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

[oej719]

Seaweed you said you have never have had contact with the bozo. Seems you lied about that. Care to dance around that? You are the bozo himself. I proved that anyone can sign in under someone else's id and appear to be someone else.

rs is a fraud and anyone that likes can contact me by pm and I will explain. Even you clown.

[cddenver]

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.

 
Seagreen, the "obfuscation" is on your part.  You keep saying inconclusive when you mean the results should be disregarded entirely.  If you think I'm misrepresenting you, give us an idea of what you mean by inconclusive, without actually using the word "inconclusive".  How about some idea of how you feel certified hands should be weighted against virtual ones.
 
I'm curious about what your dog is in this fight.  You've said you haven't met or corresponded with RS, and that you play your own strategy.  Yet here you be.
 
RS has said the more hands "tested" the better.  Yet if for a moment we assume this thought experiment to be an actual one, he must have seen something early on with "flips", else he wouldn't have continued testing.  He certainly would not have seen the expected rate of flips over, say, 100 opportunities - or 300 - or 500, and decided to continue "just in case".  That doesn't make any sense at all.  So let's not hear anything more about people needing to play through tens of thousands of hands to get valid results.  Anyone checking out 100 - or 300 - or 500 opportunities for "flips" should see unusual numbers as well, compared to the expected rate.  The point of a shorter amount of testing is not to match RS's claimed results, but to see any if any significantly higher than expected "flip" rate is occurring.  Maybe he'd be nice enough to post how many "flips" he saw after the first 100 - or 300 - or 500 opportunities so that we could see what he saw in the early going.  Just three little numbers at most.  Wouldn't take him but a minute or two to post.

[oej719]

He does not even know what obfuscation is. He does know what bankruptcy is though. Can you say 250k?
Hahahaha ahahahahah quack quack quack bozo bozo bozo.

[New2vp]

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?Apparently you can argue with yourself over this point.  See your post from 3 days ago.I will logically assume, that as a result of Webman's defined parameters for the "5th card challenge" are by, definition, inconclusive, that this thread ceases, relative to it's title, and RS is the winner. It's a bit amusing here to see your use of the terms "logically" and "inconclusive" in a sentence in which you declare that "RS is the winner."I'm not going to ask how there can be a winner when the results are inconclusive AND the evidence was against the declared winner's point that he was trying to establish.  Why am I not asking you to elaborate?  Because with posts like the ones quoted, your views are not likely to suddenly become lucid or relevant.This must be some new type of objectivity.  Perhaps consistent with the phantom but nonexistent rule in baseball that says "a tie goes to the runner,"  the poster would have us believe that "a tie goes to a silly man."  Would this be because he is too unfortunate to get wins on his own?Of course the results were diametrically opposed to the silly man's point of view and there was no tie, but seagreen declares him the winner nonetheless.  Good thing we don't have to go by seagreen's declarations.Are you sure, with your overuse of the word "definition," that you didn't get the definitions of "objective" and "abjective" confused.  Should ties go to whoever most fits the description of "utterly hopeless, miserable, humiliated, or wretched"?

[seagreen33]

More than happy to clarify.
 
RS didn't win the 5th card challenge, as all results by definition were inconclusive. (See link on Page 1).
 
The challenge he did win, in my opinion, was the one set forth here after the challenge was over, by those who disagreed with the defined inconclusive outcome.
 
I think it's fair to say RS won the challenge of those who challenged the original Challenge's pre-stated conclusion.

[cddenver]

I think it's fair to say RS won the challenge of those who challenged the original Challenge's pre-stated conclusion.
 
Um, "pre-stated conclusion"?  So a definite inconclusive conclusion was agreed to beforehand, before any actual testing was done?    Kind of a waste of both players' time, then.
 
Your whole post is really sad, sorry whining.  If by some impossibility the results of the challenge had been more to RS's liking, we would have seen articles and letters a-plenty on how the results confirmed his theory.  No talk of "inconclusive" then, eh?  Most certainly not!  Don't bother denying it, though if you try it will give us a few more chuckles. 
 
It's the results of the "inconclusive" challenge that are driving all of these legal-beagle posts, not any kind of legitimate gripe about the conditions of the test.
 
I'm still waiting to hear how inconclusive translates to ignore or disregard completely, which is what you really mean.
 

[New2vp]

The challenge he did win, in my opinion, was the one set forth here after the challenge was over, by those who disagreed with the defined inconclusive outcome.
 
I think it's fair to say RS won the challenge of those who challenged the original Challenge's pre-stated conclusion.Oh...that's what you meant!  Let's try to fathom this for a bit.OK, let's temporarily restate the challenge as the "one set forth here" and see where that would lead.  Understand that I'm giving you a lot of rope here.  Since you were the one who was the main opponent of those who understood that the statistics were sufficient to call into question a silly man's truthfulness about earlier tests, you would actually be declaring yourself the winner if indeed the  "statistics guys" were the losers.  Recall the original silly man never posted here, according to you.Some may think it to be a biased declaration when one side of a debate declares himself to be the winner.  Nevertheless, since you participated in this debate on your own, according to you without prodding by or communication with any other silly men, the other silly man could only be declared the winner if he was the winner here in this thread as you say, but that would mean that he indeed was you.But also according to you, he is not you.  Therefore, if he is the winner, then you cannot be.  But if you are not the winner here, then those you opposed here must be the winner.But a silly man would certainly not agree with what the "statistics guys" wrote here so a silly man could not be the winner either.  And since you declared him to be the winner and according to logic he cannot be, your declarations must logically and necessarily be without merit.  This is not "by definition," but by application of that tool you like to employ but have yet to master, "logic."I guess by making this declaration, you also refuted your earlier claim in the following quote:  And since I agree with all sides on this question, I
will attempt to provide my reasons for not doubting any unlikely claim
and also agreeing with most, if not all, the posts I've read here going
way back.
 
Note I've never met, talked with, emailed or corresponded with Webman, ******, or any one else here to my best knowledge.
 
******'s claims are no less credible because he couldn't prove
them. In fact they may be more credible, because they could not be
replicated. The only real mystery is why bother to try to replicate
something that did happen that was so improbable.To declare a winner must indicate that others you agreed with were losers in the debate here.

Since you "agree with all sides on this question" and agree with
most...posts that [you have] read here", it's surprising that you would
have declared any side the winner, especially after agreeing as you did
in the last 3 lines that the silly man's claims were credible because they were "so improbable."  If there were a winner at all, wouldn't you want to go with the views of the side that were more probable?

I guess I should stop looking for logic when it's been made clear that
logic will never get in the way of a seagreen post or declaration.

[New2vp]

Public service announcement for any newcomers:  You can probably learn 98% of what you need to know about this subject in the first 4 pages of this post.Sadly, seagreen didn't appear until about the 23rd, well after the "ship had sailed" on the truth surrounding this topic; so his posts, aside from the entertainment value from continual self-contradiction, add little to the discussion. R-dude, who, according to his posts, never reads this forum...unless someone mentions his name, mostly is interested here in his own existence.  You're right if you think that could have gone in another thread titled:  Yes, I am someone else (I hate oej) vs. No, you're not someone else (I hate you, him, and his other aliases).

[oej719]

Pianoboy and seaweed are either shills for rs / or rs as alias's.
Seaweeds manner and use of words remind me of that punk scorpio2.
CONCLUSION = they are all puke scum.

[Creamer]

Well, what have we learned here?