Guys, for your sake, I hope you are shills.

The alternative is really, really sad......

[ ] Meaningful content.
[x] Schoolyard trash talk.

You paint quite a picture here.

Now who exhibits this behavior?

Is the alternative any worse than posting 5 times a day in this thread for their entire time on 2+2? Or having over 70% of their posts ITT?

Just curious, because I think I might know someone who meets those criteria.

[ ] Spadebidder
[ ] Monteroy
[x] Beaten senseless
[ ] QPW
[ ] Nfuego

You see, BS, whereas the people you like to characterize as shills mainly post logical reasoned argument your contributions are limited to wild assertions offered without evidence, accusations of shillary and general trash talk.

Of all the people mentioned above, you are the only one to exhibit such behavior.

You're right.

I spend too much time at 2+2, must be loser, huh? Good point Bobo.

It's what you spend your time here doing, rather than the time itself, that indicates you are a loser.

His words are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

He'll be at it again tomorrow (and tomorrow).

When the PPA uses better regulation as one(of many) basis for repeal of the UGIEA, are they being disingeuous, or is better regulation needed? The PPA’s mission is to establish favorable laws that provide poker players with a secure, safe and regulated place to play.

ROFPMSL!

Now the poor schmuck has taken to duplicating posts he's already made.

You've posted this twice (04-11-2010, 02:29 PM, 04-11-2010, 12:59 PM) already.

Has too much crystal meth/acid/beating it senseless demolished your memory?

No, I don't think someone who spends a bit of time on here throughout their day posting is necessarily a loser. I've actually always thought that was a pretty lame insult, and there's people on here with a **** of a lot more posts per day than anyone ITT has.

But that seemed to be the insult you were going for, so I thought I'd turn the tables around a bit.

And my point wasn't about spending too much time on 2+2; it was about spending too much time in this thread to the exclusion of all others. Unhealthy obsession IMO.

I guess you haven't noticed, but this is the new riggie strategy. They post something that doesn't fit into any of the current streams of conversation, and so naturally it gets no replies. So they post it again. And again.

I think it's pooflinger that started this trend, but I'm not positive.

Is that something the forum moderators would be prepared to tackle?

I know this thread is pretty much 'anything goes' but that sort of behavior does seem to be pushing the limits.

I gave someone a warning for it once, and he stopped. But it was more than a couple of times that he had done it.

Mike & Mark are the mods of the Zoo, so it's really up to them. Of course, you're always welcome to report any problem posts. But I don't know how quick they'd be to deal with a riggie repeating a post a few times; the riggies take quite a licking in the insult department around here sometimes.

Last post in this conversation, so go to town on me, we all know what it's worth. Not gonna get sucked in, insulted, distracted, taken off point....

I realize, too, you don't want me in this thread, seemingly desperately.

You have all posted this thread more than me, and all these posts are public. You guys have nothing to offer and it's evident.


I repost because no legitimate answer was offered, or ever is.


Who is being the group of schoolkids?
My posts are not a waste of time, except the last few with you guys here....mosts of yours seem to be.

Your logic is NEVER logical.
You regularly resort to insults on grammar/punctuation/syntax ect.... It's your guiding light, the one thing you can be correct about!
You regularly resort to personal insults.

I truly believe online poker is not rigged, but have the intelligence to realize that it is possible and the results would be devastating to poker and, possibly, myself.

So, for all legitimate posters on the "legit" side, who use clear logic on a regular basis, you do justice to poker.
For those who post logically on the "rigged" side, you do justice to poker.

....for the rest, deep down, you know what you are worth.

Beaten, with same logic like yours we could start to argue about possiblity that we might all die today. i know we won't, but what if? do i have any proof that we might die today? no, but i think we might.

when the day is over we all are still alive and then in next day we might all die again, cool huh?

I think that there's a pretty broad consensus that some regulation should be improved - most noticeably, the regulation provided by the Kahnawake.

There are some good jurisdictions, and some bad jurisdictions. The bad jurisdictions have a real problem and should be fixed. The good jurisdictions probably aren't perfect, and I think that 99.99% of government regulations of all sorts, right across the world, should be improved.

Priceless!

BS really is a legend in his own mind.

I suspect, on the balance of evidence, that the US government would not be the best people to entrust with the regulation of online poker.

Apart from anything else I'm 100% certain that they would not be able to resist taxing the games which would result in lower win/higher loss rates for everyone.

It would be a disaster for the riggies who, I'm equally certain are all marginal players - either small losers or break-even and relying on rakeback - who would be priced out of the game.

A very definite case of 'be careful what you wish for'.

solucky has posted the exact same non-sequitur about 100 times to my knowledge

I think it's safe to say that the PPA is "looking out for poker players". As part of their mission they are tackling "regulation" as a means to attack the UGIEA (and other obstacles that stand in the way of poker's growth and acceptance - mostly as a game of skill). What's disingenuous, imo, is the way you framed your [rigged] question. Your purpose, probably clear to most of us who read your question, is to imply that by "tackling" regulation, the PPA is somehow giving credence to your belief that the current regulation in place is insufficient and/or worthless. That isn't really the case at all.

Regulation, on different levels, is much like variance. Over time it will even itself out. IMO the balance will come as it is needed. But first the PPA has to establish a plan and focus on all of its priorities. And there are quite a few they are tackling. Especially being a new organization and all.

But I guess you probably won't grasp what I'm saying in this "answer" to your question because it deals with a few concepts you might not understand.

I [personally] put my faith in [good ] poker players. They seem to be good at figuring **** out for themselves and they're not very likely to take **** from people when they know something is [really] wrong (and they can prove it).

LOL.

Well spotted!

TY Wiki.


And no, BS, I am not a shill who shills for the PPA.

Slams aside, unless the subject needs changing, would you have said "that really isn't the case at all" before the UB scandal?
I personally feel regulation is insufficient. Has regulation increased at stars/tilt since UB/AB.?
I would feel alot better if the PPA did tackle regulation, on some level. It needn't be US, or government, regulation.

To say it is adequate as it stands........? c'mon, get real. There's alot of TRUST on our part.

Was my original post disingenuous? It opened an intelligent subject, sorry if that's taboo.

Also, get off the whole "riggies just want to believe" crap. Some do, but don't make that the basis for your arguments. It's pretentious. A winning player "wants to believe" it's all due to his superior skill and intellect. It's a meaningless aurgument, a distraction.

If these are all old questions and you've heard before, and you don't want to talk about them in an adult manner(you almost did this time) then why are you still here?

If you want to talk about regulation in a general sense and not specifically because you believe that the deal is rigged, then you are quite free to start a thread to discuss the matter.

If you start to talk about regulation in this thread then it will be discussed with relation to rigging because that is the only aspect that is relevant and on topic for this thread. As there is not a shred of evidence for rigging you are not likely to be taken seriously.

You really will not get anywhere trying to bludgeon people into discussing a subject that is off topic for the thread in which you are trying to get that discussion going.

It's not whether or not anyone wants to discuss them, it's whether they are on topic for the thread.

If people don't want to discuss what you want to discuss because it's off topic for the thread the pertinent question is not why are they still here it's why are you?

Good point...

I will try to avoid getting off the subject of whether online poker is rigged. The whole regulation subject is way off base and needs to be kept in the proper context.

You are sharp, man.

Please keep contributing.