Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Be Careful who you invite to your game Be Careful who you invite to your game

05-31-2010 , 05:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfapfap
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm legitimately confused.
You're not that dumb.

Inking your chips is like having a(nother) label on them. It can be reproduced, but it requires additional effort.

It is the functional equivalent of locking your car doors, having a car alarm and putting The Club on your steering wheel - full well knowing that you cut a steering wheel with a hack-saw in 30 seconds bypassing The Club.

This is an example of security in depth, or security in layers. This is why my machines at work have anti-virus software and we have a proxy server that provides content filtering and we have a policy against removable media and we have managed updates and we have web-filtering inside the proxy and we have mail scanning at the gateway and we have stateful packet inspection of network traffic and we have machines segmented into VLANs and we have a software configuration agent on machines and we have internal and external security audits. You could likely eliminate any one or two (or more) of those defense mechanisms and still have a fairly solid network.

Invisible ink might also be something that your "attackers" may not know about. They might pass chips successfully without using the ink, and you might later use the ink to catch them. How you implement checking this second "invisible" label is up to you. The possibilities are limitless.

But AGAIN, I advocate a UV light first and foremost as a currency checking mechanism.

New bills have color coded strips in them, and fluoresce different colors now.



Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 11:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
This is an example of security in depth, or security in layers. This is why my machines at work have anti-virus software and we have a proxy server that provides content filtering and we have a policy against removable media and we have managed updates and we have web-filtering inside the proxy and we have mail scanning at the gateway and we have stateful packet inspection of network traffic and we have machines segmented into VLANs and we have a software configuration agent on machines and we have internal and external security audits. You could likely eliminate any one or two (or more) of those defense mechanisms and still have a fairly solid network.
ZOMG you just reminded me why I'm glad I don't work for the man any more.

BTW my chips are high end but can be purchased by anyone. My only security measure is trying to recall how many black or higher chips are on the table. I've had probably 2 or 3 nights where bank was off 500.. probably I screwed up accounting and someone neglected to pay.. but over the years it's not a big deal
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
You're not that dumb.
I see what you did there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
Inking your chips is like having a(nother) label on them. It can be reproduced, but it requires additional effort.
You keep telling me that it's added security, but you've yet to explain how it works. Please come out of argument mode, and join me in discussion mode. If you're not being argumentative, then I apologize, it's an error on my interpretation. So let's please continue discussing.

Isn't the point of passing chips to fool the human eye? Once the chips are on the table and in circulation, they could be in anybody's stack. The only way you'll know when you have a fake is at the end of the night.

How does this added level of security assist in preventing counterfeit chips from being added to the game, especially a game that already has custom chips? What am I missing here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
The possibilities are limitless.
Okay, so.... list one? You've given limitless examples in your comparisons to other forms of security. Can you please stop comparing it to other things and just tell me how THIS method works so well?

If you're saying it's good for narrowing down suspects once you know something's going on, that's a separate conversation, but I'm still not sure this is the easiest or most effective solution. But in that case we're not talking security, we're talking detection.

Are you doing this on purpose? If so, uh, nice job I guess? If not, then please stop being angry with me and just focus on the question at hand: how does marking your chips prevent people from bringing in fake chips? If it doesn't, then how does marking your chips help you catch who's doing it?
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 02:35 PM
There are two benefits to UV-stamping your chips that I see:

1) Scanning chips at cashout allows for the immediate detection of fakes (though not immediate identification of the player who introduced the fake).
2) Making your players aware of the UV-marking provides a disincentive to counterfeiters, as it increases the difficulty of creating a believable fake.

If you're not actively scanning chips at cashout, and your players don't know that your chips are UV stamped, I don't understand what additional security it brings to your game.
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmendr1ck
1) Scanning chips at cashout allows for the immediate detection of fakes (though not immediate identification of the player who introduced the fake).
How is this more effective than knowing how many chips you have, and using racks? I have a 900-piece set for my cash game. If at the end of the night I have 901, I know one was added.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmendr1ck
2) Making your players aware of the UV-marking provides a disincentive to counterfeiters, as it increases the difficulty of creating a believable fake.
How is this different than your players knowing that you know how many chips are in play? And where are you scanning these chips? As a player, I don't want the host going away into another secret room with my chips, I want them cashed out right there in front of me.

If we're talking detection once we know there are fakers, how do we do it? Do we scan the stacks every time a new player enters? Wouldn't that show the counterfeiters where the marks are? Do we rack everybody up once an hour and scan the chips secretly? If we're doing that, how is it more effective than just counting what's on the table and seeing if it matches the bank? Or are we patting everybody down when they enter, and scanning any chips they have in their pockets? In that case, does it matter if there's a mark on them anyway?

I know these are a lot of questions, but so far I haven't been getting any answers. I just don't see how a UV marker helps with something that only needs to fool the human eye. It works for money because that's a transaction where you're receiving money that came directly from that person. Paying for chips at the end of the session is an entirely different kind of flying. Altogether.
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 03:38 PM
Seriously, you're just not that dumb. You can't be. It's not possible. You want to argue that bongs on the internet are a great idea and that you see no practical use for marking chips.

I've either explained it where...or it's so patently obvious that, quite amazingly, Schmendr1ck was able to come up with the same two short-term immediate gains that I suggested before all on his own.

Note the similarity between the two statements:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmendr1ck
1) Scanning chips at cashout allows for the immediate detection of fakes (though not immediate identification of the player who introduced the fake).
2) Making your players aware of the UV-marking provides a disincentive to counterfeiters, as it increases the difficulty of creating a believable fake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
It lets you find the fakes. Now you at least know when the came in, what rack they ended up in, what game they came from - perhaps.

If you're actively scanning for them, then it's simply something extra that someone has to do to defeat your security.
ZOMG!

I understand that you think might not think it's a good security method, but I can't believe for a second that you don't understand and that you need it explained to you over and over like a child having trouble grasping geometry class and the difference between a square and rectangle.

Inking your chips does the same thing that putting different color fluorescing strips in our currency does - and that method is stated above. Yes, I might still accept a bogus $20 or $100, but I've got options. I could, like the grocery stores, check all my large bills. I could dangle my $2.28 combo flashlight, laser and UV flashlight from my keychain and only accept new currently and check for the UV strip on all of them.

Expanding this to your poker game, one could:
  • Not take fake chips at the "cage" or when cashing out. I don't take fake money, and I'm not taking fake chips. If players gamble with fake money (money plays!), I'm not taking that either.
  • Scan all chip racks entering the table. Racked chips in and out only please, and the $15.23 UV light is waved over them first.
The top example only protects me - possibly "screwing" my players (or your customers - you rake, right?), and the bottom example protects everyone. Considering it's a $30 or less fix to get permanent UV ink stamp pads and a custom stamper with an intricate design, you could quickly convert cheap chips (even dice chips or bicycle stackers!) to "secure" for under $50 total.

This extra label being invisible to the naked eye has its pros and cons.

If you're only going to check bearer-instruments for quickly-visible-to-the-naked-eye security elements, and you don't believe that things like UV markings provide extra security, then I guess you're smarter than the Treasury department.
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfapfap
How is this more effective than knowing how many chips you have, and using racks?
Not every game in the English-speaking world has the entire game cash out and settle up at the end of the night. Some games have people cash in and out multiple times over the course of days. They don't have the luxury of balancing the entire set and finding out they're at 901.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pfapfap
And where are you scanning these chips?
...
Do we scan the stacks every time a new player enters? Wouldn't that show the counterfeiters where the marks are?
A possibility, and yes. Yes it would.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pfapfap
I just don't see how a UV marker helps with something that only needs to fool the human eye. It works for money because that's a transaction where you're receiving money that came directly from that person.
I agree that it's less practical than with money, but it doesn't mean it's useless.

Assuming you have security in depth, you know, the concept we've discussed already, even if you're only scanning them at the cage, now you might have more clues as to when your fake chips came into play - since you've got a camera too. It's a puzzle, but now it's a puzzle you can work on solving.

I've never seen someone so interested in explaining why they "don't understand" other people's ideas instead of working to create working solutions to real problems.
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Down Under Dan
heh, this reminds me of an idea I had about creating a facebook app to get people to meet up to play poker.
Gonna make a thread about this for suggestions.
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 04:53 PM
Dude. One of these days you might realize that what you take as arguing is really just discussing. I've done my best to cater to your peculiarities and try to engage in constructive conversations. All I ask is a similar level of respect in return.

I am not arguing. I am attempting to discuss the pros and cons. You see the pros as self-evident, whereas I do not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
Seriously, you're just not that dumb. You can't be. It's not possible. You want to argue that bongs on the internet are a great idea and that you see no practical use for marking chips.
When did I say bongs were a great idea?

I do, so far, see no practical use for marking chips that isn't more easily handled in other ways, correct. That is what I am attempting to discuss, and get past the "but it's multiple levels of security!" comment. You seem content to spit and bluster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
I've either explained it where...or it's so patently obvious that, quite amazingly, Schmendr1ck was able to come up with the same two short-term immediate gains that I suggested before all on his own.
If you read the whole thing, you'd see that he didn't think it was much use, either. But this is what I'm trying to discuss, how this actually works in practice. You're just repeating the same "but it's added security!" line, without any follow-through. I didn't want to make too many assumptions about what you had in mind, so I asked. This, for some reason, appears to frustrate you. If you're not frustrated, I apologize for my assumption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
I understand that you think might not think it's a good security method, but I can't believe for a second that you don't understand and that you need it explained to you over and over like a child having trouble grasping geometry class and the difference between a square and rectangle.
I'm just trying to talk about it, rather than dismiss it out of hand. You seem to feel it's a great level of added security, and so far I'm not seeing it. Why you refuse to talk with me about it, I cannot begin to guess. You've spent far more time fumbling over ways to insult me than it would have taken to just have a normal conversation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
Inking your chips does the same thing that putting different color fluorescing strips in our currency does - and that method is stated above.
(This is me in conversation mode, not argument mode. Please work with me here.)

I don't think it's comparable. With currency, you know the person is bringing it to the table from the outside, and there's a convenient transaction point for scanning. Additionally, it's a method far more complicated than just marking with a $20 pen.

The chips are playing tokens you have in your game that you are providing to the game. Nobody is bringing any to you from outside, so there's no convenient point of scanning. And once you do scan, the counterfeiters will know what to do, so what's gained?

See what I'm saying? Not arguing, not trying to tell you that you're stupid, just expressing why this doesn't make sense for me. Maybe I'm missing something here, maybe you're missing something here, but isn't that why we're trying to flesh these ideas through?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
Not take fake chips at the "cage" or when cashing out. I don't take fake money, and I'm not taking fake chips. If players gamble with fake money (money plays!), I'm not taking that either.
Wow, really? You're going to let someone sneak in fake chips, and then refuse to honor those chips from someone who won them fair and square in a pot? This doesn't sit right with what I know of your honor regarding the bank. If this is a solution, I don't think it's a very good one, and would certainly destroy the game in a hurry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
[*]Scan all chip racks entering the table. Racked chips in and out only please, and the $15.23 UV light is waved over them first.
That could possibly work if you're already suspicious, so I do see its use as a detection method (not a security method, which is what you've been lauding, so please forgive me for not focusing on this). But again, how long until the counterfeiter figures out what he has to mark? Seems like this is a trick that works once.

Scanning the racks you provide is good (same as checking the decks before they're in play), but what do you do when new players enter the table? Do you rack up and scan all the existing stacks? What are the other steps that help this method out? And once the counterfeiter sees what marks you need to see, what then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
If you're only going to check bearer-instruments for quickly-visible-to-the-naked-eye security elements, and you don't believe that things like UV markings provide extra security, then I guess you're smarter than the Treasury department.
I don't see how comments like this are at all conducive to conversation. You claim I'm the one stonewalling here, but from my view it's you. Please stop arguing. If you don't understand what I mean when I say that cash and chips are different types of transactions (and therefore don't enjoy the same benefits from similar security measures), then I'm happy to discuss it further, without any insults or sarcasm or dismissal whatsoever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
Not every game in the English-speaking world has the entire game cash out and settle up at the end of the night. Some games have people cash in and out multiple times over the course of days. They don't have the luxury of balancing the entire set and finding out they're at 901.
Okay, this is a different case than the vast majority of games we discuss here, but it's an interesting side point. But if you have people coming in and out over a multi-day session, taking chips away from the game, then I'd say your security methods need to be more than a $20 UV pen anyway. This is somewhat beyond the scope of Home Games, is it not? I can't be faulted for not assuming this extreme as the standard, can I?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
Assuming you have security in depth, you know, the concept we've discussed already, even if you're only scanning them at the cage, now you might have more clues as to when your fake chips came into play - since you've got a camera too. It's a puzzle, but now it's a puzzle you can work on solving.
For sure, I can see how it might be helpful as part of a multi-step detection campaign, but in my mind that's a different aspect than security, a point I believe I made a while ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
I've never seen someone so interested in explaining why they "don't understand" other people's ideas instead of working to create working solutions to real problems.
I'm just trying to understand what people do and why they do it. You seemed eager to defend this method, and so I thought you might be interested in conversing for a bit about the pros and cons. Instead you've chosen to argue and insult. I'm sorry for troubling you, but in the future just ignore me if you don't like what I'm saying. No need to try to pick a fight.
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfapfap
For sure, I can see how it might be helpful as part of a multi-step detection campaign...
Gee, I wonder why my first response was "security in layers"

...you know, a helpful component of a multi-step detection campaign.

Remember, my first post explaining why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
Security in layers.
Then remember me explaining what security in layers was?

I've never suggested, at all, that this was the end-all be-all of security methods. I suggested that, for $30, one could add an additional layer of security, and then showed people where to get inks and lights for cheap.

No security method stops the determined counterfeiter in an environment where the counterfeiter gets unfettered access to the instrument he's going to counterfeit. The best you can do is implement roadblocks and speed-bumps. UV inks are a $30 speed-bump that might prevent hundreds of dollars of losses -- especially since it might make the counterfeiters aware that you are taking extra steps to secure your game and that other games aren't taking these extra steps. You present a more difficult target. At a minimum, your counterfeiter now has to make the same $30 outlay as you do to enter the arena - plus the time necessary to duplicate your stamp(s).

...and, for argument's sake -- why would I take counterfeit chips at my cage? "Home game" aside, do you think The Venetian takes counterfeit chips at their cage? Do you think they should?
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 06:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfapfap
Dude. One of these days you might realize that what you take as arguing is really just discussing.
This is how the Golden Kitty "discusses" topics -

I am 100% correct. This is self evident because I am me. But in an effort to appear humble, I will offer you, in the least condescending way possible (and that is hard because I am me), the opportunity to convince me otherwise. Of course you will be wrong, and I'll be glad to point that out to you once you've finished posting your poorly thought out nonsense.
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
Gee, I wonder why my first response was "security in layers"
I find it curious that you're pointing the finger at my (in your view) unwillingness to have an intelligent conversation, yet you pepper your comments with dismissive sarcasm. I don't understand your abject refusal to cease this in the interest of a productive exchange of ideas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
...you know, a helpful component of a multi-step detection campaign.
For sure, I can see how it might be helpful in that, and as I said I was happy to discuss it. I see this as a separate issue than multi-layered security, which is why I was probing, trying to figure out what you meant. A long comparison to computer security has nothing to do with marking chips with UV ink, no matter how belabored the metaphor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
Then remember me explaining what security in layers was?
Yes, and I asked you to elaborate on how this layer helped with this security. I'm not against the idea of security in layers, I just don't think "it's a layer, therefore it's helpful" is an answer unto itself, especially since I don't see its usefulness for initial security.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
I've never suggested, at all, that this was the end-all be-all of security methods. I suggested that, for $30, one could add an additional layer of security, and then showed people where to get inks and lights for cheap.
I never said you did, which is why I was attempting to discuss how this layer is helpful in the overall picture more than just "it's a layer!"

For example, I can wax and polish my bike helmet all I want, and I can call that an extra layer of security, but the end effect is wholly cosmetic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
The best you can do is implement roadblocks and speed-bumps. UV inks are a $30 speed-bump that might prevent hundreds of dollars of losses -- especially since it might make the counterfeiters aware that you are taking extra steps to secure your game and that other games aren't taking these extra steps.
Agree fully on roadblocks, and I've struggled with my own roadblocks for card marking (which is difficult enough to suss out). That's why I wanted to talk about specifics, so we could figure out these roadblocks, and see if this is truly a useful layer, or if it's just something that looks and sounds cool because "ooh pretty lights". Again, I did not mean this to be insulting or dismissive of you, rather an expression of interest to talk about it further.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
You present a more difficult target. At a minimum, your counterfeiter now has to make the same $30 outlay as you do to enter the arena - plus the time necessary to duplicate your stamp(s).
See, that's the main point for me. This does nothing to prevent the counterfeiter from entering the arena, it merely tells you what you already know: that someone is bringing in outside chips. I don't see how this is any more secure than letting everybody know that you know exactly how many chips you have (and let's please set aside the extreme examples for the time being).

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
...and, for argument's sake -- why would I take counterfeit chips at my cage? "Home game" aside, do you think The Venetian takes counterfeit chips at their cage? Do you think they should?
I don't see how comparing yourself to the Venetian is at all appropriate or conducive.

I take responsibility for my game. If the bank is short, I cover it. Setting my own sense of honor aside, I don't see how it's at all practical to tell the person with the hot potato that it's just too bad he was stuck with it, enjoy the loss. This will destroy the game almost instantly. If you're willing to do that, then your security issues are resolved, because there's nothing left to secure.

This is how I have conversation, so please do not take any of this as insult or dismissiveness or trying to point out how Pali is stupid or anything like that. These are the ideas you're putting forth into the public forum, and I am interested in exploring them. I don't feel this is cause for insults or sarcasm. If I've done this myself, I apologize.
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didace
This is how the Golden Kitty "discusses" topics -

I am 100% correct. This is self evident because I am me. But in an effort to appear humble, I will offer you, in the least condescending way possible (and that is hard because I am me), the opportunity to convince me otherwise. Of course you will be wrong, and I'll be glad to point that out to you once you've finished posting your poorly thought out nonsense.
Yes, you are right, this is often how it comes across. The rub is that the more I try not to be this way, the more it comes off this way. If you go into a conversation assuming this is the way I am, then I imagine it's nearly impossible not to view it as such.

For the record, I am wrong on plenty of things, and have been wrong in plenty of threads here. My views on many subjects have changed through discussions on here. I am not above reproach. My conversational style could use work, but thankfully most people are willing to push through that and talk with me anyway.

Last edited by pfapfap; 05-31-2010 at 06:15 PM.
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didace
This is how the Golden Kitty "discusses" topics -

I am 100% correct. This is self evident because I am me. But in an effort to appear humble, I will offer you, in the least condescending way possible (and that is hard because I am me), the opportunity to convince me otherwise. Of course you will be wrong, and I'll be glad to point that out to you once you've finished posting your poorly thought out nonsense.
We have a winner.
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfapfap
...
I won't engage you in a meta-discussion about how we should discuss things.

I've made my points about UV inking perfectly clear. They are simple and I've stated them concisely. UV inking provides a simple extra layer of security with a relatively low barrier to entry for the game operator that might be of added benefit to your game.

---

With regard to cashing counterfeit chips:

Will you knowingly accept fake bills and exchange them for chips?
Will you knowingly accept fake chips and exchange them for bills?
Will you accept my cash chips in your cash game?
Will you accept a same model chip with a different label and exchange it for cash?

I will do none of these things.
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 06:30 PM
I was not competing.

You're a fan of calling out people for dishonesty, Pali. Why not be up-front and say that you're just trying to be argumentative, and have little interest in conversation? That would at least be honest, right?

Well, I hope you enjoyed propping me up as a punching bag, if that's indeed what it was. Good job, you showed me.
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 06:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
I won't engage you in a meta-discussion about how we should discuss things.
You are, indeed, a master at this game. At baiting, if you will.

I'm asking for civility. For calm, reasoned, focused discussion. If that's too meta for you, then I don't know what else to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
I've made my points about UV inking perfectly clear. They are simple and I've stated them concisely. UV inking provides a simple extra layer of security with a relatively low barrier to entry for the game operator that might be of added benefit to your game.
Saying something is true because it's true isn't really saying much. "It's an added layer of security because it's an added layer of security" does nothing to address its effectiveness.

Considering your lack of willingness to focus on even one topic of conversation, I'm not willing to engage with you on the repeated side-tracks and meaningless comparisons you keep throwing out.

Good job, here's your Special Olympics Medal.
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfapfap
You're a fan of calling out people for dishonesty, Pali. Why not be up-front and say that you're just trying to be argumentative
Irony?
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 06:42 PM
I don't know who you are or why you feel it's appropriate to come out swinging like that. All I can say is that I've been doing my best to have conversation. I don't intend it to come out as dismissive critical argument. Sometimes my style doesn't mesh with those of others, but I do what I can to work past it and learn from my mistakes. What more can I be expected to do?

Sometimes all it takes is a simple shift in perspective. In another thread I felt like I was being downright insulting to the way someone else was running the game. I posted an apology, and his response was that no offense was taken and no apology needed.
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfapfap
Saying something is true because it's true isn't really saying much. "It's an added layer of security because it's an added layer of security" does nothing to address its effectiveness.
I've already provided examples of how you can use UV inks as part of your chip and game security - how they could work in concert with other security methods to identify the counterfeiters, and how merely having another layer of security might deter thieves or make them pick easier targets.

If your argument is that my examples aren't good enough, then, well, OK. I won't present MORE arguments, because I think I've made all the case for it that I need to - to justify a tiny, tiny application of UV lights.

UV inks make your chips harder to counterfeit. It costs $30 to implement. If you think there isn't enough ROI on the $30 to implement, then don't implement it.

I still heartily endorse UV lights as a quick bill checker in a game where you're considering checking bills with pens. Pens are a quick iodine test. http://www.randi.org/jr/120304youve.html#1 They can be fooled. If you're at the point where you're checking bills, I suggest using both.
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 07:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfapfap
Good job, here's your Special Olympics Medal.
Nice.
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 07:06 PM
When I provide concrete responses to concrete statements, I'm dismissed entirely as being "too meta".

When I accept this, that's when you boil down to easily addressed topics.

And I'm being too twisty for you?
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 07:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Palimax
Nice.
"lalalala I'm not touching you I'm not touching you lalalalala does this bug you huh huh does this bug you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you lalalalala"

"For cryin' out loud, stop it you weenie."

"SEE? YOU'RE A BIG MEANIE!"
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 07:16 PM
Objection: Asked and answered.

I've already provided clear, concise examples of possible UV applications, explained the concept of security in layers, and I've further said that I don't find UV marking to be a complete solution and as such suggested that individuals should weigh the cost of $30 worth of UV equipment and the possible benefit it would have to them on their own.
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote
05-31-2010 , 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfapfap
"lalalala I'm not touching you I'm not touching you lalalalala does this bug you huh huh does this bug you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you lalalalala"

"For cryin' out loud, stop it you weenie."

"SEE? YOU'RE A BIG MEANIE!"
Very nice.
Be Careful who you invite to your game Quote

      
m