"With that witty retort, I clearly see the error of my ways."
I thought you were going your merry way?
And did you ever think I decided after reading your first moronic post that you weren't worth debating with, but were definitely worth telling to fuck off? You think I want to waste my time with someone who lies in their replies by making up quotes and passing them off as mine? You had no foundation from the start, you lied, and you're talking to ME about debate style?
At least I didn't resort to making shit up to argue with like you did. This went the way it did because right from the start you pulled some stupid, lowlife, indefensible shit. Why on earth do you think I'd want to have anything to do with someone like you who does that kind of stuff?
Again, you have no idea what's going on, and seem to think it's my fault.
You should have stopped there. As it is, you didn't so I have to explain why you're an idiot.
"but it's irrelevant"
No, actually, it's very relevant. MOST student loans are Stafford loans. The limit for an undergrad degree for a Stafford loan is $46,000. The loans people mean when they say "student loans" ARE Stafford loans, not plus loans, or Perkins loans, or that stupid Astrive loan, but STAFFORD loans.
The loans people get easily with no qualifications besides being a student are STAFFORD loans, and the loans people piss and moan about being unfair, or unnecessary, or overly burdensome are STAFFORD loans.
So when I talk about Stafford loans, I'm discussing the loans that people haev real problems with.
What you're talking about with student loans is anyones guess, but it sure a fuck isn't the type of loans that people are so vociferously objecting to.
Yes, actually there was. You claimed that we don't have financial muscle because China can threaten to crash our currency. Except, there's no value to a threat that destroys them too, because we know they won't follow through on it, so yes, actually, you were wrong.
"Of course, addressing the actual point instead of snarking off would involve you actually knowing what you're talking about so I didn't really expect that."
You didn't make a point, you were fearmongering because you're ignorant.
And? The Indian Tribes have come out on record, as have the casinos, that they opposed the legislation. They are also currently lobbying to have it repealed. So of course it makes sense that they paid to pass it, then paid again to repeal it...
Again, you= three degrees of pointless conspiracy, me= reality.
"The problem here is that you aren't using 'student loans' the way everyone else in this thread is using them."
No, the problem is that you have shitty reading comprehension. I think i made it pretty clear what I was talking about, and nothing you've said refutes it or disagrees in any way.
"You responded "No one can get deep into dept off government loans"."
No, I didn't say that anywhere, nor anything even remotely approaching that. Stop lying.
"Your point is correct"
That was what your post should have consisted of, and then you woudn't have to deal with looking like a lying imbecile.
"As long as the dispute is between US Govt and US Gambling industry..."
It's not just between the government and the gambling industry.
The banks have become involved because they are concerned the cost of implementing measures to comply with the law would be high and generally not effective.
You completely missed MY point in your rush to share your opinion. Lenovo took a well regarded product and renamed it in a way that destroyed any good will IBM had for their notebooks.
"How would you propose that Lenovo keep the IBM brand?"
License it. And that, among other things, is what I was talking about that you completely missed.
"Further, the OP wasn't just talking about..."
No, but I was so let's stick to what I was talking about specifically, and not points that I didn't address, mmmmk?
"as it was mainly the casinos pushing for this legislation (under the guise of 'gambling is evil!')."
No, the casinos were against this legislation.
It frustrates me that so many of you are getting modded up when all you're doing is spewing the same tired corruption spiel and are completely unaware of reality.
In case you weren't aware, the bill makes interstate gaming illegal for US casinos too.
"I don't see any limits when you move it online. How do you know if you are being cheated? You wouldn't."
As with any computer based endeavor, there would be databases compiled. In the case of gaming, any deviation from statistical norm would be obvious and easily noticed.
This has been covered more time that I can count in numerous "X site is RIGGED!!!!" discussions, and every time it is shot down because it would be much EASIER to notice cheating online.
And if you're cheating, your business is dead.
Lastly, why the fuck would you risk your cash cow for a few extra percentage points of profit, when you have a habit forming product that will eventually bleed your customers dry anyway? (and if you're going to post "GREED!!!" please don't, I'd like intelligent discussion, not whackjobs)
Slashdot Mirror
"With that witty retort, I clearly see the error of my ways."
I thought you were going your merry way?
And did you ever think I decided after reading your first moronic post that you weren't worth debating with, but were definitely worth telling to fuck off? You think I want to waste my time with someone who lies in their replies by making up quotes and passing them off as mine? You had no foundation from the start, you lied, and you're talking to ME about debate style?
At least I didn't resort to making shit up to argue with like you did. This went the way it did because right from the start you pulled some stupid, lowlife, indefensible shit. Why on earth do you think I'd want to have anything to do with someone like you who does that kind of stuff?
Again, you have no idea what's going on, and seem to think it's my fault.
You tell yourself whatever you need to if it makes you feel better.
But you're still wrong.
What redundant? Did someone else tell him his post was hilariously funny?
Are you too stupid to know what redundant means? I guess you are.
Hey mod you're an dumbass.
Wait, "dumbass moderator" see, THAT is redundant.
"We shall go on our merry ways, then, continuing to think the other person's an idiot who can't follow a simple line of reasoning."
I would amend this by saying that one of us is right though, while the other is you.
"The definition of the word forensics is..."
No, that's A definition. Here's another
1 : an argumentative exercise
OP was wrong, and so are you.
"Can slashdot please use not use sensational titles!"
...
H AHAHHAHHAHAHAHA (cough cough).
???
BWAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Thank You. Really, that was awesome.
Um, ok, thanks? You can check his figures you know...
Or you can engage in an incoherent rant that betrays your status as an escaped mental patient...
Hey idiot, you already shared your moronic opinion, and I told you why you should STFU.
Catch the hint, and stop double replying, it makes you look even more desperate and stupid.
"Your point is correct"
You should have stopped there. As it is, you didn't so I have to explain why you're an idiot.
"but it's irrelevant"
No, actually, it's very relevant. MOST student loans are Stafford loans. The limit for an undergrad degree for a Stafford loan is $46,000. The loans people mean when they say "student loans" ARE Stafford loans, not plus loans, or Perkins loans, or that stupid Astrive loan, but STAFFORD loans.
The loans people get easily with no qualifications besides being a student are STAFFORD loans, and the loans people piss and moan about being unfair, or unnecessary, or overly burdensome are STAFFORD loans.
So when I talk about Stafford loans, I'm discussing the loans that people haev real problems with.
What you're talking about with student loans is anyones guess, but it sure a fuck isn't the type of loans that people are so vociferously objecting to.
So fuck off now. And die while you're at it.
Thanks.
"cheers"
Hmm, this makes me suspicious, are you sure you're American?
Guy, you replied twice to the same post because I got you so twisted about being wrong.
That pretty much says it all.
Thanks.
"So, no, there was nothing wrong in what I said."
9 _05.htm
Yes, actually there was. You claimed that we don't have financial muscle because China can threaten to crash our currency. Except, there's no value to a threat that destroys them too, because we know they won't follow through on it, so yes, actually, you were wrong.
"Of course, addressing the actual point instead of snarking off would involve you actually knowing what you're talking about so I didn't really expect that."
You didn't make a point, you were fearmongering because you're ignorant.
Read this
http://www.stlouisfed.org/news/speeches/2005/11_0
and you won't be ignorant anymore. (at least not on this subject)
"They are not provable, but they contain elements of documentary evidence."
The best lies have an element of truth.
And? The Indian Tribes have come out on record, as have the casinos, that they opposed the legislation. They are also currently lobbying to have it repealed. So of course it makes sense that they paid to pass it, then paid again to repeal it...
Again, you= three degrees of pointless conspiracy, me= reality.
"The problem here is that you aren't using 'student loans' the way everyone else in this thread is using them."
No, the problem is that you have shitty reading comprehension. I think i made it pretty clear what I was talking about, and nothing you've said refutes it or disagrees in any way.
"You responded "No one can get deep into dept off government loans"."
No, I didn't say that anywhere, nor anything even remotely approaching that. Stop lying.
"Your point is correct"
That was what your post should have consisted of, and then you woudn't have to deal with looking like a lying imbecile.
"I apologize on behalf of all Americans."
Not to be too rude, but fuck you, don't speak for me.
Thanks.
It's a skill game.
And if you disagree, we can play heads up for your life savings any time you like.
Make your arguments if you want, there's nothing you'll try that hasn't been tried and refuted long before.
That's not the law he's talking about.
The law he's talking about is the UIGEA, which was signed into law.
You recall incorrectly
i ng-association-study.htm [pokernews.com]d etail.cfv?id=9 [americangaming.org]"
"The American Gaming Association, the industry group representing those big domestic casinos, opposed legislation banning online gambling. See:
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2006/5/american-gam
http://www.americangaming.org/hillupdate/reports_
Shamelessly stolen from jaffray who saved me the trouble of finding it myself.
Except that would ruin their economy and the world's too.
Other than being completely wrong though, you have a point.
"As long as the dispute is between US Govt and US Gambling industry..."
It's not just between the government and the gambling industry.
The banks have become involved because they are concerned the cost of implementing measures to comply with the law would be high and generally not effective.
You completely missed MY point in your rush to share your opinion. Lenovo took a well regarded product and renamed it in a way that destroyed any good will IBM had for their notebooks.
"How would you propose that Lenovo keep the IBM brand?"
License it. And that, among other things, is what I was talking about that you completely missed.
"Further, the OP wasn't just talking about..."
No, but I was so let's stick to what I was talking about specifically, and not points that I didn't address, mmmmk?
"as it was mainly the casinos pushing for this legislation (under the guise of 'gambling is evil!')."
No, the casinos were against this legislation.
It frustrates me that so many of you are getting modded up when all you're doing is spewing the same tired corruption spiel and are completely unaware of reality.
In case you weren't aware, the bill makes interstate gaming illegal for US casinos too.
And people who play would compile databases and catch them. The odds for these games aren't a secret, and deviation would be instantly suspect.
Why is this so hard for you people to grasp?
"That's why its a big deal and that's why government needs to regulate it."
I don't really think your inability to understand basic statistical analysis is a big deal at all, and it's certainly not a reason to regulate it.
"I don't see any limits when you move it online. How do you know if you are being cheated? You wouldn't."
As with any computer based endeavor, there would be databases compiled. In the case of gaming, any deviation from statistical norm would be obvious and easily noticed.
This has been covered more time that I can count in numerous "X site is RIGGED!!!!" discussions, and every time it is shot down because it would be much EASIER to notice cheating online.
And if you're cheating, your business is dead.
Lastly, why the fuck would you risk your cash cow for a few extra percentage points of profit, when you have a habit forming product that will eventually bleed your customers dry anyway? (and if you're going to post "GREED!!!" please don't, I'd like intelligent discussion, not whackjobs)