To Harry about Rob

[someone-else]

Harry,

  Your view of the new Rob Singer is missing many of the reasons he is
disliked by most that have read his lies for years. His information today is
more accurate than it was in the beginning. Rob was giving very bad
information to new players. Over the years I and others have explained the
math to Rob in detail showing why his advice was wrong. The changes he has
made are probably the result of our teachings.

  Rob will not admit to changing because of knowledge gained from AP'ers. I
once posted that the advice he gave was correct and the EXACT opposite of
advice he gave on BJ21 a year earlier. On BJ21 I explained the math to Rob
in detail. Rob denied that he gave that advice on BJ21. I posted a link to 6
posts on the BJ21 archives that proved he was lying again. Rob's response
was that the 6 posts in the archives on BJ21 were altered.

  If Rob wants to deny this I have saved the archives from most of the
boards that I have been on in the last 10 years (I have a big HD). I can
recover lies that Rob has told and he will deny them.

  My feelings about Rob have changed over the years. For years I was angry
because he gave wrong information to people that asked for help. I wasn't
sure if he gave wrong information out of ignorance or if he was just mean.
At one point I felt sorry for him because it became obvious to me that he
has a psychological problem. Today I still feel some sympathy for him but I
cannot get past his lying.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Rob_Singer2]

And thank YOU for being a continual fan! BJ21? You mean the forum run
by an Anthony Curtis clone who makes believe he is banned in BJ up
and down the STRIP so they both opened gaming businesses to have an
income, yet prior to doing an article on such pretenders I checked at
every major hotel, showing pictures and giving names of 3 so-
called "mathematical advantage players" and none of them were ever
banned from playing BJ or denied access. And you wonder why you're so
misled about me? Hero-worhipping only goes so far.....

Go ahead and dig up that correspondence on the forum and make a
further fool of yourself. Then I'll chip in with the zingers that'll
have you whining just like me friend Dick!

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

Harry,

  Your view of the new Rob Singer is missing many of the reasons he

is

disliked by most that have read his lies for years. His information

today is

more accurate than it was in the beginning. Rob was giving very bad
information to new players. Over the years I and others have

explained the

math to Rob in detail showing why his advice was wrong. The changes

he has

made are probably the result of our teachings.

  Rob will not admit to changing because of knowledge gained from

AP'ers. I

once posted that the advice he gave was correct and the EXACT

opposite of

advice he gave on BJ21 a year earlier. On BJ21 I explained the math

to Rob

in detail. Rob denied that he gave that advice on BJ21. I posted a

link to 6

posts on the BJ21 archives that proved he was lying again. Rob's

response

was that the 6 posts in the archives on BJ21 were altered.

  If Rob wants to deny this I have saved the archives from most of

the

boards that I have been on in the last 10 years (I have a big HD).

I can

recover lies that Rob has told and he will deny them.

  My feelings about Rob have changed over the years. For years I

was angry

because he gave wrong information to people that asked for help. I

wasn't

sure if he gave wrong information out of ignorance or if he was

just mean.

At one point I felt sorry for him because it became obvious to me

that he

has a psychological problem. Today I still feel some sympathy for

him but I

···

cannot get past his lying.

[Harry_Porter]

someone-else wrote:

Harry, Your view of the new Rob Singer is missing many of the reasons
he is disliked by most that have read his lies for years. His
information today is more accurate than it was in the beginning. Rob
was giving very bad information to new players ...

That could be accurate. What I will own up to is that there is a lot
that's missing from my "view".

When I express an admiration for Rob, it's always within a very
narrowly defined perspective. His intensity is chock full of less
than desirable characteristics; some I find reprehensible. (Put to
the same test, I don't think I'd measure up any better.) I choose to
voice what represents that aspect of Rob I find most substantiative
and of greatest consequence. Many of his less savory qualities are of
little consequence ... some representing nothing worse than poor style.

Obviously what I've written here is from a perspective that reflects
only my own sensibilities. For the most part, I deem the core of what
his detractors have to say as being equally valid (sometimes more so
The difference in opinion merely reflects a different weighting
of factors that we both consider important.

- Harry

[2-WILD1]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

someone-else wrote:
> Harry, Your view of the new Rob Singer is missing many of the

reasons

> he is disliked by most that have read his lies for years. His
> information today is more accurate than it was in the beginning.

Rob

> was giving very bad information to new players ...

That could be accurate. What I will own up to is that there is a

lot

that's missing from my "view".

When I express an admiration for Rob, it's always within a very
narrowly defined perspective. His intensity is chock full of less
than desirable characteristics; some I find reprehensible. (Put to
the same test, I don't think I'd measure up any better.) I choose

to

voice what represents that aspect of Rob I find most substantiative
and of greatest consequence. Many of his less savory qualities are

of

little consequence ... some representing nothing worse than poor

style.

Obviously what I've written here is from a perspective that reflects
only my own sensibilities. For the most part, I deem the core of

what

his detractors have to say as being equally valid (sometimes more so
The difference in opinion merely reflects a different weighting
of factors that we both consider important.

- Harry

Harry ... you are TOO much.

I swear you could put a smiley-face on even Bin Laden "within a
narrowly defined perspective." Leadership perhaps?

Still, the world needs your good-natured viewpoint ... if only to
provide balance ... and I would say the same about the "bad-natured"
meldrone (no offense JT), who absolutely skewers Singer.

But rest assured, there is NO good within RS and if it wasn't for
your solid VP foundation, you'd be a great mark

Best wishes for 08 ...

[Harry_Porter]

2-WILD wrote:

Harry ... you are TOO much.

I swear you could put a smiley-face on even Bin Laden "within a
narrowly defined perspective." Leadership perhaps?

Still, the world needs your good-natured viewpoint ... if only to
provide balance ... and I would say the same about the "bad-natured"
meldrone (no offense JT), who absolutely skewers Singer.

But rest assured, there is NO good within RS and if it wasn't for
your solid VP foundation, you'd be a great mark

Best wishes for 08 ...

Those are kind sentiments and much appreciated.

I don't want to belabor the take on Rob that I've expressed, but I am
cognizant that I could readily be taken as either a dupe or a
sycophant in the context of my observations. Let me be a little
specific in detailing what prompts the positive comments I put out.

My focus is on those things that Rob espouses that entirely jive with
my own observations and reasoning.

···

------

The first thing I find that I have no argument with is Rob's
proposition, at heart, re play strategy. While I find that the basics
of "advantage play" are a superior guide in undertaking vp play, it's
totally obvious that it's not suited to the temperament of some players.

It's a simple fact that for any negative expectation play choice,
increasing the volatility of play improves the likelihood that the
play outcome will be positive. Granted, risk is increased, but that
basic fact still stands.

Most players, who don't opt to aggressively pursue advantage play
strategy, face a negative expectation scenario in the casino --
another common sense fact. Thus, for a very specific subset of
players, the concept of pursuing profitable play through enhancing
play variance is a viable alternative play strategy.

Rob's strategies, as loosely collected and interpreted, approach such
a strategy in a manner that admirably manages variance in a practical
manner that eludes such approaches as Martingale.

------

The second area where I find Rob to be entirely on target are his
observations on the potential pitfalls of advantage play when it comes
to how they're adopted and exercised by some players. Again looking
the core of those arguments, he's not attacking the concepts of
advantage play themselves but instead the inevitable manner by which
some players pursue them -- and what he suggests entirely jives with
what I observe with some players ... not to mention behavior that I
find I need to make an effort to temper within myself.

-----

I find both of these areas of significant consequence. There are
other areas with which I'm in agreement with Rob, but of lesser
consequence.

On the other hand, Rob's behavior leaves open many aspects that are
entirely disagreeable. However, when I look at the impact of this
behavior, I find it relatively inconsequential. (Obviously others
will disagree.)

His aggressive pursuit of conflict is one notable area. I won't
speculate on his motivation, but I do find it generally distasteful.
But, oddly, when I search my gut instinct, drawing on everything to
which I've been exposed, I don't find this reflective of his inner
nature. He carries a BIG shtick. I entirely trust my intuition on
this -- I'm not often caught short (but it happens)

I firmly believe that Rob's actions haven't caused others harm (at
least, with no greater frequency than the next guy). To the extent
that someone might deem a person to have been misled by Rob into
inadvisable action, in absence of Rob's input I assert the person
would have found someone else to guide them into similarly poor
decisions. For that matter, where I see someone taking Rob's info to
an unwise course of action, they're acting from they're own
inclinations and just gleaning from Rob that which they find validates
those leanings. From what I've observed, they certainly aren't
prepared to listen to a voice that some here would consider to be of
greater reason.

------

So, I stress what I find most substantive about Rob and downplay that
which I find largely dismissible. But I don't argue that there is
much about Rob that is objectionable -- I'm just content that others
are pretty thorough in voicing those objections.

Let me finish by saying that a dissection such as this is pretty
unsavory -- I wouldn't fare nearly so well under the scope

- Harry

[Rob_Singer2]

I guess I'm your Daddy too!

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "2-WILD" <lucky4K@...> wrote:

[Rob_Singer2]

Harry: In all your inimitable wisdom, you must first realize you're
responding to what are likely perennial losers who've hated me for
proclaiming I've won so consistently. If you've kept track, 2Wild
only comes on after I've put out an article that I've been winning or
when I hit a BIG winner or whenever he senses my strength. It does
hurt these guys, because no loser really feels good about someone who
both says they win and challenges that he can prove it. It's why
you've seen all the big names--including Dancer--run away from me
over the years when either they or I offer such a bet.

This infuriates boat-missers like 2Wild and in turn, causes people
like Dick and a few others--and they're really isn't many--to hop on
each other's backs to attack. Yet they always end up batterred and
bruised, and I guess I get a measured amount of satisfaction about
that although it really doesn't matter. And as you've seen in
Meldrone, my newest venture of taking on the supposed sports betting
sharpies of the world and going one up on them while documenting
every pick (something they refuse to do lest they underperform their
boasts and subsequently lower their income from their scams) has
irritated them and him so deeply that instead of taking a swing at me
if the coward were nearby, he pretends to cause me discomfort by
giving out my real name and any personal info on me that he can spin
and lie about in his negative way.

It's almost a criminal act to these meaningless critics for anyone to
announce they understand me, somewhat agree with me, or even praise
me for what I've accomplished. Can you imagine the disdain they all
have for GBC and Gaming Today for being mostly on my side over the
past 7-9 years? I have to say, I see where their pain is coming
from.....

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

2-WILD wrote:
> Harry ... you are TOO much.
>
> I swear you could put a smiley-face on even Bin Laden "within a
> narrowly defined perspective." Leadership perhaps?
>
> Still, the world needs your good-natured viewpoint ... if only to
> provide balance ... and I would say the same about the "bad-

natured"

> meldrone (no offense JT), who absolutely skewers Singer.
>
> But rest assured, there is NO good within RS and if it wasn't for
> your solid VP foundation, you'd be a great mark
>
> Best wishes for 08 ...

Those are kind sentiments and much appreciated.

I don't want to belabor the take on Rob that I've expressed, but I

am

cognizant that I could readily be taken as either a dupe or a
sycophant in the context of my observations. Let me be a little
specific in detailing what prompts the positive comments I put out.

My focus is on those things that Rob espouses that entirely jive

with

my own observations and reasoning.

------

The first thing I find that I have no argument with is Rob's
proposition, at heart, re play strategy. While I find that the

basics

of "advantage play" are a superior guide in undertaking vp play,

it's

totally obvious that it's not suited to the temperament of some

players.

It's a simple fact that for any negative expectation play choice,
increasing the volatility of play improves the likelihood that the
play outcome will be positive. Granted, risk is increased, but that
basic fact still stands.

Most players, who don't opt to aggressively pursue advantage play
strategy, face a negative expectation scenario in the casino --
another common sense fact. Thus, for a very specific subset of
players, the concept of pursuing profitable play through enhancing
play variance is a viable alternative play strategy.

Rob's strategies, as loosely collected and interpreted, approach

such

a strategy in a manner that admirably manages variance in a

practical

manner that eludes such approaches as Martingale.

------

The second area where I find Rob to be entirely on target are his
observations on the potential pitfalls of advantage play when it

comes

to how they're adopted and exercised by some players. Again looking
the core of those arguments, he's not attacking the concepts of
advantage play themselves but instead the inevitable manner by which
some players pursue them -- and what he suggests entirely jives with
what I observe with some players ... not to mention behavior that I
find I need to make an effort to temper within myself.

-----

I find both of these areas of significant consequence. There are
other areas with which I'm in agreement with Rob, but of lesser
consequence.

On the other hand, Rob's behavior leaves open many aspects that are
entirely disagreeable. However, when I look at the impact of this
behavior, I find it relatively inconsequential. (Obviously others
will disagree.)

His aggressive pursuit of conflict is one notable area. I won't
speculate on his motivation, but I do find it generally

distasteful.

But, oddly, when I search my gut instinct, drawing on everything to
which I've been exposed, I don't find this reflective of his inner
nature. He carries a BIG shtick. I entirely trust my intuition on
this -- I'm not often caught short (but it happens)

I firmly believe that Rob's actions haven't caused others harm (at
least, with no greater frequency than the next guy). To the extent
that someone might deem a person to have been misled by Rob into
inadvisable action, in absence of Rob's input I assert the person
would have found someone else to guide them into similarly poor
decisions. For that matter, where I see someone taking Rob's info

to

an unwise course of action, they're acting from they're own
inclinations and just gleaning from Rob that which they find

validates

those leanings. From what I've observed, they certainly aren't
prepared to listen to a voice that some here would consider to be of
greater reason.

------

So, I stress what I find most substantive about Rob and downplay

that

···

which I find largely dismissible. But I don't argue that there is
much about Rob that is objectionable -- I'm just content that others
are pretty thorough in voicing those objections.

Let me finish by saying that a dissection such as this is pretty
unsavory -- I wouldn't fare nearly so well under the scope

- Harry

[jim_thompson]

One thing about commercials during NFL playoff games -
they give you time to verify Argentino/Singer's scummy
dishonesty.

http://forums.lasvegasadvisor.com/messageview.cfm?catid=36&threadid=229455&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=

That is the thread where a certified public accountant
offered to audit the imbecile's tax returns - for free
- to test his ridciulous VP assertions. But no, Singer
wanted to get paid.

17th and 18th posts:

charlesmayfield:

"What's there to fear with a Charlie Mayfield audit?
If the information is there, then it's there. If you
pass the audit, then you can proclaim to Fezzik and
others that your gambling wins are legitimate. There's
no charge for my audit time. But I wouldn't do it till
after April 17th as I have paying clients to handle
first."

rsinger1111

"Charles: You're a fair person, but no one sees
EVERYTHING about us without paying a
fee--esp. for such a reason as you're giving. You're
just as much a doubter as Fezzik
or anyone else who doesn't want to believe my results,
and even if you were a close
friend I'd never tie up such great amounts of my time
or have anyone question my
wife's integrity (she signs the returns also) without
an appropriate fee. And if
you think Fezzik or any of my critics will succumb to
your positive findings about
my past 10 years then you're seriously mistaken. They
don't WANT me to be telling
the truth so they'll never accept anything in order to
keep their sanity about the
issue. The onion will continued to be peeled down
until you can't satisfy their
tastes any longer. I WILL do it for the right fee,
and if you're willing to pay then let's talk."

skip a few posts insulting Mr. Dickhead. 21st post:

charlesmayfield:

"Rob

Generally when companies get audited, they pay the
auditing firm. Not vice-versa. In this case, I'm not
asking for payment. I just enjoy the lively debate
going forward. And also that I won't do this till
after April 17th."

rsinger1111:

"Charles: You have my requirement for such an odd
request."

The balance of the thread is people treating Singer
like the swine he so obviously is. With various
remarks on his promise never post at fezzik's again,
and his subsequent decision to post there all the
time. Because his life consists of jacking off on the
internet.

···

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Rob_Singer2]

Who ya kiddin' Melly? You've been searching back and forth for DAYS
because of the truth dart I hit you with!

Oh, BTW....I kinda don't remember you sitting at the table with
Charlie & I during dinner when the idea was 86'd. Good thing--they
don't allow those who "step lightly in their loafers without socks"
anyway...and their chairs only hold patrons weighing less than 250.

One thing about commercials during NFL playoff games -
they give you time to verify Argentino/Singer's scummy
dishonesty.

http://forums.lasvegasadvisor.com/messageview.cfm?

catid=36&threadid=229455&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, jim thompson <meldrone@...> wrote:

That is the thread where a certified public accountant
offered to audit the imbecile's tax returns - for free
- to test his ridciulous VP assertions. But no, Singer
wanted to get paid.

17th and 18th posts:

charlesmayfield:

"What's there to fear with a Charlie Mayfield audit?
If the information is there, then it's there. If you
pass the audit, then you can proclaim to Fezzik and
others that your gambling wins are legitimate. There's
no charge for my audit time. But I wouldn't do it till
after April 17th as I have paying clients to handle
first."

rsinger1111

"Charles: You're a fair person, but no one sees
EVERYTHING about us without paying a
fee--esp. for such a reason as you're giving. You're
just as much a doubter as Fezzik
or anyone else who doesn't want to believe my results,
and even if you were a close
friend I'd never tie up such great amounts of my time
or have anyone question my
wife's integrity (she signs the returns also) without
an appropriate fee. And if
you think Fezzik or any of my critics will succumb to
your positive findings about
my past 10 years then you're seriously mistaken. They
don't WANT me to be telling
the truth so they'll never accept anything in order to
keep their sanity about the
issue. The onion will continued to be peeled down
until you can't satisfy their
tastes any longer. I WILL do it for the right fee,
and if you're willing to pay then let's talk."

skip a few posts insulting Mr. Dickhead. 21st post:

charlesmayfield:

"Rob

Generally when companies get audited, they pay the
auditing firm. Not vice-versa. In this case, I'm not
asking for payment. I just enjoy the lively debate
going forward. And also that I won't do this till
after April 17th."

rsinger1111:

"Charles: You have my requirement for such an odd
request."

The balance of the thread is people treating Singer
like the swine he so obviously is. With various
remarks on his promise never post at fezzik's again,
and his subsequent decision to post there all the
time. Because his life consists of jacking off on the
internet.

______________________________________________________________________
______________

Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[jim_thompson]

I searched for 8 minutes during tonight's 3'd quarter,
and I found the EXACT language proving you to be a
100% lying piece of shit. And the Mayfield dinner took
place weeks earlier.

I found some other material you will cringe at
shortly.

···

--- robsinger1111 <robsinger1111@yahoo.com> wrote:

Yes, I tried to charge Mayfield to audit my returns.
> charlesmayfield:
>
> "What's there to fear with a Charlie Mayfield
audit?
> If the information is there, then it's there. If
you
> pass the audit, then you can proclaim to Fezzik
and
> others that your gambling wins are legitimate.
There's
> no charge for my audit time. But I wouldn't do it
till
> after April 17th as I have paying clients to
handle
> first."
>
> rsinger1111
>
> "Charles: You're a fair person, but no one sees
> EVERYTHING about us without paying a
> fee--esp. for such a reason as you're giving.
You're
> just as much a doubter as Fezzik
> or anyone else who doesn't want to believe my
results,
> and even if you were a close
> friend I'd never tie up such great amounts of my
time
> or have anyone question my
> wife's integrity (she signs the returns also)
without
> an appropriate fee. And if
> you think Fezzik or any of my critics will succumb
to
> your positive findings about
> my past 10 years then you're seriously mistaken.
They
> don't WANT me to be telling
> the truth so they'll never accept anything in
order to
> keep their sanity about the
> issue. The onion will continued to be peeled down
> until you can't satisfy their
> tastes any longer. I WILL do it for the right fee,

> and if you're willing to pay then let's talk."
>
> skip a few posts insulting Mr. Dickhead. 21st
post:
>
> charlesmayfield:
>
> "Rob
>
> Generally when companies get audited, they pay the
> auditing firm. Not vice-versa. In this case, I'm
not
> asking for payment. I just enjoy the lively debate
> going forward. And also that I won't do this till
> after April 17th."
>
> rsinger1111:
>
> "Charles: You have my requirement for such an odd
> request."
>
> The balance of the thread is people treating
Singer
> like the swine he so obviously is. With various
> remarks on his promise never post at fezzik's
again,
> and his subsequent decision to post there all the
> time. Because his life consists of jacking off on
the
> internet.

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Rob_Singer2]

As I snap my whip....wait a minute! You're getting to be more fun
slapping around than Dick is! Who's YOUR Daddy? (No, I don't mean the
NAMBLA rep from your local bathhouse....!!!) HAHAHA!!

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, jim thompson <meldrone@...> wrote:

I searched for 8 minutes during tonight's 3'd quarter,
and I found the EXACT language proving you to be a
100% lying piece of shit. And the Mayfield dinner took
place weeks earlier.

I found some other material you will cringe at
shortly.

--- robsinger1111 <robsinger1111@...> wrote:

> Yes, I tried to charge Mayfield to audit my returns.
> > charlesmayfield:
> >
> > "What's there to fear with a Charlie Mayfield
> audit?
> > If the information is there, then it's there. If
> you
> > pass the audit, then you can proclaim to Fezzik
> and
> > others that your gambling wins are legitimate.
> There's
> > no charge for my audit time. But I wouldn't do it
> till
> > after April 17th as I have paying clients to
> handle
> > first."
> >
> > rsinger1111
> >
> > "Charles: You're a fair person, but no one sees
> > EVERYTHING about us without paying a
> > fee--esp. for such a reason as you're giving.
> You're
> > just as much a doubter as Fezzik
> > or anyone else who doesn't want to believe my
> results,
> > and even if you were a close
> > friend I'd never tie up such great amounts of my
> time
> > or have anyone question my
> > wife's integrity (she signs the returns also)
> without
> > an appropriate fee. And if
> > you think Fezzik or any of my critics will succumb
> to
> > your positive findings about
> > my past 10 years then you're seriously mistaken.
> They
> > don't WANT me to be telling
> > the truth so they'll never accept anything in
> order to
> > keep their sanity about the
> > issue. The onion will continued to be peeled down
> > until you can't satisfy their
> > tastes any longer. I WILL do it for the right fee,
>
> > and if you're willing to pay then let's talk."
> >
> > skip a few posts insulting Mr. Dickhead. 21st
> post:
> >
> > charlesmayfield:
> >
> > "Rob
> >
> > Generally when companies get audited, they pay the
> > auditing firm. Not vice-versa. In this case, I'm
> not
> > asking for payment. I just enjoy the lively debate
> > going forward. And also that I won't do this till
> > after April 17th."
> >
> > rsinger1111:
> >
> > "Charles: You have my requirement for such an odd
> > request."
> >
> > The balance of the thread is people treating
> Singer
> > like the swine he so obviously is. With various
> > remarks on his promise never post at fezzik's
> again,
> > and his subsequent decision to post there all the
> > time. Because his life consists of jacking off on
> the
> > internet.

______________________________________________________________________
______________

Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Rob_Singer2]

Ahhh....after a day watching the NFL and planning our Feb. vacation
to Oregon (Oooo!!...Oooo!!!...I did that in -- hee-haa!!--EIGHT
MINUTES! during halftime of the hockey game!!) I started REALLY
feelin' it. That's why I didn't read any new posts and instead, I
choose to do the equivalent of giving each of you a bloody nose! And
it is more than easy with a such small pack of Internet critics who,
as whiners go aren't really all that resourceful.

Dick: You're probably wondering how I can put up with continually
beating you to a pulp here and everywhere else over time. I have to
admit it does grow old, but then again, just as in high school, it
was fun to keep picking on and knocking down the geeky nerds when
they were already down, and it's STILL got a lot of satisfaction
involved! And as an added bonus, it's similar to our great
President's policy in Iraq & Afghanistan: Pound away on the weak,
i.e.terrorists (of course they are Freedom Fighters to liberal whacko
Meldrone)and more weak will appear to take their beating too. Since
you've had no chance against me from the start, it was simple to draw
the other fools in--and as you've witnessed I've picked them off one-
by-one! Thank you my friend.

Melly: Ain't GWB GREAT!? If you stop to think about it, just about
everything around you suggests you're a loser! You admit suffering
unmentionable P-A-I-N for the past 8 years as you watched Clinton lay
the path to 9-11 for the terrorists, and then you have to absord more
while being led and protected by a man who'll undoubtedly go down as
one of the 2 greatest American Presidents of all time. On, and as I
mentioned, Charlie & I talked about the proposed audit months before
dinner, at dinner, and for some time in the weeks after dinner prior
to any of you yahoos knowing. Now don't you feel stoopid again?!

2Wild: I compare you to Obama Hussein or whatever he calls himself.
You spend a lot of time trying to articulate your position (in this
case it's your hate for me) but at the end of the day you leave the
reader asking "What did he SAY?" I have no idea, so keep up the
effort and if you speak enough poison-pen English laced with
shameless lying, you WILL get thru to Meldrone in time....

Someoneelse: You're the epitome of "follow the leader". Only thing
is, none of the aforementioned has any leadership qualities and as
such, I have to believe you're good at stumbling. It is you whom I
believe gain the most from me being all your Daddys'.

So where are we, really? Well, I'll admit it all for all 4 of you.
You guys hate that I really win; you hate that I document it; you
hate that I explain my strategies to the masses, you hate that I'm
able to destroy long-term strategy with intelligent common sense
which is blatantly lacking from the phoney set of so-called famous
names who are more interested in vp commercialization than helping
any player anywhere; you hate that I have the most respected, tenured
and famous Publishers of anyone in the gaming business; you all love
to hate to love to read my site often; and most of all you hate how
I'm able to outwit one or three or dozens of you fools all the time
everywhere and anywhere of my choosing--and how I'm the most
attention-generating personality in the video poker world because of
my overall gaming knowledge & intelligence, my superiority in vp, and
the way I've installed the world of REALITY into what you idiots call
Fantasyland.

To that end, here's my offer to you and it's good until I say it
isn't: Dick moans that I don't win, yet when I said I would pay 2:1
odds on $50,000 as I played a Single-Play Strategy session with the
normal $57,200 bankroll at the casino(s) of my choice in front of him
and a verifier - where if I won $2500 minimum I win the bet and if I
didn't I lose the bet----he runs away crying foul first that I have
3:1 odds of winning, then changing it to because I have 4:1 odds. (I
know I know....isn't it just like his fradulent personality where he
looks every issue up on the internet then comes on with some sort of
canned reply---and in this case he crawls thru one hole to get to
another)!

So I'll adjust it and let's see what happens. He whines about my
odds, so I'll play 4 sessions instead of one, and if I win all four
I'll get $200,000, if I win 3 out of 4 I'll just take $25,000.
Further, Dick (& others) claim one loss will more than wipe out
anything I've won. So we'll have a side bet that says if I'm ahead
after 4 sessions the critic(s) owe me another $50,000 and if I'm not
then I'll pay them $50,000. I believe that addresses all the cowardly
anonymous Internet criticizms about my play.

This challenge is open to anyone or group of any people interested in
giving me their cash. Similarly, if anyone wants to accept my
challenge that I can prove I've won exactly as I say I have over my 9
years of professional play--including my exclusive offer that I'll
pay for a Nevada Arbitrator if there's still any doubt after the
review--who's decision will be final and binding--then put your
$100,000 up as I did with $640,000 a few years ago after publishing
this same challenge to critic Fezzik under the Front Page Gaming
Today Column titled "Gaming Today Columnist Lay Down The Gauntlet!"
As soon as Fezzik's people verified my escrow, he ran away faster
than a woman from one of Meldrone's NAMBLA-run bath houses.

Any takers must send me an e-mail to either rob_singer@qwest.net
or rsinger1111@cox.net and i'll lay out the fair parameters to the
bet. Dick will no doubt come on here (well, he won't now that I'm
exposing him again) and try to be matter-of-fact about it all because
he just doesn't like it when I challenge others to back up their
lies. But how about it you bunch of losers--here's your chance to WIN
BIG!!

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "robsinger1111"
<robsinger1111@...> wrote:

Ahhh....after a day watching the NFL and planning our Feb. vacation
to Oregon (Oooo!!...Oooo!!!...I did that in -- hee-haa!!--EIGHT
MINUTES! during halftime of the hockey game!!) I started REALLY
feelin' it. That's why I didn't read any new posts and instead, I
choose to do the equivalent of giving each of you a bloody nose!

And

it is more than easy with a such small pack of Internet critics

who,

as whiners go aren't really all that resourceful.

I think my reference to "family" hit home. We all know you read them
Rob. The fact that your "bad wolf" is trying to claim otherwise
should tell you something REALLY important. The "good wolf" is
fighting by using these "projections". Look in the mirror of
these "projections" and you will find what your "good wolf" is saying
about you.

Dick: You're probably wondering how I can put up with continually
beating you to a pulp here and everywhere else over time. I have to
admit it does grow old, but then again, just as in high school, it
was fun to keep picking on and knocking down the geeky nerds when
they were already down, and it's STILL got a lot of satisfaction
involved! And as an added bonus, it's similar to our great
President's policy in Iraq & Afghanistan: Pound away on the weak,
i.e.terrorists (of course they are Freedom Fighters to liberal

whacko

Meldrone)and more weak will appear to take their beating too. Since
you've had no chance against me from the start, it was simple to

draw

the other fools in--and as you've witnessed I've picked them off

one-

by-one! Thank you my friend.

This last parargraph could be used as the poster child for NPD:

···

----------------------------------------------------------------
Kantor (1992, pp. 203-204) describes the clinical characteristics of
NPD as:

inordinate self-pride;
self-concern;
an exaggeration of the importance of one's experiences and feelings;
ideas of perfection;
a reluctance to accept blame or criticism;
absence of altruism although gestures may be made for the sake of
appearance;
empathy deficit; and,
grandiosity.

Frances, et.al. (1995, p. 374) add:

entitlement;
shallowness;
preoccupation with fame, wealth, and achievement;
craving admiration, attention and praise;
placing excessive emphasis on displaying beauty and power.
-------------------------------------------------------------
This is your disease, Rob, and you can start today to find HELP.

Melly: Ain't GWB GREAT!? If you stop to think about it, just about
everything around you suggests you're a loser! You admit suffering
unmentionable P-A-I-N for the past 8 years as you watched Clinton

lay

the path to 9-11 for the terrorists, and then you have to absord

more

while being led and protected by a man who'll undoubtedly go down

as

one of the 2 greatest American Presidents of all time. On, and as I
mentioned, Charlie & I talked about the proposed audit months

before

dinner, at dinner, and for some time in the weeks after dinner

prior

to any of you yahoos knowing. Now don't you feel stoopid again?!

2Wild: I compare you to Obama Hussein or whatever he calls himself.
You spend a lot of time trying to articulate your position (in this
case it's your hate for me) but at the end of the day you leave the
reader asking "What did he SAY?" I have no idea, so keep up the
effort and if you speak enough poison-pen English laced with
shameless lying, you WILL get thru to Meldrone in time....

Someoneelse: You're the epitome of "follow the leader". Only thing
is, none of the aforementioned has any leadership qualities and as
such, I have to believe you're good at stumbling. It is you whom I
believe gain the most from me being all your Daddys'.

So where are we, really?

You're lost in a sea of your own hatred and confusion. From
your "projection" here, you obviously recognize that you have been
correctly diagnosed and you have no defense (I hope you know your
rantings are simply more "projections").

Well, I'll admit it all for all 4 of you.
You guys hate that I really win; you hate that I document it; you
hate that I explain my strategies to the masses, you hate that I'm
able to destroy long-term strategy with intelligent common sense
which is blatantly lacking from the phoney set of so-called famous
names who are more interested in vp commercialization than helping
any player anywhere; you hate that I have the most respected,

tenured

and famous Publishers of anyone in the gaming business; you all

love

to hate to love to read my site often; and most of all you hate how
I'm able to outwit one or three or dozens of you fools all the time
everywhere and anywhere of my choosing--and how I'm the most
attention-generating personality in the video poker world because

of

my overall gaming knowledge & intelligence, my superiority in vp,

and

the way I've installed the world of REALITY into what you idiots

call

Fantasyland.

Note the overuse of the word "hate" by Rob. This "projection" tells
me that he is close to the breaking point. He hates himself for not
being able to break away from the "bad wolf" and he knows it hurts
his family. Get help Rob.

To that end, here's my offer to you and it's good until I say it
isn't: Dick moans that I don't win, yet when I said I would pay 2:1
odds on $50,000 as I played a Single-Play Strategy session with the
normal $57,200 bankroll at the casino(s) of my choice in front of

him

and a verifier - where if I won $2500 minimum I win the bet and if

I

didn't I lose the bet----he runs away crying foul first that I have
3:1 odds of winning, then changing it to because I have 4:1 odds.

(I

know I know....isn't it just like his fradulent personality where

he

looks every issue up on the internet then comes on with some sort

of

canned reply---and in this case he crawls thru one hole to get to
another)!

What we are really seeing here is Robbie trying to escape the
reference to him doing something for his FAMILY. He is trying to
change the subject BIGTIME. He knows that he has treated his family
horribly over the years and yet he still considers family important.
It won't work, Robbie. For the sake of your family you need to get
HELP.

So I'll adjust it and let's see what happens. He whines about my
odds, so I'll play 4 sessions instead of one, and if I win all four
I'll get $200,000, if I win 3 out of 4 I'll just take $25,000.
Further, Dick (& others) claim one loss will more than wipe out
anything I've won. So we'll have a side bet that says if I'm ahead
after 4 sessions the critic(s) owe me another $50,000 and if I'm

not

then I'll pay them $50,000. I believe that addresses all the

cowardly

anonymous Internet criticizms about my play.

Rob, how will this help your family? Think about it. Get help.
  

This challenge is open to anyone or group of any people interested

in

giving me their cash. Similarly, if anyone wants to accept my
challenge that I can prove I've won exactly as I say I have over my

9

years of professional play--including my exclusive offer that I'll
pay for a Nevada Arbitrator if there's still any doubt after the
review--who's decision will be final and binding--then put your
$100,000 up as I did with $640,000 a few years ago after publishing
this same challenge to critic Fezzik under the Front Page Gaming
Today Column titled "Gaming Today Columnist Lay Down The

Gauntlet!"

As soon as Fezzik's people verified my escrow, he ran away faster
than a woman from one of Meldrone's NAMBLA-run bath houses.

Any takers must send me an e-mail to either rob_singer@...
or rsinger1111@... and i'll lay out the fair parameters to the
bet. Dick will no doubt come on here (well, he won't now that I'm
exposing him again) and try to be matter-of-fact about it all

because

he just doesn't like it when I challenge others to back up their
lies. But how about it you bunch of losers--here's your chance to

WIN

BIG!!

We heard this all before and Rob has always backed out. Just like the
FREE audit he turned down. But this really isn't what it seems.
The "challenge" is the "good wolf" vs. the "bad wolf".

Rob's "good wolf" realizes that the only chance for him to "WIN BIG"
is to get help, but his "bad wolf" is fighting hard to remain in
control. That is why we're seeing the same challenges that Rob has
issued many times (and backed down each and every time). The
challenge is really directed to the "good wolf". Like I said, this is
done as a method by the "bad wolf" to get off the topic that is
causing him much pain and putting the "bad wolf" at risk. Get HELP.

[jim_thompson]

Your idiotic lie about Mayfield is proven by Mayfield.
He said "What do you have to fear . . .I'll do it for
free." Hardly the words of somebody who had already
been told No. You pathetic lying imbecile.

As for participating in some kind of absurd crcle jerk
of 'negotiation', they did that at Fezzik's in June of
2005, and you weaseled out, as usual, after days of
wasted activity. No idle activity from this end.

So, Argentino, you'll have to settle for catastrophic
enbarrasment. Tomorrow, I'll show you claiming you
were not an engineer. Mustain will enjoy that one.

···

--- robsinger1111 <robsinger1111@yahoo.com> wrote:

Please watch me play with myself at length. . . .

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping