Offer to Fa La La La La.... La la la la: Results (5th card flip)

[faygo]

Most coveted and prestigious Award.
 
 

[cddenver]

Most coveted and prestigious Award. 

 

 
I was really stung by his latest comments about us.  Ouch.    Oej is probably getting counselling right now.  I don't think he'll be able to post for weeks after a smacking like that.

[shadowman]

Faygo. I think you have just made the perfect post ...

[oej719]

I showed that to my attorney while he was at the house today for lunch and to look into a few things for me.
He laughed his butt off. The goober award. Good one faygo.
Has to go catch a movie now and was my rise. ha
Not really I have people for that.

[seagreen33]

Why don't we all TRY to address the debate and not attack the individual, because all thinking people know at that point, whose side wins.
 
I was really aware at which point my attempt at a logical discussion of Webman's 5 card flipout challenge, which by his own definition could only be inconclusive, turned personal.
 
That happened by definition, and the discussion changed from logic to a personal attack. Typically, I have a low threshold for such events, but since there is a bit of "down time" here, I thought I would kindly remind the soon to be obsolete alternative viewpoint that when you can't win a viewpoint, then you often personally attack the author.
 
This goes on ad nauseum (To nausea: so as to disgust) here.
 
How can you carry on a one-sided discussion and expect a logical person to lend it credibility?
 
Because I asked for dates and locations for New2vp's quotes and he or she could not provide them, then credibility is nonexistent. That is by definition.
 
Argument, discussion, debate is over without that info. I honestly don't know the sources being cited. If they date back to the 7 years of columns, then they are outdated.
 
Good luck to all.
 
 

[cddenver]

Why don't we all TRY to address the debate and not attack the individual, because all thinking people know at that point, whose side wins.
 
I was really aware at which point my attempt at a logical discussion of Webman's 5 card flipout challenge, which by his own definition could only be inconclusive, turned personal.
 
That happened by definition, and the discussion changed from logic to a personal attack. Typically, I have a low threshold for such events, but since there is a bit of "down time" here, I thought I would kindly remind the soon to be obsolete alternative viewpoint that when you can't win a viewpoint, then you often personally attack the author.
 
This goes on ad nauseum (To nausea: so as to disgust) here.
 
How can you carry on a one-sided discussion and expect a logical person to lend it credibility?
 

 
Err, umm, WHO does this all apply to? 
 
The issue of "flipping" was settled months ago (here and elsewhere) to any reasonable person's satisfaction, and that's why we have so much fun with it now - business on that one has long since been taken care of.  I think only one person in the world doesn't recognize that.
 
The test with WM was really just icing on the cake.  Pretty tasty icing, I must admit, but still just icing. 

[seagreen33]

The title of this topic/thread is: Offer to ******: Results (5th card flip)
Please read that again slowly.
 
This topic is ONLY about the 5th card flip experiment, which by the author's definition is inconclusive no matter the results.
 
Any discussions regarding any other aspects subject to personal agendas belong in a different thread.
 
Whereas a thread regarding something totally foreign called progressive betting systems gets tossed into a misnomer of Martingale 101, then it only makes sense that many distinct topics remain under one heading of "Offer to ******: Results (5th card flip).
 
Please make sense in the future.
 
edited because I was unaware that a name would become asterisks. Wow!

[oej719]

Seeweed is rs little worm and that saying alot.
Consider that a personal offense if you want.

[cddenver]

The title of this topic/thread is: Offer to ******: Results (5th card flip)
Please read that again slowly.
 
Please read MY post again, slowly.  The issue was put to bed many months ago, long before the WM test.   That test was a nice added bonus.  Anyone doubting that the results of the WM test reflect reality can perform an actual test of their own in, oh, less than two hours and will see that the claimed 40% flip rate is pure moonshine.
The word "inconclusive" is not some sort of synonym for "ignore" as you seem to wish it to be.  You sound like a little kid getting lawyerly with his parents - "But you saaaaaiiiiidddd......".
 

[New2vp]

Why don't we all TRY to address the debate and not attack the individual, because all thinking people know at that point, whose side wins.
 
I was really aware at which point my attempt at a logical discussion of Webman's 5 card flipout challenge, which by his own definition could only be inconclusive, turned personal.
 
That happened by definition, and the discussion changed from logic to a personal attack. Typically, I have a low threshold for such events, but since there is a bit of "down time" here, I thought I would kindly remind the soon to be obsolete alternative viewpoint that when you can't win a viewpoint, then you often personally attack the author.
 
This goes on ad nauseum (To nausea: so as to disgust) here.
 
How can you carry on a one-sided discussion and expect a logical person to lend it credibility?
 
Because I asked for dates and locations for New2vp's quotes and he or she could not provide them, then credibility is nonexistent. That is by definition.
 
Argument, discussion, debate is over without that info. I honestly don't know the sources being cited. If they date back to the 7 years of columns, then they are outdated.
 


Good luck to all. So that's all your questioning is the source?  I notice that you don't defend against all the points made about you, so if they are unchallenged here, they must necessarily be true?  You are not questioning the logic given that the source information that I quoted is true.  You are simply questioning whether that source information is true.  Thus, if it turns out to be true, I guess you must accept my argument.  Now if you were not a reflection, I would believe there was at least some chance at that, but since I'm convinced that you are, I know you won't accept that either.  Here we go with the type of evidence you like:  I give you my personal word that I didn't falsify the source information in any way!  Don't make a mistake and use a personal attack and call me a liar, now!  Most people know the source.  There are others here reading this, so my post was not for your sole benefit.  And I could provide it but I choose not to.  Nice try at a plug for your hero, but you won't get it from me in this post either.You take another's word that an experiment was conducted even though I've provided evidence that a rational person having done so would have acted differently in reporting his results.  Where's your objectivity and request for verification with the nonexistent pretense of an experiment?You really don't know what the term "by definition" means, do you?  At least you use it improperly...virtually all the time.  If you think you have made a point "by definition,"  then you are the one who should be able to provide a generally accepted reference that contains the given term or conclusion and the definition of that item.  Then if a given situation meets the conditions in the definition of the term involved, it is proper to declare something true or false "by definition."   Just saying it doesn't make it so and makes your arguments and conclusions specious.  Oh, that means (by definition) "apparently good or right though lacking real merit."  That term can be used a lot when talking about points made by your hero. In terms of "attack the individual," most will find a relatively large number of personal attacks per paragraph in any series of columns or e-mails from your hero when he's challenged, followed with relatively few facts logically linked to back up his opinions.  By your opening comments, I'll guess that means you believe he has lost this debate because his argument employs many personal attacks.  Look for them; they're there...if you have the time and ability to find them.  Nevertheless, the absence or presence of personal attacks alone does not in and of itself determine victory in a debate.  Facts mean something there, too, as illustrated below:Who wins this argument, Mr. A or Mr. B?A:  I really like you; I think you're nice.  With 4688 opportunities and 2211 flip-overs, that's a rate of 42.7%.B:  You're an idiot!  With 4688 opportunities and 2211 flip-overs, that's a rate of 47.2%.I guess I'd rather spend time with A if I was insecure about being challenged, but if I wanted the job done, I might have to go with B.You are right about "credibility being nonexistent."  You could confirm that if you ever found those darn sources.  But it's not my credibility in question.  I didn't make the unrealistic claim whose support vanished when Webman was there to verify it.Webman, could you work with Eduardo to provide an emoticon with a mirror, so I wouldn't have to spend time deflecting these silly statements.  Posting that mirror instead of all these words would get the point across perhaps better than my trademark wordiness.