On keepin' score

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

On keepin' score

Post #1

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Site's not recording the brazillions who must surely agree with me, and I'm upset it don't.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8969
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 67 times
Contact:

Post #2

Post by OnceConvinced »

But the numbers of likes received is actually measured in brazillions, it's just that it's been rounded up to the nearest brazillion. So from what I can see you've been given 379 Brazillion likes, which is 30 Brazillion more than me.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Post #3

Post by JoeyKnothead »

OnceConvinced wrote: But the numbers of likes received is actually measured in brazillions, it's just that it's been rounded up to the nearest brazillion. So from what I can see you've been given 379 Brazillion likes, which is 30 Brazillion more than me.
LOL

I was inspired by a guy I play poker against online. He's so predictable, and so bad that I can read him like a book. It's not uncommon for me to chase him to the river, because he keeps me mathematically in so many pots, and of course, his weak play.

And seems it never fails, I'll be raking the chips, and there he sits typing such as, "I can't believe you won when you play so stupidly". It's far less stupid play, and more "since he thinks a pair of tens is such a good hand, and since I'm already up by a couple hundred thousand, I'll call his piddly thousand dollar bets all the way to the river".

I paraphrase the Texas Dolly, "Joey, here's my chips, but you sure don't know how to play you no poker!"
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #4

Post by Zzyzx »

.
[Replying to post 3 by JoeyKnothead]

In poker, debate, real life, business and warfare -- "Know your enemy and do not overestimate your abilities or underestimate theirs".

Many engage in any venue thinking they are vastly superior to the opposition (a deadly mistake) -- and have their head handed to them.

Here in debate the "Armor of God" Acts 17:11 does not protect "his crusaders" who often swing the broadsword of righteousness wildly -- and suffer "death of a thousand cuts" from rapiers that are much more nimble without the weight of armor and the baggage of attempting to defend indefensible positions.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Post #5

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Zzyzx wrote: .
[Replying to post 3 by JoeyKnothead]

In poker, debate, real life, business and warfare -- "Know your enemy and do not overestimate your abilities or underestimate theirs".

Many engage in any venue thinking they are vastly superior to the opposition (a deadly mistake) -- and have their head handed to them.

Here in debate the "Armor of God" Acts 17:11 does not protect "his crusaders" who often swing the broadsword of righteousness wildly -- and suffer "death of a thousand cuts" from rapiers that are much more nimble without the weight of armor and the baggage of attempting to defend indefensible positions.
Your typically wise wisdom.

I might come off a bit proud in my post there, but it's all free chips, and I've certainly had my share of bad beats, bad plays, and bad days.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #6

Post by Goat »

JoeyKnothead wrote:
OnceConvinced wrote: But the numbers of likes received is actually measured in brazillions, it's just that it's been rounded up to the nearest brazillion. So from what I can see you've been given 379 Brazillion likes, which is 30 Brazillion more than me.
LOL

I was inspired by a guy I play poker against online. He's so predictable, and so bad that I can read him like a book. It's not uncommon for me to chase him to the river, because he keeps me mathematically in so many pots, and of course, his weak play.

And seems it never fails, I'll be raking the chips, and there he sits typing such as, "I can't believe you won when you play so stupidly". It's far less stupid play, and more "since he thinks a pair of tens is such a good hand, and since I'm already up by a couple hundred thousand, I'll call his piddly thousand dollar bets all the way to the river".

I paraphrase the Texas Dolly, "Joey, here's my chips, but you sure don't know how to play you no poker!"

Back when I was in college, many years ago, one of my friends was a back gammon hustler. I had an education where he hustled someone who was a hustler want to be. ..better than average, but not nearly as good as my friend. My friend suckered him in all the more by agreeing it was just luck. That was one my lessons about 'Don't let your ego get the better of you'.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Post Reply