EC

[albertojonas]

link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9594


No "Trolling" above...

[Bayes]

Ah, my degree in math specifically means that i'm NOT a "self-declared" mathematician, but so-accredited by a separate, independent body of distinguished overseers in that field.

Maybe so, but that's irrelevant. I'm talking about the fact that you specifically bought it up on the forum that you had a math degree, that's what makes you a "self-declared" math expert.

The upshot is that even a theory requires a universally-sound foundation.  However, i prefer, and think it best, to be able to put a theory across in rather-plain e*n*g*l*i*s*h (in two short posts, for example).  Fuzzy thinking won't "bring home the bacon".

Put into personal terms, do your best, and have no regrets.

Actually, that article was a hoax. it was submitted to an academic journal as a test. The article is actually nonsense.

Even "knuckleheads" deserve better, Bayes.  Not saying that the on-line majority are that, but only that most persons could do better, if they would only try.

Deserve better than what?

And, most importantly, that there is something to learn from every one.  Except, according to a couple here like Bayes, from myself.  Go figure.

Just because Bayes over-compensates for his academic laziness with bullying, "snide remarks", etc, certainly doesn't mean others should "follow suit". 

P.S. Please let me know which board(s) you're at.

I agree that there is something to learn from everyone, but doesn't it also depend on what you've already learned and where your interests lie? I don't know what you mean by "academic laziness", please give an example of where you think I've been academically lazy.

I'm still no wiser as to what you really think of my comment "what goes up must come down" in terms of roulette. In fact that statement is so vague it could mean anything, nevertheless you jumped on it anyway and called it a "glaring mistake". I got a lecture about cosmology (what was that all about?) and then you  admitted it was true, so where was my "glaring mistake"?

And just for the record, I didn't volunteer to be a moderator here, I was asked.

On the contrary, i contend that it's you who have yet to offer up something of proved value on this board, given its overt objective.

Actually, I've contributed quite a bit here over the years. Not so much systems, but software tools/trackers, statistical analyses and explanations. And what is "proved" value? I've received positive feedback from my contributions, so I take that as proved value. If by "overt objective" you mean finding the holy grail, don't you deny that such a thing exists? in which case no-one can ever offer anything of value, including you.

[GARNabby]

Maybe so, but that's irrelevant. I'm talking about the fact that you specifically bought it up on the forum...

Ah, that would serve as a good way to distinguish between the actions: to bring up (casually what's incidentally of consequence); versus, to declare (formally what's fundamentally important).

The fact that you perceive such a forum as this, essentially a ragtag collection of common strangers, to be an appropriate place to do the latter, well... .   

Actually, that article was a hoax. it was submitted to an academic journal as a test. The article is actually nonsense.

Are you sure?  Maybe this reply of yours is the hoax?

But those actions highlight the difference between: (childish) lameness; and (profound) originality, clarity.

At least i made an attempt at the latter.  I quite stand by my initial reply to the question.  (Re-read it, maybe it will make even more sense.  At the very-least, you didn't get what you were looking for, right?)  The better paintings aren't the ones with "balloon" captions, and screaming arrows "brushed" in. 

Deserve better than what?

Someone who honestly thinks that they don't.

I'm still no wiser as to what you really think of my comment "what goes up must come down" in terms of roulette.

Your (supposedly-vague, according to you,) conclusion wasn't taken out of the general context of gambling, but only out of your own persistently rather-narrow view of it.

In fact that statement is so vague it could mean anything, nevertheless you jumped on it anyway and called it a "glaring mistake". I got a lecture about cosmology (what was that all about?) and then you  admitted it was true, so where was my "glaring mistake"?

That i "agree with you" doesn't mean that we interpret those words the same way.

In fact, once really figured out, or defeated, those words have no real impact.  Nothing is really going up, or down.  You would have to be outside the universe, to see it so-succinctly, hence beyond its effects, and even such references.

And the idea, then, would be to try to see it while still in it!  As i tried to show, explain, and allow for meaningful questions, before, with the "you can't put the paste back in the tube" approach.

And just for the record, I didn't volunteer to be a moderator here, I was asked.

Then, you were asked to volunteer.  You weren't paid in any meaningful way, shape, or form, right?

If by "overt objective" you mean finding the holy grail, don't you deny that such a thing exists? in which case no-one can ever offer anything of value, including you.

I meant, to make easy money from playing roulette.  That could include by a "grail", which would have to be of a working theory-of-everything which could then be indirectly applied to roulette.

But first, the foundation.  Something which can be put into words, of neither real equations, when that's your "hammer", nor "hoax" ones, when that's not.

[Robeenhuut]

Never argue with an i.d.i.o.t. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

[Bayes]

Actually, I don't think he's an i.d.i.o.t. although he's clearly got "issues". He posts the same way on other forums and has been banned from a couple I think. No, the guy is just a troll, and I should have taken my own advice (and will do from now on) -

[attachimg=1]

[Robeenhuut]

Hehe  cool Bayes

As always voice of reason  .  But i did not refer 2 any post in particular did i?
So until proven guilty im of d hook   right? 
And trolling is actually entertaining in my opinion.
Wish that crackers n cheese moved here n entertained us.....

Regards 2 everybody

[GARNabby]

The difference between "losing gracefully", and making real 'internet trolls' of yourselves.  Not even a laughing matter.

Sigh.  But i did my best!


P.S.  For they who didn't, or didn't take the time to, "get" my "punch line" to  Bayes who was trying to "stump" me with another one of his lame "tricks", he failed to recognize one of my own in kind, to his "hoax" question.  (Some theories are baseless, and that's not a good thing.)  Now, the face-saving stuff from him.  Lol, see you in the "funnies", Bayes.

[albertojonas]

Hehe  cool Bayes

As always voice of reason  .  But i did not refer 2 any post in particular did i?
So until proven guilty I'm of d hook   right? 
And trolling is actually entertaining in my opinion.
Wish that crackers n cheese moved here n entertained us.....

Regards 2 everybody

please DONT

[Bayes]

This is exactly what I mean. GARNabby now declares himself a winner, because I didn't bother to reply to his nonsense.

Didn't he see the link I posted in my reply about the hoax? what, am I supposed to have written that wiki entry too?

In reply to my "Deserve better than what?" question he says: "Someone who honestly thinks that they don't."

Very enlightening. 

He didn't give me an example of how I'm "academically lazy" either.

I just can't be bothered any more. I have better things to do.

So congrats GARNabby, you "win".

[Robeenhuut]

please don't

Hehe AJ

Relax. I think they r about done but i hope 4 more