well sage looks like you are the one who got banned, justifiably.
+1 for the view that you have been back into bad old habits and spamming up this thread with repetitive BS.

as far as the "baseless accusations", your anecdotal comment on "many women's clearly less inhibited behaviour when tipsy..." does reflect more on you than on "many women" and does paint you in the way gzesh described. especially when added to your previous form in multiple comments on 2+2 on women being naturally less smart at maths (and therefore poker) than men

apologies for contributing to sage's derail. yeah kassouf had a shocker and I don't think the group of friends or casino staff have anything to answer for, its all on him

Why you gotta limit it to just two????

I just moved 26 posts from the Will Kassouf thread to this Low Content thread. The first post moved is post #1902 and dated today (September 19).

Anyone wanting to carry on that discussion should do it in this thread.

I don't really have a dog in this fight but given >90% of the people are not going to click the links and evaluate the articles for themselves, here's how discourse should work:

1: SD makes scientific claim. (or doesn't)
2: Gzesh disputes claim. (or doesn't)
3: SD provides article to back up claim. (or backs down)
4: Gzesh says article does not even mention subject of scientific claim. (or backs down)
5: SD says what page it mentions and supports claim. (or backs down)
6: Gzesh says why the given part of the artlcle doesn't support claim (or backs down)
etc.

So the discussion could go 1-2-3-4-stop, 1-2-3-4-5-stop or any other similar combination and people who aren't reading the links themselves can still come to a conclusion about how things are, by following the discussion.

The problem here is that instead of choosing one of the options from 5, SD is just going back to 3, so the discussion goes 1-2-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4 and it gets annoying as the normal rules of intelligent discourse are not being followed.

Yes, it's off-topic, but it would still be annoying even if it was in the "POLL: Does alcohol make men grow moobs?" thread in OOT.

My ban was facilitated by the man whose juvenile sport is to troll me, Gzesh, who got off scot-free. By him responding to my posts in a dismissive, condescending and nasty way he elicited additional replies from me defending myself, replies that otherwise would not have been necessary, which caused an otherwise brief discussion of the part alcohol may have played in the incident turning into a long discussion.

I said women's inhibitions reducing under the influence of alcohol was "observable", not that I routinely set out or seek to observe it.

Observable = able to be noticed or perceived

Yes I take some blame for returning to 3 but he attacked me quite nastily, indeed he had already attacked me earlier in the thread.

In addition, it didn't make any sense for him, and one other poster to completely dismiss so many articles that pointed to the same conclusions.

It isn't a contentious scientific subject, the part that can be debatable is *how much* drink (or a sustained drinking habit) is required to very likely have a significant effect on testosterone/estrogen levels.

He/they didn't raise that, they simply spoke (posted) to me like I was a piece of dirt.

you reacting to his posts means he's winning. you reacting to the point where you annoy everyone else and then get banned means he wins even more. something to think about

also, word of advice, i don't think it does you any favours to share online your views on women

SageDonkey or anyone who posts about SageDonkey or this related crap after this post gets banned. **** me people give it a rest.

I was typing my 2.47 am post while you were typing.

Message understood.

Kind regards,

SageDonkey

I deleted your 2:47 post as you should have given my warning. You are not getting the last word on this. I am being decent by not giving you another ban but any further post by you in this thread will guarantee you a ban.

Working the Barrett-Jackson Auto auction today and the crew picks one car for a pool to see who can guess the winning bid, in $500 increments without going over.

Today's car is Bert Reynolds' Hooper replica. Any guesses?

http://www.barrett-jackson.com/Event...REATION-221871

Sold for $88,000, I overbid.

Hi. Someone said Triv was seen at the tables. Talking about the Jack Casino. Confirmation?

He plays PLO there practically every day. This is somehow news? And his radio show sucks.

Who?

+1

Nice

Who? may be an appropriate comment when a 2010 article is at the top of the choices when you search Triv, poker. Not sure why him being spotted playing poker in public would be thread worthy.

It's interesting (briefly) that AM radio is still hoppin' along, but as long as they can find advertisers (and syndication) there are advantages to it over FM radio. GL

My father was on radio, both AM and FM, for about 40 years. I think that he still writes radio commercials. I was on the air for a couple years.

AM is still very much alive, largely because of talk shows. Below is a link to a list of the top 100. I was pleased to see that my favorite (Dave Ramsey, a financial advisor) was #3, ahead of most of the political shows. I listen to both conservative talk and NPR, which frustrates those who want everyone to pick a side.

http://www.talkers.com/heavy-hundred/

Have read the forum for years,finally got around to registering

Hai

Poker is like a pipe

Wow you must be busy

Maybe he only gets 1 hour of internet per year in the monk retreat....

32 left in the Party poker millions: Kristen Bicknell is second and Alex Foxen 8th. Got the popcorn ready.