|
|
#621
04-10-2006, 08:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why does LRR indicates bots?
Sorry, guess I should have been a little more WWE with my responses. I'll make a note for next time.
The issue is old however and I'm dropping it for now. 
|
|
#622
04-10-2006, 08:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why does LRR indicates bots?
[ QUOTE ]
You are an idiot. I played with a bot that I and another player were tracking over a 24 hour period. The player was a bot. That is not bs. It is not an opinion. I think you are confusing yourself because you think that someone stating a fact means you can't question the veracity of said fact. [/ QUOTE ] Your story seems to be changing, or is it evolving? First you claim to state as fact you played with a "confirmed bot" for two days. Now you say 24 hours. Next you say it was you and your friend who confirmed it was a bot as if now it is a undisputable fact. Well, sorry, but to have something confirmed, it usually means by a well respected third party. You can't make an opinion of speculation on something then state that you confirmed it with no solid facts to back it up, other than your opinions and speculation. I confirm what I said is totally correct.
|
|
#623
04-10-2006, 08:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why does LRR indicates bots?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You are an idiot. I played with a bot that I and another player were tracking over a 24 hour period. The player was a bot. That is not bs. It is not an opinion. I think you are confusing yourself because you think that someone stating a fact means you can't question the veracity of said fact. [/ QUOTE ] Your story seems to be changing, or is it evolving? First you claim to state as fact you played with a "confirmed bot" for two days. Now you say 24 hours. Next you say it was you and your friend who confirmed it was a bot as if now it is a undisputable fact. Well, sorry, but to have something confirmed, it usually means by a well respected third party. You can't make an opinion of speculation on something then state that you confirmed it with no solid facts to back it up, other than your opinions and speculation. I confirm what I said is totally correct. [/ QUOTE ] SE, we're in this together. This guy is a nut and no one cares what he 'knows' about these 'bots'. he is good for a laugh, however. Wait...you're only in third grade? lololololol
|
|
#624
04-10-2006, 08:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why does LRR indicates bots?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You are an idiot. I played with a bot that I and another player were tracking over a 24 hour period. The player was a bot. That is not bs. It is not an opinion. I think you are confusing yourself because you think that someone stating a fact means you can't question the veracity of said fact. [/ QUOTE ] Your story seems to be changing, or is it evolving? First you claim to state as fact you played with a "confirmed bot" for two days. Now you say 24 hours. [/ QUOTE ] LMAO, I hate to come back to this, but you need to work on your reading comprehension!!!! First off, a 24 hour period is one day. So(this is the clencher) over a 24 hour period is????? you can answer that yourself. Secondly, If I play at 5 oclock pm on monday, and then on tuesday I play at 1 pm. I have played on 2 seperate days, but under 24 hours. TOOL [ QUOTE ] Next you say it was you and your friend who confirmed it was a bot as if now it is a undisputable fact. Well, sorry, but to have something confirmed, it usually means by a well respected third party. You can't make an opinion of speculation on something then state that you confirmed it with no solid facts to back it up, other than your opinions and speculation. I confirm what I said is totally correct. [/ QUOTE ] Again you need to up your comprehension. I have never ever ever said I tracked the bot with my friend. It was another 2p2er who I have never even talked to that had also been tracking the bot. I have never ever ever said anything about undisputable facts. If I had video taped the culprit setting up the bot on his comp and then leaving it to play for 70 hours straight, people would still be able to dispute the issue. Anyways, What facts have I backed this up with? have you even read the thread? did you see what evidence was brought up? Did you read the other threads and evidence there-in? I'm guessing you have no idea. You probably just read one post on the issue and decided to chime-in in complete ignorance. This seems to be something you do alot. "doom switch doom switch!!" Go take your doom switch and shove it up your ass while jacking off with a barb wired glove, beeotch. <font color="white">Is that WWE enough, probably not but I'm working on it. No real offense inteded SE </font>
|
|
#625
04-10-2006, 10:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why does LRR indicates bots?
This thread is hilarious. Keep up the good work, guys. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
|
|
#626
04-10-2006, 10:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why does LRR indicates bots?
You sure talk alot, but you don't really say anything about the issue at hand.
Who the frick gave you ultimate bot confirmation powers? That's the issue you never want to talk about. Just say you 'think' or you 'speculate' it's a bot. But don't say its a "confirmed bot", that was only confirmed by you and some random other player. That means squat. Now reply back with another book sized reply about your 'feelings'.
|
|
#629
04-10-2006, 11:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fine, you other TAGs can have WSEX...
Well, after about 3,000 hands at WSEX I'm convinced the 100% rakeback isn't sufficient to overcome the incredible TAGiness of the site. I'm normally a 10/20 player, but I'm not even breaking even at 3/6 on WSEX. I recognize at least 2-3 people as high post count 2p2ers at every table. It's not uncommon to have it folded all the way around to the BB...twice in a row. Hardly anyone makes loose call downs. Every pot is raised preflop.
Yea, no rake is great, but at the moment it's like 2+2's own personal poker site. One less TAG at WSEX... I'm sure that'll make some folks happy. Definitely better for my win rate to go elsewhere.
|
|
#630
04-10-2006, 11:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fine, you other TAGs can have WSEX...
[ QUOTE ]
Well, after about 3,000 hands at WSEX I'm convinced the 100% rakeback isn't sufficient to overcome the incredible TAGiness of the site. I'm normally a 10/20 player, but I'm not even breaking even at 3/6 on WSEX. I recognize at least 2-3 people as high post count 2p2ers at every table. It's not uncommon to have it folded all the way around to the BB...twice in a row. Hardly anyone makes loose call downs. Every pot is raised preflop. Yea, no rake is great, but at the moment it's like 2+2's own personal poker site. One less TAG at WSEX... I'm sure that'll make some folks happy. Definitely better for my win rate to go elsewhere. [/ QUOTE ] Gee, what a [censored] surprise....and this is why this site will go down in flames.........
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
