Tut tut @WuDu using sarcasm, don't you know it's the lowest form of wit and I have been severely criticised for using it. Discussion is all well and good but when unbelievers refuse to accept any arguments against their pet theories and then start name calling and, in one case, accusing me of calling them stupid and ill educated when I had done no such thing, it goes beyond discussion and just turns into endless back and forth name calling
Goodness gracious, he was such a meanie!
That never occurred to me, I simply thought he was resorting to name calling and making things up because he was running out of arguments, the typical resort of people that can't conduct a proper debate. Actually I won't discuss further what anyone has or has not done while they're not here to answer for themselves, a courtesy I extended to you while you were temporarily unavailable for comment.
@GR1ZZL3R, I hope you recovered quickly from this traumatic experience!
Thankyou for your expression of sympathy but I don't think it's really needed. More pressing matters diverted my attention this week, a blocked kitchen sink, a faulty boiler, and a truly traumatic run of bad results on the gee-gees. Two have been sorted, the third is still occupying some of my time.
If only there were a way to stop talking to people you don't want to talk to.Up until we discover and master such an advanced technology,banning heretics like @OliD is the only way to go.
I'm not sure I'm a fan of banning, from what I see it tends to reinforce the victimisation culture in certain types and can make them even more vocal, misunderstanding the reasons for a ban. The problem with most types of conspiracy theorists ( and no, Olid did not say this was a conspiracy, I'm speaking in general) is that any evidence or arguments against are treated as part of the conspiracy, and a ban only serves to reinforce the belief that they are on to something, when the ban is usually imposed because of the way they present their case rather than the case itself.
Wise decision, @Stubbe-Unibet! You are right, how dare @OliD articulate his opinion on a public forum? Especially if it's not the majority opinion? This alone is a terrible thought crime in itself, but he even posted in and thus hijacked the topics he created himself. Unforgivable.This community is built on valuable posts, how dare he write about bad beats and being "0lucky"?Now, grown mean should be able to choose which posts to read and which posts to answer to, however due to the lack of grown men posting here, @Stubbe-Unibet knows that he has to sacrifice his time and energy and make these decisions for us. Thank you for that!
@Argevolen @WuDu you don't see the difference between freedom of speech and making claims that the company is engaging in illegal activities (as far as I know it is punishable (by the law) in most places in the world ) - with no evidence, just showing up screenshots of losing hands - over and over again. You are still on the company's communication platform, and the thread has been active for a long time without intervention - so I don't really see any attack here - or rather caring for a given person and giving them time to think about certain things
these are not ideological, historical or political issues - here we are dealing rather with the issue 2+2=5,5 I personally would like to check the knowledge of these people in the theory of probability - I assume that when someone turned 18, she/he had it at school
I personally would like to check the knowledge of these people in the theory of probability - I assume that when someone turned 18, she/he had it at school
Well he was upset of casino too thou gameplay was pretty much steady with rtp. But there was couple of glitch spins in game and he was sure those were spins that should have given bonus