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

[cddenver]

It's no wonder that you all continue to play and lose and think everything is ok with the way you play the game.  Proof will never change your minds.  This much is obvious! Wake up!!!

 
Proof is what we're still waiting for - let us know when you have some.  Don't waste our time passing on the results of a session or two, either.
 
 

[rolanddude]

You have never admitted that you were wrong about people's identities a single time.  You just continue to spew BS about RS and call us names that you think are cute.  Kinda WARPED from both a philisophical and psychological standpoint.   I think your "Dinger" is in a "Slinger" and your credibility is shot!!!As quoted by OEJ...Put your nose real close to the screen and I will let you smell my finger. Fishy!
I figured you as a flute player not piano so much.

PROOF OF WHAT YOU ARE!!!  A HYPOCRITE!!!  You are wrong about me and you won't ever admit it.  It would just blow your imaginary world to pieces.As for seaweed...The first I ever heard of him was when I read his posts this evening before I posted.  OEJ,  maybe night and day are the same entity.  I never see one when the other is around.   Hmmmmmmmmm!   You dumb "If U see Kay"

[rolanddude]

[QUOTE=rolanddude]It's no wonder that you all continue to play and lose and think everything is ok with the way you play the game.  Proof will never change your minds.  This much is obvious! Wake up!!!
 
Proof is what we're still waiting for - let us know when you have some.  Don't waste our time passing on the results of a session or two, either.
 
 [/QUOTE]'Rules for Radicals' quotes "When you are proven wrong deflect the topic and change the subject.."  I'm talking about proof of who I am...Which is beyond doubt.  But since this deflates, somewhat, your conspiracy theory (s) you refuse to acknowledge the REAL argument between myself and your beloved OEJ and try to bring up your disbelief in that I am 3 for 3 on my LV trips since changing my play!Nice try...

[rolanddude]

Wow that is very convincing.
I got pm from many members and they say you are full of horse crap.
razuberii is the name of the member that PM'd me.Now who PM'd you and said I am not who I say I am?  I won't hold my breath waiting on your proof.  You Jackass Fraud!!!

[cddenver]

But since this deflates, somewhat, your conspiracy theory (s) you refuse to acknowledge the REAL argument between myself and your beloved OEJ and try to bring up your disbelief in that I am 3 for 3 on my LV trips since changing my play!

 
Why are you assigning RS's conspiracy theories to me?  I don't believe in them.  He's the one putting them forth - unless you believe there's a single Mad Gaffer writing his own game code and running around the country changing game chips.  Surely you don't believe that.  Not even RS would say there's just one person involved.  Casinos owners, game companies, regulators, inspectors all in on the deal - that's called a conspiracy.
 
I've had longer runs of winning trips, playing AP.  So we've finally determined which approach is better, once and for all.  I wish you'd have mentioned that standard of success earlier and we could have saved everyone quite a bit of time and effort on posts. 

[rolanddude]

Again CD you fail to follow the conversation...I ain't talkin' bout poker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The Conspiracy I allude to is the one your buddy OEJ keeps asserting.  He and some here believe that I am an alias of RS,seaweed is an alias, and anyone else here that is objective and don't completely trust the casinos are made out to be aliases of RS.  So go ahead and play dumb and try to change the subject to whatever your heart desires.  I will not follow you now in those arguments.  I just want to prove OEJ  to be the pathological liar that he is.   I think I have succeeded.  Admit it OEJ719!!!   You are the fraud here!!!

[New2vp]

'Rules for Radicals' quotes "When you are proven wrong deflect the topic and change the subject.."  I'm talking about proof of who I am...Which is beyond doubt.  But since this deflates, somewhat, your conspiracy theory (s) you refuse to acknowledge the REAL argument between myself and your beloved OEJ and try to bring up your disbelief in that I am 3 for 3 on my LV trips since changing my play!Nice try...Hey r-dude, long time no see.  Seagreen would probably tell you that 3 for 3 was I N C O N C L U S I V E.

[cddenver]

Again CD you fail to follow the conversation...

I ain't talkin' bout poker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Conspiracy I allude to is the one your buddy OEJ keeps asserting.  He and some here believe that I am an alias of RS,seaweed is an alias, and anyone else here that is objective and don't completely trust the casinos are made out to be aliases of RS.  So go ahead and play dumb and try to change the subject to whatever your heart desires.  I will not follow you now in those arguments. 

 
Thanks for your thoughts on that.  My post that you replied to was about video poker, so your reply must have been too; else you would have been guilty of failing to follow the conversation.  We know that would never happen.
 
Now, about objectivity as far as casinos go:  Lowering paytables is legal and a proven winner for casinos.  That's the objective view.
 
Rigging machines wouldn't make sense, since someone involved in any conspiracy always ends up spilling the beans.  And this would be a big one.  Fines, possible jail time, possible loss of license.  That's being done in conjuction with the legal option of lowering paytables?  You say that's an objective view?  C'mon!
 
I'm sure you'd agree that casino owners are smart businessmen, and if  they decided to run the risk of rigging machines they'd at least know enough to keep paytables high to get more traffic in the door.  But those darn paytables keep going down.
 

[seagreen33]

The obfuscation by many of this topic title, which is "Offer to ******: Results (5th card flip) could only imply that this topic has been settled, apparently not to everyone's liking.
 
As has been stated in the original challenge, all results are inconclusive.
 
Within the challenge, no one's position could be substantiated or refuted as is clearly implied and stated in the original challenge.
 
The original challenge ended inconclusively. In fact and by definition.
 
How can anyone argue this point?
 
 

[shadowman]

Give up on the nonsense. You've already made a fool out of yourself several times. You can keep saying the same baseless nonsense over and over again and, guess what? It's still nonsense.