David and Goliath: Acts of Moderators

[GARNabby]

Okay, Moderator Bayes,

Again, everything seems to be obvious to only yourself?  And that you're the only one who's allowed to formulate something complex but useful?

You write a lot, but give few examples.  No, i'm not referring to the Wikipedia SD math stuff, which anyone can reproduce and rehash ad nauseum, possibly in a vain attempt to "appear" to be authoritative and useful, most prominently to yourself.   (As i wrote before, gambling math was passed over from the Ancients, because they had no use or interest in it, to the modern times of life-insurance, taxation, quantum science, the popularization of casinos, etc.)  But to this so-called "obvious trolling" of mine.  Maybe if you weren't so-quick to summarily delete, and advise others to, what is "obviously trolling", then you'd have some salient references for the most of the others who didn't have the opportunity to size things up for themselves the first time around.  Save those having been saved somewhere, the Nazi practice of "book burning" comes to mind?  (But of course you're no Nazi, i'm not calling you one... doubt they'd take you in, lol.)

Until you can PROVE, however, that you consistently win at roullete as you have repeatedly directly, or indirectly, claimed, then i will continue to write that i completely don't agree with you.  Certainly not with the DBL stuff, and no less with a computerized version of it.  None of that has anything to do with complexity, unless you're hinting at only an "overactive imagination" coupled with a "strong will to win" a very-bad toss-up.  (Not quite what Einstein meant when he loosely openly conjectured about the power of the imagination.)  Plain silliness, not to be rebutted by silliness, of course, like let's "pit random against random".

There's no registration rule here that says every member must contribute something; or that truisms can't be relied on here.  People come and go.  No one is just right, or wrong.  You can't please everyone all the time in every way.  There will always be economic realities.

How many died?  How many went broke enough times to learn that "object lesson"?   Or for the first time, and couldn't bear the shame here?  Maybe they came to realize that losing wasn't their fault, that they have every right to "get mad" about it, and properly quit?  And how many played the ball-and-go-home "card", after their "demands" weren't met?  How many never came, not even to meet like-minded people?  Or wanted only to reassure themselves that they will never make anything at a casino?  How many went away to the world of PM's, you know, that place they "threaten" to go to expose the "secrets of the universe" to each other, but which never, in all likelihood, materializes?  Maybe paranoia set in, in the form of an unrelenting fear via "casino agents" in pursuit?  Ironically, how many were "trolled" away by the internet-bullies, even in the name of "trolling"?  (That's the problem with the "greater good" stuff... nobody knows what the "greater good" really is.)  And on, and on.  I mean, if i did all of that all on my own with a relative-handful of posts/replies, Geezies, maybe i'm pretty-hot stuff after all.  Like when i "apologized" to the Wizard for having not really really offended anyone there, after they had insidiously tried just about everything, including having its webmaster compose some counterfeit "contributions" under my username, to get me to write something out-of-character.  His final "argument" for banning me was, loosely, "Garnabby's a bad guy, so he must be bad."

No, "... the forum will [NOT] be left to a bunch of mud-slinging low-moral Goliaths."  And that IS truly a mass personal insult to they who chose to remain, or to visit for the first time.

In almost-four years at this sort of site, i have met up with only one text-book, obvious 'internet troll'.  That would be johno of the Gamblers' Glen, and at least a 100 different aliases EVERYwhere else.  That fellow is hard-core, and runs the gamut.  So, you have to "fight fire with fire" when left to your own devices against someone like that.  You have no idea, right?



Okay, GLC,

Perhaps you would grace us with an encore appearance here, please defend the paragraph, "I want to point out that I've never known GARNabby to offer anything constructive on this forum.  All his comments are negative in nature.  He doesn't offer suggestions for improving a method nor does he offer any kind of encouragement.  What value does he contribute?  Why should he be allowed to interfere with topics just to tell us how silly we are or what losers we are.  I remember once that he even made a comment to another member about having "penis envy".  How can that be acceptable on a public forum with both male and female participation."

At the least, 'penis envy' (taken out of context) is accepted psychological notation which has trickled down to common usage.  Don't know about you, but were i a women, i would ask you to "remove your hands from my eyes", or "let me out of your closet".

As to the remainder of your stereotypical generalizations, again without any contextual examples, let alone the exhaustive evidence of each and every contribution from myself, here, required to make such a lame case... hahahahahahaha.  Grow up.

[albertojonas]

Okay, Moderator Bayes,

Until you can PROVE, however, that you consistently win at roulette as you have repeatedly directly, or indirectly, claimed, then i will continue to write that i completely don't agree with you.  Certainly not with the DBL stuff, and no less with a computerized version of it.

Obviously you know what you are talking about. You have been there, you saw it and you don't want it anymore.
If you are willing to try, you can speak after.
How many sessions of 100 spins do you want to throw at it, so it stands Prove to you?
I happen to have 3 million Wiesbaden spins, if you're interested into.


@GarNabby - I am learning to win consistently with Gizmotron. It is free.

Cheers

[Bayes]

Okay, Moderator Bayes,

I'm no longer a moderator, so you can troll away, I can't stop you unless it's in my thread or in the math reference section.

You write a lot, but give few examples.  No, i'm not referring to the Wikipedia SD math stuff, which anyone can reproduce and rehash ad nauseum, possibly in a vain attempt to "appear" to be authoritative and useful, most prominently to yourself.

Yes, it's available from Wiki, but not in a particularly user-friendly format. I just tried to make it more easily understandable for those who don't like math. That requires some effort, and judging from the feedback I received, I did a pretty good job. Pot calling kettle black I think - I don't know whether it's deliberate (in an attempt to make yourself look smart) but your posts are obscure to the point of being unreadable, which is one of the reasons why hardly anyone ever responds to them. As I said before, YOU are the one who seems to be concerned with trying to impress people - you even posted your math degree certificates here - who cares?

Until you can PROVE, however, that you consistently win at roulette as you have repeatedly directly, or indirectly, claimed, then i will continue to write that i completely don't agree with you.  Certainly not with the DBL stuff, and no less with a computerized version of it.  None of that has anything to do with complexity, unless you're hinting at only an "overactive imagination" coupled with a "strong will to win" a very-bad toss-up.

We both know that no-one can PROVE that they consistently win at roulette. The only thing that can be proved is a mathematical theorem, and since roulette has already been proved mathematically impossible to beat, the only thing I can prove is that I CAN'T consistently win. I think that guys like you secretly hope that there's a way to win and try to goad members (by their negativity) into revealing how they do it. Why continue to post here otherwise unless you're just interested in provoking members or massaging your ego with gobbledegook?

"A troll is someone who posts inflammatory,^[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response^[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

There's no registration rule here that says every member must contribute something; or that truisms can't be relied on here.  People come and go.  No one is just right, or wrong.  You can't please everyone all the time in every way.  There will always be economic realities.

I didn't say you don't contribute anything, just nothing much of any value. That's my opinion and I'm far from alone in holding it.

[bikemotorman]

People have made fun of my ideas, I just keep tinkering and have a little fun.

Keep your head up sun comes up in the morning.


                                                         Stuart


:.987power.com

[Steve]

I had a brief read of this thread. I dont have time to read it all, as often disputes are bickering. Ultimately if there is a member or other issue causing problems and nothing is done about it by the mods, contact me directly and give actual examples of what the problem is. I dont have time to fish for information for myself - you need to be specific so I can deal with it.

The only way to guarantee a message to me is read is to directly PM me. I dont read every thread

[GARNabby]

I'm no longer a moderator, so you can troll away, I can't stop you unless it's in my thread or in the math reference section.

Thanks for the "official" update, as guess i wasn't enough into "trolling away" to have noticed.

Pot calling kettle black I think -  As I said before, YOU are the one who seems to be concerned with trying to impress people - you even posted your math degree certificates here - who cares?

No. I wrote, "... POSSIBLY in a vain effort to."  (Because i, myself, can't really see the point of going into all of that detail on a public gambling message-board, where the idea would seem to be to discuss the casino-games in general, and the best ways to play those in specific.)  Perhaps, misreading the thing is one of the "reasons" that you feel i'm trying for some sort of showdown.  I'm allowed to speculate, as are you.  Ie, with your follow-up remark to that, which is more in reference to something simply documented without anything winded, or open to dialogue.  How is that 'internet trolling'?  I could've posted much-more impressive degrees than a Bachelor of Mathematics with a minor in Mechanical Engineering.  A minimum standard, if you will, to help avoid these very sorts of problems.  However, i do post to impress myself, to try to better myself when i have something to expound upon.   

We both know that no-one can PROVE that they consistently win at roulette. The only thing that can be proved is a mathematical theorem, and since roulette has already been proved mathematically impossible to beat, the only thing I can prove is that I CAN'T consistently win.?

I try to not limit myself mathematically, or be so-limited by others.  Anyway, it's you who stray off my point that such "claims" of winning "spring eternal" here, and that my counter claims can't then be considered to be 'trolling'.

I think that guys like you secretly hope that there's a way to win and try to goad members (by their negativity) into revealing how they do it. Why continue to post here otherwise unless you're just interested in provoking members or massaging your ego with gobbledegook?

So what?  Is there another rule here somewhere that says every one must always be complimentary, and in agreement with all others?  Sometimes we have to "push" ourselves to strive for something better.  You know that the word s*t*u*p*i*d would seem to have a lot to do with the word stupor?  So, unless you truly believe that i'm in a stupor, mentally as well as physically it would seem, that far out of it, then please don't merely assume yours to be the only alternative, which isn't really an alternative to the former after all... that i'm "provoking" others, or myself, in that sort of unreasonable manner. 

Yes, the definition of an 'internet troll' is available on the internet.  My point there was that dropping such links, or the contents thereof, doesn't substantiate any of your serious allegations against myself in this regard.  For example, had any of my replies much(?) strayed from the exactly-worded topic at-hand, then so did those of they, you for one, who went before me.  But you didn't seem too-fixated on those, did you?

I don't know whether it's deliberate (in an attempt to make yourself look smart) but your posts are obscure to the point of being unreadable, which is one of the reasons why hardly anyone ever responds to them. ---> I didn't say you don't contribute anything, just nothing much of any value. That's my opinion and I'm far from alone in holding it.

Well, you can't judge, for one reason or another, what you admittingly can't, or won't admit that you, understand.  You seem to drop out of the good discussions when those leave the realm of something quick from Wikipedia; certainly, you don't ask for clarification then.  Again, the "book burning" thing... so sure of yourself, there would be no good reason to burn, or potentially shut out a possible explanation of, the evidence.

Anyway, if only Steve has the say on who to ban, you ought to flag such posts/replies in real time, and as requested by him above.

[Steve]

As I've said before, for me or any moderator to decide on banning, we need actual examples. I myself dont bother reading he-said she-said complaints in threads. All I would look at is who said what and whether or not it was out of line.

If someone has a complaint against someone else, you will get nowhere by explaining your case on a thread - your message gets lost in a mess of bickering. You need to contact me directly and be very clear about your complaint, with examples.

[Bayes]

I could've posted much-more impressive degrees than a Bachelor of Mathematics with a minor in Mechanical Engineering.  A minimum standard, if you will, to help avoid these very sorts of problems.

I've no idea what you mean by that last sentence, are you saying that a degree is a "minimum standard" to be able to participate in this forum without "problems". That's just silly. You seem to be overly impressed by credentials, but they aren't nearly as important as you seem to think they are. Many of the greatest minds in all fields were entirely self-educated - James Clerk Maxwell, Darwin, Edison, Michael Faraday, George Boole, to name just a few in science. It isn't necessary to jump through hoops and get a piece of paper in order to be successful and/or knowledgeable (and it certainly isn't sufficient), unless you're working in academia. Still, some people are impressed by letters after your name, so if prestige is your thing, then go for it. Especially in science, evidence trumps eminence every time (or it should, but sadly it doesn't always).

[GARNabby]

I've no idea what you mean by that last sentence, are you saying that a degree is a "minimum standard" to be able to participate in this forum without "problems".

Only the sort of "problems" which you're trying to fabricate.  That University of Waterloo degree which i posted on line came in one reply to johno's pretense to owning driver's licences from three separate countries, etc, etc.  I posted up also a quick-and-dirty picture of a large sum of CAD petty cash on hand at my residence, a "passport" to any casino; and my real driver's licence.  To which he appeared unable to post up even one of those licences of his, (of which only one would nicely suffice in any free country that you could safely venture.)

That's just silly.

That WOULD BE silly wouldn't it!

Many of the greatest minds in all fields were entirely self-educated - James Clerk Maxwell, Darwin, Edison, Michael Faraday, George Boole, to name just a few in science. It isn't necessary to jump through hoops and get a piece of paper in order to be successful and/or knowledgeable (and it certainly isn't sufficient), unless you're working in academia. Still, some people are impressed by letters after your name, so if prestige is your thing, then go for it. Especially in science, evidence trumps eminence every time (or it should, but sadly it doesn't always).

Another hypothetical seque into something you want to bring up and answer on your own.

Why are you compelled to qualify everything, go round and round?  To see things as obvious, but not obvious; complex, but not complex; playable, but not playable, as some of my replies on this board.

Somehow, a username says so much, doesn't it?   

[Bayes]

GARNabby,

Your cryptic and ambiguous mode of writing (together with some other traits) betrays passive-aggression. You obviously get your kicks from making other people feel insecure, so have fun with that.  Alternatively, you could try getting a life.

[iggiv]

hey guys let's take easy. It's about roulette only, not about each other life and writing styles

[GARNabby]

Your cryptic and ambiguous mode of writing...

A good way to allow others the freedom to say what's really on their minds.  To not start off with "leading questions", and to not end with being judgemental.  Generally, a good mindset with which to approach new ideas; or to know when to retreat from dangerous situations, e.g., a casino about to "eject" you from a game.  So, as long as something forms words, and sentences, but doesn't contradict itself...  you know you're getting somewhere good.

... (together with some other traits) betrays passive-aggression. You obviously get your kicks from making other people feel insecure, so have fun with that.

Well apparently, lacking evidence of your serious claims against myself, it doesn't surprise me that you would resort to that statement.  The malicious anger, which will be found in NONE of my posts anywhere, must, according to my "haters", be somewhere, right?  Again, such witch-hunt "tactics" permit little opportunity of defence.  So, deal in evidence which is always avaliable to, and for, everyone.  (The basis of Game Theory.) 

Alternatively, you could try getting a life.

I sometimes admonish others from not growing up (improving), or not bettering themselves, but you'd have to catch me on a really bad "hair day" to say what you did.

Every one "has a life", is someone... no one is ever a "nothing".

"Have a nice life, Bayes!" would be my choice, that allows for a polite exit.

... not about each other's life and writing styles.

In general.  But, if you can, there's something good to be learned from every one you meet.  A good sort of entropy, if you will.

[catalyst]

Somehow, a username says so much, doesn't it?   

you have initiated personal vendetta against some members. you look satisfied. stay happily ever after in fools' paradise!

[Steve]

holy shite this is so damn cute!

Two cute white bunnies