OT: [censored] thread, Feb, READ RULES IN TOP POST - Page 67

Finnisher · #**661** 02-14-2007, 01:50 PM

Ship new computer! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Green Kool Aid · #**662** 02-14-2007, 01:50 PM

waking up for class, realizing it was cancelled, and then getting more sleep is the best.

Eagles · #**663** 02-14-2007, 02:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
waking up for class, realizing it was cancelled, and then getting more sleep is the best.

[/ QUOTE ]
Die

Daleroxxu · #**664** 02-14-2007, 02:41 PM

i tilt so bad [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

I must hate money or something.

Daleroxxu · #**665** 02-14-2007, 02:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i tilt so bad [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

I must hate money or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

someone stop me from being this horrible....

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t200 (5 handed) pokerhand.org hand converter

UTG (t4445)
MP (t610)
Hero (t2640)
SB (t1615)
BB (t4190)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].
2 folds, Hero raises to t2615, SB calls t1490 (All-In), 1 fold.

Flop: (t4205) J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 players, 1 all-in)

Turn: (t4205) 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 players, 1 all-in)

River: (t4205) 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 players, 1 all-in)

Final Pot: t4205

Results in white below: 
Hero has 2s 7h (one pair, twos).
SB has Ac Ts (high card, ace).
Outcome: Hero wins t4205.

Green Kool Aid · #**666** 02-14-2007, 03:14 PM

Thought villain had A4 or the same hand or two pair or 45....but WTF

Gotta love the donks.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (6 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

SB ($130.65)
Hero ($120.15)
UTG ($98)
MP ($61.55)
CO ($88.35)
Button ($74.05)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].
2 folds, CO calls $1, Button calls $1, SB completes, Hero checks.

Flop: ($4) 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (4 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $3, CO folds, Button raises to $6, SB folds, Hero raises to $16, Button raises to $26, Hero raises to $132.15, Button calls $47.05 (All-In).

Turn: ($209.20) 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players, 1 all-in)

River: ($209.20) Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 players, 1 all-in)

Final Pot: $209.20

Results in white below: 
Hero has 4d 6h (straight, seven high).
Button has Jh Th (high card, queen).
Outcome: Hero wins $209.20.

Kibby · #**667** 02-14-2007, 03:35 PM

BigT-

While I have a feeling our politics might be seriously in conflict, I find your thesis fascinating. Its an area that I have devoted a lot of thought and study to.

I've never read the corporation, but I'm sure I can predict the gist of it. Here's an idea might enjoy incorporating into your thoughts on the subject. Try considering laws as commodities that can be purchased through expenditure of either 1) social capital (people's time and energy- protesting, church talk, pamphleteering, etc....) or 2) money (buying off politicians, lobbying, etc...). If one can accept this premise, an interesting effect can be observed. Those corporation that have laws affecting their profitability would be legally required to try and change those laws affecting their profitability if the necessary influence was cheap enough (drug, oil, tobacco. . .). Those making the most can then most effectively alter the legal landscape and, as time progresses, the legal landscape would continual change to benefit those who are most able to afford it.

Now one might say that with corporations competing with each other wouldn't their influence counteract each other? You would be right. Laws benefiting certain sectors would come and go as power comes and goes. The important thing to keep in mind is that the laws that govern corporations in general though would continually become slanted in the corporate benefit. This creates an impressive funneling effect of money to corporations, and by extension the wealthiest members of society that own them by proxy, that I would claim we have observed throughout the twentieth century.

The cornerstone of the socially accepted human behavior that governs this effect can be summed up in one phrase, 'A fiduciary responsibility to the stakeholder.'

Anyways, if you've read this far, kudos to you.

outie,
Kibby

[ QUOTE ]
yeh this is actually what i'm basing my 'theses' around; i use the word loosely because this is more of a report and less of a position paper.

what im essentially going to get at is that the book itself is somewhat paradoxical. on one hand, it's really a piece of [censored], however, i think it's so bad because it so over the top and does a very poor job of intelligently articulating it's points. unfortunately, a less eccentric and more theoretical book would not be nearly as appealing to the public. this is so important because the book itself actually will probably do quite a good job at inspiring the type of reform that we DO need. imo (i should use that acronym in my paper), government regulation is currently sufficient if it is properly supplemented by societal pressure which inherently increases the value of firms to be socially and environmentally responsible as the more people react to these issues the more it will impact their bottom line. this book will actually increase general awareness about these issues and contribute to fueling the societal pressure i mentioned above. it will, however, only do this to an extent. i don't imagine many people will fully buy into the author's opinion because it is basically a communist manifesto, however, i think these people will meet the author somewhere in the middle, which is actually what we really need.

in light of that, i dont know, maybe he's a genius, but more than likely he's just some shmuck trying to make a ton of money from a corporation. i think the fact that this book made him a fortune is absolutely amazing. im sure he donated it to social reform.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Yugoslavian · #**668** 02-14-2007, 03:42 PM

Okay, everyone remember how I said we needed to clean up the thread from suzzer whining? Well now he just sends me IMs...so can we let him whine in the thread again?

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

lol

Yugoslav

bigt439 · #**669** 02-14-2007, 03:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
BigT-

While I have a feeling our politics might be seriously in conflict, I find your thesis fascinating. Its an area that I have devoted a lot of thought and study to.

I've never read the corporation, but I'm sure I can predict the gist of it. Here's an idea might enjoy incorporating into your thoughts on the subject. Try considering laws as commodities that can be purchased through expenditure of either 1) social capital (people's time and energy- protesting, church talk, pamphleteering, etc....) or 2) money (buying off politicians, lobbying, etc...). If one can accept this premise, an interesting effect can be observed. Those corporation that have laws affecting their profitability would be legally required to try and change those laws affecting their profitability if the necessary influence was cheap enough (drug, oil, tobacco. . .). Those making the most can then most effectively alter the legal landscape and, as time progresses, the legal landscape would continual change to benefit those who are most able to afford it.

Now one might say that with corporations competing with each other wouldn't their influence counteract each other? You would be right. Laws benefiting certain sectors would come and go as power comes and goes. The important thing to keep in mind is that the laws that govern corporations in general though would continually become slanted in the corporate benefit. This creates an impressive funneling effect of money to corporations, and by extension the wealthiest members of society that own them by proxy, that I would claim we have observed throughout the twentieth century.

The cornerstone of the socially accepted human behavior that governs this effect can be summed up in one phrase, 'A fiduciary responsibility to the stakeholder.'

Anyways, if you've read this far, kudos to you.

outie,
Kibby

[ QUOTE ]
yeh this is actually what i'm basing my 'theses' around; i use the word loosely because this is more of a report and less of a position paper.

what im essentially going to get at is that the book itself is somewhat paradoxical. on one hand, it's really a piece of [censored], however, i think it's so bad because it so over the top and does a very poor job of intelligently articulating it's points. unfortunately, a less eccentric and more theoretical book would not be nearly as appealing to the public. this is so important because the book itself actually will probably do quite a good job at inspiring the type of reform that we DO need. imo (i should use that acronym in my paper), government regulation is currently sufficient if it is properly supplemented by societal pressure which inherently increases the value of firms to be socially and environmentally responsible as the more people react to these issues the more it will impact their bottom line. this book will actually increase general awareness about these issues and contribute to fueling the societal pressure i mentioned above. it will, however, only do this to an extent. i don't imagine many people will fully buy into the author's opinion because it is basically a communist manifesto, however, i think these people will meet the author somewhere in the middle, which is actually what we really need.

in light of that, i dont know, maybe he's a genius, but more than likely he's just some shmuck trying to make a ton of money from a corporation. i think the fact that this book made him a fortune is absolutely amazing. im sure he donated it to social reform.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

i think what you are saying is very interesting and valid, and that is indeed one of the cornerstone arguments from 'the corporation'. i think that you and the author are completely correct in making the above arguments and i think it is very difficult to argue against them. this is the part of the book i enjoyed and is perhaps why im so dissapointed at the premises the author then went on to use to try and prove this perfectly reasonable conclusion.

if you're interested, pm me and ill send you my report when its finished sometime tomorrow.

Misfire · #**670** 02-14-2007, 04:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The cornerstone of the socially accepted human behavior that governs this effect can be summed up in one phrase, 'A fiduciary responsibility to the stakeholder.'

[/ QUOTE ]

If not to their backers, to whom should their fiduciary responsibility be?

View Poll Results: Choose wisely
Pozzed	8	25.00%
Pwned	24	75.00%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll