>>>2) Why does there need to be any analysis at all on what the guy with AJ >>>is doing in this hand?
>>>The point behind #2 is that Beldin's range is polarized here. He is >>>either folding AK, or calling with something that beats AJ. Sitting in >>>Beldin's spot there should be literally no thought involved before >>>clicking the call button. It simply doesn't matter what his opponent has >>>in this spot, because his AA is never going to be behind to this action.
>> Obviously, the guy with AJ doesn't understand poker strategy. That >> doesn't make him a shithead or a retard. It just makes him one of >> many players who play poker and don't know strategy. Yet Beldin >> feels the need to constantly post hands like this while proclaiming >> his opponent to be a moron or some equivalent pejorative. Which is >> consistent with the way he posts on other topics. I believe that's >> the point.
> "XaQ Morphy" <a1c5...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message > news:0qu8i7x1a3.ln2@recgroups.com... >> On Jul 29 2010 8:45 AM, Jerry Sturdivant wrote:
>>> I was addressing a couple of hands. But not the hands themselves; but >>> the >>> analysis (or lack there of).
>> You said that you thought Beldin lost this hand.
> No, I did not. The hand, and it's outcome, speaks for itself.
>> When people
> What "people?"
>>tried to pin you down on it you started with this bluff angle thing.
> No, again, (and I'll point out that you don't quote, what isn't there). It > was about play analysis, including bluffing.
>> All I'm trying to do is figure out two things:
> At least you're addressing that you didn't understand it.
>> 1) How did Beldin lose this hand?
> The outcome of the hands were obvious in their original postings.
>> 2) Why does there need to be any analysis at all on what the guy with AJ >> is doing in this hand?
> Because he does not take bluffing or player's previous play into > consideration when posting his hands. How many time do I have to state > this before you understand it?
>> The point behind #2 is that Beldin's range is polarized here. He is >> either folding AK, or calling with something that beats AJ. Sitting in >> Beldin's spot there should be literally no thought involved before >> clicking the call button. It simply doesn't matter what his opponent has >> in this spot, because his AA is never going to be behind to this action.
>>> You STILL don't understand what that means? (I believe you'll have to >>> join >>> Bel-Dim).
>> I don't understand how it applies to this particular thread.
> Because the thread was him, again, posting a hand with the only analysis > being his subject line: "First shithead; Second shithead; Third shithead."
Retard (And you are one) The hands test people's abilities to determine if someone is an idiot for playing that way.
There have been times when someone makes an obvious idiot play, and some reader who's around as stupid as you are defends the play.
Hell, retard, in your scramble to cover your failed memory, you pretended to defend the play Pointing out a hand where someone plays badly and seeing what people say is highly educational.
>>>>>>> > When all those posters keep telling you how stupid you are; you >>>>>>> > might just >>>>>>> > 'interpret' it as a sign you're stupid.
>>>>>>> Hey, kettle, this is Jerry. You're black.
>>>>>> why introduce race here?
>>>>> It's just another dodge from my showing them how stupid they are. Not >>>>> a one will admit I was right about them dodging how hands are >>>>> analyzed. They even admit that how a player played previous hands >>>>> (aggressive, passive) and bluffing, are not to be taken into >>>>> consideration on hand analysis. You go strictly by percentages and >>>>> odds. Bel-Dum simply post hands with the "Subject" analysis of >>>>> Shithead; or Another Shithead. He obviously has no clue as to why a >>>>> player played the way they did. The very thought that a player might >>>>> shove because they think he's bluffing; or that a player may shove as >>>>> a bluff, is WAY over Bel-Dum's pointed little head.
>>>>> You'd think they'd have at least watched a TV poker show or two. One >>>>> of the best hand analyzers is Gabe Kaplan. He'll reference a player's >>>>> proclivity of playing any two cards; or how a player bluffs; or reads >>>>> that others are bluffing.
>>>> Shithead (and you are one)
>>> See? What did I tell you? A typical Bel-Dum analysis ...........
>> Of course. >> Spotting you're a shithead is easy. >> I go on to explain WHY you're a shithead, so maybe you could save >> yourself >> YOU, being a cranial rectal masturbater, ....
> As I predicted; you'd dodge; then rant with your usual homoerotic > references. Come out of the closet, then go away; butt boy.
Jerry, you fuck nut, there's no dodge there at all.
I'm snipping the rest because if you're going to take 3-4 words of mine out of context each line and reply to it, I'm not even gonna bother reading it.
--- Morphy xaqmor...@donkeymanifesto.com http://www.donkeymanifesto.com -If I never left, does that mean that I'm back now, or have I always been here?
_______________________________________________________________________ * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
> >>> Secondly, so what? The guy obviously doesn't know much about poker > >>> strategy. Is that in any way noteworthy? No. There are lots of > >>> players like that, especiially at the low stakes. So, what's the > >>> point of posting an endless stream of these hands whille constantly > >>> berating the novice players?
> >>Do you think that guy hangs out in rgp?
> >>If not, how am I berating him?
> >>I'm showing how people with limited knowledge will make highly self > >>destructive plays
> > In doing so, you're not exactly providing any new information.
> And yet there are people who don't believe it.
> But here's a thought. Are there people in this group who MIGHT play AK the > way I did there with AA? > If so, would they fold to AJ's shove?
I would probably make the same raise you did there with AA, AK, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, or 99, and I wouldn't be folding on the flop to any shove as I feel that any hand in my same range would reraise shove over my raise.
> By showing the hand this way, does it make it more or less obvious that it's > not a good idea to reraise the amount I did with AK against some of these > whackjobs? That it's better to flat or just shove, so some nut can't stop > and go?
> As I did mention, if the stacks are much deeper, you can reraise smaller > with AK, assuming you also do it with AA and KK, so that you still turn the > shove on any flop into a losing play for the other guy, long term
--- RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
> On Jul 30 2010 4:14 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> "Pepe Papon" <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message >> news:8fk45652qpatpchrn2koojskrhsq1l1h43@4ax.com... >> > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 06:57:40 -0400, "Beldin the Sorcerer" >> > <Beldin...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >>> Secondly, so what? The guy obviously doesn't know much about poker >> >>> strategy. Is that in any way noteworthy? No. There are lots of >> >>> players like that, especiially at the low stakes. So, what's the >> >>> point of posting an endless stream of these hands whille constantly >> >>> berating the novice players?
>> >>Do you think that guy hangs out in rgp?
>> >>If not, how am I berating him?
>> >>I'm showing how people with limited knowledge will make highly self >> >>destructive plays
>> > In doing so, you're not exactly providing any new information.
>> And yet there are people who don't believe it.
>> But here's a thought. Are there people in this group who MIGHT play AK >> the >> way I did there with AA? >> If so, would they fold to AJ's shove?
> I would probably make the same raise you did there with AA, AK, KK, QQ, > JJ, TT, or 99, and I wouldn't be folding on the flop to any shove as I > feel that any hand in my same range would reraise shove over my raise.
Here's the problem with AK
There's a lot of people who'd call with any pair and push on any non-ace flop
Leaving the guy with AQ or KQ suited who spiked on you out of the mix, you're a 3-1 dog and priced out.
Some of them call, then check fold any ace flop And shove the rest of the time
>> By showing the hand this way, does it make it more or less obvious that >> it's >> not a good idea to reraise the amount I did with AK against some of these >> whackjobs? That it's better to flat or just shove, so some nut can't stop >> and go?
>> As I did mention, if the stacks are much deeper, you can reraise smaller >> with AK, assuming you also do it with AA and KK, so that you still turn >> the >> shove on any flop into a losing play for the other guy, long term
> --- > RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
>> "XaQ Morphy" <a1c5...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message >> news:0qu8i7x1a3.ln2@recgroups.com... >>> On Jul 29 2010 8:45 AM, Jerry Sturdivant wrote:
>>>> I was addressing a couple of hands. But not the hands themselves; but >>>> the >>>> analysis (or lack there of).
>>> You said that you thought Beldin lost this hand.
>> No, I did not. The hand, and it's outcome, speaks for itself.
>>> When people
>> What "people?"
>>>tried to pin you down on it you started with this bluff angle thing.
>> No, again, (and I'll point out that you don't quote, what isn't there). >> It was about play analysis, including bluffing.
>>> All I'm trying to do is figure out two things:
>> At least you're addressing that you didn't understand it.
>>> 1) How did Beldin lose this hand?
>> The outcome of the hands were obvious in their original postings.
>>> 2) Why does there need to be any analysis at all on what the guy with AJ >>> is doing in this hand?
>> Because he does not take bluffing or player's previous play into >> consideration when posting his hands. How many time do I have to state >> this before you understand it?
>>> The point behind #2 is that Beldin's range is polarized here. He is >>> either folding AK, or calling with something that beats AJ. Sitting in >>> Beldin's spot there should be literally no thought involved before >>> clicking the call button. It simply doesn't matter what his opponent >>> has >>> in this spot, because his AA is never going to be behind to this action.
>>>> You STILL don't understand what that means? (I believe you'll have to >>>> join >>>> Bel-Dim).
>>> I don't understand how it applies to this particular thread.
>> Because the thread was him, again, posting a hand with the only analysis >> being his subject line: "First shithead; Second shithead; Third >> shithead." > Retard (And you are one) > The hands test people's abilities to determine if someone is an idiot for > playing that way.
You still refuse to admit that bluffing and players tendencies play a part. And I'm not the only one to point this out.
> There have been times when someone makes an obvious idiot play, and some > reader who's around as stupid as you are defends the play.
> Hell, retard, in your scramble to cover your failed memory, you pretended > to defend the play > Pointing out a hand where someone plays badly and seeing what people say > is highly educational.
> out of context each line and reply to it, I'm not even gonna bother > reading it.
> --- > Morphy > xaqmor...@donkeymanifesto.com > http://www.donkeymanifesto.com > -If I never left, does that mean that I'm back now, or have I always been > here?
> _______________________________________________________________________ > * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
>>>>2) Why does there need to be any analysis at all on what the guy with AJ >>>>is doing in this hand?
>>>>The point behind #2 is that Beldin's range is polarized here. He is >>>>either folding AK, or calling with something that beats AJ. Sitting in >>>>Beldin's spot there should be literally no thought involved before >>>>clicking the call button. It simply doesn't matter what his opponent >>>>has >>>>in this spot, because his AA is never going to be behind to this action.
>>> Obviously, the guy with AJ doesn't understand poker strategy. That >>> doesn't make him a shithead or a retard. It just makes him one of >>> many players who play poker and don't know strategy. Yet Beldin >>> feels the need to constantly post hands like this while proclaiming >>> his opponent to be a moron or some equivalent pejorative. Which is >>> consistent with the way he posts on other topics. I believe that's >>> the point.
>> Two people in a row understand!
> No. > Two people in a row are idiots
> You and Seth
While Bel-Dim admits he's one that didn't understand; and still doesn't.
Beldin won the hand. You said he lost. You're wrong. Now fuck off you stupid old bastard.
--- Morphy xaqmor...@donkeymanifesto.com http://www.donkeymanifesto.com -If I never left, does that mean that I'm back now, or have I always been here?
---- RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
>>>>>2) Why does there need to be any analysis at all on what the guy with >>>>>AJ >>>>>is doing in this hand?
>>>>>The point behind #2 is that Beldin's range is polarized here. He is >>>>>either folding AK, or calling with something that beats AJ. Sitting in >>>>>Beldin's spot there should be literally no thought involved before >>>>>clicking the call button. It simply doesn't matter what his opponent >>>>>has >>>>>in this spot, because his AA is never going to be behind to this >>>>>action.
>>>> Obviously, the guy with AJ doesn't understand poker strategy. That >>>> doesn't make him a shithead or a retard. It just makes him one of >>>> many players who play poker and don't know strategy. Yet Beldin >>>> feels the need to constantly post hands like this while proclaiming >>>> his opponent to be a moron or some equivalent pejorative. Which is >>>> consistent with the way he posts on other topics. I believe that's >>>> the point.
>>> Two people in a row understand!
>> No. >> Two people in a row are idiots
>> You and Seth
> While Bel-Dim admits he's one that didn't understand; and still doesn't.
Jerry, you're the idiot who doesn't understand You're beyond pathetic
>>> "XaQ Morphy" <a1c5...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:0qu8i7x1a3.ln2@recgroups.com... >>>> On Jul 29 2010 8:45 AM, Jerry Sturdivant wrote:
>>>>> I was addressing a couple of hands. But not the hands themselves; but >>>>> the >>>>> analysis (or lack there of).
>>>> You said that you thought Beldin lost this hand.
>>> No, I did not. The hand, and it's outcome, speaks for itself.
>>>> When people
>>> What "people?"
>>>>tried to pin you down on it you started with this bluff angle thing.
>>> No, again, (and I'll point out that you don't quote, what isn't there). >>> It was about play analysis, including bluffing.
>>>> All I'm trying to do is figure out two things:
>>> At least you're addressing that you didn't understand it.
>>>> 1) How did Beldin lose this hand?
>>> The outcome of the hands were obvious in their original postings.
>>>> 2) Why does there need to be any analysis at all on what the guy with >>>> AJ >>>> is doing in this hand?
>>> Because he does not take bluffing or player's previous play into >>> consideration when posting his hands. How many time do I have to state >>> this before you understand it?
>>>> The point behind #2 is that Beldin's range is polarized here. He is >>>> either folding AK, or calling with something that beats AJ. Sitting in >>>> Beldin's spot there should be literally no thought involved before >>>> clicking the call button. It simply doesn't matter what his opponent >>>> has >>>> in this spot, because his AA is never going to be behind to this >>>> action.
>>>>> You STILL don't understand what that means? (I believe you'll have to >>>>> join >>>>> Bel-Dim).
>>>> I don't understand how it applies to this particular thread.
>>> Because the thread was him, again, posting a hand with the only analysis >>> being his subject line: "First shithead; Second shithead; Third >>> shithead."
>> Retard (And you are one) >> The hands test people's abilities to determine if someone is an idiot for >> playing that way.
> You still refuse to admit that bluffing and players tendencies play a > part. And I'm not the only one to point this out.
No, shithead. You're wrong as usual. The player in question is a shithead for bluffing there. He has no fold equity. Therefore, you shithead, only someone as idiotic as you will bluff there (and thus deservedly be called a shithead)
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 08:31:11 -0700, "Jerry Sturdivant"
<jerr...@cox.net> wrote: >>>> Obviously, the guy with AJ doesn't understand poker strategy. That >>>> doesn't make him a shithead or a retard. It just makes him one of >>>> many players who play poker and don't know strategy. Yet Beldin >>>> feels the need to constantly post hands like this while proclaiming >>>> his opponent to be a moron or some equivalent pejorative. Which is >>>> consistent with the way he posts on other topics. I believe that's >>>> the point.
>>> Two people in a row understand!
>> No. >> Two people in a row are idiots
>> You and Seth
Oh, really? There was nothing in my post that was incorrect much less idiotic. -- ~ Seth Jackson
>>>>> Obviously, the guy with AJ doesn't understand poker strategy. That >>>>> doesn't make him a shithead or a retard. It just makes him one of >>>>> many players who play poker and don't know strategy. Yet Beldin >>>>> feels the need to constantly post hands like this while proclaiming >>>>> his opponent to be a moron or some equivalent pejorative. Which is >>>>> consistent with the way he posts on other topics. I believe that's >>>>> the point.
>>>> Two people in a row understand!
>>> No. >>> Two people in a row are idiots
>>> You and Seth
> Oh, really? There was nothing in my post that was incorrect much less > idiotic.
Yes, there was.
Stating he's a moron isn't a compulsion, it's a statement of fact. It leads to thought because there are some people who would play the hand that way themselves, or don't understand why it's a stupid play. Look at Jerry right now, or Dutch more than some of the time.
When it's a more borderline situation, a lot more debate gets posted about what the 'right' play actually should have been.
Politely posting a hand and asking for discussion doesn't tend to get people fully engaged.
Saying someone was an idiot will get people who disagree to invest time in the discussion.
They may not have enough knowledge to do it meaningfully, but they'll reveal something about people who would play a hand that way
>>>>>> Obviously, the guy with AJ doesn't understand poker strategy. That >>>>>> doesn't make him a shithead or a retard. It just makes him one of >>>>>> many players who play poker and don't know strategy. Yet Beldin >>>>>> feels the need to constantly post hands like this while proclaiming >>>>>> his opponent to be a moron or some equivalent pejorative. Which is >>>>>> consistent with the way he posts on other topics. I believe that's >>>>>> the point.
>>>>> Two people in a row understand! >>>> No. >>>> Two people in a row are idiots
>>>> You and Seth >> Oh, really? There was nothing in my post that was incorrect >> much less idiotic. > Yes, there was.
> Stating he's a moron isn't a compulsion, it's a statement of fact.
Wow! What a (typical dodge) argument.
> It leads to thought because there are some people who would play > the hand that way themselves, or don't understand why it's a stupid > play.
You still haven't answered his statement.
> Look at Jerry right now, or Dutch more than some of the time.
You still haven't answered his statement.
> When it's a more borderline situation, a lot more debate gets posted > about what the 'right' play actually should have been.
You still haven't answered his statement.
> Politely posting a hand and asking for discussion doesn't > tend to get people fully engaged.
How the fuck you would know? You consider polite as, "Second shithead." And you still haven't answered his statement.
> Saying someone was an idiot will get people who > disagree to invest time in the discussion.
You still haven't answered his statement, much less investing any of your own time discussing (other than bitching that he must be a Shithead) the many hands you post.
> They may not have enough knowledge to do it meaningfully, but they'll > reveal something about people who would play a hand that way.
And that's it. You still haven't answered his statement. Or the repeated statement of those that bitch about you simply posting some "shithead" hand you refuse to discuss. Or the fact you refuse to even consider the previous player play or bluffing.
There we have it: "Two people in a row understand you're an idiot" and you're unable to defend yourself.
>> "Pepe Papon" <hitmeis...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message >> news:vg4a56l82r5e8gl8u02h4bguo367qospej@4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 08:31:11 -0700, "Jerry Sturdivant" >>> <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Obviously, the guy with AJ doesn't understand poker strategy. That >>>>>>> doesn't make him a shithead or a retard. It just makes him one of >>>>>>> many players who play poker and don't know strategy. Yet Beldin >>>>>>> feels the need to constantly post hands like this while proclaiming >>>>>>> his opponent to be a moron or some equivalent pejorative. Which is >>>>>>> consistent with the way he posts on other topics. I believe that's >>>>>>> the point.
>>>>>> Two people in a row understand!
>>>>> No. >>>>> Two people in a row are idiots
>>>>> You and Seth
>>> Oh, really? There was nothing in my post that was incorrect >>> much less idiotic.
>> Yes, there was.
>> Stating he's a moron isn't a compulsion, it's a statement of fact.
> Wow! What a (typical dodge) argument.
No, just a correction.
>> It leads to thought because there are some people who would play >> the hand that way themselves, or don't understand why it's a stupid >> play.
> You still haven't answered his statement.
You answer statements?
I generally don't. I often answer questions. I correct misstatements.
>> Look at Jerry right now, or Dutch more than some of the time.
> You still haven't answered his statement.
See above, idiot boy
>> When it's a more borderline situation, a lot more debate gets posted >> about what the 'right' play actually should have been.
> You still haven't answered his statement.
Jerry, how retarded are you? Have you learned what fold equity is yet?
>> Politely posting a hand and asking for discussion doesn't >> tend to get people fully engaged.
> How the fuck you would know? You consider polite as, "Second shithead." > And you still haven't answered his statement.
Jerry, how long you had your head up your ass?
Read this group. Pay attention to the responses to polite hand history comments
>> Saying someone was an idiot will get people who >> disagree to invest time in the discussion.
> You still haven't answered his statement, much less investing any of your > own time discussing (other than bitching that he must be a Shithead) the > many hands you post.
Jerry, how does one answer a statement?
You can answer a question. You can correct a misstatement
How do you answer a statement?
>> They may not have enough knowledge to do it meaningfully, but they'll >> reveal something about people who would play a hand that way.
> And that's it. You still haven't answered his statement. Or the repeated > statement of those that bitch about you simply posting some "shithead" > hand you refuse to discuss. Or the fact you refuse to even consider the > previous player play or bluffing.
Jerry, must you prove yourself a hopeless retard all the time?
Someone who bluffs with zero fold equity is an idiot
>>> "Pepe Papon" <hitmeis...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:vg4a56l82r5e8gl8u02h4bguo367qospej@4ax.com... >>>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 08:31:11 -0700, "Jerry Sturdivant" >>>> <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Obviously, the guy with AJ doesn't understand poker strategy. >>>>>>>> That >>>>>>>> doesn't make him a shithead or a retard. It just makes him one of >>>>>>>> many players who play poker and don't know strategy. Yet Beldin >>>>>>>> feels the need to constantly post hands like this while proclaiming >>>>>>>> his opponent to be a moron or some equivalent pejorative. Which >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> consistent with the way he posts on other topics. I believe >>>>>>>> that's >>>>>>>> the point.
>>>>>>> Two people in a row understand!
>>>>>> No. >>>>>> Two people in a row are idiots
>>>>>> You and Seth
>>>> Oh, really? There was nothing in my post that was incorrect >>>> much less idiotic.
>>> Yes, there was.
>>> Stating he's a moron isn't a compulsion, it's a statement of fact.
>> Wow! What a (typical dodge) argument. > No, just a correction. >>> It leads to thought because there are some people who would play >>> the hand that way themselves, or don't understand why it's a stupid >>> play. >> You still haven't answered his statement. > You answer statements?
> I generally don't. > I often answer questions. I correct misstatements. >>> Look at Jerry right now, or Dutch more than some of the time. >> You still haven't answered his statement. > See above, idiot boy
Where you say you don't? Where you say you only make corrections? Where you say you generally don't?
You're trying to fight a battle of wits and you're unarmed, kid. Like we've all been telling you, you've got to learn to lose.
>>>> "Pepe Papon" <hitmeis...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message >>>> news:vg4a56l82r5e8gl8u02h4bguo367qospej@4ax.com... >>>>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 08:31:11 -0700, "Jerry Sturdivant" >>>>> <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Obviously, the guy with AJ doesn't understand poker strategy. That >>>>>>>>> doesn't make him a shithead or a retard. It just makes him one of >>>>>>>>> many players who play poker and don't know strategy. Yet Beldin >>>>>>>>> feels the need to constantly post hands like this while >>>>>>>>> proclaiming >>>>>>>>> his opponent to be a moron or some equivalent pejorative. Which >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> consistent with the way he posts on other topics. I believe >>>>>>>>> that's >>>>>>>>> the point.
>>>>>>>> Two people in a row understand!
>>>>>>> No. >>>>>>> Two people in a row are idiots
>>>>>>> You and Seth
>>>>> Oh, really? There was nothing in my post that was incorrect >>>>> much less idiotic.
>>>> Yes, there was.
>>>> Stating he's a moron isn't a compulsion, it's a statement of fact.
>>> Wow! What a (typical dodge) argument.
>> No, just a correction.
>>>> It leads to thought because there are some people who would play >>>> the hand that way themselves, or don't understand why it's a stupid >>>> play.
>>> You still haven't answered his statement.
>> You answer statements?
>> I generally don't. >> I often answer questions. I correct misstatements.
>>>> Look at Jerry right now, or Dutch more than some of the time.
>>> You still haven't answered his statement.
>> See above, idiot boy
> Where you say you don't? Where you say you only make corrections? Where > you say you generally don't?
> You're trying to fight a battle of wits and you're unarmed, kid. Like > we've all been telling you, you've got to learn to lose.
Jerry, you piece of shit, you got your ass handed to you so many times, your cheeks hand a hand permanently pressed into them
>> And *you* by comparison to him and to the "second shithead" therefore are >> smart, and so on..
> No, I'm just "Not dumb"
> It's a wide spectrum, Dutch
> I happen to BE smart, but figuring out that he's a shithead doesn't > require me to be so.
Remind me again why anyone should care that you have spotted yet another of the hundreds of thousands of weak poker players everyone here sees every day?
>>> And *you* by comparison to him and to the "second shithead" therefore >>> are smart, and so on..
>> No, I'm just "Not dumb"
>> It's a wide spectrum, Dutch
>> I happen to BE smart, but figuring out that he's a shithead doesn't >> require me to be so.
> Remind me again why anyone should care that you have spotted yet another > of the hundreds of thousands of weak poker players everyone here sees > every day?
>>>> And *you* by comparison to him and to the "second shithead" therefore >>>> are smart, and so on..
>>> No, I'm just "Not dumb"
>>> It's a wide spectrum, Dutch
>>> I happen to BE smart, but figuring out that he's a shithead doesn't >>> require me to be so.
>> Remind me again why anyone should care that you have spotted yet another >> of the hundreds of thousands of weak poker players everyone here sees >> every day? > Because some idiots (Jerry) defend his play
I love joining the others in catching Bel-Dim in yet, another, lie.
So show us where I defended his play.
(Stand by for more knee-jerking, homoerotic, back-tracking by our resident fool).
> >>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message > >>>news:i3242d$j1s$1@news.eternal-september.org... > >>>> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net> wrote > > >>>>> You're just far too dumb to get it
> >>>> And *you* by comparison to him and to the "second shithead" therefore > >>>> are smart, and so on..
> >>> No, I'm just "Not dumb"
> >>> It's a wide spectrum, Dutch
> >>> I happen to BE smart, but figuring out that he's a shithead doesn't > >>> require me to be so.
> >> Remind me again why anyone should care that you have spotted yet another > >> of the hundreds of thousands of weak poker players everyone here sees > >> every day? > > Because some idiots (Jerry) defend his play
> I love joining the others in catching Bel-Dim in yet, another, lie.
> So show us where I defended his play.
> (Stand by for more knee-jerking, > homoerotic, back-tracking by our > resident fool).
|
