Thin-skinned VitalVegas (Scott Roeben) blocked me for questioning bullshitty-looking casino visitation "record" he promoted

[redietz]

I am reminded of a long-ago attempt I was a part of to break the record for playing basketball without stopping and without subs, which I think at the time was 50-some hours. It was during my home town's 100-year anniversary.

The definitions of the Guinness rules were pretty much indecipherable. The big debate was about break times allowed. We realized the previous records had been set in gyms closed to the public, which meant all kinds of shenanigans could have occurred because Guinness reps did not have to be present on site at the time. All you needed were witnesses and affidavits. Some guys were up for "cheating" by resting more than technically allowed when the gym was closed to the public. Others wanted to make the attempt without cheating. Other people knew the attempt was doomed to fall short, so when the public was in the gym, they showed off by scoring a bunch when that was not really part of the plan. It was a mess.

[mickeycrimm]

Stop retarding up an interesting thread with something completely irrelevant.

This vital vegas guy was calling Charlie Kirk a racist and fascist just after the shooting, jdaepoo.

You know, this should probably have its own thread. I have a long-time friend who used one really tone-deaf Kirk line in a reply on a forum as a response to someone else. Well, ETSU is in the midst of firing him, and he has tenure, for that one line. And he preceded that one bad line with the statement that he never advocates violence. But that didn't matter because the line is being used in isolation as a reason to fire him.

I guess my point is, being momentarily stupid should not necessarily be a fire-able offense. If you can link exactly what the vital vegas guy said, that would be helpful in figuring out if he was a shrill nutcase or just in-the-moment exercising really bad judgement.

Calling someone a racist and fascist can be done in a Dragnet way. It may be mean-spirited and stupid, but if it's meant purely politically, then it's just a poorly-timed opinion.

Prior to the assassination I had watched Kirk for just a couple hours on tape doing his Q&A stuff and knew nothing else about him. I have been to two live Turning Point events in the last decade, one a year or so ago. Kirk was not at those events. I have no knowledge of Kirk beyond watching those two hours of taped Q&A, which I think he conducted reasonably and well.

I follow vital vegas on X. He follows me too. He’s in my feed. Thats where I saw it. The guy makes a gillion tweets a day so I dont feel like going through it to find the tweet. Besides, if he had any sense he would have taken it down.


Something strage happened a few months ago. In my twitter feed it said vital vegas blocked me. I had no clue what it was about. I didnt care because i really didnt read his stuff anyway. But then one day his Kirk is a fascist tweet was in my feed. So I thought, well, the guy is a woke ass bitch, and probably read one of my anti woke tweets, blocked me, then later decided to unblock me.

[accountinquestion]

I find all this "momentary stupidity" talk unconvincing, particularly after seeing wall-to-wall "momentary stupidity" online over the CEO shooting less than a year ago.

These people are expressing political opinions that seem true to them and even ordinary (within their online circles anyway).

Now for some of them it may be foolish to not foresee that there could be professional consequences, but that only applies to their decision to express themselves. The sentiments that they express are not the ravings of the temporarily deranged.

No, the sentiments are not "mistakes." They are their sentiments. The error, to me, is not reading the room. Or having a little common human sensitivity when online.

Another mistake is the assumption that a particular site or forum has a defined audience, as if you were in a room or at a club. All audiences are undefined and potentially unlimited.

Or, to be honest, the mistake is that they are expressing themselves in the moment as opposed to editing themselves after pausing. As a writing major (and journalism for two years), I see this as the most common problem with online communication. People don't pause to review what they just wrote. They just write and hit send. I kind of understand why because writing takes so much longer than speaking, and reading is faster than listening, so it is a self-damaging set-up. The loop is set up to make you an idiot. And because most people spend most of their time posting anonymously, when they actually post under their real-world identities, they lack that pause-and-review.

You are writing "anonymously." I use the parentheses because at some point coming soon, AI will be able to identify you pretty quickly and be able to attach your entire posting history to your real-world name. This may be only a few years away. I'm sure the CIA will be able to do this for 90% of the population shortly if they feel like looking. Scrubbing will be, at best, a partial and hit-or-miss strategy.

So everything you posted, even under an alleged pseudonymous handle, will come back to haunt you, if not next month, then certainly next decade.

You're so wrong about AI. AI will never be able to do that. It can barely tell if text was written by AI to begin with .. tons of errors and that is an easy problem to approach.

AI as we see it is basically a glorified auto-completion. It doesn't do what you think.

If you're worreid though you could have your talk fed through AI to modify it.

Your story about the guiness record was good. You should give us more stories. You old timers have great stories. Always why I liked playing poker with older dudes. They've lived a life. Kids these days have spent too much time sitting in front of a screen. Do that and stop ranting about APs and you'll be happier and better respeced, Redietz.

[accountinquestion]

This vital vegas guy was calling Charlie Kirk a racist and fascist just after the shooting, jdaepoo.

You know, this should probably have its own thread. I have a long-time friend who used one really tone-deaf Kirk line in a reply on a forum as a response to someone else. Well, ETSU is in the midst of firing him, and he has tenure, for that one line. And he preceded that one bad line with the statement that he never advocates violence. But that didn't matter because the line is being used in isolation as a reason to fire him.

I guess my point is, being momentarily stupid should not necessarily be a fire-able offense. If you can link exactly what the vital vegas guy said, that would be helpful in figuring out if he was a shrill nutcase or just in-the-moment exercising really bad judgement.

Calling someone a racist and fascist can be done in a Dragnet way. It may be mean-spirited and stupid, but if it's meant purely politically, then it's just a poorly-timed opinion.

Prior to the assassination I had watched Kirk for just a couple hours on tape doing his Q&A stuff and knew nothing else about him. I have been to two live Turning Point events in the last decade, one a year or so ago. Kirk was not at those events. I have no knowledge of Kirk beyond watching those two hours of taped Q&A, which I think he conducted reasonably and well.

I follow vital vegas on X. He follows me too. He’s in my feed. Thats where I saw it. The guy makes a gillion tweets a day so I dont feel like going through it to find the tweet. Besides, if he had any sense he would have taken it down.


Something strage happened a few months ago. In my twitter feed it said vital vegas blocked me. I had no clue what it was about. I didnt care because i really didnt read his stuff anyway. But then one day his Kirk is a fascist tweet was in my feed. So I thought, well, the guy is a woke ass bitch, and probably read one of my anti woke tweets, blocked me, then later decided to unblock me.

He is notorious for being thin-skinned. Kinda like you but taken to the next level. You block people too over silly things. This guy is just a ass-kisser of casinos - the very opposite of you.

[theywontpayontuesday]

The whole thing does seem fishy. This "vitalvegas" guy should actually be responding positively to criticism and not be so defensive. 80 casinos is 18 minutes per casinos max and 115 casinos is 12.5 minutes per casino and neither is considering time for travel between casinos. If the criteria has in fact changed, then they did not break a record because that record didnt exist if the criteria changed. Sounds like the Vitalvegas is just paid to deceive. Guinness book doesn't look good being involved here, they should probably reconsider judging this record but Im guessing some checks were cashed.

[accountinquestion]

The whole thing does seem fishy. This "vitalvegas" guy should actually be responding positively to criticism and not be so defensive. 80 casinos is 18 minutes per casinos max and 115 casinos is 12.5 minutes per casino and neither is considering time for travel between casinos. If the criteria has in fact changed, then they did not break a record because that record didnt exist if the criteria changed. Sounds like the Vitalvegas is just paid to deceive. Guinness book doesn't look good being involved here, they should probably reconsider judging this record but Im guessing some checks were cashed.

Yes, he gets paid off by casinos. Everything said is favorable to casinos. He is a little weasel. He literally motivated people to talk about him on twitter just to ridicule him. The whole thing was weird. I am blocked, make fun of him, then 1 or 2 accounts out of nowhere follow me and invite me to follow some parody account. I think the account was meant to ridicule him but it has been a few years. But at least one person was obsessed with trolling him.

But your statement 'he gets paid to deceive' is pretty on target.