vpFREE2 Forums

Disease.....

> > > The simple part is you. He's made claims and I've made

claims.

> >
> > Not on this forum. Only you have made claims. I think it's now
all
> > too obvious that you don't even believe your lie. Thanks.
>
> So now, because little dicky just woke up and is trying

desperately to 'belong' to something, betting means nothing unless
it's done here! HAHAHA!

LMAO. Trying to change the subject again? This is so easy.

Seems not. You want the spotlight (gee, where's that come from) but
you missed the bus. It left long ago and WITHOUT you!!

> > > > > Lesson to
> > > > > little dicky #46,597---He said I don't win and he wanted

to

> bet me on that as well as the fact that he does win.
> > >
> > > > Stick to the present, not something that happen years ago.
> > >
> > > Or a few months ago??
> >
> > Lie. Give us a reference.
>
> Read my articles from July. You'll have all the hurt you can

handle there.

I don't read a con mans' psycho-babble. I've told you that many

times but I guess you can't read.

'Give me references'--you gots them! Good enough for a hundred
thousand people to read. Oh, but you're an AP--it only happens
to 'the other guys'!!

> > > You're still trying to belong where you just
> > > don't belong. Get over it.
> >
> > I can't get over something that is only a fantasy in your sick
mind.
>
> Denial ALWAYS comes before the act of getting over it.

More psycho-babble.

More denial.

> Is that from your left hand or the right? If I know I'll win both
> sides then exactly how does this hedging apply??

There's only one side, your claim, your failure to back it up, your
use of more psycho-babble to hide behind. LMAO.

??? You mind saying that in English??

Lie, I'm way smarter than you and prove it every day. Just the fact
> >you keep copying my writing techniques is proof enough.
> > >
> > > Yup, you're one feared writer allright!
> >
> > Evidently. Imitation is the ... (you know the rest)
>
> ??? Another dickyism??

Don't worry your petty little head, everyone else got it.

But gee, you're addressing ME!

> > GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's
abilities
> > and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart.
> > Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior
human
> > beings.
>
> Oh, you've finally followed up your statement above that

said "I'm way smarter than you"!! Tally-ho!!

I like to throw in a fact or two along the way. Oh, and thanks for
making it so obvious with your ???.

???

> > > about the 5-yr. old who does the same thing as an adult when

a

> car approaches--they must all be MATHEMATICAL GENIUSES like you!!
> >
> > I can't believe you would actually post this nonsense. There's

a reason good parents don't let small children play near streets.

>
> If you had had any children you'd know that a 5-yr. old is well
aware of what to do when he sees cars coming. And he doesn't need

to whip out the slide rule first!

It appears Robbie doesn't understand simple logic. Does the child

run away when he sees a parked car? What is the difference and what

exactly goes on in the brain? Let me help you out ... movement,

which is a mathematically describeable event. If you remember I said
it had a basis in mathematics. This is way too easy.

Here's a clue for you to learn from: It's sooo simple. Parked cars
aren't a threat. Moving ones are. At 5 the kid has apparently the
same clue as you about what's going on.

> > > > > You're so hung up on yourself and the big deal you never
> > > > > were that you associate every action with math. You're
> clearly misled and as far away from it all as one can possibly

get.

> > > > Lie, another invention that has no basis in fact. Simply a
> better understanding of how things really work lets me point out
your idiotic statements.

I think you just cornered that market on your last feeble try.

> > >
> > > Um, that's why there's a term called 'common sense' Mr.
> Wizard.....
> >
> > It's called language, common sense - "sound and prudent but

often

> > unsophisticated judgment". For ages it was common sense to
believe
> > the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Then,

science

> > changed it all.
>
> EXACTLY what they'll be saying 100 years from now when a few more
> geniuses like me come along and confirm not only was my book

right-on---but every one of my articles were so clearly relevant that
I may get a noble prize for enlightening people on how the brain is
supposed to work!

GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's abilities
and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart.
Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human
beings.

PS. The only future you, and anything you've written, will have is

to be laughed at by everyone else.

I could be dumb like you and say "Gimme a fact to support that" but
I'll just say take care of yourself, stay out of the casinos 'almost
daily' and stay alive a few more years to see it all unfold in front
of your eyes (if you can still see after all the vp playing that is).
Being superior is just the start.....
  

> > > It doesn't require your geeky 'basis in math' and the math
> wouldn't help the normal human being anyway. Most 'brains' are

capable of creating better ways than simple math allows for.

> >
> > Lie. Normal brains are wired to do associative activities. Even
our
> > understanding of math is through association. Brains do not
create
> > better ways to do anything. Brains DISCOVER ways to do things
that
> > are already described mathematically at their most basic level.
> That
> > is why brains are not "capable of creating better ways than
simple
> > math allows for". Math describes the universe and brains are

part

> of
> > that universe. You're simple minded statements show an immense
lack
> > of knowledge.
>
> Yup, you're onto something allright! This morning when I took my
dump I had that 'mathematical feeling' just before it came-a-

blasting out!!

Which ear?

The one hooked up to your computer.

> But really, you're a victim of your own neurosis. Brains are the
> ultimate discovery vehicle and the creator of computers as well

as everything else.

I think discover is the better word.

There's that thinking again..... What'd I tell you about trying that!

> Saying the issue was 'already described
> mathematically at its most basic level' is not only condescending
to every human who's ever lived

No, it's just the facts.

You neither have nor have shown facts on that. You're deep into your
theories again, and when you do that it becomes scary. The make
believe starts and you'll say just about anything.

> --it's making believe the very first
> things to have entered this world were due to magic.

No, are you really this dense? I simply stated that every potential
thing in this universe exists whether we discover it or not. Pretty
much the opposite of "magic".

That's odd. Every 'potential thing' EXISTS?? You mean like the 2009
Chevy?? HAHAHAHA!!! Go back to that think tank you make believe you
visit and recharge your batteries!!

> My left nut is
> part of the universe. Mathematically describe that!

Easy. It consists of specific cells, which are made up of

molecules, which are made up of elements, which are made up of basic
particles. The cellular processes are all describeable
mathematically. This is way too easy.

Just as I thought--reashing until the straws fall. I
said "Mathematically describe that" not make up some biological
masterbation followed by "it's all described mathematically. I
believe you'd best put a halt to your foolishness here. It's
embarrassing watching you try to walk thru quicksand.

>
> > > that's why the
> > > brain is far more the complex entity than any computer ever
will
> > be.
> >
> > No, it's just a different computer which will be duplicated

when

> our brains discover all the mechanisms. Your psycho brain

included.

>
> So you believe we'll create a 'mechanical brain' capable of

exactly the same things a human brain is. HAHAHA!!! Only a nerd could
love that one.

It won't be mechanical, it will be electronic or biologic. It won't
be "exactly" the same as a human brain because all human brains are
different (especially yours). However, we will come very close to
duplicating most of the functions. It appears you think the world

is controlled by "magic" if you think we won't eventually duplicate
the brain.

They tried that with Frankenstein. Quite a theory! Is the mummy up
next??
  

> > Your responses demonstrate a very simple understanding of the
world
> > around you. I suspect all the wasted brain cells dedicated to
lying
> > and fantasizing is responsible.
>
> The ultimate compliment from one who is on the slide in a debate.

I think everyone can see Robbie, the psycho-boy, is the

one "sliding" down into his little "magic" universe of lies and
fantasies.

Pee Wee Herman again. That means I'm 'taking a bite out of slime'
again!

> > > > Lie, no one believes you. You have been labelled a liar and
> fraud for many years. How did this happen? You just gave a good
> > > demonstration.
> > >
> > > Which irks you and delights me. I enjoy watching you jealous
folk come on and try to discredit me while failing miserably on a
very consistent basis.
> >
> > More babbling ... I guess Robbie is stuck, yet again.
>
> Stuck in what appears to be an unpenetrable cloak of the truth.
Just thank your lucky stars you're being dealt this valuable lesson
> right from the master.

GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's abilities
and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart.
Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human
beings.

> > > They all said I'd be gone years ago, only you're
> > > upset you weren't in on the call. You're friend who took a

shot here must also be agonizing over it...did I mention to my

delight? Well, guess who's STILL here and more popular than ever,

little dicky!! HAHAHAHA! Yup. Must be that 'demonstration'!

> >
> > GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's
abilities
> > and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart.
> > Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior
human
> > beings.
>
> Enough to force you to ramble on with already-posted stuff!

I guess little Robbie is having a problem having to read the TRUTH
over and over. Get used to it.

You mean all the compliments?

> > > Hmmmm....What the fact here--that you asked me a question?
Again,
> > too
> > > funny. You continue to step in your own mess.
> >
> > I already knew the answer. You stated investors

were "different" because they had economics degrees.

>
> Different from gambling addicts. You made up it's because of some
> degree. Now don't wag that tail too much as it gets stuck between
> your legs.....

Scrambling does become you.

> >I refuted that with the fact that Bob has a economics degree.
>
> This is great--you didn't even KNOW what he had! That's why you
asked the master!!

Now, why would I ask if I didn't already know? It's called a
rhetorical question. Think about that one, psycho-boy.

You and your 'questions' seem to confuse you too easily. The reason?
Just as with the loopholes and escape routes you put in place in case
a bet with me appears to come together as reality instead of theory,
you contaminate all you other nonsense with flip-flops and suspect
content 'just in case'. Goofy, but fun to slap you around with
afterwards.

Many small investors lose money. Know why?

> > > > > > > Who cares?

> > > > > > Once again I've exposed Robs' lies. Clearly he doesn't
want to compare these two occupations. Why?

> > > > > Because every time you get cornered you start wiggling

your

> way out with "something similar" or "let's play make-a-

comparison"

> just to get away from the original line of punishment you're
> absorbing for as long as possible. But unfortunately for you, my
> specialty is grinding away at you until you nearly lose it all!
> > > >
> > > > A longer than usual BABBLE. Robbie is getting frustrated.
> > >
> > > Whenever I can bring up how I punish you, it's worth the

effort.

> >
> > LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT -- a lack of feelings or concern for

the

> > losses, pain, and suffering of victims; a tendency to be
> unconcerned,
> > dispassionate, coldhearted, and unempathic. This item is

usually

> > demonstrated by a disdain for one's victims.
>
> You got THAT one right! You make your bed of addiction along with
all the fantasy it creates, you sleep in it!

PATHOLOGICAL LYING -- can be moderate or high; in moderate form,

they

will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form,
they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous,
manipulative, and dishonest.

> > > > You see, Rob doesn't want anyone to see how stupid his

method appears when you put it in this light. It is a fantasy to

believe a progression could help.

> > > Theory is hardly important--except for wannabees and nerds of
> > course. It's a great feeling knowing that a progression WORKS!
> >
> > PATHOLOGICAL LYING -- can be moderate or high; in moderate

form,

> they
> > will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme
form,
> > they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous,
> > manipulative, and dishonest.
>
> You've got to be scrambling thru the cut-and-paste procedures----
I'm absolutely THRILLED to see you waste your time!

But it's so easy. Bring up two browsers, cut from one, paste into

the

other. Now, that I've educated you again, made you look impotent
again, exposed your psycho tendencies again ... tell us how it

feels.

> But truthfully,

ROTFLMAO.

> i
> understand why you post these things. You're lost and looking for
> help. It just so happens you pulled on up this time that you wish
> applied to you even more so than the others! Being clever is
> definitely not one of your selling points.

More psycho-babble. It won't stop me from posting the truth.

Keep posting! Every time I read one of them I see how far advanced I
am compared to you.

> > > > > > > Show me supporting evidence that only a nerd could

show!

> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've shown it to you many times including the latest
> > reference to
> > > > > my simulation work. Facts. What has been your response?
More
> > lies.
> > > > >
> > > > > REALITY CHECK PLEASE!! Theories aren't fact. REALITY

CHECK

> > > PLEASE!!
> > > >
> > > > No theory involved. Simple computer simulations based on a
RNG,
> > you
> > > > know those little things that are also in every VP machine.
> With
> > it
> > > I can simulate any method of VP play. That is a "REALITY

CHECK".

> > >
> > > HELLO McFLY!!! Anyone home in there??
> >
> > POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS -- expressions of irritability,
annoyance,
> > impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate
> control
> > of anger and temper; acting hastily.
> >
> > I wonder if Rob even realizes that the words he uses from Back

to

> the Future are from a psychopathic bully?
>
> HAHAHA!! Now your relegated to comparing me with Hollywood actors
> again!

No, not actors ... they are characters from a FICTIONAL story.

Don't you even know the difference?

How do you know it's 'fictional'? You got any proof? Biff is an
American icon to those of us you spank geeks.

> Let's get "Back To The Issue" REALITY CHECK!! HELLO
> McFLY...ANYONE HOME IN THERE!?!

> > > Simulations are theory and nothing else.
> >
> > Is that why they build those expensive flight simulators?
>
> Obviously. That's where they check out and/or confirm the
engineering models' representations. It doesn't transform any of it

into reality until everything checks out 100% -- unlike your stupid
simulation of video poker, and totally like my strategy development
and subsequent confirmation in the casinos.

All of the simulators I mentioned are significantly more complex

than the VP play simulator I wrote.

Now there's a breakthrough!

This demonstrates what a simple game VP is. You play a hand, get one
of 10-15 possible results based on an RNG and repeat.

It's almost as if you even make believe you know something about
everything at times. This stuff you're writing now has nothing to do
with your nonsensical portrayal of flight simulators being involved
in some kind of purported theory! Please stay on the same page if you
ever want to learn anything.

That's why it is so easy to PROVE that your strategy is a con.
Adding in the progression and your ridiculous subgoals took about 50
lines of code, that's it. I spent more time building the various
game probability tables and formating the output.

All to your complete satisfaction too, that is, after you ignored the
more complex portions of my strategy as well as the fact that the
machines are programmed to run in hot and cold cycles. It's all been
said before--you'll peel down the onion until you talk yourself into
what you intended to in the first place, just to feel good. Even my
win resilts have been marginalized into some anamoly of 1% or
something. I'm still betting you are playing a variation of my
strategy every time you hit the addict machines. THAT was your real
purpose for the dumb work!

>
> Is that why
> > most economic forecasters use models (often simulators)?
>
> Apples & oranges, and a misleading assumption.

You stated "Simulations are theory and nothing else", I used clear
and reasonable examples to PROVE they are much more than "theory".

Where was THAT?? You've got your simulations mixed up with your
simulators. Why am I not surprised.....

> Is that why
> > engineering advances are often made using simulations of new
> > technology? Theory? ... LMAO.
>
> You're getting ahead of yourself and are looking doubly stupid.

You stated "Simulations are theory and nothing else", I used clear
and reasonable examples to PROVE they are much more than "theory".
Only a liar would claim otherwise.

So confused....Good thing you're old and not able to enter the
workforce any more!

> > > Only a geek could be interested in or make believe sims
> > > would occur in the real world! Congratulations - You've now
> > > solidified your address smack dab in the middle of

Fantasyland.

> >
> > LMAO even harder. Now that Robbie has firmly inserted his foot

in his mouth, AGAIN, I can feel I've likely saved another victim from

> his con.
>
> It's interesting to see the ramble emitting from one who resides

in fantasyland.

Just the facts, as usual.

And straight from fantasyland. As usual.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > > > The simple part is you. He's made claims and I've made
claims.
> > >
> > > Not on this forum. Only you have made claims. I think it's

now

> all
> > > too obvious that you don't even believe your lie. Thanks.
> >
> > So now, because little dicky just woke up and is trying
desperately to 'belong' to something, betting means nothing unless
it's done here! HAHAHA!
>
> LMAO. Trying to change the subject again? This is so easy.

Seems not. You want the spotlight (gee, where's that come from)

Your imagination.

but
you missed the bus. It left long ago and WITHOUT you!!

Let's see if we can understand your logic ... spotlight ... bus.
Nope, no logic there.

> > > > > > Lesson to
> > > > > > little dicky #46,597---He said I don't win and he

wanted

to
> > bet me on that as well as the fact that he does win.
> > > >
> > > > > Stick to the present, not something that happen years ago.
> > > >
> > > > Or a few months ago??
> > >
> > > Lie. Give us a reference.
> >
> > Read my articles from July. You'll have all the hurt you can
handle there.
>
> I don't read a con mans' psycho-babble. I've told you that many
times but I guess you can't read.

'Give me references'--you gots them!

Your articles aren't references, they're just more lies. In any
event, we're looking for something where Bob challenged you. Like I
said before, give us a reference or stick with what you've claimed
here.

> > Is that from your left hand or the right? If I know I'll win

both

> > sides then exactly how does this hedging apply??
>
> There's only one side, your claim, your failure to back it up,

your

> use of more psycho-babble to hide behind. LMAO.

??? You mind saying that in English??

I did. Trying to feign ignorance is a sad admittance of your lies.

> Lie, I'm way smarter than you and prove it every day. Just the

fact

> > >you keep copying my writing techniques is proof enough.
> > > >
> > > > Yup, you're one feared writer allright!
> > >
> > > Evidently. Imitation is the ... (you know the rest)
> >
> > ??? Another dickyism??
>
> Don't worry your petty little head, everyone else got it.

But gee, you're addressing ME!

No, not really. I'm simply exposing you.

>
> > > GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's
> abilities
> > > and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart.
> > > Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior
> human
> > > beings.
> >
> > Oh, you've finally followed up your statement above that
said "I'm way smarter than you"!! Tally-ho!!
>
> I like to throw in a fact or two along the way. Oh, and thanks

for

> making it so obvious with your ???.

???

Thanks again.

> > > > about the 5-yr. old who does the same thing as an adult

when

a
> > car approaches--they must all be MATHEMATICAL GENIUSES like

you!!

> > >
> > > I can't believe you would actually post this nonsense.

There's

a reason good parents don't let small children play near streets.
> >
> > If you had had any children you'd know that a 5-yr. old is well
> aware of what to do when he sees cars coming. And he doesn't need
to whip out the slide rule first!
>
> It appears Robbie doesn't understand simple logic. Does the child
run away when he sees a parked car? What is the difference and what
> exactly goes on in the brain? Let me help you out ... movement,
which is a mathematically describeable event. If you remember I

said

it had a basis in mathematics. This is way too easy.

Here's a clue for you to learn from: It's sooo simple. Parked cars
aren't a threat. Moving ones are.

Is he finally getting it? I doubt it.

At 5 the kid has apparently the
same clue as you about what's going on.

And that clue is not magic, it has a basis in mathematics.

> > > > > > You're so hung up on yourself and the big deal you

never

> > > > > > were that you associate every action with math. You're
> > clearly misled and as far away from it all as one can possibly
get.

> > > > > Lie, another invention that has no basis in fact. Simply

a

> > better understanding of how things really work lets me point

out

> your idiotic statements.

I think you just cornered that market on your last feeble try.
> > > >
> > > > Um, that's why there's a term called 'common sense' Mr.
> > Wizard.....
> > >
> > > It's called language, common sense - "sound and prudent but
often
> > > unsophisticated judgment". For ages it was common sense to
> believe
> > > the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Then,
science
> > > changed it all.
> >
> > EXACTLY what they'll be saying 100 years from now when a few

more

> > geniuses like me come along and confirm not only was my book
right-on---but every one of my articles were so clearly relevant

that

I may get a noble prize for enlightening people on how the brain is
supposed to work!
>
> GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's

abilities

> and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart.
> Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior

human

> beings.

> PS. The only future you, and anything you've written, will have

is

to be laughed at by everyone else.

I could be dumb like you and say "Gimme a fact to support that" but
I'll just say take care of yourself, stay out of the

casinos 'almost

daily' and stay alive a few more years to see it all unfold in

front

of your eyes

I'll be there. And, just as we all know the earth is not flat, we
know your claims of "voodoo math" will never become accepted. Laughed
at ... yes, ... accepted ... ROTFLMAO.

(if you can still see after all the vp playing that is).
Being superior is just the start.....

GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's abilities
and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart.
Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human
beings.

> > > > It doesn't require your geeky 'basis in math' and the math
> > wouldn't help the normal human being anyway. Most 'brains' are
capable of creating better ways than simple math allows for.
> > >
> > > Lie. Normal brains are wired to do associative activities.

Even

> our
> > > understanding of math is through association. Brains do not
> create
> > > better ways to do anything. Brains DISCOVER ways to do things
> that
> > > are already described mathematically at their most basic

level.

> > That
> > > is why brains are not "capable of creating better ways than
> simple
> > > math allows for". Math describes the universe and brains are
part
> > of
> > > that universe. You're simple minded statements show an

immense

> lack
> > > of knowledge.
> >
> > Yup, you're onto something allright! This morning when I took

my

> dump I had that 'mathematical feeling' just before it came-a-
blasting out!!

> Which ear?

The one hooked up to your computer.

We already knew your left brain was absent, just wondering if
you "dumped" the right one now. Apparently so.

>
> > But really, you're a victim of your own neurosis. Brains are

the

> > ultimate discovery vehicle and the creator of computers as well
as everything else.
>
> I think discover is the better word.

There's that thinking again..... What'd I tell you about trying

that!

Do I hear that inner voice again ...

> > Saying the issue was 'already described
> > mathematically at its most basic level' is not only

condescending

> to every human who's ever lived
>
> No, it's just the facts.

You neither have nor have shown facts on that.

Would you like a book reference on particle physics? "In Search of
Schroedinger's Cat" would be a good start. You should know with that
engineering degree that all physical interactions are described by
math. Or, do they teach magic where you got your degree?

You're deep into your
theories again, and when you do that it becomes scary. The make
believe starts and you'll say just about anything.

Not my theories ... the facts as taught in science classes everywhere.

>
> > --it's making believe the very first
> > things to have entered this world were due to magic.
>
> No, are you really this dense? I simply stated that every

potential

> thing in this universe exists whether we discover it or not.

Pretty

> much the opposite of "magic".

That's odd. Every 'potential thing' EXISTS?? You mean like the 2009
Chevy?? HAHAHAHA!!!

No. Did the fact that cars, airplanes, etc. did not exist 200 years
ago mean that science could never describe them? Of course not.
Everyone knows there is no magic that led to these dicoveries, only
understanding principles that existed all along.

Go back to that think tank you make believe you
visit and recharge your batteries!!

LMAO. I wonder how foolish Robbie feels now ...

>
> > My left nut is
> > part of the universe. Mathematically describe that!
>
> Easy. It consists of specific cells, which are made up of
molecules, which are made up of elements, which are made up of

basic

particles. The cellular processes are all describeable
mathematically. This is way too easy.

Just as I thought--reashing until the straws fall. I
said "Mathematically describe that" not make up some biological
masterbation followed by "it's all described mathematically. I
believe you'd best put a halt to your foolishness here. It's
embarrassing watching you try to walk thru quicksand.

I think everyone will agree that math describes all the processes
that end up being your "left nut". Start with Phys 101, add in a
little Chem 101 and then try Biol 101.

>
> >
> > > > that's why the
> > > > brain is far more the complex entity than any computer ever
> will
> > > be.
> > >
> > > No, it's just a different computer which will be duplicated
when
> > our brains discover all the mechanisms. Your psycho brain
included.
> >
> > So you believe we'll create a 'mechanical brain' capable of
exactly the same things a human brain is. HAHAHA!!! Only a nerd

could

love that one.
>
> It won't be mechanical, it will be electronic or biologic. It

won't

> be "exactly" the same as a human brain because all human brains

are

> different (especially yours). However, we will come very close to
> duplicating most of the functions. It appears you think the world
is controlled by "magic" if you think we won't eventually duplicate
the brain.

They tried that with Frankenstein. Quite a theory! Is the mummy up
next??

It appears Robbie does not realize that Frankenstein is a work of
FICTION. I'm talking about Neural Networks. This should get you
started ... http://www.inns.org/

> > > Your responses demonstrate a very simple understanding of the
> world
> > > around you. I suspect all the wasted brain cells dedicated to
> lying
> > > and fantasizing is responsible.
> >
> > The ultimate compliment from one who is on the slide in a

debate.

>
> I think everyone can see Robbie, the psycho-boy, is the
one "sliding" down into his little "magic" universe of lies and
fantasies.

Pee Wee Herman again. That means I'm 'taking a bite out of slime'
again!

It means you're looking like a fool "again".

> > Enough to force you to ramble on with already-posted stuff!
>
> I guess little Robbie is having a problem having to read the

TRUTH

> over and over. Get used to it.

You mean all the compliments?

That's exactly what I mean, only a psycho would think they were
compliments.

> > > > Hmmmm....What the fact here--that you asked me a question?
> Again,
> > > too
> > > > funny. You continue to step in your own mess.
> > >
> > > I already knew the answer. You stated investors
were "different" because they had economics degrees.
> >
> > Different from gambling addicts. You made up it's because of

some

> > degree. Now don't wag that tail too much as it gets stuck

between

> > your legs.....
>
> Scrambling does become you.

> > >I refuted that with the fact that Bob has a economics degree.
> >
> > This is great--you didn't even KNOW what he had! That's why you
> asked the master!!
>
> Now, why would I ask if I didn't already know? It's called a
> rhetorical question. Think about that one, psycho-boy.

You and your 'questions' seem to confuse you too easily. The

reason?

You made an idiotic statement and I made you eat your words.

Just as with the loopholes and escape routes you put in place in

case

a bet with me appears to come together as reality instead of

theory,

you contaminate all you other nonsense with flip-flops and suspect
content 'just in case'. Goofy, but fun to slap you around with
afterwards.

More of Robbies' inner voice ... It just described him nicely.

> But it's so easy. Bring up two browsers, cut from one, paste into
the
> other. Now, that I've educated you again, made you look impotent
> again, exposed your psycho tendencies again ... tell us how it
feels.
>
> > But truthfully,
>
> ROTFLMAO.
>
> > i
> > understand why you post these things. You're lost and looking

for

> > help. It just so happens you pulled on up this time that you

wish

> > applied to you even more so than the others! Being clever is
> > definitely not one of your selling points.
>
> More psycho-babble. It won't stop me from posting the truth.

Keep posting! Every time I read one of them I see how far advanced

I

am compared to you.

You mean those posts where you claim the world runs on "magic"?

> > > > > > > > Show me supporting evidence that only a nerd could
show!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've shown it to you many times including the latest
> > > reference to
> > > > > > my simulation work. Facts. What has been your response?
> More
> > > lies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > REALITY CHECK PLEASE!! Theories aren't fact. REALITY
CHECK
> > > > PLEASE!!
> > > > >
> > > > > No theory involved. Simple computer simulations based on

a

> RNG,
> > > you
> > > > > know those little things that are also in every VP

machine.

> > With
> > > it
> > > > I can simulate any method of VP play. That is a "REALITY
CHECK".
> > > >
> > > > HELLO McFLY!!! Anyone home in there??
> > >
> > > POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS -- expressions of irritability,
> annoyance,
> > > impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate
> > control
> > > of anger and temper; acting hastily.
> > >
> > > I wonder if Rob even realizes that the words he uses from

Back

to
> > the Future are from a psychopathic bully?
> >
> > HAHAHA!! Now your relegated to comparing me with Hollywood

actors

> > again!
>
> No, not actors ... they are characters from a FICTIONAL story.
Don't you even know the difference?

How do you know it's 'fictional'? You got any proof? Biff is an
American icon to those of us you spank geeks.

You and he have a lot in common ... and just who ended up with the
manure truck emptied all over him? Yes, I can see a lot of
similarities, Biffy-boy.

>
> > Let's get "Back To The Issue" REALITY CHECK!! HELLO
> > McFLY...ANYONE HOME IN THERE!?!

> > > > Simulations are theory and nothing else.
> > >
> > > Is that why they build those expensive flight simulators?
> >
> > Obviously. That's where they check out and/or confirm the
> engineering models' representations. It doesn't transform any of

it

into reality until everything checks out 100% -- unlike your stupid
simulation of video poker, and totally like my strategy development
and subsequent confirmation in the casinos.
>
> All of the simulators I mentioned are significantly more complex
than the VP play simulator I wrote.

Now there's a breakthrough!

Just an indication of why it's so easy to prove your lies.

>This demonstrates what a simple game VP is. You play a hand, get

one

>of 10-15 possible results based on an RNG and repeat.

It's almost as if you even make believe you know something about
everything at times. This stuff you're writing now has nothing to

do

with your nonsensical portrayal of flight simulators being involved
in some kind of purported theory! Please stay on the same page if

you

ever want to learn anything.

LMAO. The extent of this babbling pretty much confirms that Biffy-boy
got the point.

>That's why it is so easy to PROVE that your strategy is a con.
>Adding in the progression and your ridiculous subgoals took about

50

>lines of code, that's it. I spent more time building the various
>game probability tables and formating the output.

All to your complete satisfaction too, that is, after you ignored

the

more complex portions of my strategy

You mean the "special plays" elixir that also cures the common cold?
I accounted for them also. Didn't help.

as well as the fact that the
machines are programmed to run in hot and cold cycles.

Lie. More of your obvious con.

It's all been
said before--you'll peel down the onion until you talk yourself

into

what you intended to in the first place, just to feel good.

No talking required. The computer simulates very quietly and produces
results for millions of hands in a few seconds. Low and behold, the
results are just what the math predicts.

Even my
win resilts have been marginalized into some anamoly of 1% or
something.

To be precise it was 4-7 results out of 1000 achieved results equal
to or better than you claim (based on different seeds). I rounded it
off and said you are in the top 1%.

I'm still betting you are playing a variation of my
strategy every time you hit the addict machines. THAT was your real
purpose for the dumb work!

No, but it wouldn't be important. The progression itself does not
impact anyones' results, playing negative games does. My problem is
that you use the complexities involved with a progression, win goals,
40 credit subgoals, levels within levels and special plays to
perpetrate your con.

>
> >
> > Is that why
> > > most economic forecasters use models (often simulators)?
> >
> > Apples & oranges, and a misleading assumption.
>
> You stated "Simulations are theory and nothing else", I used

clear

> and reasonable examples to PROVE they are much more than "theory".

Where was THAT??

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/message/3804

You've got your simulations mixed up with your
simulators. Why am I not surprised.....

No, simulators produce simulations. You're looking foolish again.

> > Is that why
> > > engineering advances are often made using simulations of new
> > > technology? Theory? ... LMAO.
> >
> > You're getting ahead of yourself and are looking doubly stupid.
>
> You stated "Simulations are theory and nothing else", I used

clear

> and reasonable examples to PROVE they are much more

than "theory".

> Only a liar would claim otherwise.

So confused....Good thing you're old and not able to enter the
workforce any more!

There's that inner voice again ... Interestingly, even though I'm 4
years older than you are, I'm clearly much more knowledgeable. Your
inner self can see that.

Your articles aren't references, they're just more lies.

I thought you didn't read them little dicky! Which foot's in your
mouth now?

In any

event, we're looking for something where Bob challenged you. Like I
said before, give us a reference or stick with what you've claimed
here.

Let's see…published articles that have been verified by a managing
editor aren't references; spoken and/or written words aren't
references; book content's not a reference! What's left?? The Dick
Sheet???

>
> > Lie, I'm way smarter than you and prove it every day. Just the
fact
> > > >you keep copying my writing techniques is proof enough.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yup, you're one feared writer allright!
> > > >
> > > > Evidently. Imitation is the ... (you know the rest)
> > >
> > > ??? Another dickyism??
> >
> > Don't worry your petty little head, everyone else got it.
>
> But gee, you're addressing ME!

No, not really. I'm simply exposing you.

I know. With my pretty little head.

> > > If you had had any children you'd know that a 5-yr. old is

well

> > aware of what to do when he sees cars coming. And he doesn't

need

> to whip out the slide rule first!
> >
> > It appears Robbie doesn't understand simple logic. Does the

child

> run away when he sees a parked car? What is the difference and

what

> > exactly goes on in the brain? Let me help you out ... movement,
> which is a mathematically describeable event. If you remember I
said
> it had a basis in mathematics. This is way too easy.
>
> Here's a clue for you to learn from: It's sooo simple. Parked

cars

> aren't a threat. Moving ones are.

Is he finally getting it? I doubt it.

> At 5 the kid has apparently the
> same clue as you about what's going on.

And that clue is not magic, it has a basis in mathematics.

Yup! Every 5-yr. old is a walking math genius!! HAHAHAHA!!!!!!! If
you wore combat boots here you'd still step in it to deep!

> > > EXACTLY what they'll be saying 100 years from now when a few
more
> > > geniuses like me come along and confirm not only was my book
> right-on---but every one of my articles were so clearly relevant
that
> I may get a noble prize for enlightening people on how the brain

is

> supposed to work!
> >
> > GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's
abilities
> > and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart.
> > Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior
human
> > beings.
>
> > PS. The only future you, and anything you've written, will have
is
> to be laughed at by everyone else.
>
> I could be dumb like you and say "Gimme a fact to support that"

but

> I'll just say take care of yourself, stay out of the
casinos 'almost
> daily' and stay alive a few more years to see it all unfold in
front
> of your eyes

I'll be there. And, just as we all know the earth is not flat, we
know your claims of "voodoo math" will never become accepted.

Laughed

at ... yes, ... accepted ... ROTFLMAO.

> (if you can still see after all the vp playing that is).
> Being superior is just the start.....

GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's abilities
and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart.
Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human
beings.

>
> > > > > It doesn't require your geeky 'basis in math' and the

math

> > > wouldn't help the normal human being anyway. Most 'brains'

are

> capable of creating better ways than simple math allows for.
> > > >
> > > > Lie. Normal brains are wired to do associative activities.
Even
> > our
> > > > understanding of math is through association. Brains do not
> > create
> > > > better ways to do anything. Brains DISCOVER ways to do

things

> > that
> > > > are already described mathematically at their most basic
level.
> > > That
> > > > is why brains are not "capable of creating better ways than
> > simple
> > > > math allows for". Math describes the universe and brains

are

> part
> > > of
> > > > that universe. You're simple minded statements show an
immense
> > lack
> > > > of knowledge.
> > >
> > > Yup, you're onto something allright! This morning when I took
my
> > dump I had that 'mathematical feeling' just before it came-a-
> blasting out!!
>
> > Which ear?
>
> The one hooked up to your computer.

We already knew your left brain was absent, just wondering if
you "dumped" the right one now. Apparently so.

???

> >
> > > But really, you're a victim of your own neurosis. Brains are
the
> > > ultimate discovery vehicle and the creator of computers as

well

> as everything else.
> >
> > I think discover is the better word.
>
> There's that thinking again..... What'd I tell you about trying
that!

Do I hear that inner voice again ...

In your left ear?

>
> > > Saying the issue was 'already described
> > > mathematically at its most basic level' is not only
condescending
> > to every human who's ever lived
> >
> > No, it's just the facts.
>
> You neither have nor have shown facts on that.

Would you like a book reference on particle physics? "In Search of
Schroedinger's Cat" would be a good start.

What? Dingbat's Cat? Is this a new type of kitty litter??! HAHA!!

You should know with that

engineering degree that all physical interactions are described by
math. Or, do they teach magic where you got your degree?

Now explain just how the 5-yr. old has any knowledge at all about
physical interactions. Or were you a child prodigy to go along with
that nerdy nonsense you spew.

> You're deep into your
> theories again, and when you do that it becomes scary. The make
> believe starts and you'll say just about anything.

Not my theories ... the facts as taught in science classes

everywhere.

Yeah, I though I saw that curriculum advertised by the University of
The Moon.

> >
> > > --it's making believe the very first
> > > things to have entered this world were due to magic.
> >
> > No, are you really this dense? I simply stated that every
potential
> > thing in this universe exists whether we discover it or not.
Pretty
> > much the opposite of "magic".
>
> That's odd. Every 'potential thing' EXISTS?? You mean like the

2009

> Chevy?? HAHAHAHA!!!

No. Did the fact that cars, airplanes, etc. did not exist 200 years
ago mean that science could never describe them? Of course not.
Everyone knows there is no magic that led to these dicoveries, only
understanding principles that existed all along.

Double-talk. "EVERY POTENTIAL THING EXISTS." And your attempt at
wiggling your way out of it is just as useless and stupid. I'm
thinking of the guglio-matic mind-reading machine right now. What
year's that 'potential' gonna exist, huh?

> Go back to that think tank you make believe you
> visit and recharge your batteries!!

LMAO. I wonder how foolish Robbie feels now ...

Refreshed and snickering at your utter stupidity and silly methods of
trying to save face. Even a girl could do better!

> >
> > > My left nut is
> > > part of the universe. Mathematically describe that!
> >
> > Easy. It consists of specific cells, which are made up of
> molecules, which are made up of elements, which are made up of
basic
> particles. The cellular processes are all describeable
> mathematically. This is way too easy.
>
> Just as I thought--reaching until the straws fall. I
> said "Mathematically describe that" not make up some biological
> masterbation followed by "it's all described mathematically". I
> believe you'd best put a halt to your foolishness here. It's
> embarrassing watching you try to walk thru quicksand.

I think everyone will agree that math describes all the processes
that end up being your "left nut". Start with Phys 101, add in a
little Chem 101 and then try Biol 101.

Yup--let's ask porn star Michael J. Cox that question. See if he has
that resipe ready for action!

> >
> > >
> > > > > that's why the
> > > > > brain is far more the complex entity than any computer

ever

> > will
> > > > be.
> > > >
> > > > No, it's just a different computer which will be duplicated
> when
> > > our brains discover all the mechanisms. Your psycho brain
> included.
> > >
> > > So you believe we'll create a 'mechanical brain' capable of
> exactly the same things a human brain is. HAHAHA!!! Only a nerd
could
> love that one.
> >
> > It won't be mechanical, it will be electronic or biologic. It
won't
> > be "exactly" the same as a human brain because all human brains
are
> > different (especially yours). However, we will come very close

to

> > duplicating most of the functions. It appears you think the

world

> is controlled by "magic" if you think we won't eventually

duplicate

> the brain.
>
> They tried that with Frankenstein. Quite a theory! Is the mummy

up next??

It appears Robbie does not realize that Frankenstein is a work of
FICTION. I'm talking about Neural Networks. This should get you
started ... http://www.inns.org/

Wrong. Frankenstein was based on actual events. While I was watching
TV at Frat parties, you were probably studying. HERE'S where it hurts
you to do that!

>
> > > > Your responses demonstrate a very simple understanding of

the

> > world
> > > > around you. I suspect all the wasted brain cells dedicated

to

> > lying
> > > > and fantasizing is responsible.
> > >
> > > The ultimate compliment from one who is on the slide in a
debate.
> >
> > I think everyone can see Robbie, the psycho-boy, is the
> one "sliding" down into his little "magic" universe of lies and
> fantasies.
>
> Pee Wee Herman again. That means I'm 'taking a bite out of slime'
> again!

It means you're looking like a fool "again".

Pee Wee Herman again.

> > > Enough to force you to ramble on with already-posted stuff!
> >
> > I guess little Robbie is having a problem having to read the
TRUTH
> > over and over. Get used to it.
>
> You mean all the compliments?

That's exactly what I mean, only a psycho would think they were
compliments.

Most psychos are true geniuses. I'll accept that as ANOTHER
compliment.

>
> > > > > Hmmmm....What the fact here--that you asked me a

question?

> > Again,
> > > > too
> > > > > funny. You continue to step in your own mess.
> > > >
> > > > I already knew the answer. You stated investors
> were "different" because they had economics degrees.
> > >
> > > Different from gambling addicts. You made up it's because of
some
> > > degree. Now don't wag that tail too much as it gets stuck
between
> > > your legs.....
> >
> > Scrambling does become you.
>
> > > >I refuted that with the fact that Bob has a economics

degree.

> > >
> > > This is great--you didn't even KNOW what he had! That's why

you

> > asked the master!!
> >
> > Now, why would I ask if I didn't already know? It's called a
> > rhetorical question. Think about that one, psycho-boy.
>
> You and your 'questions' seem to confuse you too easily. The
reason?

You made an idiotic statement and I made you eat your words.

You're still trying to work your way out of the mess you created.
This is waaay too funny! It didn't start with a statement from me.
YOU (as usual) came up with a bozo-like statement. I simply tossed it
back at you and watched it turn into egg on your face. In other
words, you're now scrambling around while I'm laughing at you enough
to have you arrested!

> Just as with the loopholes and escape routes you put in place in
case
> a bet with me appears to come together as reality instead of
theory,
> you contaminate all you other nonsense with flip-flops and

suspect

> content 'just in case'. Goofy, but fun to slap you around with
> afterwards.

More of Robbies' inner voice ... It just described him nicely.

But I like the outer voice better little dicky. Why can't that one be
your blankey.....

> > But it's so easy. Bring up two browsers, cut from one, paste

into

> the
> > other. Now, that I've educated you again, made you look

impotent

> > again, exposed your psycho tendencies again ... tell us how it
> feels.
> >
> > > But truthfully,
> >
> > ROTFLMAO.
> >
> > > i
> > > understand why you post these things. You're lost and looking
for
> > > help. It just so happens you pulled on up this time that you
wish
> > > applied to you even more so than the others! Being clever is
> > > definitely not one of your selling points.
> >
> > More psycho-babble. It won't stop me from posting the truth.
>
> Keep posting! Every time I read one of them I see how far

advanced

I
> am compared to you.

You mean those posts where you claim the world runs on "magic"?

Maybe, but more like the one you claim your left nut is a product of
GEEK 101.

>
> > > > > > > > > Show me supporting evidence that only a nerd

could

> show!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've shown it to you many times including the

latest

> > > > reference to
> > > > > > > my simulation work. Facts. What has been your

response?

> > More
> > > > lies.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > REALITY CHECK PLEASE!! Theories aren't fact. REALITY
> CHECK
> > > > > PLEASE!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No theory involved. Simple computer simulations based

on

a
> > RNG,
> > > > you
> > > > > > know those little things that are also in every VP
machine.
> > > With
> > > > it
> > > > > I can simulate any method of VP play. That is a "REALITY
> CHECK".
> > > > >
> > > > > HELLO McFLY!!! Anyone home in there??
> > > >
> > > > POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS -- expressions of irritability,
> > annoyance,
> > > > impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse;

inadequate

> > > control
> > > > of anger and temper; acting hastily.
> > > >
> > > > I wonder if Rob even realizes that the words he uses from
Back
> to
> > > the Future are from a psychopathic bully?
> > >
> > > HAHAHA!! Now your relegated to comparing me with Hollywood
actors
> > > again!
> >
> > No, not actors ... they are characters from a FICTIONAL story.
> Don't you even know the difference?
>
> How do you know it's 'fictional'? You got any proof? Biff is an
> American icon to those of us you spank geeks.

You and he have a lot in common ... and just who ended up with the
manure truck emptied all over him? Yes, I can see a lot of
similarities, Biffy-boy.

The same genius who ended up in charge of the world's largest and
most prosperous casino. He also got the broad. I'll take being Biffy-
Boy every time over the nerd who built the car!

> >
> > > Let's get "Back To The Issue" REALITY CHECK!! HELLO
> > > McFLY...ANYONE HOME IN THERE!?!
>
> > > > > Simulations are theory and nothing else.
> > > >
> > > > Is that why they build those expensive flight simulators?
> > >
> > > Obviously. That's where they check out and/or confirm the
> > engineering models' representations. It doesn't transform any

of

it
> into reality until everything checks out 100% -- unlike your

stupid

> simulation of video poker, and totally like my strategy

development

> and subsequent confirmation in the casinos.
> >
> > All of the simulators I mentioned are significantly more

complex

> than the VP play simulator I wrote.
>
> Now there's a breakthrough!

Just an indication of why it's so easy to prove your lies.

You mean where I exposed how you don't know the difference
between 'simulations' and 'simulators'? HAHAHA!!! Please, help me
somebody! I'm getting a gut-ache over all this wiping little dicky up!

>
> >This demonstrates what a simple game VP is. You play a hand, get
one
> >of 10-15 possible results based on an RNG and repeat.
>
> It's almost as if you even make believe you know something about
> everything at times. This stuff you're writing now has nothing to
do
> with your nonsensical portrayal of flight simulators being

involved

> in some kind of purported theory! Please stay on the same page if
you
> ever want to learn anything.

LMAO. The extent of this babbling pretty much confirms that Biffy-

boy

got the point.

>
> >That's why it is so easy to PROVE that your strategy is a con.
> >Adding in the progression and your ridiculous subgoals took

about

50
> >lines of code, that's it. I spent more time building the various
> >game probability tables and formating the output.
>
> All to your complete satisfaction too, that is, after you ignored
the
> more complex portions of my strategy

You mean the "special plays" elixir that also cures the common

cold?

I accounted for them also. Didn't help.

Then name them. Here's your chance to prove your worth for a change
instead of rambling on with all that theory. All 1744 of them, and
explain to the one person who came on here and said he was interested
in your waste of time!

> as well as the fact that the
> machines are programmed to run in hot and cold cycles.

Lie. More of your obvious con.

You deny that because you can't handle the truth. Typical of all
geeks. Imagine little dicky in TILT??! Your wife wouldn't recognize
you--addict or not!

> It's all been
> said before--you'll peel down the onion until you talk yourself
into
> what you intended to in the first place, just to feel good.

No talking required. The computer simulates very quietly and

produces

results for millions of hands in a few seconds. Low and behold, the
results are just what the math predicts.

"The results ar just what the math predicts"! You mean you WANT the
results to be just what the math predicts. Show me the sim that
predicted my results.

> Even my
> win resilts have been marginalized into some anamoly of 1% or
> something.

To be precise it was 4-7 results out of 1000 achieved results equal
to or better than you claim (based on different seeds). I rounded

it

off and said you are in the top 1%.

To you, that should tell you I'm in the top 1% of intelligent human
beings also. Yup. Biffy-Boy up there above little dicky!! How does he
live with THAT?!

> I'm still betting you are playing a variation of my
> strategy every time you hit the addict machines. THAT was your

real

> purpose for the dumb work!

No, but it wouldn't be important. The progression itself does not
impact anyones' results, playing negative games does. My problem is
that you use the complexities involved with a progression, win

goals,

40 credit subgoals, levels within levels and special plays to
perpetrate your con.

I like it that you say you have 'problems'. Whenever you're
uncomfortable with not understanding something, I tingle!

> >
> > >
> > > Is that why
> > > > most economic forecasters use models (often simulators)?
> > >
> > > Apples & oranges, and a misleading assumption.
> >
> > You stated "Simulations are theory and nothing else", I used
clear
> > and reasonable examples to PROVE they are much more

than "theory".

>
> Where was THAT??

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/message/3804

> You've got your simulations mixed up with your
> simulators. Why am I not surprised.....

No, simulators produce simulations. You're looking foolish again.

Not the way you stutter them out. You're the only one I know that can
stumble over his own wording and never learn how not to do it again.

>
> > > Is that why
> > > > engineering advances are often made using simulations of

new

> > > > technology? Theory? ... LMAO.
> > >
> > > You're getting ahead of yourself and are looking doubly

stupid.

> >
> > You stated "Simulations are theory and nothing else", I used
clear
> > and reasonable examples to PROVE they are much more
than "theory".
> > Only a liar would claim otherwise.
>
> So confused....Good thing you're old and not able to enter the
> workforce any more!

There's that inner voice again ... Interestingly, even though I'm 4
years older than you are, I'm clearly much more knowledgeable. Your
inner self can see that.

Well, just who would want such a farce working for them in the modern
age? You make up more than half the stuff you say here, you don't
even know the story behind Frankenstein, and you're relegated to
pulling phrases out of the Internet because you can't keep up with me
or figure out where I'm at. I like spanking such a nerd. I just hope
you make it thru another day so I can keep up the fun!

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> Your articles aren't references, they're just more lies.

I thought you didn't read them little dicky! Which foot's in your
mouth now?

Yours, I read and tear apart the ones' you post here.

In any
> event, we're looking for something where Bob challenged you. Like

I

> said before, give us a reference or stick with what you've

claimed

> here.

Let's see...published articles that have been verified by a

managing

editor aren't references;

Verified? ... Who are you trying to kid.

spoken and/or written words aren't
references; book content's not a reference! What's left?? The Dick
Sheet???

Something that actually contains a statment by Bob. That is what you
claimed! Without that, you have nothing ... nothing but your lies.

> >
> > > Lie, I'm way smarter than you and prove it every day. Just

the

> fact
> > > > >you keep copying my writing techniques is proof enough.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yup, you're one feared writer allright!
> > > > >
> > > > > Evidently. Imitation is the ... (you know the rest)
> > > >
> > > > ??? Another dickyism??
> > >
> > > Don't worry your petty little head, everyone else got it.
> >
> > But gee, you're addressing ME!
>
> No, not really. I'm simply exposing you.

I know. With my pretty little head.

"petty"

>
> > > > If you had had any children you'd know that a 5-yr. old is
well
> > > aware of what to do when he sees cars coming. And he doesn't
need
> > to whip out the slide rule first!
> > >
> > > It appears Robbie doesn't understand simple logic. Does the
child
> > run away when he sees a parked car? What is the difference and
what
> > > exactly goes on in the brain? Let me help you out ...

movement,

> > which is a mathematically describeable event. If you remember I
> said
> > it had a basis in mathematics. This is way too easy.
> >
> > Here's a clue for you to learn from: It's sooo simple. Parked
cars
> > aren't a threat. Moving ones are.
>
> Is he finally getting it? I doubt it.
>
> > At 5 the kid has apparently the
> > same clue as you about what's going on.
>
> And that clue is not magic, it has a basis in mathematics.

Yup! Every 5-yr. old is a walking math genius!! HAHAHAHA!!!!!!! If
you wore combat boots here you'd still step in it to deep!

Nice try, but I didn't say he did the computations, in fact, I said
the brain works associatively. However, the movement has a BASIS in
mathematics which is what I said. Try to keep up.

>
> > > > EXACTLY what they'll be saying 100 years from now when a

few

> more
> > > > geniuses like me come along and confirm not only was my

book

> > right-on---but every one of my articles were so clearly

relevant

> that
> > I may get a noble prize for enlightening people on how the

brain

is
> > supposed to work!
> > >
> > > GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's
> abilities
> > > and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart.
> > > Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior
> human
> > > beings.
> >
> > > PS. The only future you, and anything you've written, will

have

> is
> > to be laughed at by everyone else.
> >
> > I could be dumb like you and say "Gimme a fact to support that"
but
> > I'll just say take care of yourself, stay out of the
> casinos 'almost
> > daily' and stay alive a few more years to see it all unfold in
> front
> > of your eyes
>
> I'll be there. And, just as we all know the earth is not flat, we
> know your claims of "voodoo math" will never become accepted.
Laughed
> at ... yes, ... accepted ... ROTFLMAO.
>
> > (if you can still see after all the vp playing that is).
> > Being superior is just the start.....
>
> GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's

abilities

> and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart.
> Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior

human

> beings.
>
> >
> > > > > > It doesn't require your geeky 'basis in math' and the
math
> > > > wouldn't help the normal human being anyway. Most 'brains'
are
> > capable of creating better ways than simple math allows for.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lie. Normal brains are wired to do associative

activities.

> Even
> > > our
> > > > > understanding of math is through association. Brains do

not

> > > create
> > > > > better ways to do anything. Brains DISCOVER ways to do
things
> > > that
> > > > > are already described mathematically at their most basic
> level.
> > > > That
> > > > > is why brains are not "capable of creating better ways

than

> > > simple
> > > > > math allows for". Math describes the universe and brains
are
> > part
> > > > of
> > > > > that universe. You're simple minded statements show an
> immense
> > > lack
> > > > > of knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > Yup, you're onto something allright! This morning when I

took

> my
> > > dump I had that 'mathematical feeling' just before it came-a-
> > blasting out!!
> >
> > > Which ear?
> >
> > The one hooked up to your computer.
>
> We already knew your left brain was absent, just wondering if
> you "dumped" the right one now. Apparently so.

???

Rob: dump ... Dick: ear ... Rob: ??? ... Translation:The booze again.

>
> > >
> > > > But really, you're a victim of your own neurosis. Brains

are

> the
> > > > ultimate discovery vehicle and the creator of computers as
well
> > as everything else.
> > >
> > > I think discover is the better word.
> >
> > There's that thinking again..... What'd I tell you about trying
> that!
>
> Do I hear that inner voice again ...

In your left ear?

No, in your posts.

>
> >
> > > > Saying the issue was 'already described
> > > > mathematically at its most basic level' is not only
> condescending
> > > to every human who's ever lived
> > >
> > > No, it's just the facts.
> >
> > You neither have nor have shown facts on that.
>
> Would you like a book reference on particle physics? "In Search

of

> Schroedinger's Cat" would be a good start.

What? Dingbat's Cat? Is this a new type of kitty litter??! HAHA!!

You asked for facts ... I provided some. Be careful what you wish
for ...

You should know with that
> engineering degree that all physical interactions are described

by

> math. Or, do they teach magic where you got your degree?

Now explain just how the 5-yr. old has any knowledge at all about
physical interactions. Or were you a child prodigy to go along with
that nerdy nonsense you spew.

I see you avoided answering the queston ... What was that school ...
Magic U.

>
> > You're deep into your
> > theories again, and when you do that it becomes scary. The make
> > believe starts and you'll say just about anything.
>
> Not my theories ... the facts as taught in science classes
everywhere.

Yeah, I though I saw that curriculum advertised by the University

of

The Moon.

Is that right next to Magic U?

>
> > >
> > > > --it's making believe the very first
> > > > things to have entered this world were due to magic.
> > >
> > > No, are you really this dense? I simply stated that every
> potential
> > > thing in this universe exists whether we discover it or not.
> Pretty
> > > much the opposite of "magic".
> >
> > That's odd. Every 'potential thing' EXISTS?? You mean like the
2009
> > Chevy?? HAHAHAHA!!!
>
> No. Did the fact that cars, airplanes, etc. did not exist 200

years

> ago mean that science could never describe them? Of course not.
> Everyone knows there is no magic that led to these dicoveries,

only

> understanding principles that existed all along.

Double-talk. "EVERY POTENTIAL THING EXISTS." And your attempt at
wiggling your way out of it is just as useless and stupid. I'm
thinking of the guglio-matic mind-reading machine right now. What
year's that 'potential' gonna exist, huh?

The facts get Biffy-boy babbling again. I suppose you think nothing
new will ever be invented in the future. ROTFLMAO.

>
> > Go back to that think tank you make believe you
> > visit and recharge your batteries!!
>
> LMAO. I wonder how foolish Robbie feels now ...

Refreshed and snickering at your utter stupidity and silly methods

of

trying to save face. Even a girl could do better!

There's that inner voice ... You really shouldn't display these
sexist attitudes, your wife may find out and cut off your allowance.

>
> > >
> > > > My left nut is
> > > > part of the universe. Mathematically describe that!
> > >
> > > Easy. It consists of specific cells, which are made up of
> > molecules, which are made up of elements, which are made up of
> basic
> > particles. The cellular processes are all describeable
> > mathematically. This is way too easy.
> >
> > Just as I thought--reaching until the straws fall. I
> > said "Mathematically describe that" not make up some biological
> > masterbation followed by "it's all described mathematically". I
> > believe you'd best put a halt to your foolishness here. It's
> > embarrassing watching you try to walk thru quicksand.
>
> I think everyone will agree that math describes all the processes
> that end up being your "left nut". Start with Phys 101, add in a
> little Chem 101 and then try Biol 101.

Yup--let's ask porn star Michael J. Cox that question. See if he

has

that resipe ready for action!

SHALLOW AFFECT -- emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of
feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open
gregariousness.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > that's why the
> > > > > > brain is far more the complex entity than any computer
ever
> > > will
> > > > > be.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it's just a different computer which will be

duplicated

> > when
> > > > our brains discover all the mechanisms. Your psycho brain
> > included.
> > > >
> > > > So you believe we'll create a 'mechanical brain' capable of
> > exactly the same things a human brain is. HAHAHA!!! Only a nerd
> could
> > love that one.
> > >
> > > It won't be mechanical, it will be electronic or biologic. It
> won't
> > > be "exactly" the same as a human brain because all human

brains

> are
> > > different (especially yours). However, we will come very

close

to
> > > duplicating most of the functions. It appears you think the
world
> > is controlled by "magic" if you think we won't eventually
duplicate
> > the brain.
> >
> > They tried that with Frankenstein. Quite a theory! Is the mummy
up next??
>
> It appears Robbie does not realize that Frankenstein is a work of
> FICTION. I'm talking about Neural Networks. This should get you
> started ... http://www.inns.org/

Wrong. Frankenstein was based on actual events.

Lots of fiction have a basis in real life. However, the author
embellishes it and that's why it's called FICTION.

While I was watching
TV at Frat parties, you were probably studying. HERE'S where it

hurts

you to do that!

Need I say more ...

>
> >
> > > > > Your responses demonstrate a very simple understanding of
the
> > > world
> > > > > around you. I suspect all the wasted brain cells

dedicated

to
> > > lying
> > > > > and fantasizing is responsible.
> > > >
> > > > The ultimate compliment from one who is on the slide in a
> debate.
> > >
> > > I think everyone can see Robbie, the psycho-boy, is the
> > one "sliding" down into his little "magic" universe of lies and
> > fantasies.
> >
> > Pee Wee Herman again. That means I'm 'taking a bite out of

slime'

> > again!
>
> It means you're looking like a fool "again".

Pee Wee Herman again.

It still means you're looking like a fool "again".

>
> > > > Enough to force you to ramble on with already-posted stuff!
> > >
> > > I guess little Robbie is having a problem having to read the
> TRUTH
> > > over and over. Get used to it.
> >
> > You mean all the compliments?
>
> That's exactly what I mean, only a psycho would think they were
> compliments.

Most psychos are true geniuses. I'll accept that as ANOTHER
compliment.

Nope, they encompass the entire spectrum of intelligence. In your
case I think we can assume the lower end of the spectrum.

>
> >
> > > > > > Hmmmm....What the fact here--that you asked me a
question?
> > > Again,
> > > > > too
> > > > > > funny. You continue to step in your own mess.
> > > > >
> > > > > I already knew the answer. You stated investors
> > were "different" because they had economics degrees.
> > > >
> > > > Different from gambling addicts. You made up it's because

of

> some
> > > > degree. Now don't wag that tail too much as it gets stuck
> between
> > > > your legs.....
> > >
> > > Scrambling does become you.
> >
> > > > >I refuted that with the fact that Bob has a economics
degree.
> > > >
> > > > This is great--you didn't even KNOW what he had! That's why
you
> > > asked the master!!
> > >
> > > Now, why would I ask if I didn't already know? It's called a
> > > rhetorical question. Think about that one, psycho-boy.
> >
> > You and your 'questions' seem to confuse you too easily. The
> reason?
>
> You made an idiotic statement and I made you eat your words.

You're still trying to work your way out of the mess you created.

Just the facts, as usual.

This is waaay too funny! It didn't start with a statement from me.
YOU (as usual) came up with a bozo-like statement. I simply tossed

it

back at you and watched it turn into egg on your face. In other
words, you're now scrambling around while I'm laughing at you

enough

to have you arrested!

More babbling ... Everyone has already read how this exchange came
down and can see you scrambing. The facts have that way of dealing
with LAFs.

>
> > Just as with the loopholes and escape routes you put in place

in

> case
> > a bet with me appears to come together as reality instead of
> theory,
> > you contaminate all you other nonsense with flip-flops and
suspect
> > content 'just in case'. Goofy, but fun to slap you around with
> > afterwards.
>
> More of Robbies' inner voice ... It just described him nicely.

But I like the outer voice better little dicky. Why can't that one

be

your blankey.....

Because it's a sickness. You created it to justify the behavior of
your childhood abuser. Now it behaves like that abuser and is still
justifying those actions. Let your inner voice out and you will be
much happier.

>
> > > But it's so easy. Bring up two browsers, cut from one, paste
into
> > the
> > > other. Now, that I've educated you again, made you look
impotent
> > > again, exposed your psycho tendencies again ... tell us how

it

> > feels.
> > >
> > > > But truthfully,
> > >
> > > ROTFLMAO.
> > >
> > > > i
> > > > understand why you post these things. You're lost and

looking

> for
> > > > help. It just so happens you pulled on up this time that

you

> wish
> > > > applied to you even more so than the others! Being clever

is

> > > > definitely not one of your selling points.
> > >
> > > More psycho-babble. It won't stop me from posting the truth.
> >
> > Keep posting! Every time I read one of them I see how far
advanced
> I
> > am compared to you.
>
> You mean those posts where you claim the world runs on "magic"?

Maybe, but more like the one you claim your left nut is a product

of

GEEK 101.

Did you take that class at Magic U.?

>
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Show me supporting evidence that only a nerd
could
> > show!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've shown it to you many times including the
latest
> > > > > reference to
> > > > > > > > my simulation work. Facts. What has been your
response?
> > > More
> > > > > lies.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > REALITY CHECK PLEASE!! Theories aren't fact.

REALITY

> > CHECK
> > > > > > PLEASE!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No theory involved. Simple computer simulations based
on
> a
> > > RNG,
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > know those little things that are also in every VP
> machine.
> > > > With
> > > > > it
> > > > > > I can simulate any method of VP play. That is

a "REALITY

> > CHECK".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HELLO McFLY!!! Anyone home in there??
> > > > >
> > > > > POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS -- expressions of irritability,
> > > annoyance,
> > > > > impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse;
inadequate
> > > > control
> > > > > of anger and temper; acting hastily.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder if Rob even realizes that the words he uses from
> Back
> > to
> > > > the Future are from a psychopathic bully?
> > > >
> > > > HAHAHA!! Now your relegated to comparing me with Hollywood
> actors
> > > > again!
> > >
> > > No, not actors ... they are characters from a FICTIONAL

story.

> > Don't you even know the difference?
> >
> > How do you know it's 'fictional'? You got any proof? Biff is an
> > American icon to those of us you spank geeks.
>
> You and he have a lot in common ... and just who ended up with

the

> manure truck emptied all over him? Yes, I can see a lot of
> similarities, Biffy-boy.

The same genius who ended up in charge of the world's largest and
most prosperous casino.

Until ... it never happened ... Selective memory or what?

He also got the broad. I'll take being Biffy-
Boy every time over the nerd who built the car!

Yup, selective memory. Did you forget who ended up polishing cars for
a living? I can see why he's your hero, Biffy-boy, at least he had a
job.

>
> > >
> > > > Let's get "Back To The Issue" REALITY CHECK!! HELLO
> > > > McFLY...ANYONE HOME IN THERE!?!
> >
> > > > > > Simulations are theory and nothing else.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is that why they build those expensive flight simulators?
> > > >
> > > > Obviously. That's where they check out and/or confirm the
> > > engineering models' representations. It doesn't transform any
of
> it
> > into reality until everything checks out 100% -- unlike your
stupid
> > simulation of video poker, and totally like my strategy
development
> > and subsequent confirmation in the casinos.
> > >
> > > All of the simulators I mentioned are significantly more
complex
> > than the VP play simulator I wrote.
> >
> > Now there's a breakthrough!
>
> Just an indication of why it's so easy to prove your lies.

You mean where I exposed how you don't know the difference
between 'simulations' and 'simulators'? HAHAHA!!! Please, help me
somebody! I'm getting a gut-ache over all this wiping little dicky

up!

More babbling. You make it soooooo easy.

>
> >
> > >This demonstrates what a simple game VP is. You play a hand,

get

> one
> > >of 10-15 possible results based on an RNG and repeat.
> >
> > It's almost as if you even make believe you know something

about

> > everything at times. This stuff you're writing now has nothing

to

> do
> > with your nonsensical portrayal of flight simulators being
involved
> > in some kind of purported theory! Please stay on the same page

if

> you
> > ever want to learn anything.
>
> LMAO. The extent of this babbling pretty much confirms that Biffy-
boy
> got the point.
>
> >
> > >That's why it is so easy to PROVE that your strategy is a con.
> > >Adding in the progression and your ridiculous subgoals took
about
> 50
> > >lines of code, that's it. I spent more time building the

various

> > >game probability tables and formating the output.
> >
> > All to your complete satisfaction too, that is, after you

ignored

> the
> > more complex portions of my strategy
>
> You mean the "special plays" elixir that also cures the common
cold?
> I accounted for them also. Didn't help.

Then name them. Here's your chance to prove your worth for a change
instead of rambling on with all that theory. All 1744 of them, and
explain to the one person who came on here and said he was

interested

in your waste of time!

I added in your idiotic play to discard 2 pair and go for it. After
seeing the results get worse, as expected, it became unnecessary to
add in any more worthless plays. Even you can't say when to apply
them, that's why it's such an obvious con.

>
> > as well as the fact that the
> > machines are programmed to run in hot and cold cycles.
>
> Lie. More of your obvious con.

You deny that because you can't handle the truth.

You mean "the truth" of the NGC regs that clearly disallow this?

Typical of all
geeks. Imagine little dicky in TILT??! Your wife wouldn't recognize
you--addict or not!

CALLOUSNESS and LACK OF EMPATHY -- a lack of feelings toward people
in general; cold, contemptuous, inconsiderate, and tactless.

>
> > It's all been
> > said before--you'll peel down the onion until you talk yourself
> into
> > what you intended to in the first place, just to feel good.
>
> No talking required. The computer simulates very quietly and
produces
> results for millions of hands in a few seconds. Low and behold,

the

> results are just what the math predicts.

"The results ar just what the math predicts"! You mean you WANT the
results to be just what the math predicts. Show me the sim that
predicted my results.

If you'd like I can show you one:

Large win amount = 661420 with 103.659341 payback.

But then don't forget the one with 96.235344 payback. For every
result in the top 1% there exists one in the bottem 1%. That is true
for any system anyone can invent. What really matters is the chances
of winning year after year ... that is what AP does best.

>
> > Even my
> > win resilts have been marginalized into some anamoly of 1% or
> > something.
>
> To be precise it was 4-7 results out of 1000 achieved results

equal

> to or better than you claim (based on different seeds). I rounded
it
> off and said you are in the top 1%.

To you, that should tell you I'm in the top 1% of intelligent human
beings also. Yup. Biffy-Boy up there above little dicky!! How does

he

live with THAT?!

No, it simply means you've been lucky (or lie).

>
> > I'm still betting you are playing a variation of my
> > strategy every time you hit the addict machines. THAT was your
real
> > purpose for the dumb work!
>
> No, but it wouldn't be important. The progression itself does not
> impact anyones' results, playing negative games does. My problem

is

> that you use the complexities involved with a progression, win
goals,
> 40 credit subgoals, levels within levels and special plays to
> perpetrate your con.

I like it that you say you have 'problems'. Whenever you're
uncomfortable with not understanding something, I tingle!

I'm sure having your con exposed does make your inner self tingle.
When you can tell the difference you will be on the road to recovery.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Is that why
> > > > > most economic forecasters use models (often simulators)?
> > > >
> > > > Apples & oranges, and a misleading assumption.
> > >
> > > You stated "Simulations are theory and nothing else", I used
> clear
> > > and reasonable examples to PROVE they are much more
than "theory".
> >
> > Where was THAT??
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/message/3804
>
> > You've got your simulations mixed up with your
> > simulators. Why am I not surprised.....
>
> No, simulators produce simulations. You're looking foolish again.

Not the way you stutter them out. You're the only one I know that

can

stumble over his own wording and never learn how not to do it again.

You must not like how easily I refuted your idiotic assertion. So be
it.

>
> >
> > > > Is that why
> > > > > engineering advances are often made using simulations of
new
> > > > > technology? Theory? ... LMAO.
> > > >
> > > > You're getting ahead of yourself and are looking doubly
stupid.
> > >
> > > You stated "Simulations are theory and nothing else", I used
> clear
> > > and reasonable examples to PROVE they are much more
> than "theory".
> > > Only a liar would claim otherwise.
> >
> > So confused....Good thing you're old and not able to enter the
> > workforce any more!
>
> There's that inner voice again ... Interestingly, even though I'm

4

> years older than you are, I'm clearly much more knowledgeable.

Your

> inner self can see that.

Well, just who would want such a farce working for them in the

modern

age? You make up more than half the stuff you say here,

Robbies' inner voice speaks.

you don't
even know the story behind Frankenstein, and you're relegated to
pulling phrases out of the Internet because you can't keep up with

me

or figure out where I'm at. I like spanking such a nerd. I just

hope

you make it thru another day so I can keep up the fun!

GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's abilities
and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart.
Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human
beings.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > Your articles aren't references, they're just more lies.
>
> I thought you didn't read them little dicky! Which foot's in your
> mouth now?

Yours, I read and tear apart the ones' you post here.

Next time you 'read my foot' and 'tear it apart' write it up so I can
relive it! It's not often one can get a good look at the inner-anal-
retentive workings of a self-proclaimed geek.

>
> In any
> > event, we're looking for something where Bob challenged you.

Like

I
> > said before, give us a reference or stick with what you've
claimed
> > here.
>
> Let's see...published articles that have been verified by a
managing
> editor aren't references;

Verified? ... Who are you trying to kid.

No one. Eliminate the denial and check it out. Every article that
even slightly refers to another person has its content checked and
verified. Too much for you? How you gonna weasel out of this one??

> spoken and/or written words aren't
> references; book content's not a reference! What's left?? The

Dick

> Sheet???

Something that actually contains a statment by Bob. That is what

you

claimed! Without that, you have nothing ... nothing but your lies.

So now you will trust what 'Mr. arrogant' has to say. which side of
the mouth did that come out of? Convenience is just another side
effect of your overall disease with gambling.

>
> > >
> > > > Lie, I'm way smarter than you and prove it every day. Just
the
> > fact
> > > > > >you keep copying my writing techniques is proof enough.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yup, you're one feared writer allright!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Evidently. Imitation is the ... (you know the rest)
> > > > >
> > > > > ??? Another dickyism??
> > > >
> > > > Don't worry your petty little head, everyone else got it.
> > >
> > > But gee, you're addressing ME!
> >
> > No, not really. I'm simply exposing you.
>
> I know. With my pretty little head.

"petty"

I like pretty.

> >
> > > > > If you had had any children you'd know that a 5-yr. old

is

> well
> > > > aware of what to do when he sees cars coming. And he

doesn't

> need
> > > to whip out the slide rule first!
> > > >
> > > > It appears Robbie doesn't understand simple logic. Does the
> child
> > > run away when he sees a parked car? What is the difference

and

> what
> > > > exactly goes on in the brain? Let me help you out ...
movement,
> > > which is a mathematically describeable event. If you remember

I

> > said
> > > it had a basis in mathematics. This is way too easy.
> > >
> > > Here's a clue for you to learn from: It's sooo simple. Parked
> cars
> > > aren't a threat. Moving ones are.
> >
> > Is he finally getting it? I doubt it.
> >
> > > At 5 the kid has apparently the
> > > same clue as you about what's going on.
> >
> > And that clue is not magic, it has a basis in mathematics.
>
> Yup! Every 5-yr. old is a walking math genius!! HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

If

> you wore combat boots here you'd still step in it to deep!

Nice try, but I didn't say he did the computations, in fact, I said
the brain works associatively. However, the movement has a BASIS in
mathematics which is what I said. Try to keep up.

Uh humma uh humma u humma....Just how much do you practice looking
stupid and stuttering anyway? The kid doesn't do the 'computations'
but his brain does! He understands the 'movement' has a basis in
math, but he just can't quite turn on his calculator yet!!! Oh
Oh...if this were any funnier I'd be throwing up!!!

> >
> > > > > EXACTLY what they'll be saying 100 years from now when a
few
> > more
> > > > > geniuses like me come along and confirm not only was my
book
> > > right-on---but every one of my articles were so clearly
relevant
> > that
> > > I may get a noble prize for enlightening people on how the
brain
> is
> > > supposed to work!
> > > >
> > > > GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's
> > abilities
> > > > and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a

braggart.

> > > > Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are

superior

> > human
> > > > beings.
> > >
> > > > PS. The only future you, and anything you've written, will
have
> > is
> > > to be laughed at by everyone else.
> > >
> > > I could be dumb like you and say "Gimme a fact to support

that"

> but
> > > I'll just say take care of yourself, stay out of the
> > casinos 'almost
> > > daily' and stay alive a few more years to see it all unfold

in

> > front
> > > of your eyes
> >
> > I'll be there. And, just as we all know the earth is not flat,

we

> > know your claims of "voodoo math" will never become accepted.
> Laughed
> > at ... yes, ... accepted ... ROTFLMAO.
> >
> > > (if you can still see after all the vp playing that is).
> > > Being superior is just the start.....
> >
> > GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's
abilities
> > and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart.
> > Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior
human
> > beings.
> >
> > >
> > > > > > > It doesn't require your geeky 'basis in math' and the
> math
> > > > > wouldn't help the normal human being anyway.

Most 'brains'

> are
> > > capable of creating better ways than simple math allows for.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lie. Normal brains are wired to do associative
activities.
> > Even
> > > > our
> > > > > > understanding of math is through association. Brains do
not
> > > > create
> > > > > > better ways to do anything. Brains DISCOVER ways to do
> things
> > > > that
> > > > > > are already described mathematically at their most

basic

> > level.
> > > > > That
> > > > > > is why brains are not "capable of creating better ways
than
> > > > simple
> > > > > > math allows for". Math describes the universe and

brains

> are
> > > part
> > > > > of
> > > > > > that universe. You're simple minded statements show an
> > immense
> > > > lack
> > > > > > of knowledge.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yup, you're onto something allright! This morning when I
took
> > my
> > > > dump I had that 'mathematical feeling' just before it came-

a-

> > > blasting out!!
> > >
> > > > Which ear?
> > >
> > > The one hooked up to your computer.
> >
> > We already knew your left brain was absent, just wondering if
> > you "dumped" the right one now. Apparently so.
>
> ???

Rob: dump ... Dick: ear ... Rob: ??? ... Translation:The booze

again.

???

> >
> > > >
> > > > > But really, you're a victim of your own neurosis. Brains
are
> > the
> > > > > ultimate discovery vehicle and the creator of computers

as

> well
> > > as everything else.
> > > >
> > > > I think discover is the better word.
> > >
> > > There's that thinking again..... What'd I tell you about

trying

> > that!
> >
> > Do I hear that inner voice again ...
>
> In your left ear?

No, in your posts.

> >
> > >
> > > > > Saying the issue was 'already described
> > > > > mathematically at its most basic level' is not only
> > condescending
> > > > to every human who's ever lived
> > > >
> > > > No, it's just the facts.
> > >
> > > You neither have nor have shown facts on that.
> >
> > Would you like a book reference on particle physics? "In Search
of
> > Schroedinger's Cat" would be a good start.
>
> What? Dingbat's Cat? Is this a new type of kitty litter??! HAHA!!

You asked for facts ... I provided some. Be careful what you wish
for ...

Here kitty kitty kitty! What a dingbat you are!

>
> You should know with that
> > engineering degree that all physical interactions are described
by
> > math. Or, do they teach magic where you got your degree?
>
> Now explain just how the 5-yr. old has any knowledge at all about
> physical interactions. Or were you a child prodigy to go along

with

> that nerdy nonsense you spew.

I see you avoided answering the queston ... What was that

school ...

Magic U.

Switching the question again, are we? Don't worry, I won't make you
look any sillier regardless --you'll get the same treatment every
time!

> >
> > > You're deep into your
> > > theories again, and when you do that it becomes scary. The

make

> > > believe starts and you'll say just about anything.
> >
> > Not my theories ... the facts as taught in science classes
> everywhere.
>
> Yeah, I though I saw that curriculum advertised by the University
of
> The Moon.

Is that right next to Magic U?

No, it's right across the street from Dingbat State College.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > --it's making believe the very first
> > > > > things to have entered this world were due to magic.
> > > >
> > > > No, are you really this dense? I simply stated that every
> > potential
> > > > thing in this universe exists whether we discover it or

not.

> > Pretty
> > > > much the opposite of "magic".
> > >
> > > That's odd. Every 'potential thing' EXISTS?? You mean like

the

> 2009
> > > Chevy?? HAHAHAHA!!!
> >
> > No. Did the fact that cars, airplanes, etc. did not exist 200
years
> > ago mean that science could never describe them? Of course not.
> > Everyone knows there is no magic that led to these dicoveries,
only
> > understanding principles that existed all along.
>
> Double-talk. "EVERY POTENTIAL THING EXISTS." And your attempt at
> wiggling your way out of it is just as useless and stupid. I'm
> thinking of the guglio-matic mind-reading machine right now. What
> year's that 'potential' gonna exist, huh?

The facts get Biffy-boy babbling again. I suppose you think nothing
new will ever be invented in the future. ROTFLMAO.

Let's talk specifically about this gadget. Where's your
generalizations leading you now, dingy??

> >
> > > Go back to that think tank you make believe you
> > > visit and recharge your batteries!!
> >
> > LMAO. I wonder how foolish Robbie feels now ...
>
> Refreshed and snickering at your utter stupidity and silly

methods

of
> trying to save face. Even a girl could do better!

There's that inner voice ... You really shouldn't display these
sexist attitudes, your wife may find out and cut off your allowance.

You forget. My wife isn't infected with your wife's disease, and
she'a allowed to think for herself. Your mental abuse must be
something to behold.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > My left nut is
> > > > > part of the universe. Mathematically describe that!
> > > >
> > > > Easy. It consists of specific cells, which are made up of
> > > molecules, which are made up of elements, which are made up

of

> > basic
> > > particles. The cellular processes are all describeable
> > > mathematically. This is way too easy.
> > >
> > > Just as I thought--reaching until the straws fall. I
> > > said "Mathematically describe that" not make up some

biological

> > > masterbation followed by "it's all described mathematically".

I

> > > believe you'd best put a halt to your foolishness here. It's
> > > embarrassing watching you try to walk thru quicksand.
> >
> > I think everyone will agree that math describes all the

processes

> > that end up being your "left nut". Start with Phys 101, add in

a

> > little Chem 101 and then try Biol 101.
>
> Yup--let's ask porn star Michael J. Cox that question. See if he
has
> that resipe ready for action!

SHALLOW AFFECT -- emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of
feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open
gregariousness.

Stunned & speechless.

> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > that's why the
> > > > > > > brain is far more the complex entity than any

computer

> ever
> > > > will
> > > > > > be.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, it's just a different computer which will be
duplicated
> > > when
> > > > > our brains discover all the mechanisms. Your psycho brain
> > > included.
> > > > >
> > > > > So you believe we'll create a 'mechanical brain' capable

of

> > > exactly the same things a human brain is. HAHAHA!!! Only a

nerd

> > could
> > > love that one.
> > > >
> > > > It won't be mechanical, it will be electronic or biologic.

It

> > won't
> > > > be "exactly" the same as a human brain because all human
brains
> > are
> > > > different (especially yours). However, we will come very
close
> to
> > > > duplicating most of the functions. It appears you think the
> world
> > > is controlled by "magic" if you think we won't eventually
> duplicate
> > > the brain.
> > >
> > > They tried that with Frankenstein. Quite a theory! Is the

mummy

> up next??
> >
> > It appears Robbie does not realize that Frankenstein is a work

of

> > FICTION. I'm talking about Neural Networks. This should get you
> > started ... http://www.inns.org/
>
> Wrong. Frankenstein was based on actual events.

Lots of fiction have a basis in real life. However, the author
embellishes it and that's why it's called FICTION.

do i hear u humma u humma once again??!!

> While I was watching
> TV at Frat parties, you were probably studying. HERE'S where it
hurts
> you to do that!

Need I say more ...

No. Just keep learning. that's what geeks do best.

> >
> > >
> > > > > > Your responses demonstrate a very simple understanding

of

> the
> > > > world
> > > > > > around you. I suspect all the wasted brain cells
dedicated
> to
> > > > lying
> > > > > > and fantasizing is responsible.
> > > > >
> > > > > The ultimate compliment from one who is on the slide in a
> > debate.
> > > >
> > > > I think everyone can see Robbie, the psycho-boy, is the
> > > one "sliding" down into his little "magic" universe of lies

and

> > > fantasies.
> > >
> > > Pee Wee Herman again. That means I'm 'taking a bite out of
slime'
> > > again!
> >
> > It means you're looking like a fool "again".
>
> Pee Wee Herman again.

It still means you're looking like a fool "again".

> >
> > > > > Enough to force you to ramble on with already-posted

stuff!

> > > >
> > > > I guess little Robbie is having a problem having to read

the

> > TRUTH
> > > > over and over. Get used to it.
> > >
> > > You mean all the compliments?
> >
> > That's exactly what I mean, only a psycho would think they were
> > compliments.
>
> Most psychos are true geniuses. I'll accept that as ANOTHER
> compliment.

Nope, they encompass the entire spectrum of intelligence. In your
case I think we can assume the lower end of the spectrum.

> >
> > >
> > > > > > > Hmmmm....What the fact here--that you asked me a
> question?
> > > > Again,
> > > > > > too
> > > > > > > funny. You continue to step in your own mess.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I already knew the answer. You stated investors
> > > were "different" because they had economics degrees.
> > > > >
> > > > > Different from gambling addicts. You made up it's because
of
> > some
> > > > > degree. Now don't wag that tail too much as it gets stuck
> > between
> > > > > your legs.....
> > > >
> > > > Scrambling does become you.
> > >
> > > > > >I refuted that with the fact that Bob has a economics
> degree.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is great--you didn't even KNOW what he had! That's

why

> you
> > > > asked the master!!
> > > >
> > > > Now, why would I ask if I didn't already know? It's called

a

> > > > rhetorical question. Think about that one, psycho-boy.
> > >
> > > You and your 'questions' seem to confuse you too easily. The
> > reason?
> >
> > You made an idiotic statement and I made you eat your words.
>
> You're still trying to work your way out of the mess you created.

Just the facts, as usual.

> This is waaay too funny! It didn't start with a statement from

me.

> YOU (as usual) came up with a bozo-like statement. I simply

tossed

it
> back at you and watched it turn into egg on your face. In other
> words, you're now scrambling around while I'm laughing at you
enough
> to have you arrested!

More babbling ... Everyone has already read how this exchange came
down and can see you scrambing. The facts have that way of dealing
with LAFs.

> >
> > > Just as with the loopholes and escape routes you put in place
in
> > case
> > > a bet with me appears to come together as reality instead of
> > theory,
> > > you contaminate all you other nonsense with flip-flops and
> suspect
> > > content 'just in case'. Goofy, but fun to slap you around

with

> > > afterwards.
> >
> > More of Robbies' inner voice ... It just described him nicely.
>
> But I like the outer voice better little dicky. Why can't that

one

be
> your blankey.....

Because it's a sickness. You created it to justify the behavior of
your childhood abuser. Now it behaves like that abuser and is still
justifying those actions. Let your inner voice out and you will be
much happier.

> >
> > > > But it's so easy. Bring up two browsers, cut from one,

paste

> into
> > > the
> > > > other. Now, that I've educated you again, made you look
> impotent
> > > > again, exposed your psycho tendencies again ... tell us how
it
> > > feels.
> > > >
> > > > > But truthfully,
> > > >
> > > > ROTFLMAO.
> > > >
> > > > > i
> > > > > understand why you post these things. You're lost and
looking
> > for
> > > > > help. It just so happens you pulled on up this time that
you
> > wish
> > > > > applied to you even more so than the others! Being clever
is
> > > > > definitely not one of your selling points.
> > > >
> > > > More psycho-babble. It won't stop me from posting the truth.
> > >
> > > Keep posting! Every time I read one of them I see how far
> advanced
> > I
> > > am compared to you.
> >
> > You mean those posts where you claim the world runs on "magic"?
>
> Maybe, but more like the one you claim your left nut is a product
of
> GEEK 101.

Did you take that class at Magic U.?

> >
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Show me supporting evidence that only a nerd
> could
> > > show!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've shown it to you many times including the
> latest
> > > > > > reference to
> > > > > > > > > my simulation work. Facts. What has been your
> response?
> > > > More
> > > > > > lies.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > REALITY CHECK PLEASE!! Theories aren't fact.
REALITY
> > > CHECK
> > > > > > > PLEASE!!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No theory involved. Simple computer simulations

based

> on
> > a
> > > > RNG,
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > know those little things that are also in every VP
> > machine.
> > > > > With
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > I can simulate any method of VP play. That is
a "REALITY
> > > CHECK".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > HELLO McFLY!!! Anyone home in there??
> > > > > >
> > > > > > POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS -- expressions of

irritability,

> > > > annoyance,
> > > > > > impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse;
> inadequate
> > > > > control
> > > > > > of anger and temper; acting hastily.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wonder if Rob even realizes that the words he uses

from

> > Back
> > > to
> > > > > the Future are from a psychopathic bully?
> > > > >
> > > > > HAHAHA!! Now your relegated to comparing me with

Hollywood

> > actors
> > > > > again!
> > > >
> > > > No, not actors ... they are characters from a FICTIONAL
story.
> > > Don't you even know the difference?
> > >
> > > How do you know it's 'fictional'? You got any proof? Biff is

an

> > > American icon to those of us you spank geeks.
> >
> > You and he have a lot in common ... and just who ended up with
the
> > manure truck emptied all over him? Yes, I can see a lot of
> > similarities, Biffy-boy.
>
> The same genius who ended up in charge of the world's largest and
> most prosperous casino.

Until ... it never happened ... Selective memory or what?

> He also got the broad. I'll take being Biffy-
> Boy every time over the nerd who built the car!

Yup, selective memory. Did you forget who ended up polishing cars

for

a living? I can see why he's your hero, Biffy-boy, at least he had

a

job.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > Let's get "Back To The Issue" REALITY CHECK!! HELLO
> > > > > McFLY...ANYONE HOME IN THERE!?!
> > >
> > > > > > > Simulations are theory and nothing else.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is that why they build those expensive flight

simulators?

> > > > >
> > > > > Obviously. That's where they check out and/or confirm the
> > > > engineering models' representations. It doesn't transform

any

> of
> > it
> > > into reality until everything checks out 100% -- unlike your
> stupid
> > > simulation of video poker, and totally like my strategy
> development
> > > and subsequent confirmation in the casinos.
> > > >
> > > > All of the simulators I mentioned are significantly more
> complex
> > > than the VP play simulator I wrote.
> > >
> > > Now there's a breakthrough!
> >
> > Just an indication of why it's so easy to prove your lies.
>
> You mean where I exposed how you don't know the difference
> between 'simulations' and 'simulators'? HAHAHA!!! Please, help me
> somebody! I'm getting a gut-ache over all this wiping little

dicky

up!

More babbling. You make it soooooo easy.

Skip the issue this time. Smart move.

> >
> > >
> > > >This demonstrates what a simple game VP is. You play a hand,
get
> > one
> > > >of 10-15 possible results based on an RNG and repeat.
> > >
> > > It's almost as if you even make believe you know something
about
> > > everything at times. This stuff you're writing now has

nothing

to
> > do
> > > with your nonsensical portrayal of flight simulators being
> involved
> > > in some kind of purported theory! Please stay on the same

page

if
> > you
> > > ever want to learn anything.
> >
> > LMAO. The extent of this babbling pretty much confirms that

Biffy-

> boy
> > got the point.
> >
> > >
> > > >That's why it is so easy to PROVE that your strategy is a

con.

> > > >Adding in the progression and your ridiculous subgoals took
> about
> > 50
> > > >lines of code, that's it. I spent more time building the
various
> > > >game probability tables and formating the output.
> > >
> > > All to your complete satisfaction too, that is, after you
ignored
> > the
> > > more complex portions of my strategy
> >
> > You mean the "special plays" elixir that also cures the common
> cold?
> > I accounted for them also. Didn't help.
>
> Then name them. Here's your chance to prove your worth for a

change

> instead of rambling on with all that theory. All 1744 of them,

and

> explain to the one person who came on here and said he was
interested
> in your waste of time!

I added in your idiotic play to discard 2 pair and go for it. After
seeing the results get worse, as expected, it became unnecessary to
add in any more worthless plays. Even you can't say when to apply
them, that's why it's such an obvious con.

You didn't even get THAT part right. And you call yourself a nerd?

> >
> > > as well as the fact that the
> > > machines are programmed to run in hot and cold cycles.
> >
> > Lie. More of your obvious con.
>
> You deny that because you can't handle the truth.

You mean "the truth" of the NGC regs that clearly disallow this?

No, the truth of how machines really operate. you'd believe any
scenario that uses straight math. That's not how the real world
works, little dicky. When the cool guys beat you up, didn't you think
there was something mathematically wrong with that?

> Typical of all
> geeks. Imagine little dicky in TILT??! Your wife wouldn't

recognize

> you--addict or not!

CALLOUSNESS and LACK OF EMPATHY -- a lack of feelings toward people
in general; cold, contemptuous, inconsiderate, and tactless.

> >
> > > It's all been
> > > said before--you'll peel down the onion until you talk

yourself

> > into
> > > what you intended to in the first place, just to feel good.
> >
> > No talking required. The computer simulates very quietly and
> produces
> > results for millions of hands in a few seconds. Low and behold,
the
> > results are just what the math predicts.
>
> "The results ar just what the math predicts"! You mean you WANT

the

> results to be just what the math predicts. Show me the sim that
> predicted my results.

If you'd like I can show you one:

Large win amount = 661420 with 103.659341 payback.

But then don't forget the one with 96.235344 payback. For every
result in the top 1% there exists one in the bottem 1%. That is

true

for any system anyone can invent. What really matters is the

chances

of winning year after year ... that is what AP does best.

What an AP does best is make believe. You're living proof, and living
truth of it.

> >
> > > Even my
> > > win resilts have been marginalized into some anamoly of 1% or
> > > something.
> >
> > To be precise it was 4-7 results out of 1000 achieved results
equal
> > to or better than you claim (based on different seeds). I

rounded

> it
> > off and said you are in the top 1%.
>
> To you, that should tell you I'm in the top 1% of intelligent

human

> beings also. Yup. Biffy-Boy up there above little dicky!! How

does

he
> live with THAT?!

No, it simply means you've been lucky (or lie).

Now you're on my superior team. Every winning hand is the total
result of luck.

> >
> > > I'm still betting you are playing a variation of my
> > > strategy every time you hit the addict machines. THAT was

your

> real
> > > purpose for the dumb work!
> >
> > No, but it wouldn't be important. The progression itself does

not

> > impact anyones' results, playing negative games does. My

problem

is
> > that you use the complexities involved with a progression, win
> goals,
> > 40 credit subgoals, levels within levels and special plays to
> > perpetrate your con.
>
> I like it that you say you have 'problems'. Whenever you're
> uncomfortable with not understanding something, I tingle!

I'm sure having your con exposed does make your inner self tingle.
When you can tell the difference you will be on the road to

recovery.

Now I quiver with joy over your obvious malcontent.

> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is that why
> > > > > > most economic forecasters use models (often simulators)?
> > > > >
> > > > > Apples & oranges, and a misleading assumption.
> > > >
> > > > You stated "Simulations are theory and nothing else", I

used

> > clear
> > > > and reasonable examples to PROVE they are much more
> than "theory".
> > >
> > > Where was THAT??
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/message/3804
> >
> > > You've got your simulations mixed up with your
> > > simulators. Why am I not surprised.....
> >
> > No, simulators produce simulations. You're looking foolish

again.

>
> Not the way you stutter them out. You're the only one I know that
can
> stumble over his own wording and never learn how not to do it

again.

You must not like how easily I refuted your idiotic assertion. So

be

it.

Exactly as I just said.

> >
> > >
> > > > > Is that why
> > > > > > engineering advances are often made using simulations

of

> new
> > > > > > technology? Theory? ... LMAO.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're getting ahead of yourself and are looking doubly
> stupid.
> > > >
> > > > You stated "Simulations are theory and nothing else", I

used

> > clear
> > > > and reasonable examples to PROVE they are much more
> > than "theory".
> > > > Only a liar would claim otherwise.
> > >
> > > So confused....Good thing you're old and not able to enter

the

> > > workforce any more!
> >
> > There's that inner voice again ... Interestingly, even though

I'm

4
> > years older than you are, I'm clearly much more knowledgeable.
Your
> > inner self can see that.
>
> Well, just who would want such a farce working for them in the
modern
> age? You make up more than half the stuff you say here,

Robbies' inner voice speaks.

> you don't
> even know the story behind Frankenstein, and you're relegated to
> pulling phrases out of the Internet because you can't keep up

with

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

me
> or figure out where I'm at. I like spanking such a nerd. I just
hope
> you make it thru another day so I can keep up the fun!

GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's abilities
and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart.
Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human
beings.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

> > > Your articles aren't references, they're just more lies.
> >
> > I thought you didn't read them little dicky! Which foot's in

your

> > mouth now?
>
> Yours, I read and tear apart the ones' you post here.

Next time you 'read my foot' and 'tear it apart'

Has nothing to do with your foot unless that's the subject of your
next article. Do try to keep up.

write it up so I can
relive it! It's not often one can get a good look at the inner-anal-
retentive workings of a self-proclaimed geek.

It's as easy as listening to your inner voice.

>
> >
> > In any
> > > event, we're looking for something where Bob challenged you.
Like
> I
> > > said before, give us a reference or stick with what you've
> claimed
> > > here.
> >
> > Let's see...published articles that have been verified by a
> managing
> > editor aren't references;
>
> Verified? ... Who are you trying to kid.

No one. Eliminate the denial and check it out. Every article that
even slightly refers to another person has its content checked and
verified. Too much for you? How you gonna weasel out of this one??

Lie.

>
> > spoken and/or written words aren't
> > references; book content's not a reference! What's left?? The
Dick
> > Sheet???
>
> Something that actually contains a statment by Bob. That is what
you
> claimed! Without that, you have nothing … nothing but your lies.

So now you will trust what 'Mr. arrogant' has to say. which side of
the mouth did that come out of? Convenience is just another side
effect of your overall disease with gambling.

No, I'm not trusting anyone. I simply asked for you to back up your
claim with a reference. Of course, we all know you have none and this
is just another one of your lies. Can't you see why your inner self
is trying so hard to talk to you?

> > > > > > If you had had any children you'd know that a 5-yr. old
is
> > well
> > > > > aware of what to do when he sees cars coming. And he
doesn't
> > need
> > > > to whip out the slide rule first!
> > > > >
> > > > > It appears Robbie doesn't understand simple logic. Does

the

> > child
> > > > run away when he sees a parked car? What is the difference
and
> > what
> > > > > exactly goes on in the brain? Let me help you out ...
> movement,
> > > > which is a mathematically describeable event. If you

remember

I
> > > said
> > > > it had a basis in mathematics. This is way too easy.
> > > >
> > > > Here's a clue for you to learn from: It's sooo simple.

Parked

> > cars
> > > > aren't a threat. Moving ones are.
> > >
> > > Is he finally getting it? I doubt it.
> > >
> > > > At 5 the kid has apparently the
> > > > same clue as you about what's going on.
> > >
> > > And that clue is not magic, it has a basis in mathematics.
> >
> > Yup! Every 5-yr. old is a walking math genius!! HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
If
> > you wore combat boots here you'd still step in it to deep!
>
> Nice try, but I didn't say he did the computations, in fact, I

said

> the brain works associatively. However, the movement has a BASIS

in

> mathematics which is what I said. Try to keep up.

Uh humma uh humma u humma....Just how much do you practice looking
stupid and stuttering anyway? The kid doesn't do the 'computations'
but his brain does! He understands the 'movement' has a basis in
math, but he just can't quite turn on his calculator yet!!! Oh
Oh...if this were any funnier I'd be throwing up!!!

The babblemaster returns. It's pretty obvious that Rob has little
knowledge of the brain or just what a "basis in mathematics" means.
He would rather babble than admit he has no clue.

> > > > > > Yup, you're onto something allright! This morning when

I

> took
> > > my
> > > > > dump I had that 'mathematical feeling' just before it

came-

a-
> > > > blasting out!!
> > > >
> > > > > Which ear?
> > > >
> > > > The one hooked up to your computer.
> > >
> > > We already knew your left brain was absent, just wondering if
> > > you "dumped" the right one now. Apparently so.
> >
> > ???
>
> Rob: dump ... Dick: ear ... Rob: ??? ... Translation:The booze
again.

???

Don't worry, everyone else understands.

> > > > > > Saying the issue was 'already described
> > > > > > mathematically at its most basic level' is not only
> > > condescending
> > > > > to every human who's ever lived
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it's just the facts.
> > > >
> > > > You neither have nor have shown facts on that.
> > >
> > > Would you like a book reference on particle physics? "In

Search

> of
> > > Schroedinger's Cat" would be a good start.
> >
> > What? Dingbat's Cat? Is this a new type of kitty litter??!

HAHA!!

>
> You asked for facts ... I provided some. Be careful what you wish
> for ...

Here kitty kitty kitty! What a dingbat you are!

I'm Sorry, but you asked for a reference. I posted one. Be careful
what you ask for ...

> > > > You're deep into your
> > > > theories again, and when you do that it becomes scary. The
make
> > > > believe starts and you'll say just about anything.
> > >
> > > Not my theories ... the facts as taught in science classes
> > everywhere.
> >
> > Yeah, I though I saw that curriculum advertised by the

University

> of
> > The Moon.
>
> Is that right next to Magic U?

No, it's right across the street from Dingbat State College.

I wondered where you got those degrees. By your claims that magic ran
the universe I was sure it was Magic U ... I'm glad you clarified it.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > --it's making believe the very first
> > > > > > things to have entered this world were due to magic.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, are you really this dense? I simply stated that every
> > > potential
> > > > > thing in this universe exists whether we discover it or
not.
> > > Pretty
> > > > > much the opposite of "magic".
> > > >
> > > > That's odd. Every 'potential thing' EXISTS?? You mean like
the
> > 2009
> > > > Chevy?? HAHAHAHA!!!
> > >
> > > No. Did the fact that cars, airplanes, etc. did not exist 200
> years
> > > ago mean that science could never describe them? Of course

not.

> > > Everyone knows there is no magic that led to these

dicoveries,

> only
> > > understanding principles that existed all along.
> >
> > Double-talk. "EVERY POTENTIAL THING EXISTS." And your attempt

at

> > wiggling your way out of it is just as useless and stupid. I'm
> > thinking of the guglio-matic mind-reading machine right now.

What

> > year's that 'potential' gonna exist, huh?
>
> The facts get Biffy-boy babbling again. I suppose you think

nothing

> new will ever be invented in the future. ROTFLMAO.

Let's talk specifically about this gadget. Where's your
generalizations leading you now, dingy??

To a reasonble conclusion. Where is your confusion leading you?

>
> > >
> > > > Go back to that think tank you make believe you
> > > > visit and recharge your batteries!!
> > >
> > > LMAO. I wonder how foolish Robbie feels now ...
> >
> > Refreshed and snickering at your utter stupidity and silly
methods
> of
> > trying to save face. Even a girl could do better!
>
> There's that inner voice ... You really shouldn't display these
> sexist attitudes, your wife may find out and cut off your

allowance.

You forget. My wife isn't infected with your wife's disease, and
she'a allowed to think for herself. Your mental abuse must be
something to behold.

Hmmmm. I hear that inner voice again ... Why don't you ask your wife
if you need help. Explain your childhood abuse first, that might ease
the hardness of her response.

> > > > They tried that with Frankenstein. Quite a theory! Is the
mummy
> > up next??
> > >
> > > It appears Robbie does not realize that Frankenstein is a

work

of
> > > FICTION. I'm talking about Neural Networks. This should get

you

> > > started ... http://www.inns.org/
> >
> > Wrong. Frankenstein was based on actual events.
>
> Lots of fiction have a basis in real life. However, the author
> embellishes it and that's why it's called FICTION.

do i hear u humma u humma once again??!!

Do I hear anything to refute my statement? Nope.
  

> > > > > All of the simulators I mentioned are significantly more
> > complex
> > > > than the VP play simulator I wrote.
> > > >
> > > > Now there's a breakthrough!
> > >
> > > Just an indication of why it's so easy to prove your lies.
> >
> > You mean where I exposed how you don't know the difference
> > between 'simulations' and 'simulators'? HAHAHA!!! Please, help

me

> > somebody! I'm getting a gut-ache over all this wiping little
dicky
> up!
>
> More babbling. You make it soooooo easy.

Skip the issue this time. Smart move.

What issue would that be? ... that you constantly babble nonsense? I
think that's pretty clear.

> > > You mean the "special plays" elixir that also cures the

common

> > cold?
> > > I accounted for them also. Didn't help.
> >
> > Then name them. Here's your chance to prove your worth for a
change
> > instead of rambling on with all that theory. All 1744 of them,
and
> > explain to the one person who came on here and said he was
> interested
> > in your waste of time!
>
> I added in your idiotic play to discard 2 pair and go for it.

After

> seeing the results get worse, as expected, it became unnecessary

to

> add in any more worthless plays. Even you can't say when to apply
> them, that's why it's such an obvious con.

You didn't even get THAT part right. And you call yourself a nerd?

I got it right. Unfortunately for you, it demonstrates that these
special plays are just part of your con.

>
> > >
> > > > as well as the fact that the
> > > > machines are programmed to run in hot and cold cycles.
> > >
> > > Lie. More of your obvious con.
> >
> > You deny that because you can't handle the truth.
>
> You mean "the truth" of the NGC regs that clearly disallow this?

No, the truth of how machines really operate. you'd believe any
scenario that uses straight math.

Oh, you mean there's magic in them thar machines?

That's not how the real world
works, little dicky. When the cool guys beat you up, didn't you

think

there was something mathematically wrong with that?

Sorry, but it is how "the real world" operates. Everyone knows there
are computers in VP machines and computers use math to produce most
of their results. PS, it's not magic.

> > "The results ar just what the math predicts"! You mean you WANT
the
> > results to be just what the math predicts. Show me the sim that
> > predicted my results.
>
> If you'd like I can show you one:
>
> Large win amount = 661420 with 103.659341 payback.
>
> But then don't forget the one with 96.235344 payback. For every
> result in the top 1% there exists one in the bottem 1%. That is
true
> for any system anyone can invent. What really matters is the
chances
> of winning year after year ... that is what AP does best.

What an AP does best is make believe. You're living proof, and

living

truth of it.

I'm the "living truth" that AP works. And ... I provided you with the
result you asked for, would you like more?

>
> > >
> > > > Even my
> > > > win resilts have been marginalized into some anamoly of 1%

or

> > > > something.
> > >
> > > To be precise it was 4-7 results out of 1000 achieved results
> equal
> > > to or better than you claim (based on different seeds). I
rounded
> > it
> > > off and said you are in the top 1%.
> >
> > To you, that should tell you I'm in the top 1% of intelligent
human
> > beings also. Yup. Biffy-Boy up there above little dicky!! How
does
> he
> > live with THAT?!
>
> No, it simply means you've been lucky (or lie).

Now you're on my superior team. Every winning hand is the total
result of luck.

No, as I've said before, luck has nothing to do with it. I suppose
next you'll say magic is also involved.

>
> > >
> > > > I'm still betting you are playing a variation of my
> > > > strategy every time you hit the addict machines. THAT was
your
> > real
> > > > purpose for the dumb work!
> > >
> > > No, but it wouldn't be important. The progression itself does
not
> > > impact anyones' results, playing negative games does. My
problem
> is
> > > that you use the complexities involved with a progression,

win

> > goals,
> > > 40 credit subgoals, levels within levels and special plays to
> > > perpetrate your con.
> >
> > I like it that you say you have 'problems'. Whenever you're
> > uncomfortable with not understanding something, I tingle!
>
> I'm sure having your con exposed does make your inner self

tingle.

> When you can tell the difference you will be on the road to
recovery.

Now I quiver with joy over your obvious malcontent.

Then 'quiver' away, but try listening to that inner voice while
you're doing it.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is that why
> > > > > > > most economic forecasters use models (often

simulators)?

> > > > > >
> > > > > > Apples & oranges, and a misleading assumption.
> > > > >
> > > > > You stated "Simulations are theory and nothing else", I
used
> > > clear
> > > > > and reasonable examples to PROVE they are much more
> > than "theory".
> > > >
> > > > Where was THAT??
> > >
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/message/3804
> > >
> > > > You've got your simulations mixed up with your
> > > > simulators. Why am I not surprised.....
> > >
> > > No, simulators produce simulations. You're looking foolish
again.
> >
> > Not the way you stutter them out. You're the only one I know

that

> can
> > stumble over his own wording and never learn how not to do it
again.
>
> You must not like how easily I refuted your idiotic assertion. So
be
> it.

Exactly as I just said.

I'm glad you confirmed that your assertions are idiotic. Thanks

Not even reading this unless you admit to having a disease that's
made your whole life seem like a vp screen. Go ahead. It won't be in
vain!

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
> > > > Your articles aren't references, they're just more lies.
> > >
> > > I thought you didn't read them little dicky! Which foot's in
your
> > > mouth now?
> >
> > Yours, I read and tear apart the ones' you post here.
>
> Next time you 'read my foot' and 'tear it apart'

Has nothing to do with your foot unless that's the subject of your
next article. Do try to keep up.

> write it up so I can
> relive it! It's not often one can get a good look at the inner-

anal-

> retentive workings of a self-proclaimed geek.

It's as easy as listening to your inner voice.

> >
> > >
> > > In any
> > > > event, we're looking for something where Bob challenged

you.

> Like
> > I
> > > > said before, give us a reference or stick with what you've
> > claimed
> > > > here.
> > >
> > > Let's see...published articles that have been verified by a
> > managing
> > > editor aren't references;
> >
> > Verified? ... Who are you trying to kid.
>
> No one. Eliminate the denial and check it out. Every article

that

> even slightly refers to another person has its content checked

and

> verified. Too much for you? How you gonna weasel out of this

one??

Lie.

> >
> > > spoken and/or written words aren't
> > > references; book content's not a reference! What's left??

The

> Dick
> > > Sheet???
> >
> > Something that actually contains a statment by Bob. That is

what

> you
> > claimed! Without that, you have nothing ... nothing but your

lies.

>
> So now you will trust what 'Mr. arrogant' has to say. which side

of

> the mouth did that come out of? Convenience is just another side
> effect of your overall disease with gambling.

No, I'm not trusting anyone. I simply asked for you to back up

your

claim with a reference. Of course, we all know you have none and

this

is just another one of your lies. Can't you see why your inner

self

is trying so hard to talk to you?

> > > > > > > If you had had any children you'd know that a 5-yr.

old

> is
> > > well
> > > > > > aware of what to do when he sees cars coming. And he
> doesn't
> > > need
> > > > > to whip out the slide rule first!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It appears Robbie doesn't understand simple logic.

Does

the
> > > child
> > > > > run away when he sees a parked car? What is the

difference

> and
> > > what
> > > > > > exactly goes on in the brain? Let me help you out ...
> > movement,
> > > > > which is a mathematically describeable event. If you
remember
> I
> > > > said
> > > > > it had a basis in mathematics. This is way too easy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's a clue for you to learn from: It's sooo simple.
Parked
> > > cars
> > > > > aren't a threat. Moving ones are.
> > > >
> > > > Is he finally getting it? I doubt it.
> > > >
> > > > > At 5 the kid has apparently the
> > > > > same clue as you about what's going on.
> > > >
> > > > And that clue is not magic, it has a basis in mathematics.
> > >
> > > Yup! Every 5-yr. old is a walking math genius!!

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

> If
> > > you wore combat boots here you'd still step in it to deep!
> >
> > Nice try, but I didn't say he did the computations, in fact, I
said
> > the brain works associatively. However, the movement has a

BASIS

in
> > mathematics which is what I said. Try to keep up.
>
> Uh humma uh humma u humma....Just how much do you practice

looking

> stupid and stuttering anyway? The kid doesn't do

the 'computations'

> but his brain does! He understands the 'movement' has a basis in
> math, but he just can't quite turn on his calculator yet!!! Oh
> Oh...if this were any funnier I'd be throwing up!!!

The babblemaster returns. It's pretty obvious that Rob has little
knowledge of the brain or just what a "basis in mathematics"

means.

He would rather babble than admit he has no clue.

> > > > > > > Yup, you're onto something allright! This morning

when

I
> > took
> > > > my
> > > > > > dump I had that 'mathematical feeling' just before it
came-
> a-
> > > > > blasting out!!
> > > > >
> > > > > > Which ear?
> > > > >
> > > > > The one hooked up to your computer.
> > > >
> > > > We already knew your left brain was absent, just wondering

if

> > > > you "dumped" the right one now. Apparently so.
> > >
> > > ???
> >
> > Rob: dump ... Dick: ear ... Rob: ??? ... Translation:The booze
> again.
>
> ???

Don't worry, everyone else understands.

> > > > > > > Saying the issue was 'already described
> > > > > > > mathematically at its most basic level' is not only
> > > > condescending
> > > > > > to every human who's ever lived
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, it's just the facts.
> > > > >
> > > > > You neither have nor have shown facts on that.
> > > >
> > > > Would you like a book reference on particle physics? "In
Search
> > of
> > > > Schroedinger's Cat" would be a good start.
> > >
> > > What? Dingbat's Cat? Is this a new type of kitty litter??!
HAHA!!
> >
> > You asked for facts ... I provided some. Be careful what you

wish

> > for ...
>
> Here kitty kitty kitty! What a dingbat you are!

I'm Sorry, but you asked for a reference. I posted one. Be careful
what you ask for ...

> > > > > You're deep into your
> > > > > theories again, and when you do that it becomes scary.

The

> make
> > > > > believe starts and you'll say just about anything.
> > > >
> > > > Not my theories ... the facts as taught in science classes
> > > everywhere.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I though I saw that curriculum advertised by the
University
> > of
> > > The Moon.
> >
> > Is that right next to Magic U?
>
> No, it's right across the street from Dingbat State College.

I wondered where you got those degrees. By your claims that magic

ran

the universe I was sure it was Magic U ... I'm glad you clarified

it.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > --it's making believe the very first
> > > > > > > things to have entered this world were due to magic.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, are you really this dense? I simply stated that

every

> > > > potential
> > > > > > thing in this universe exists whether we discover it

or

> not.
> > > > Pretty
> > > > > > much the opposite of "magic".
> > > > >
> > > > > That's odd. Every 'potential thing' EXISTS?? You mean

like

> the
> > > 2009
> > > > > Chevy?? HAHAHAHA!!!
> > > >
> > > > No. Did the fact that cars, airplanes, etc. did not exist

200

> > years
> > > > ago mean that science could never describe them? Of course
not.
> > > > Everyone knows there is no magic that led to these
dicoveries,
> > only
> > > > understanding principles that existed all along.
> > >
> > > Double-talk. "EVERY POTENTIAL THING EXISTS." And your

attempt

at
> > > wiggling your way out of it is just as useless and stupid.

I'm

> > > thinking of the guglio-matic mind-reading machine right now.
What
> > > year's that 'potential' gonna exist, huh?
> >
> > The facts get Biffy-boy babbling again. I suppose you think
nothing
> > new will ever be invented in the future. ROTFLMAO.
>
> Let's talk specifically about this gadget. Where's your
> generalizations leading you now, dingy??

To a reasonble conclusion. Where is your confusion leading you?

> >
> > > >
> > > > > Go back to that think tank you make believe you
> > > > > visit and recharge your batteries!!
> > > >
> > > > LMAO. I wonder how foolish Robbie feels now ...
> > >
> > > Refreshed and snickering at your utter stupidity and silly
> methods
> > of
> > > trying to save face. Even a girl could do better!
> >
> > There's that inner voice ... You really shouldn't display

these

> > sexist attitudes, your wife may find out and cut off your
allowance.
>
> You forget. My wife isn't infected with your wife's disease, and
> she'a allowed to think for herself. Your mental abuse must be
> something to behold.

Hmmmm. I hear that inner voice again ... Why don't you ask your

wife

if you need help. Explain your childhood abuse first, that might

ease

the hardness of her response.

> > > > > They tried that with Frankenstein. Quite a theory! Is

the

> mummy
> > > up next??
> > > >
> > > > It appears Robbie does not realize that Frankenstein is a
work
> of
> > > > FICTION. I'm talking about Neural Networks. This should

get

you
> > > > started ... http://www.inns.org/
> > >
> > > Wrong. Frankenstein was based on actual events.
> >
> > Lots of fiction have a basis in real life. However, the author
> > embellishes it and that's why it's called FICTION.
>
> do i hear u humma u humma once again??!!

Do I hear anything to refute my statement? Nope.
  
> > > > > > All of the simulators I mentioned are significantly

more

> > > complex
> > > > > than the VP play simulator I wrote.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now there's a breakthrough!
> > > >
> > > > Just an indication of why it's so easy to prove your lies.
> > >
> > > You mean where I exposed how you don't know the difference
> > > between 'simulations' and 'simulators'? HAHAHA!!! Please,

help

me
> > > somebody! I'm getting a gut-ache over all this wiping little
> dicky
> > up!
> >
> > More babbling. You make it soooooo easy.
>
> Skip the issue this time. Smart move.

What issue would that be? ... that you constantly babble nonsense?

I

think that's pretty clear.

> > > > You mean the "special plays" elixir that also cures the
common
> > > cold?
> > > > I accounted for them also. Didn't help.
> > >
> > > Then name them. Here's your chance to prove your worth for a
> change
> > > instead of rambling on with all that theory. All 1744 of

them,

> and
> > > explain to the one person who came on here and said he was
> > interested
> > > in your waste of time!
> >
> > I added in your idiotic play to discard 2 pair and go for it.
After
> > seeing the results get worse, as expected, it became

unnecessary

to
> > add in any more worthless plays. Even you can't say when to

apply

> > them, that's why it's such an obvious con.
>
> You didn't even get THAT part right. And you call yourself a

nerd?

I got it right. Unfortunately for you, it demonstrates that these
special plays are just part of your con.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > as well as the fact that the
> > > > > machines are programmed to run in hot and cold cycles.
> > > >
> > > > Lie. More of your obvious con.
> > >
> > > You deny that because you can't handle the truth.
> >
> > You mean "the truth" of the NGC regs that clearly disallow

this?

>
> No, the truth of how machines really operate. you'd believe any
> scenario that uses straight math.

Oh, you mean there's magic in them thar machines?

> That's not how the real world
> works, little dicky. When the cool guys beat you up, didn't you
think
> there was something mathematically wrong with that?

Sorry, but it is how "the real world" operates. Everyone knows

there

are computers in VP machines and computers use math to produce

most

of their results. PS, it's not magic.

> > > "The results ar just what the math predicts"! You mean you

WANT

> the
> > > results to be just what the math predicts. Show me the sim

that

> > > predicted my results.
> >
> > If you'd like I can show you one:
> >
> > Large win amount = 661420 with 103.659341 payback.
> >
> > But then don't forget the one with 96.235344 payback. For

every

> > result in the top 1% there exists one in the bottem 1%. That

is

> true
> > for any system anyone can invent. What really matters is the
> chances
> > of winning year after year ... that is what AP does best.
>
> What an AP does best is make believe. You're living proof, and
living
> truth of it.

I'm the "living truth" that AP works. And ... I provided you with

the

result you asked for, would you like more?

> >
> > > >
> > > > > Even my
> > > > > win resilts have been marginalized into some anamoly of

1%

or
> > > > > something.
> > > >
> > > > To be precise it was 4-7 results out of 1000 achieved

results

> > equal
> > > > to or better than you claim (based on different seeds). I
> rounded
> > > it
> > > > off and said you are in the top 1%.
> > >
> > > To you, that should tell you I'm in the top 1% of

intelligent

> human
> > > beings also. Yup. Biffy-Boy up there above little dicky!!

How

> does
> > he
> > > live with THAT?!
> >
> > No, it simply means you've been lucky (or lie).
>
> Now you're on my superior team. Every winning hand is the total
> result of luck.

No, as I've said before, luck has nothing to do with it. I suppose
next you'll say magic is also involved.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > I'm still betting you are playing a variation of my
> > > > > strategy every time you hit the addict machines. THAT

was

> your
> > > real
> > > > > purpose for the dumb work!
> > > >
> > > > No, but it wouldn't be important. The progression itself

does

> not
> > > > impact anyones' results, playing negative games does. My
> problem
> > is
> > > > that you use the complexities involved with a progression,
win
> > > goals,
> > > > 40 credit subgoals, levels within levels and special plays

to

> > > > perpetrate your con.
> > >
> > > I like it that you say you have 'problems'. Whenever you're
> > > uncomfortable with not understanding something, I tingle!
> >
> > I'm sure having your con exposed does make your inner self
tingle.
> > When you can tell the difference you will be on the road to
> recovery.
>
> Now I quiver with joy over your obvious malcontent.

Then 'quiver' away, but try listening to that inner voice while
you're doing it.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is that why
> > > > > > > > most economic forecasters use models (often
simulators)?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Apples & oranges, and a misleading assumption.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You stated "Simulations are theory and nothing else",

I

> used
> > > > clear
> > > > > > and reasonable examples to PROVE they are much more
> > > than "theory".
> > > > >
> > > > > Where was THAT??
> > > >
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/message/3804
> > > >
> > > > > You've got your simulations mixed up with your
> > > > > simulators. Why am I not surprised.....
> > > >
> > > > No, simulators produce simulations. You're looking foolish
> again.
> > >
> > > Not the way you stutter them out. You're the only one I know
that
> > can
> > > stumble over his own wording and never learn how not to do

it

> again.
> >
> > You must not like how easily I refuted your idiotic assertion.

So

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

> be
> > it.
>
> Exactly as I just said.

I'm glad you confirmed that your assertions are idiotic. Thanks

Do I hear that inner voice again? Yup. Take its' advice, you won't be
sorry.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...> wrote:

Not even reading this unless you admit to having a disease that's
made your whole life seem like a vp screen. Go ahead. It won't be in
vain!