Why do you always need to show off bro?Originally Posted by redietz
Why do you always need to show off bro?Originally Posted by redietz
Not showing off. Doing a little bonding, maybe. Obviously, the work my brother has done is not as high end as this. That's why I said "very nice!"Originally Posted by accountinquestionWhy do you always need to show off bro?Originally Posted by redietz
I appreciate anyone who can do this kind of work. This kind of skill often goes unappreciated, is my point. My dad dabbled with this, but did not have results anywhere near as polished as what MaxPen did. I spent my teens in an attic my dad converted into a bedroom. Looked pretty good, but hot as hell. He also did the upstairs bathroom. My brother is more skilled (he went to masonry school) and can do a number of things well. People tend to not appreciate this kind of expertise these days.
Very nice job MaxPen.Originally Posted by MaxPen
I particularly like the his and his bathroom sinks. There is nothing worse that sharing a sink and having your dudefriend's facial razor stubble all over the sink. Rob Singer knows what I am talking about with Mrs Singer's beard stubble.
lol I was just messing with you. It was such an absurd statement I laughed far too much so I had to follow through on the posting.Originally Posted by redietzNot showing off. Doing a little bonding, maybe. Obviously, the work my brother has done is not as high end as this. That's why I said "very nice!"Originally Posted by accountinquestionWhy do you always need to show off bro?Originally Posted by redietz
I appreciate anyone who can do this kind of work. This kind of skill often goes unappreciated, is my point. My dad dabbled with this, but did not have results anywhere near as polished as what MaxPen did. I spent my teens in an attic my dad converted into a bedroom. Looked pretty good, but hot as hell. He also did the upstairs bathroom. My brother is more skilled (he went to masonry school) and can do a number of things well. People tend to not appreciate this kind of expertise these days.
It is quite nice looking. Whether he could afford to pay someone or not, I like to do things on my own. Learn stuff and such but it takes time. What else is one going to do with their life?
Also even as a first time worker (in whatever particular area), you'll often do better work than the crappy contractors someone finds who just want to do minimum to get it done and out the door
Not sure why this would be looked at as "casinoey", but a reasonably decent job for DIY. My only comment would be to have installed a much nicer toilet, unless this is a women-only bathroom. I can't comfortably sit on one of those little-ass things. My package won't fit without hitting the inside front toilet seat & bowl.Originally Posted by MaxPenFinally finished the bathroom project. Had to wait about a month or so to get a special order door in at Lowe's due to shortages and shipping crisis. Didn't want standard height because I hate ducking to get in and out of a shower.
The sinks will provide you many fond memories of you and maxpen shaving together.Originally Posted by kewlJVery nice job MaxPen.Originally Posted by MaxPen
I particularly like the his and his bathroom sinks. There is nothing worse that sharing a sink and having your dudefriend's facial razor stubble all over the sink. Rob Singer knows what I am talking about with Mrs Singer's beard stubble.
Druff, let us know when you receive redietz’ credit score.
You just look stupid when you post something like this. Just makes you look more and more like Singer's bitch.Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Are you maxpen's bitch or is he your bitch?Originally Posted by kewlJYou just look stupid when you post something like this. Just makes you look more and more like Singer's bitch.Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Druff, let us know when you receive redietz’ credit score.
Neither. Maxpen is simply a known AP on this forum, who sometimes agrees with me and at other times has been critical of me. Just so happens we both looked into this Rob Singer character, who you now support and try to enable and we both know and have stated the truth.Originally Posted by mickeycrimmAre you maxpen's bitch or is he your bitch?Originally Posted by kewlJYou just look stupid when you post something like this. Just makes you look more and more like Singer's bitch.Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Because of that you have gotten nasty with these sick sexual fantasies of yours. At what age to you old dudes grow up and stop acting like 8 year olds, or is that something you take to the grave with you?
Here are the facts Mickeycrimm:
Rob Singer is a 20 year gambling forums troll. His whole thing has been one big troll of the gambling community. He is a degenerate gambler who wanted to be an advantage player and failed so he made up these stories of grand wins using progression systems, stop limits, "special plays" and other voodoo theories stacked on top of one another.
These claims defied math and reality and were debunked by every AP and math expert including you! You lead the charge in debunking these claims for years.
When there was no one left that believed these silly magical progression system claims, Singer stole a claim of riches that he read in the news and played his game all over again.
He offered you a truce and because he had kicked your ass for years at the troll game, you accepted and now defend him. So you have to attack me and MaxPen and others who still call out this bullshit as you did for a decade.
That is the whole story in a nutshell and nothing you or Singer says will change it. The rest is all games.
Your post here is a monument to delusional reasoning and has no basis in fact. Seek psychiatric help.Originally Posted by kewlJ
Druff, let us know when you receive redietz’ credit score.
"monument to delusional reasoning" is a fair term, Mickey.Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Regardless of what you or I or anyone may have thought initially, when questioned by 2 different forum owners, Rob tied his playing the double up bug to this fictional, make-believe Newell, claiming that is what he did with the money. No one else did that to him, He did that on his own!
That left proving ownership of the Newell, which he pulled not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 massive bullshit attempts to con everyone.
1.) the pictures inside a Newell on the dealership floor.
2.) pictures of a completely different Newell that he snuck up on at a campground.
3.) a bill of sale with no company letterhead or logo and all signatures in the same handwriting
and 4.) an ad selling this fantasy Newell with 2 pictures and the sale sight unseen to a make believe buyer from overseas within a few hours.
No one seriously thinks you believe these things. But if you do then yes, it is a monument to delusional reasoning....sadly, yours, old boy.
You have mistaken me for someone that gives a fuck whether Singer had a newell or not. You see, your ass fucking buddy, maxpuke, who I had gotten along with just fine until then, started smearing me over my opinion that Singer probably worked the double up bug. You attacked me too. You both continually attacked me. Over an opinion that had no personal attacks in it?Originally Posted by kewlJ"monument to delusional reasoning" is a fair term, Mickey.Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Regardless of what you or I or anyone may have thought initially, when questioned by 2 different forum owners, Rob tied his playing the double up bug to this fictional, make-believe Newell, claiming that is what he did with the money. No one else did that to him, He did that on his own!
That left proving ownership of the Newell, which he pulled not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 massive bullshit attempts to con everyone.
1.) the pictures inside a Newell on the dealership floor.
2.) pictures of a completely different Newell that he snuck up on at a campground.
3.) a bill of sale with no company letterhead or logo and all signatures in the same handwriting
and 4.) an ad selling this fantasy Newell with 2 pictures and the sale sight unseen to a make believe buyer from overseas within a few hours.
No one seriously thinks you believe these things. But if you do then yes, it is a monument to delusional reasoning....sadly, yours, old boy.
What comes around goes around. You two pieces of shit don't like it when I put the shit back on you. You two fairys been sucking each other off. maxpen is your bitch.
Druff, let us know when you receive redietz’ credit score.
You are wrong. Singer made the Newell matter, when he told Dan Druff and Shackleford that he bought the Newell with the money won from the double up play. If he had never said that, the Newell wouldn't matter and would just be an unrelated lie...another Singer lie. But when he said that is what he did with the money, he made the Newell part of this equation.
Everyone sees that but you. And you don't see it because you don't want to see it or more likely, you just can't bring yourself to admit you are wrong. And all your nastiness won't change these facts.
Below is Rob's interview with Shackleford. At the 19:40 mark Wizard asks Rob what proof he has that he made 2.8 million from the double up bug. Shackleford suggests Tax returns and Rob gives the same answer he has given us for several years that he threw out all the tax returns. Rob then volunteers that he "saved all the money won in a safe until he bought the Newell RV in 2011 for 1.6 Million." That is Rob offering up this Newell as proof of the double up bug! He is the one that tied the two together.
I don't know whether Wizard planned it and thought it out ahead of time or it just fell into place, but Wizard set the trap and Rob jumped in when he volunteered, he used the double up money to purchase the Newell.
You can say it doesn't matter and the two have nothing to do with each other, but it does. It became part of the equation when Rob volunteered that info. There are several answers that could have tripped Rob up. Buying Real Estate, depositing the money in a bank account or making a large purchase (like the Newell). All of these would have resulted in some documentation. I think Rob realized that the first two would have been a problem, but didn't seem to realize that a large purchase like 1.6 million dollars would. Shackleford laid the trap and Rob jumped right in.
The only reason kew became so invested in his wanting mickey to care if we had the Newell or not is because kew just cannot STAND it when someone comes along who has the capability of thinking things thru for themself without being completely influenced by kew and his automatic biases.
Kew wants the Newell never to have existed, and he keeps torturing himself by laying out his lies and spins over and over again--insanely believing that if he does it enuf it'll eventually become reality. This is clearly evident in understanding why kew ducked coming over to see the rig for himself when he had the opportunity--and like he kept saying he would do. That would have solved his dilemma once and for all....which also explains why he backed out of doing so. As such--and because he understands the Newell and DU ties--he remains safe from the horrors that come with realizing the truth about my DU years. Of course I used DU money to buy the RV because a purchase like that would have been foolish to make with retirement savings. And naturally, kew and his "Einstein wisdom" wants to think wizard set a "trap" of some sort for who knows why.
While this stuff is getting old, what is still very entertaining is how one can go from forum to forum and either enjoy watching kew get excoriated, ridiculed and exposed for among many things, the incessant need to interject conflict and drama into every aspect of his sad life---or read about how wizard has had his number for a long, long time. Forum rats like kew don't appear every day. Savor it while you can
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 12-12-2021 at 04:01 AM.
What a pathetic interview by Rusty, total disgrace. He should be ashamed of himself. Other then Rob looking 25 years older then his GOAT Alan interview, he was his usual comedic self. Alan absolutely decimates Rusty as an interviewer, no contest whatsoever !Originally Posted by kewlJ
And...here you are still talking about it. Point, game, set, match...winner---Rob Singer.Originally Posted by kewlJ"monument to delusional reasoning" is a fair term, Mickey.Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Regardless of what you or I or anyone may have thought initially, when questioned by 2 different forum owners, Rob tied his playing the double up bug to this fictional, make-believe Newell, claiming that is what he did with the money. No one else did that to him, He did that on his own!
That left proving ownership of the Newell, which he pulled not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 massive bullshit attempts to con everyone.
1.) the pictures inside a Newell on the dealership floor.
2.) pictures of a completely different Newell that he snuck up on at a campground.
3.) a bill of sale with no company letterhead or logo and all signatures in the same handwriting
and 4.) an ad selling this fantasy Newell with 2 pictures and the sale sight unseen to a make believe buyer from overseas within a few hours.
No one seriously thinks you believe these things. But if you do then yes, it is a monument to delusional reasoning....sadly, yours, old boy.
Originally Posted by OzzyWhat a pathetic interview by Rusty, total disgrace. He should be ashamed of himself. Other then Rob looking 25 years older then his GOAT Alan interview, he was his usual comedic self. Alan absolutely decimates Rusty as an interviewer, no contest whatsoever !Originally Posted by kewlJ
Shackleford did fine if this was an Entertainment Tonight interview, or Jimmy Fallon, and nobody's feelings were supposed to be hurt. On the other hand, since this was somebody claiming to have steamrollered casinos for a million and a half with the double up bug, there were a couple gaps. Like, "Where did you first play it?" comes to mind. That is an obvious starting point question, and there is no real reason for Rob to not answer that question if he's confessing to having used the bug.
If you'll notice, Rob's origin of the DU claim that Alan published on his site lacked any (and I mean ANY) specific details. It was noticeable by its lack of detail. Here's one of many good books that discusses the problem with lack of specificity, especially when information is "volunteered."
https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Int...9322259&sr=8-1
So, a few questions that Shackleford missed. Now bear in mind that someone conducting an interview that will potentially be seen by thousands of people should, in term of any journalism training, at least survey a couple of past interviews with the person for salient points, especially when there ARE ONLY A FEW PAST INTERVIEWS. If you don't do that as an interviewer, you're being lazy. No worse than Jimmy Fallon, but lazy nonetheless.
Here's a couple of obvious questions.
1) Where were the first couple of places you played the DU bug? What did it feel like? How much did you win? (These are really obvious starting points)
2) Was your claim of "machine telepathy" from the Alan interview just nonsense to cover your double up claim, or do you believe that? (The telepathy comment stands out so badly, it has to be addressed, especially by a math/science guy). That question easily leads to the next question.
3) Did you mislead Mendelson with those original interviews? If so, how can we verify that you're not misleading me and the audience in the current interview? What reasons to we have to believe you?
4) Where was the final place you played the DU bug? How much did you win? How did it feel to stop? Did you know that was your final time playing it as you played it?
And finally, the idea that Rob never told his family members, but then just magically made $1.6 million appear to buy a Newell -- well, that deserves some follow up questions or comments. Like, (5) "How did you explain the sudden million and a half available for luxury items to your family?" The problem with this follow-up (for Rob) is that he'd have to answer with something suggesting it wasn't surprising to his family. That likely means Rob would have to offer further details like these chunks of money appeared to his family before for other reasons. The problem with that answer is that you can then ask, "Like when?" and Rob would have to provide a detail of when and where a million showed up out of the blue previously.
Rob would have to report that he never told his family about the DU until the end. The question would then be why he didn't tell them. That makes it seem as if (A) Rob didn't trust his family to keep a lid on it or (B) Rob was concerned with legal ramifications. If he was concerned with legal ramifications, then you get into Rob having to be the only person with access to the safe. Otherwise the family is also on the hook legally. It's a real slippery slope, that money-in-the-safe bit.
And, finally, since Rob reported before his DU bug claim that the DU was illegal (on this very forum, I believe), Shackleford could have asked (6) why would you publicly state that you felt the DU was illegal when you were doing it? What sense does that make? Doesn't that undermine your whole story?
These are pretty straightforward and obvious questions most interviewers with a journalism background of any kind would have asked. I think most halfway interested people would have asked them. So it's striking that they didn't get asked.
Now, as far as mickey believing Rob did the DU bug, the easy way to clean that whole bit up would be for mickey to interview Rob on camera and ask the questions just listed above. Rob would have a non-adversarial interviewer, and I would pick up the tab for that interview, which would then be put on YouTube.
After removing the link, Singer's lead increases by 741 words. I guess more if you count my post, but I'm just offering play by play.
Also, there are some who say that those who give specifics are more likely to be lying. I just assume everything that I am told is a lie and then try to prove the null hypothesis if I care enough; it's much easier.
Finally, now that I've actually read the post, the questions in #3 are terrible...you don't put someone at ease by making them feel like they are being challenged. You also wouldn't frame the question like that at all; it would be more like, "I'm sure there are people out there who would doubt what you're saying; is anything about this verifiable?"
It's all about tone and phrasing. The phrasing puts people at ease so they are responding from the position of thinking the interviewer is on their side. Even if they go into the interview knowing the interviewer is NOT on their side, the phrasing is a deliberate psychological trick to cause a more general openness in a person's answer.
An interview can be an interrogation, but not if you're openly trying to interrogate.
Last edited by Mission146; 12-12-2021 at 08:58 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote