I replied to you without ant reference to anything esoteric.
Can the turtle stick his head out from hios shell and keep moving?
I�ll admit that your posts are entertaining and watching you try to argue with SSR is truly comical, but I�ve decided not to participate any more. I�ve become painfully aware that any rational discussion with you is impossible. I guess I�m just a �non-believer.� As much as I wish we could all develop supernatural powers and defy the laws of the universe, I just don�t see any evidence that it is possible. Given the choice, I must choose a strategy that has been scientifically proven by numerous independent sources. I�ll leave the mystical ideologies to you and your friends (the witches and the Nazis, by your own account).
I wish you luck and encourage you to continue posting here, but I have realized that my attempts at a serious discussion are futile.
Even if you think I'm hard to talk to, here are some sites about what I mentioned. I chose a counter argument against what I heard on the first for the benefit of 'doubt'. The point was, these things were inportant enough that they were mentioned when I was in High School.
These aren't the best of documents but since you are interested in the empirical scientific approah, they are worth considering.
Sonny, unless one tests out something do they trully understand it?
It was Carl Sagan who said Kepler beleived man one day would walk on the Moon. He had to be a heretic for his time or saw something others could not.
> These aren't the best of documents but since you are interested in
> the empirical scientific approah, they are worth considering.
You�ve got to be joking! Did you even read those articles? Are you aware that they are all completely bogus? Did you not bother to check any of the sources? Obviously you simply read through them and decided to believe whatever you wanted without looking at the facts or searching for any validity. In the interest of an �empirical scientific approach� let�s look at the articles one by one.
The first article (Missing Day) was from the Chemistry department at Tufts University. I think we would all agree that it is a reputable source. Unfortunately, the author (a monthly columnist for Scientific American magazine and lecturer at Caltech) refers to the biblical claims as �nonsense� and an �urban legend.� The article then offers testimony from Samuel Larson, who worked for NASA at JPL (I confirmed this with a few associates who currently work there), which explains how ridiculous such a concept is. In your search for scientific evidence you�ve stumbled upon an article that shows, quite clearly, that your beliefs are ludicrous, yet you still hold fast to them. It is exactly this kind of blind faith that I warned you about in previous posts, yet you ignore all of the rational evidence and instead cling to your ridiculous beliefs no matter how much contrary evidence there is.
The second article (Sodom and Gomorrah) was even worse! It was just a bunch of random theories riddled with assumptions. The only scientific reference was to an article from a Geology magazine article from April 2000 which �proved� that a �stunning increase in windborne dust and what-not� was evidence that the biblical story was a historical fact. The article then adds a disclaimer that ��while there is no reason to assume the [Geology magazine] authors believed Sodom and Gomorroh were A-bombed, the abrupt increase in dust does provide plausible evidence.� Since �plausible evidence� is not enough for me, I decided to pursue this source. Apparently you didn�t bother to check these sources so I took the liberty of reading the article. It states that �Geochemical correlation of volcanic ash shards between the archeological site and marine sediment record establishes a direct temporal link between Mesopotamian aridification and social collapse�� The research concludes that it was a volcano, not an atomic bomb that caused the increased dust levels. Unless Enki and Enlil were battling inside of a volcano there is no correlation between the historical evidence and the biblical story. Just like many religious fanatics have done with the bible, this magazine article has been contorted and intentionally misinterpreted in order to �prove� someone�s personal beliefs.
The source of the Sodom and Gomorrah article was something called the Library of Halexandria. For those not familiar with it (as was I) it is �a Synthesis of new physics, sacred geometry�multiple universes & realities, consciousness�extraterrestrials�astronomy�religion and spirituality, and a whole host of other subjects ranging from astrology and astrophysics to superstrings and sonoluminesence to biblical and geologic histories to numerology, the Tarot, and creating your own reality.� Apparently they focus on creating their own reality because most of the other articles were just as worthless. I read a few non-academic articles about ESP, UFOs and crop circles before getting bored.
Now don�t get me wrong, I can�t show any proof that your �edge� is bogus. For all I know you really can communicate directly with God through the stars and he is giving you advice on when to gamble. Other than the obvious sacrilegious, blasphemous and downright irrational elements it actually sounds like a good plan! As long as you don�t actually think about what it means (or hear yourself saying it out loud) you might actually convince yourself that it could work. Still, my opinion is much the same as Douglas Adams:
�I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.�
It is the people who take it TOO seriously, and who twist the word into knots in order to make it conform to their beliefs that truly scare me. Perhaps the only thing that scares me more are the ignorant lambs that blindly accept whatever these fanatical leaders say without doing any research or thinking for themselves. It is amazing how easily these theories can be disproved, if only people would put aside their egos and listen. God forbid they actually learn what the bible was meant to teach instead of what someone wants them to believe.
> Sonny, unless one tests out something do they trully
> understand it?
Yes! I don�t need to jump off a building to know how gravity works. I don�t need to use a progression system to see that it will fail. Knowledge is a way of avoiding mistakes, not finding them! Perhaps if you did a little more research before blindly believing everything you read on the internet you would see that. And, for goodness sake, don�t ever go to the Zen Zone! =)
Progressionists are not stupid in my opinion. They form a theory, usually have buckets of pseudo-justification, often empirical results which seem to support their theory. Stupid people don't bother with that stuff.
To understand a progression system is flawed you either have to be very smart, or very docile and take what the experts tell you entirely on trust. To take another example, the early Greek Fathers of medicine were brilliant men who formed the foundation of science, yet they were hung up on some dumb ideas like the four humours.
The sad thing is progressionists could often be good ap's. They have a lot of the ingredients of successful ap's. All they need to understand is that there are fundamental laws which govern whether a gambling system works or not, and progression systems break all of them.
Sonny I posted the contrary document about the NASA thing to show there could be a lot of doubt.
My point was that when I attended High School, this came out in a class; as if it was fact!
Until I brought this up to you, I too accepted this as fact; but now I have my doubts.
I do like your hypothesis the Sodom and Gommorah were perhaps destroyed by a volcanic eruption; after your argument. But it's like the carbon 14 dating and radioactivity dating used in archaelogy, they are only making hypothesis in this as they changed their oppinions about how long man had been on this continient. As I said in the 70's in an archaeology class, it was taught about 12-14 thousand years man had been here. Now they are saying it's 35 to 40 thousand. Or, if it's true, and not a hoax, the footprints found to be human close to a dinasaur's prints changes everything!
Totally agree with you about the blind sheep being fleeced and some head to the slaughterhouse in religion and VERY EVIDENT in political loyalty as evidenced from a system allowed to go awry and our 'tearless leader'....grin.... .
But as far as pseudo-science, my 'edge' is not. Anymore than Kepler's pioneering findings in astronomy and his vision of man one day walking on the Moon.
The day before yesterday, after going through a good period of winning over $7,500 since March 16, 2007(with NO losing sessions), I asked my edge about winning for yesterday.
I asked if: "Will I win at least $300 in BJ tommorrow and walk out the door with the winnings?"
At a certain time, date and place. The results showed positively I would win.
And I won $347 in less than two hours on $3-5 dollar tables.
I wanted to go back and try for 300 plus more that day; so I asked in a that certain fashion.
The 'edge' told me by the Moon ruling the house of the matter making an opposition to the Sun (full Moon), separating by 5 minutes of longitude, that the $300 more would be negatory; wouldn't be done. William F. Lilly said to allow six minutes separation in aspects.
Having such a grand two weeks of $7,500 up on measley $3-5 tables, I thought I'd at least try and make a few more dollars and cheat on my 'edge'. WHAT! Count Blackjacula commits adultery against the 'edge'????????
I not by placebo or thinking negatively, was having a hard time. The SD tables weren't too crowed; I was head up many times. So in after about only $50 up and getting pittiful runs I opted to follow the 'edge's' advice and quit BJ for the day.
So I thought I'd go to the crap's table and play after I saw 'box cars' hit. I bought in and began a progression of an altered martingale. Well, Full Moon's and Lunations(New Moons)are said by the Ancients to be castrophic. It was as I DID NOt ask of the 'edge' about seriously playing craps, and quickly ran into that dreaded bad statistical swing of missing the field for way too many rolls. And I lost a lot. *If the dice could roll 100 times an hour for eternity, they will miss the field 12 times in a roll or more 3.75 times per day* A Mathematics Professor helped me figure this!
That lesson will teach this fool not to play without consulting the 'edge' espeacially when ye know there is a Full Moon going on. Bad Omen....I cheated the 'edge' and got whooped!
The question is, with the 'edge', just like I do in BJ one could avoid those losing progressionist sessions.
*NOT AS OFTEN* unless he also used counting and a good betting method.
Even with the 'edge' a progressionsists can not win as often as a counter who uses it! Because his method has more against him!
I asked in BJ not craps for that day, for occasionally I play craps for small wins just like Poker and BJ playes occasionally sit in front of a video poker machine knowing it's not a good habit.
Only Tuna Lund and other team players know how to beat slots or video poker without the 'edge'. Maybe not always!
By not using the edge, I committed gambling, and the extreme caught me!
>I asked in BJ not craps for that day, for occasionally I play craps for small wins just like Poker and BJ playes occasionally sit in front of a video poker machine knowing it's not a good habit.
Only Tuna Lund and other team players know how to beat slots or video poker without the 'edge'. Maybe not always!<
You do know that video poker is a beatable with the proper game selection (just like blackjack). When comps are factored in, there are plenty of beatable games in Las Vegas and your home town. You don't need to check your horoscope. Comparing your negative expectation craps play with an advantage player who plays video poker makes no sense.