[jukofyork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Josem I guess the one thing I'm not understanding is why you even bother trying to go back and forth with clowns like this. There are a handful of people out there who do not understand variance and never will. This thread is a great example. They'll never prove their wild conspiracy theories because there is no evidence out there that can back up their claims, other than single hand histories or a flurry of hands within one day that appear "suspicious". I find it laughable and I'll get into it with them every once in a while, but you seem to be on a mission to battle to the death every single time one of these threads comes along. To each their own, but I'm pretty sure you're talking to a wall.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, with one slight difference: I think a wall might actually listen. These donks don't come here to debate their beliefs; they just come here to whine.

As far as I can see, they NEVER EVER listen to anything anybody has to say other than those with 3 posts who agree with what they are saying... Show me a converted donk and I'll eat my words (other than the guy who had a bugged version of PT which made his hand stats appear biased). IMHO: once a donk, always a donk and no amount of "convincing" will change them...

The whole title of this thread was "Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged", yet we still have to suffer from donks and their unsubstantiated "beliefs" with no actual hard evidence presented...

We need a separate sub-forum for conspiracy theories. That way the donks can all debate with like-minded souls about their riggedness theories, while leaving all us non-believers in peace.

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL @ only a Wall might actually listen, Not only did you listen, you also took the time to form an opinion about the poster and then respond, that would be quite a feat, a wall that can read and type. How tall of a wall are you btw?. lmao.

Its just easier to attack the messenger rather than the message for guys like you.

[/ QUOTE ]
The "message" was just a load of unsubstantiated rubbish though. Show me some kind of carefully reasoned scientific analysis and I might think otherwise. The "I think I saw X because I believe Y" just doesn't cut it in the scientific community.

Your welcome to your own personal beliefs, but if you want to actually <font color="red"><u>PROVE</u></font> something to people who believe in the scientific method, then you need much more than beliefs. The only people likely to be swayed by such unscientific nonsense as are poor dumbos who don't know any better...

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]