got no-paid at an online casino with the cited reason being a, "Professional," and therefore, violating the terms. Dancer had it right before Forums had even exploded, I think.
Gambling ain't medicine and I ain't got any formal qualifications. How would you qualify it? Bachelor's Degree in Economics...not sure that counts. There are formal standards for the other things. As I say so many times, math is either right or wrong. If I write something that isn't specifically math-heavy, then it's really just for entertainment anyway.Quote:
Academic papers and medical papers have names attached and for good reason. If you're going to provide and argue data, your name has to be vetted and attached. The rare exceptions are papers occasionally coming out of a place like China. The United States is not China.
Because it's not a level playing field. Just because you are not anonymous doesn't mean that the people who want to do something to you won't be. If someone wants to discuss man-to-man, or fight, they can PM me for a time and place. If they're going to go around confronting me directly, then they can do it largely anonymously and there's not much I can do about it.Quote:
I find it absurd that many on the right choose anonymity online when they are simultaneously criticizing journalists and scientists, who shoulder the responsibility and have the courage to attach their names to everything. So you have conservatives arguing for the Constitution who are scared to exercise First Amendment rights while journalists and scientists are required to exercise First Amendment rights constantly.
Some people are more determined than others. If someone is extremely determined, then your goose might be cooked (as you have pointed out, in different verbiage), but that doesn't mean that you can't create a barrier to deter assholes who are not truly determined.
I imagine that will be dealt with when the time comes. For the time being, even lots of REAL journalists write anonymously and always have.Quote:
I think this is going to go down in history as the freak show generation -- a full generation of allegedly anonymous experience with online porn (which, let's face it, has been the primary usage of the internet for a generation) and a bloated expectation of online anonymity. So if this generation's cover is blown to family and friends, folks find themselves in embarrassing situations.
A generation from now, and certainly two, the expectation of online anonymity will be extinct. So what is occurring now is going to be a freakish exception to online history.
First amendment "rights" only deal with the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfSo we should have 100's of forums with only a few members each? That sounds silly. if that's the case, there is no need for a private forum just get a group chat. But then your ability to meet new and interesting people from around the world is stifled. if a private forum gets too big somome always infiltrates it, and that's even worst since people might think they are in a safe place and say too much when in fact they are not in a safe place.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
,
Had you not gotten into sports touting thing (or whatever you want to call it) a business where your name attached to provable stats is key and u want that to follow you, you want the credit attached to you, but instead, some other form of AP, you might feel differently.
I think there's a big difference between someone using a handle and someone 'hiding' behind a handle in complete anonymity.
it even goes beyond just having a nickname for the forums, it helps you and others who may address you in a casino not to use your real name.
I get a kick out of you guys. You live in a country with First Amendment rights, and you refuse to exercise them. I was originally trained as a journalist. That means you put your name on your work. And yes, I think "unnamed sources" are hugely overused. If you don't put your name on what you have to say, you're just babbling.
Academic papers and medical papers have names attached and for good reason. If you're going to provide and argue data, your name has to be vetted and attached. The rare exceptions are papers occasionally coming out of a place like China. The United States is not China.
I find it absurd that many on the right choose anonymity online when they are simultaneously criticizing journalists and scientists, who shoulder the responsibility and have the courage to attach their names to everything. So you have conservatives arguing for the Constitution who are scared to exercise First Amendment rights while journalists and scientists are required to exercise First Amendment rights constantly.
I think this is going to go down in history as the freak show generation -- a full generation of allegedly anonymous experience with online porn (which, let's face it, has been the primary usage of the internet for a generation) and a bloated expectation of online anonymity. So if this generation's cover is blown to family and friends, folks find themselves in embarrassing situations.
A generation from now, and certainly two, the expectation of online anonymity will be extinct. So what is occurring now is going to be a freakish exception to online history.
Axel pegged it right. It is self-serving bs from you.
The fact is there are plenty of dangerous people. They might not show up on your frontdoor, but who knows what all they might do. You have a business? Bad reviews. Fake websites. Random shit. If people need to know who I am, then they can or will be told. It really isn't very complicated. In many cultures, nicknames are far more the norm than your "government name".
Anonymity is great. It works 2 ways. I can't fuck with you outside of my words on here and the same is true for you. If I feel the need to establish more of a relationship, then that can happen if both parties are willing.
As others have pointed out, your name redietz means about as much as my name accountinquestion.
(which btw was pretty funny because my name suggests I'm some big dupe and induces paranoia in lots)
I get a kick out of how you are talking about Academic and medical papers, journalists, First Amendment rights, and what have you on VCT of all places. It's ALL just babbling, including whatever you or I have to say regardless of people using real names or fake names. For the life of me, I can't figure out why all you highly educated accomplished people spend their time scraping the bottom of the barrel here and on various other forums for so long. Wouldn't a sports journalist forum much better suit you?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfSo we should have 100's of forums with only a few members each? That sounds silly. if that's the case, there is no need for a private forum just get a group chat. But then your ability to meet new and interesting people from around the world is stifled. if a private forum gets too big somome always infiltrates it, and that's even worst since people might think they are in a safe place and say too much when in fact they are not in a safe place.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
,
Had you not gotten into sports touting thing (or whatever you want to call it) a business where your name attached to provable stats is key and u want that to follow you, you want the credit attached to you, but instead, some other form of AP, you might feel differently.
I think there's a big difference between someone using a handle and someone 'hiding' behind a handle in complete anonymity.
it even goes beyond just having a nickname for the forums, it helps you and others who may address you in a casino not to use your real name.
I get a kick out of you guys. You live in a country with First Amendment rights, and you refuse to exercise them. I was originally trained as a journalist. That means you put your name on your work. And yes, I think "unnamed sources" are hugely overused. If you don't put your name on what you have to say, you're just babbling.
Academic papers and medical papers have names attached and for good reason. If you're going to provide and argue data, your name has to be vetted and attached. The rare exceptions are papers occasionally coming out of a place like China. The United States is not China.
I find it absurd that many on the right choose anonymity online when they are simultaneously criticizing journalists and scientists, who shoulder the responsibility and have the courage to attach their names to everything. So you have conservatives arguing for the Constitution who are scared to exercise First Amendment rights while journalists and scientists are required to exercise First Amendment rights constantly.
I think this is going to go down in history as the freak show generation -- a full generation of allegedly anonymous experience with online porn (which, let's face it, has been the primary usage of the internet for a generation) and a bloated expectation of online anonymity. So if this generation's cover is blown to family and friends, folks find themselves in embarrassing situations.
A generation from now, and certainly two, the expectation of online anonymity will be extinct. So what is occurring now is going to be a freakish exception to online history.
For the record, I don't care what happens generations down the road, I care what's happening in the present time, the near future, and in my lifetime.
What a fucking loser.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Isn't that a symptom of narcissistic personality disorder?
Talking about bottom of the barrel?...your barrel must shoot dust.
I'll defer to professor ditz and his anthropology background,
but I think that's Darwinism, where the worthless DNA is naturally eliminated.
Dunno if Axel has any kids; if not his attitude would not be surprising.
I have a son and grandson and that makes me care about their future.
Were I childless I might feel more existentially adrift ...
There's no point in askingQuote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
You'll get no reply
Oh just remember
he don't decide
He's got no reason
it's all too much
You'll always find him
Out to lunch
Don't ask him to attend
'Cos he's not all there
Oh don't pretend
'cos he don't care
He don't believe illusions
'cos too much is real
So stop your cheap comments
'Cos he knows what we feel
Inside the janitors closet
Coach Belly on his knees
Under his breath he begs
Please, Please, Please
Through the gloryhole he spies another
his heart races, knees go week
The cum of the last boy
still trickling down his cheek.
Above passage written as only a pervert could imagine.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Thanks to you, and especially your parents,
your DNA will never again infect this planet.
For everybody else, the warning is loud and clear,
don't let you children associate with homosexuals.
Must be a coached creed as Jerry Sandusky used to say the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
More writings from the bathroom walls
Coach Belly hanging on to the kid by the balls
Sucking that dick he won't let go
Not much of a coach, but he sure can blow.
Heyk, let me play ... no gay shit though ...
There once was a poster named douchedawg
Whose lies caused our mouths to go agog
The Wiz turned real pale
O'er a leaked email
Now douchedawg is lost in the fog
You've written that you love to suck dick.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
And you're one of many here whose DNA will not survive another generation.
You're pretty...pretty vacant...and you don't care.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Yep, sometimes when I am in the mood. So we have that in common. Only difference is guys I am with are adults and usually I am in a relashionship with.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
You on the otherhand....well lets put it this way: Last time I sucked a 15 year old....I was 15. :cool:
That may be. Not a definite yet, but may be. Either way, it will be my choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
We know...that's how you got your bankroll together.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Same as Axel, from what I've heard.
Interesting that you go right to Axelwolf. Apaperntly he is on your mind a lot. That's scary (for him). :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWe know...that's how you got your bankroll together.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Same as Axel, from what I've heard.
But what it really reveals once again, what all your hate and bitterness is about. You hate advantage players. Something I have know for a long time, because you can't help periodically reveal it. And there is only one reason why people like you despise so much and are filled with such bitterness YOU are a degenerate gambler. You hate those that have any success where you fail. I am not surprised either, you are dumb as a door.
I replied to Axel's post about not caring about future generations,Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
nothing at all about gambling.
Then you jumped in out of nowhere to defend him.
Are you blowing him for money, or his he blowing you?
You seem to have a thing for little boys...does little Axel remind you of somebody?
I didn't jump in to defend Axelwolf. Don't know him. I was full of rhyme and thought I would share. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyI replied to Axel's post about not caring about future generations,Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
nothing at all about gambling.
Then you jumped in out of nowhere to defend him.
Are you blowing him for money, or his he blowing you?
You seem to have a thing for little boys...does little Axel remind you of somebody?
As for little boys, damn you always go back to this. Yikes! RED FLAG! RED FLAG!
But there is no one, even among those that don't like me, that have ever thought that. Hell I shared my life and marriage to a man almost 20 years my senior. So you are kind of way off your rocker here, grasping at anything. But let's contrast that to this "rumor" that follows you on every forum, different people claiming pretty much the same thing. Maybe it is one person, I don't know. :confused: But if it is, whatever you "did to him" must of effected him pretty bad. :rolleyes:
Coach belly YOU ARE A TROLL! Forum owners who attempt to be neutral have stated this. You troll the AP community and Advantage Players only, seeking out your "gottch ya" moments. Yet with ALL the inconstistancies of people like a Rob Singer (not to pick on Rob) or this MaryDawg character, not only not a peep out of you, but you vigerously and nastily defend them. Can you explain that? Seriously let's hear!
By the way detective, how is that investigation going into which of the 3 posts here did Mary in. :D
This thread needs a non sequitur. I'll provide it.
I coached fifth through ninth grade basketball for four years and thoroughly loved it. I'm a limited, unpolished basketball player who didn't really learn to play until out of high school, but by using high school and college basketball books from the 1940's and '50's, I was able to put in offenses tailored to the skill sets of modern fifth through ninth graders. Coaching those kids was one of the most fun times in my life, but there were some poignant heartbreaking moments in there, also. I found out that one of my players committed suicide a couple of years later. That shook me up, and I wish I had taken more time to give some stupid speeches to him. Another one of my players was head of global and political risk assessment at UBS. I was surprised to see him pop up on CNN. He undoubtedly never listened to any of my stupid speeches.
Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled banter. I should add that DNA representation is not dependent on somebody having children, but I'm not getting paid to correct others' posts, so I'll pass on the details. Inquiring minds can simply look it up.
You're the one that brought up little boys in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
What were you thinking about?
Would you mind if tewlj or other members referred to you as a child molester?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Thinking about YOU, big boy and what a real man could teach you, if you would get off of little boys (literally) long enough. :p (where is the kiss kiss emoji?)Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyYou're the one that brought up little boys in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
What were you thinking about?
No shit...I wrote about this earlier...Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
You are a sick dude, smelly belly, you really are. Full of hate.
I know you and many others on this forum, aren't God fearing, and God believing men. I know that there is a God because I talk to him every day. And when I have needed him most he has always been there. I'm not a Jesus freak or anything. Don't attend Church. Organized religion has been turned evil by men running it.
Maybe you don't think there will be a judgemnet day for you. Maybe I am wrong and you guys are right. BUT, if you are wrong, when you are standing before Peter or an alien (not sure which) and have to explain yourself, your actions, your hate against fellow man, people different than you, that look different than you, talk different than you, worship different than you, LOVE different than you, it's going to be a little too late my friend. Because I am pretty sure we are all God's creation (or the Alien in charge) and he meant for us to love and tolerate one another, not hate anyone a little different just because of those differences.
Earth is actually the big test. If you can get along with, tolerate, LOVE would be even better, those a little different than you and help those a less fortunate, then I believe there is a place for you at the next level....whatever comes next. I don't know if it is heaven as described, with white robes and Angels, but there is something and this life on Earth is your test to getting there. :cool:
Now, speaking of "love", I gotta take a shower and get ready to hit a couple clubs. Straight clubs actually. Gotta play wingman and help get my brother laid. ;)
Who do you talk to?...because for the love of Peter, Paul and Mary,Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
you used homosexual innuendo as hate speech against me in this thread.
Leave "the" MaryDawg out of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
I refer to the entity that I speak with as God, but I am pretty sure it is not the God depicted by religion(s). I think God and a higher alien being or beings are intertwined, or maybe it is just a higher alian being or beings but for our sake at this time, they have chosen the 'God' thing as representative, until we can or need to better understand.
Now good night and even peace to you.
Well, this thread took a VERY dark turn....:/
Whoever or whatever are the voices in your head, the written record showsQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
that you used homosexual innuendo as hate speech in this thread.
Does that make you a homophobe?..Yes, I think it does.
Communication Consternation,
Extrapolation Speculation;
Incessant Superscription,
We Should Just End Transmission.
Prelections to those you despise,
Could be true, but probably lies;
Rotations of a watch's dial,
Running of an endless mile.
Three years, yesterday, today,
All the same in this interlay;
Nothing changes in this accord,
Except becoming ever more bored.
(Fucking amateurs. JK)
I mean, I can talk TO a unicorn everyday. That doesn't mean that there's actually a unicorn there to hear me, or that the unicorn will say anything back.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I want to say it was an episode of House, "If you talk to God, you're religious---if God talks to you, you're a nutjob."
I guess you're fine as long as God isn't talking back.
When I'm standing before whoever, my explanation will simply be, "Go fuck yourself." I doubt I have to worry about that anyway, but you could be right.
Anyway, in your case, I'd work on the whole, "Tolerate," bit you said and maybe the whole, "Turning of the other cheek," thing.
Mission, God speaks back through action. When I ask for help and I mean real help getting through or coming through a very difficult or trying time and I am not talking about "dear God please let the Golden knights win this series" I am talking about "Dear God, please help me through my heart surgury", or "Dear God please help me to get through this homeless period" (when I was in high school), he speaks back to me through action.
Now I am sure you are laughting, and have a good time doing so, but I believe that. Now what if I am wrong. What if my prayers and speaking to God are just sort of a self reflection, more than anything else. A chance for me to sort of work through a vision of what the next step is. Would that be such a terrible thing?
Medical doctors helped you, not some fictional being.
It would not be a terrible thing. You also acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, which indicates that you have thought about it. Similarly, I acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong, which is why I'm Agnostic.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
As it turns out, you're not dogmatic, nor am I, so the two of us have no metaphysical beef.
Religion helps some people find comfort during difficult times. May work for you or may not.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Organized Religion is The Devil.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
Jesus hated that Scam.
I'd bet on Rob Singer winning an Olympic gold medal in the 100 meter dash against 7 Jamaican superstars before I believe in any religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenReligion helps some people find comfort during difficult times. May work for you or may not.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbI'd bet on Rob Singer winning an Olympic gold medal in the 100 meter dash against 7 Jamaican superstars before I believe in any religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenReligion helps some people find comfort during difficult times. May work for you or may not.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Now don't be too quick to judge, jbjb. I'm a card carrying member of both the Church of Bacon and the Church of "Bob."
https://unitedchurchofbacon.org/
I believe this started when parking for one of the Nevada churches spilled over onto residential streets, and the cops refused to ticket parishioners. So some of the residents started up their own church. I bought shirts.
And then there's this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._%22Bob%22_Dobbs
I joined because my name is Bob. Best reason in the world.
I don't know if my God or supreme Alien Being that I talk to is a sports fan, but the Golden Knights are going to need every fan of theirs who believes in God or a higher authority or whatever to ask for a little help after Todays shellacking. I know the Knights were exhausted coming off a game 7 win, while Colorada was rested, but it looked like men vs boys out there. The Aves were litterally skating circles around the Knights.
The asking God or a higher being for help with the Knights was said in jest on my part. I don't ask help in things involving sports, or things like that, only the big life altering things, like I mentioned previously. Although if I am being honest, I did prey for or ask for help with the Eagles winning a superbowl a couple years back. That was more for my partner, and those life long fans like him that had waited for a Superbowl their whole lives. So I cheated and asked and was answered. :)
Maybe I used the wrong word,,,,,,"religion".Quote:
Originally Posted by monetOrganized Religion is The Devil.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
Jesus hated that Scam.
I don't need faith to face difficulty but I have met a lot of people that can't face challenging circumstances without it. I really can't discuss the topic because I do not possess much knowledge on the subject.
If there were no God there would be a need to create one.
What kind of god would crucify his own son?
It's amazing what the human imagination can create.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
It's also amazing how easily that same humanity is suckered into these scams.
Social control. That's probably why, 'we' did create one, so you're not wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
The kind who has a solid understanding of the potential benefits of symbolism in marketing.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
People that believe in God are more likely to survive and reproduce than those who don't. So in certain respects disbelief in God can be considered a form of mental illness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146Social control. That's probably why, 'we' did create one, so you're not wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
[spoilers]even though it's true. It is not necessarily beneficial to an organism, to have too accurate a view of reality.[/spoilers]
(what's the syntax for spoiler tags on here? i've tried [spoiler] and [spoilers] and neither work?)
Nobody has ever been able to explain to me the actual benefits of our continued propagation.Quote:
Originally Posted by pepePeople that believe in God are more likely to survive and reproduce than those who don't. So in certain respects disbelief in God can be considered a form of mental illness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146Social control. That's probably why, 'we' did create one, so you're not wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
[spoilers]even though it's true. It is not necessarily beneficial to an organism, to have too accurate a view of reality.[/spoilers]
(what's the syntax for spoiler tags on here? i've tried [spoiler] and [spoilers] and neither work?)
LOL...yep you did prey....you preyed and did your prey.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
What does the math say, jackass?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
What a complete full-of-shit tewl you are to accuse others of fantasy claims, fairytales and voodoo,
and then in the next breath claim to know that God exists because you talk to him every day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackhole
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepePeople that believe in God are more likely to survive and reproduce than those who don't. So in certain respects disbelief in God can be considered a form of mental illness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146Social control. That's probably why, 'we' did create one, so you're not wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
[spoilers]even though it's true. It is not necessarily beneficial to an organism, to have too accurate a view of reality.[/spoilers]
(what's the syntax for spoiler tags on here? i've tried [spoiler] and [spoilers] and neither work?)
Good points, pepe. But always a problem with defining mental illness as that which does not lead to optimal reproduction. For example, you can get into rape and whether or to what degree rape was allowed through the majority of human history. That leads to the question of whether "not raping" is a form of mental illness and other rabbit hole ideas. But it's good, as you say, to loosen up one's perspective on this stuff.
A potential parallel argument is that if accurate views of reality were beneficial from a reproductive standpoint, we'd all have eidetic memory. We most certainly do not.
What an angry dude?!!! Must be the holiday weekend and 3 days removed from stalking and sucking the high school boys. Relax pervert. Tomorrow is almost here.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
LOL...yep you did prey....you preyed and did your prey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
What does the math say, jackass?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
What a complete full-of-shit tewl you are to accuse others of fantasy claims, fairytales and voodoo,
and then in the next breath claim to know that God exists because you talk to him every day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackhole
I was hoping coach would be studying up on the differences between laws, regulations, and policies. Maybe sign up for an AndrewG seminar or something.
But you have to give coach credit. He gets something completely, utterly wrong (like under what conditions can one get a check after playing table games), posts 20 or 30 times while being wrong, doesn't bother to actually check up on whether he's wrong, and then isn't embarrassed and doesn't apologize for being wrong. It takes a special kind of person to do that over and over, and to then explain in post after post on topic after topic that he knows whereof he speaks.
Just had to hop in, stay on brand and point out that this belongs in the “whatever’s on your mind” subforum.
Paul called it the "mystery of the ages."Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Another interesting statistic is this pattern.Quote:
Originally Posted by pepe
An individual should follow these steps in order.
Education, Work (Career), Marriage (No Pre-Marital Sex), Family.
With this formula or model it has over a 75% long term success rate.
If an individual breaks outside the pattern or steps the success rate drops down below 25%.
Needless to say this formula is Biblical.
If individuals don't want to believe in God, that's fine but numbers never lie.
When people say they do not believe in God I always think about the line from: The Count of Monte Cristo.
"I don't believe in God." .... "It doesn't matter, HE believes in you!"
It should be noted that I in no way followed these steps or rules but if I seen the statistics presented, I may have followed them better.
I learned this information, too late in life and once you get trapped into materialism (greed) and ego it isn't easy to get out.
We, as individuals, literally get brainwashed at an early age and it is very difficult to be reprogramed.
I guess if you were going to watch a movie and correlate some of this you could say It's a Wonderful Life and Click show this example of Family First.
As goofy as Click is as a movie, I have to admit that it makes a serious point about putting others needs in front of your own.
Oddly enough Adam Sandler follows up that message, 6 years later, with his movie, That's My Boy, which goes in the complete and opposite direction.
Even I found that movie too offensive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN5Kt_ILpi0
Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewG
But wait...there's more...
First, you fail to understand that casinos are very strict especially nowadays
with their anti-money laundering provisions.
31 CFR § 1021.210 provides that casinos must implement anti-money laundering provisions.
Allowing a check to be issued in exchange for cash, is definitely not anti-money laundering.
In general, a check issued by a casino is only pursuant to a win.
This was from 1996
https://lasvegassun.com/news/1996/ju...inos-in-check/
Nevada also bars certain transactions the Bank Secrecy Act allows.
Specifically, it says casinos can't:
* Exchange more than $2,500 in cash for bills of a larger denomination.
* Issue a casino check in exchange for more than $2,500 in cash.
* Transfer more than $2,500 by wire or other means.
Again, the above were the rules in 1996.
And the rules are MUCH stricter today.
Today they won't allow even one penny in cash to be converted to a casino check.
For example, back in the very early 2000s people could still "money play" at the tables.
Nowadays that is not allowed and only chips may be played at the tables.
Just in general everything is much stricter now than it was, but even in 1996
there was no way anyone could convert any meaningful sum of cash into a check at a casino.
These are representative of the newer, stricter guidelines in place today:
https://www.americangaming.org/sites...ice%202017.pdf
These are suggested rules for casinos, which have been adopted
by nearly all Nevada casinos these days:
https://imgur.com/zVtiv9F
Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyQuote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewG
But wait...there's more...
First, you fail to understand that casinos are very strict especially nowadays
with their anti-money laundering provisions.
31 CFR § 1021.210 provides that casinos must implement anti-money laundering provisions.
Allowing a check to be issued in exchange for cash, is definitely not anti-money laundering.
In general, a check issued by a casino is only pursuant to a win.
This was from 1996
https://lasvegassun.com/news/1996/ju...inos-in-check/
Nevada also bars certain transactions the Bank Secrecy Act allows.
Specifically, it says casinos can't:
* Exchange more than $2,500 in cash for bills of a larger denomination.
* Issue a casino check in exchange for more than $2,500 in cash.
* Transfer more than $2,500 by wire or other means.
Again, the above were the rules in 1996.
And the rules are MUCH stricter today.
Today they won't allow even one penny in cash to be converted to a casino check.
For example, back in the very early 2000s people could still "money play" at the tables.
Nowadays that is not allowed and only chips may be played at the tables.
Just in general everything is much stricter now than it was, but even in 1996
there was no way anyone could convert any meaningful sum of cash into a check at a casino.
These are representative of the newer, stricter guidelines in place today:
https://www.americangaming.org/sites...ice%202017.pdf
These are suggested rules for casinos, which have been adopted
by nearly all Nevada casinos these days:
https://imgur.com/zVtiv9F
Coach, far be it for me to assist you with definitions of simple words, but "stricter guidelines" and "suggested rules" are just that. Not laws. LOL. Not even regulations. And if MDawg is as big a player as Boz says, then guess who is first in line to not have to follow "guidelines" and "suggested rules."
So I'm waiting for the inestimable coach to bet me that I can't get a check from a casino for, let's say, 20K, without actually winning 20K. Or winning 10K. Or winning 5K.
Not from table games you can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
If you have an idea for a bet, just spell it out right here.
The people who create immigration laws in the United States do so because it generates votes that keep them in power (and the plush life that goes along with it) and because they are not the ones that suffer the repercussions of overpopulation due to their ability to comfortably sequester themselves with their massive wealth (and power as just mentioned). Runaway inflation caused by the stimulus money given to the newly-immigrated for their votes and the dog-shit healthcare resulting from not being able to handle such a large population are of no concern to these evil cunts.
It is no longer sensible or in the national interest to allow many immigrants.
Made sense when the country was new, but not now, we'll plumb filled up.
Most especially keep the riff raff from south of the border out.
Countries like Poland, The Czech Republic and Hungary probably have the best long term prospects since their immigration policies are quite penurious.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Nice Job Fellas.
Now you upset tableplay.
LOL, good one Monet ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by monet