im actually curious despite all the trolling how can someone in this day and age believe the earth is flat, and why did that guy want to send a satellite up to prove its flat when it costs less to "fly to the end of the earth" if it was flat? so strange.
Well finally someone who can answer this:  Also can you please provide some practical examples of the 7.8 mm curve over 100 meter, or 7.8 cm over 1 km and 780 meter curve over 100km. I provide the mathematical prove, deal? (40k is circumference of your imaginary created out of nothing oblate spheroid thing in case it helps) Also is the highest point on the beach and then the ocean "falls away" or is there a hump (a mile or five out) over which ships travel before despairing bottom first. Ships disappearing over the horizon due to the curvature of the earth. Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcdBFfoi3uUMeasuring the earth radius with a telescope. Also his response to a flattard: https://youtu.be/dxbGfWSnIOkThat first link shows a semi-submersible heavy lift ship that's submerged. I'm not even going to waste my time debunking the rest of the links you fucking dishonest shill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-submersibleBecause you cant, you fucking jew. The second video actually shows a ship when it's fully visible sailing away until the bottom is no longer visible. You wont ''debunk'' anything else because you cant. It's also not a semi sumersible ship you fucking retard. It's this one : https://www.marinetraffic.com/dk/ais/details/ships/shipid:364280/mmsi:305346000/imo:9311799/vessel:CAP_PASADONow go troll somewhere else idiot. Your full of shit, the video claims it's that ship with no proof. Fucking shill! "I don't know the name of the ship but it looks very similar to Cap Pasado which can be seen here https://www.marinetraffic.com/dk/ais/..." Link contains no image!!! Ship appears to be of the semi-submersible heavy lift type, prove me wrong shill!  You are either mentally retarded or trolling now, the link does contain an image, of course your brain is not capable of even finding that so I will link it here for you. |
|
|
|
im actually curious despite all the trolling how can someone in this day and age believe the earth is flat, and why did that guy want to send a satellite up to prove its flat when it costs less to "fly to the end of the earth" if it was flat? so strange.
Well finally someone who can answer this: Also can you please provide some practical examples of the 7.8 mm curve over 100 meter, or 7.8 cm over 1 km and 780 meter curve over 100km. I provide the mathematical prove, deal? (40k is circumference of your imaginary created out of nothing oblate spheroid thing in case it helps) Also is the highest point on the beach and then the ocean "falls away" or is there a hump (a mile or five out) over which ships travel before despairing bottom first. Ships disappearing over the horizon due to the curvature of the earth. Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcdBFfoi3uUMeasuring the earth radius with a telescope. Also his response to a flattard: https://youtu.be/dxbGfWSnIOkThat first link shows a semi-submersible heavy lift ship that's submerged. I'm not even going to waste my time debunking the rest of the links you fucking dishonest shill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-submersibleBecause you cant, you fucking jew. The second video actually shows a ship when it's fully visible sailing away until the bottom is no longer visible. You wont ''debunk'' anything else because you cant. It's also not a semi sumersible ship you fucking retard. It's this one : https://www.marinetraffic.com/dk/ais/details/ships/shipid:364280/mmsi:305346000/imo:9311799/vessel:CAP_PASADONow go troll somewhere else idiot. |
|
|
|
Yeah it fails 1 in 10 times by my estimate. And, I will run it for ten days, once a day, just for proof, aiming for a 20% ROI daily. If it fails more than 1 time, I will admit to being a scammer and fuck off forever. But, the script works. Wait 10 days and you will have proof.
Except we have shown earlier in this thread that mathematically that will prove nothing. What you're basically saying is - real life empirical proof about a script you have never seen is relevant, because you ran some irrelevant numbers about a script YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN! Yes, that's exactly what he is saying. You said it yourself, it's EV-. What's the point of this conversation? That's like saying we all will be dead in 100 years, so why even wake up in the morning? Why go to work? This line of logic is so, so flawed. Just because you will lose money after infinite plays doesn't mean the same thing will happen over 10 or 100 plays. That's why I stop the script when I have sufficient profit. There is some dunning kruger going on here. It is more like saying I have a method that will make you immortal but you are going to die anyways. You claim the script works, my understanding of a strategy/script that works when gambling is a method that will make you win in the long term, otherwise it doesn't work. ''Just because you will lose money after infinite plays doesn't mean the same thing will happen over 10 or 100 plays.'' But why do I need your script, though? Why does anyone need it? I might as well just use my own stupid strategy and say the same thing. |
|
|
|
Yeah it fails 1 in 10 times by my estimate. And, I will run it for ten days, once a day, just for proof, aiming for a 20% ROI daily. If it fails more than 1 time, I will admit to being a scammer and fuck off forever. But, the script works. Wait 10 days and you will have proof.
Except we have shown earlier in this thread that mathematically that will prove nothing. What you're basically saying is - real life empirical proof about a script you have never seen is relevant, because you ran some irrelevant numbers about a script YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN! Yes, that's exactly what he is saying. You said it yourself, it's EV-. What's the point of this conversation? |
|
|
|
im actually curious despite all the trolling how can someone in this day and age believe the earth is flat, and why did that guy want to send a satellite up to prove its flat when it costs less to "fly to the end of the earth" if it was flat? so strange.
Well finally someone who can answer this: Also can you please provide some practical examples of the 7.8 mm curve over 100 meter, or 7.8 cm over 1 km and 780 meter curve over 100km. I provide the mathematical prove, deal? (40k is circumference of your imaginary created out of nothing oblate spheroid thing in case it helps) Also is the highest point on the beach and then the ocean "falls away" or is there a hump (a mile or five out) over which ships travel before despairing bottom first. Ships disappearing over the horizon due to the curvature of the earth. Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcdBFfoi3uUMeasuring the earth radius with a telescope. Also his response to a flattard: https://youtu.be/dxbGfWSnIOk |
|
|
|
I've maintained throughout that the script has a 90% chance of winning and 10% chance of failure... I don't want to risk 1 BTC on a 10% chance of failure, simple as that. The ROI is currently being proved daily anyway
Back atcha: If the script wins 90% of the time and has positive ROI over time, then you shouldn’t worry about risking 1 BTC. ROI, yes? You’ll make it back, then make more. Just like your investors.You really can't read, can you? It is EV-. EV-. That is the opposite of what you said. It brings profit 9/10 times, but even if that one time is a loss, it's a big loss. Over an infinite amount of time the script will make losses, like ALL gambling methods. So what the hell did you prove then? That it works by not working? '' I have this strategy that works for gambling '' It works by losing in the long term? |
|
|
|
I'm really not interested in the mathematical mumbo jumbo... all I care about is proving that the script works.
I have gotten 1 bit on Bustabit and am running the script.
Fyi, in case nobody knows maths - whether I play with 1 bit, 0.1 btc or 1 btc makes no difference. I'm looking at ROI here.
And I will no longer post a screen recording, I will just send you my account link.
Yeah, maybe the maths says I am crazy, but this has worked for me before and I vehemently believe it will continue to work for me
Yeah fuck math. However anyone that claims they have a winning script/strategy but want to sell it makes little sense to me. Wouldn't you be able to just get rich using it? What is the point of selling it? |
|
|
|
Morality is tricky. There was a time where I thought everything was pretty meaningless, a bit of a nihilistic view, and that nothing really was bad or good, everything was simply pointless. However I still couldn't force myself to do what I considered bad things even though I knew it didn't really matter. There is definitely some genetic factor at work, I get angry very quickly for example, I can control it but I still can't avoid getting angry in the first place. I'm personally struggling right now to decide whether eating animals is good or bad, I'm thinking it is morally wrong but I'm still debating it with myself.
Vegetarianism and the morality of eating meat is a difficult one. There is not a single tribal society that is known to be vegetarian so it is reasonable to infer from this that eating meat provided a historical competitive advantage. Thus eating meat likely kept our ancient ancestors alive and without meat they would have perished. It is problematic to classify something as immoral when it was necessary to ensure our current existence. There are also some poorly understood downsides to a vegan diet. See: Vegan diet increases the risk of birth defects https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/4902648/Vegan-diet-increases-the-risk-of-birth-defects-scientists-warn.htmlVegetarian diet linked to lower sperm count http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/vegetarian-diet-linked-to-lower-sperm-countOn the other hand there appear to be significant health benefits to giving up meat later in life. Several studies suggest that vegetarians live many years longer then their meat eating counterparts. Given this juxtaposition my personal opinion is that the best course is to eat meat until one is finished having children and then work towards minimizing it as one becomes older. However, I claim no special insight on this issue. Below is the Jewish view on eating meat. Judaism places stress on the proper treatment of animals. Unnecessary cruelty is forbidden. http://www.jewfaq.org/m/animals.htmThe Seven-day Adventist a Christian denomination known for their health and longevity strongly favor vegetarianism but do not require it. The Seven-day Adventist who choose to eat meat are supposed to follow the health laws of Leviticus which makes their very diet similar to that of the Jews. The sensation that everything feels meaningless is part of the crisis of nihilism. Once you no longer have up or down you are in a very bad place. Jordan Peterson describes this place as chaos in the short video clip below.
Jordan Peterson | What Nietzsche's "God is dead" means
My grandma is an adventist and she couldn't eat pig, rabbit most sea food and a few more. In all honesty, those are quite stupid rules, you either meat or you don't, those seemingly random chosen animals make no sense to me. That's why I can't take the bible seriously. Not even believers of the bible come to an agreement, you have christians, adventists, orthodox and many more. |
|
|
|
the Bible confirms this
The Bible doesn't do anything. You take what you want from the vague and outdated scriptures. A thousand people will look at the bible, and not one will agree on what it meant. Very true, Vod. As a Christian, I will be the first to admit that the Bible is very much open to interpretation. And let's face facts, the Bible was written by Bronze Age men who had little to no understanding of science and math. And they certainly didn't have telescopes. So they interpreted what they saw the best way they could. But come on, Flat Earthers. It's 2018! Shouldn't it be more than obvious by now that when the Bible states "the firmament" that they were talking about the sky, not some silly dome. And the "separation of the waters above the firmament from the waters below the firmament" still doesn't mean there is a dome. The waters above the firmament are obviously the rain clouds and the waters below the firmament are the rivers, lakes, and seas. There is no grand conspiracy to keep people ignorant of the "truth". NASA is real. Space is real. The Earth isn't flat. And it sure as hell isn't only 6,000 years old. Maybe instead of misinterpreting the Bible and posting YouTube videos and calling it "evidence" that the Earth is flat, you all should spend more time reading books written in the last 100 years, or, even better, go visit a Natural History museum. If you want spiritual guidance, read the Bible. If you want scientific fact, look elsewhere. You're wrong Steve. There is only one interpretation of The Word of God - His interpretation. He is the author, not "bronze age men". And yet the people which were chosen to write down HIS Word were much smarter than you are now. Let the Bible interpret the Bible. Look here, God is speaking to you, don't be an ignorant Steve. Ignorance is darkness: Words of The Lord through prophet Isaiah: Do you not know? Do you not hear? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in  As I said, not even the most extremist religious nutjobs agree with you, if that doesn't tell you something I don't know what will. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat |
|
|
|
The Synagogue of Satan disagrees with me, what a surprise I never would have guessed.  Damn you have a stupid answer for anything, don't you? |
|
|
|
Can you please look at the payment you sent me because I made more than 120 posts yet I only received 0.003729 BTC He forgot to add a ''1''. Should be 0.013729 |
|
|
|
Holy shit... for fuck's sake. MY SCRIPT WAS NOT A SCAM, IT PAYS ME AND PAID INVESTORS OUT MONEY.
Enough said, promising return for a EV- games is a scam to begin with. You may win now but in the end it remains as EV- games Also this is out of topic already I don't care about what I look like to the community.
FYI, the community rules in here also your red trusted account will now be much more attractive  . Sad truth huh but if you stick to the so called 'guidance' then everything should be fine
Here is the guidance, red tag = scammers, no matter what it is ( happened to me once  )All casinos are EV- in the long run and thus all strategies. In the short run, many strategies can be profitable. Not really, if something is profitable in the short run it should be profitable in the long run too. The only ''strategies'' that exist only give you a slightly better chance of winning although still in EV-. Basically there is a ''strategy'' that gives you slightly better odds than, for example, betting on a single number or using martingale but as I said it is not giving you a EV+. Never, not in the short run not in the long run. |
|
|
|
The reflection is obviously part of the giant turtle the earth is cruising on. |
|
|
|
It's an argument to show that only the most extremist religious nutjobs still deny evolution.
That's quite a profound religious statement you made there.  Yup. They make a "science" out of insulting the other people. Ofcourse it is not science per se. It is an "art of being right" It should be double quotation mark there, as it is deeply duplicite language devised by Shoppenhauer. It is like the modus operandi of every evolutionist. I guess they use all of the intructions written there in our little dialogue. This list is a list of a proffesional winner in dialogue by dirty dirty tricks: The following lists the 38 stratagems described by Schopenhauer, in the order of their appearance in the book:
The Extension (Dana's Law)
The Homonymy
Generalize Your Opponent's Specific Statements
Conceal Your Game
False Propositions
Postulate What Has to Be Proved
Yield Admissions Through Questions
Make Your Opponent Angry
Questions in Detouring Order
Take Advantage of the Nay-Sayer
Generalize Admissions of Specific Cases
Choose Metaphors Favourable to Your Proposition
Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition
Claim Victory Despite Defeat
Use Seemingly Absurd Propositions
Arguments Ad Hominem
Defense Through Subtle Distinction
Interrupt, Break, Divert the Dispute
Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against it
Draw Conclusions Yourself
Meet Him With a Counter-Argument as Bad as His
Petitio principii
Make Him Exaggerate His Statement
State a False Syllogism
Find One Instance to the Contrary
Turn the Tables
Anger Indicates a Weak Point
Persuade the Audience, Not the Opponent
Diversion
This Is Beyond Me
Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category
Don't Let Him Off the Hook
Will Is More Effective Than Insight
Bewilder Your opponent by Mere Bombast
A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position
Become Personal, Insulting, Rude (argumentum ad personam) Defense Through Subtle Distinction - It is not one gene it is 15. It could be 100000. It does not matter at all. It is all to make other people and the audience more aggresive because saying things that might be true but are irrelevant to the talk is just rude. Or thet say - Hemoglobine is a part of breathing, and not breathing in stand alone. Yes the essential part in it - so it could not be without most of the case. Such a behaviour makes no sense but to derail your opponents by dirty tricks and to make him angry. Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category - They use it allllll the time they lose the argument. They laugh out of God. I could be as well an atheist denying evolution- it would not change anything. It is dirty and foul trick. Make Him Exaggerate His Statement - like - you deny all science.... Ofcourse noone can deny irrefutable statements if they are irrefutable - thats so dirty and foul what they do... Draw Conclusions Yourself - You see - they say? You do not know science - they say. And do not describe why you draw that conclusion. Those conclusions are not based on the dialogue it is just foul.... Just a trickery of language of applying to audience to slander people. You cannot argue with conclusion being your argument it is just a foul trickery language. Or they say - it is not a circular logic - and does not argue why had he concluded that. That was his conclusion - it is not the conclusion of out the definition of the word or his reasoning behind it. While if one is dependant on each other to prove itself is a circular logic - he should have explain one can stand alone and would still be true. Arguments Ad Hominem - self explanatory Will is More Effective Than Insight - describtion of it: "There is another trick which, as soon as it is practicable, makes all others unnecessary. Instead of working on your opponent's intellect by argument, work on his will by motive; and he, and also the audience if they have similar interests, will at once be won over to your opinion, even though you got it out of a lunatic asylum; for, as a general rule, half an ounce of will is more effective than a hundred-weight of insight and intelligence." It is like they read their manual and apply it... They say you just want this that or other thing. You just want this or that is why you do not agree with me. What? How do you know what do I want? Those snakey people know people will to be in the winning club. So they appeal to their emotions saying - everyone thinks like we do... That is just satanic you know? Claim Victory Despite Defeat - Not just dirty and foul. It is weird thing to do as well. Those are their favourite. get rekt. Generalize Your Opponent's Specific Statements - now you have made that. Some another tricks from sleeve? I was asking for specifical example of a new information and not a general ability - of it could happen. You just basicly said - it could be probable, maybe, that organism will create something useful. It never stated specificly - that something useful would be made by substracting from other thing useful. It is just completly vague. I was very specific - and you just make it awfully and confusingly generalised. BTW I had rebuked you generalisation that it is unjust. You just generalise when I asked for an example - that is a trick on your part. I suggest to everybody talking with Astargath to have that list of tricks prepared to know what he had just done - for your own self defence. Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998) The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/ |
|
|
|
Due to unforeseen circumstances, the sig deal i have made became very troublesome. With the guidance of others in this thread, I've decided to not pay alia after the 5 months have ended.
I'm not going waste my time trying to get back the funds that I've already sent her. If alia wants she can return the funds for 4 months and do her posts for March.
Yeah, no. That's not how it works. I haven't broken any contract terms and thus the contract is entirely valid. You still owe me the 1.1 BTC. I would leave this alone If I were you alia.. you are fighting against the community on this one.. If I were you I would take a week or two out and think about this objectively. Explain to me - which term of the contract did I break? I fail to see it. Was any of this a legal contract or why do you keep saying ''contract'' It's a public agreement that I had with aTriz, not legally notarized and thus not legally binding, but a contract nonetheless. If aTriz breaks this then you can never really trust him. Actually to be fair, if it's not legally binding he is legally able to break the agreement any time really. Should I not trust him because he is operating within the law? Not to mention the obvious problems you are facing and as I said before you wont ever get to legendary anyways. |
|
|
|
Due to unforeseen circumstances, the sig deal i have made became very troublesome. With the guidance of others in this thread, I've decided to not pay alia after the 5 months have ended.
I'm not going waste my time trying to get back the funds that I've already sent her. If alia wants she can return the funds for 4 months and do her posts for March.
Yeah, no. That's not how it works. I haven't broken any contract terms and thus the contract is entirely valid. You still owe me the 1.1 BTC. I would leave this alone If I were you alia.. you are fighting against the community on this one.. If I were you I would take a week or two out and think about this objectively. Explain to me - which term of the contract did I break? I fail to see it. Was any of this a legal contract or why do you keep saying ''contract'' |
|
|
|
On another to remain unnamed forum where I'm insta-banned for saying anything at all in any sub, a user wants to know how the southern cross works if the Earth is flat.
A: The stars are holographic projections off of the dome and its mirrored surface. The concave mirror creates the illusion of a central southern point depending on your location.
LOL flat earth debunked with just 1 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtU_mdL2vBM |
|
|
|
It's an argument to show that only the most extremist religious nutjobs still deny evolution.
That's quite a profound religious statement you made there. Yup. They make a "science" out of insulting the other people. Ofcourse it is not science per se. It is an "art of being right" It should be double quotation mark there, as it is deeply duplicite language devised by Shoppenhauer. It is like the modus operandi of every evolutionist. I guess they use all of the intructions written there in our little dialogue. This list is a list of a proffesional winner in dialogue by dirty dirty tricks: The following lists the 38 stratagems described by Schopenhauer, in the order of their appearance in the book:
The Extension (Dana's Law)
The Homonymy
Generalize Your Opponent's Specific Statements
Conceal Your Game
False Propositions
Postulate What Has to Be Proved
Yield Admissions Through Questions
Make Your Opponent Angry
Questions in Detouring Order
Take Advantage of the Nay-Sayer
Generalize Admissions of Specific Cases
Choose Metaphors Favourable to Your Proposition
Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition
Claim Victory Despite Defeat
Use Seemingly Absurd Propositions
Arguments Ad Hominem
Defense Through Subtle Distinction
Interrupt, Break, Divert the Dispute
Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against it
Draw Conclusions Yourself
Meet Him With a Counter-Argument as Bad as His
Petitio principii
Make Him Exaggerate His Statement
State a False Syllogism
Find One Instance to the Contrary
Turn the Tables
Anger Indicates a Weak Point
Persuade the Audience, Not the Opponent
Diversion
This Is Beyond Me
Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category
Don't Let Him Off the Hook
Will Is More Effective Than Insight
Bewilder Your opponent by Mere Bombast
A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position
Become Personal, Insulting, Rude (argumentum ad personam) Defense Through Subtle Distinction - It is not one gene it is 15. It could be 100000. It does not matter at all. It is all to make other people and the audience more aggresive because saying things that might be true but are irrelevant to the talk is just rude. Or thet say - Hemoglobine is a part of breathing, and not breathing in stand alone. Yes the essential part in it - so it could not be without most of the case. Such a behaviour makes no sense but to derail your opponents by dirty tricks and to make him angry. Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category - They use it allllll the time they lose the argument. They laugh out of God. I could be as well an atheist denying evolution- it would not change anything. It is dirty and foul trick. Make Him Exaggerate His Statement - like - you deny all science.... Ofcourse noone can deny irrefutable statements if they are irrefutable - thats so dirty and foul what they do... Draw Conclusions Yourself - You see - they say? You do not know science - they say. And do not describe why you draw that conclusion. Those conclusions are not based on the dialogue it is just foul.... Just a trickery of language of applying to audience to slander people. You cannot argue with conclusion being your argument it is just a foul trickery language. Or they say - it is not a circular logic - and does not argue why had he concluded that. That was his conclusion - it is not the conclusion of out the definition of the word or his reasoning behind it. While if one is dependant on each other to prove itself is a circular logic - he should have explain one can stand alone and would still be true. Arguments Ad Hominem - self explanatory Will is More Effective Than Insight - describtion of it: "There is another trick which, as soon as it is practicable, makes all others unnecessary. Instead of working on your opponent's intellect by argument, work on his will by motive; and he, and also the audience if they have similar interests, will at once be won over to your opinion, even though you got it out of a lunatic asylum; for, as a general rule, half an ounce of will is more effective than a hundred-weight of insight and intelligence." It is like they read their manual and apply it... They say you just want this that or other thing. You just want this or that is why you do not agree with me. What? How do you know what do I want? Those snakey people know people will to be in the winning club. So they appeal to their emotions saying - everyone thinks like we do... That is just satanic you know? Claim Victory Despite Defeat - Not just dirty and foul. It is weird thing to do as well. Those are their favourite. get rekt. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
