No fences to mend

Comment #5

Rip Snorter — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 20:29:49 GMT

I took the trouble to go read one of your posts the better to get a bead on where you're coming from. Seeing as how you're a dollar player, and I've usually been a $20 player, we're $19 dollars removed from being in agreement on much of anything. Somewhere in that $19 difference between us the feeling of responsibility for being a moral and judgemental guardian for the site must have been lost (on my end). Jack <br... [ More ]

Comment #4

Rip Snorter — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 15:17:21 GMT

Actually, I'm not familiar with your other posts. You might easily fall into the areas of the LP forums I haven't gotten around to reading, or I simply mightn't have registered your label on your words. As for the remainder of what you've said, I've no doubt it's okay. Mostly everything is. I'll certainly feel free to address you directly, should I feel the urge, or indirectly address whatever concepts and issues you put forward, as I've done here. In this instance I feel the post... [ More ]

Comment #3

visiondude — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 04:42:40 GMT

now, a little more "equitable" history of my presence at LP. by now i am sure the mystical bedfellows have told you about me, and i am sure that you have read threads with my "take" in them. to some people, i have served a very good purpose in here, including my opposition to some mystical methodologies. you see jack, my "aim" if you will is NOT at people like yourself. my aim (as i have always pointed out) is geared toward people who believe what i believe, and the "fence... [ More ]

Comment #2

Rip Snorter — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:30:21 GMT

I generally agree with you. I happen to be attempting to use a non-metaphysical method that assumes the number behaviors are a 'metaphysical' phenomenon, but that they're doing their best to simulate randomness and give the appearance of merely following laws so probability. I've got nothing against any of the methods, be they statistical, metaphysical, whatever. I just tend to get along better with humans who have a modicum of open-mindedness, who are able to believe in something-o... [ More ]

Comment #1

ayenowitall — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 00:37:48 GMT

I'm sure you've heard this at one time or another. "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't (or won't), no proof is possible." Well, it's a funny thing. I can't recall anyone around here ever clearly demonstrating that the logical, scientific, mathematical methods fare any better than the so-called mystical methods of lottery play and prediction. Personally, I don't see any need to choose up sides and camp with one side or the other. I use ma... [ More ]

Original Blog Entry: No fences to mend

Rip Snorter — Tue, 31 May 2005 13:45:22 GMT