Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;423948]OK so now you're accusing the government of making something up, or lying, about 9/11? Can you be more specific?

Seems like there needs to be a basis for such an accusation.[/QUOTE]

That's the beauty of conspiracy theories - all it takes is to stand around and raise vague questions.

If the conspiracy theorist can latch on to the .01% chance that something different than the official story happened, all they have to do is ask "Why not?" There's really no way to refute them.

Oh, I'm with Matty - there's some unanswered questions about the whole thing and a lot of it seems shady. I'm not sure who to blame or even what to post blame about, but there's a number of things that seem pretty odd.

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=mheisig;423985]Precisely.

Furthermore, if it works so well and is as highly tuned and predictable as you say, how come you've only pulled in $13,000 in four years? That's a measly $3,250/year. If the system is that foolproof, why aren't you working it seven days a week and raking in the cash?

What's seems far more likely is that you have a moderate understanding of the game and probably just know when to quit when you're ahead. Anyone with the self-control and discipline to quit while they're ahead and cut their losses could amass $3,250/year.

[B] EDIT: So apparently the topics in this thread change faster than I post. I apologize for my alarming lack of relevance.[/B][/quote]

Ha...that's what I said when I came back. I read every post about the gambling sytem and this is my take, now a little late but, oh well.....

Being the gambler that I am, I don't believe in systems in any way but then again, I don't play games where the casino has any advantage. Thus leaving me with the only game possible; Poker. The house takes a rake but it's really gambler vs gambler. I've always heard of sure-fire ways to beat blackjack, roulette, etc but they can't be too foolproof because of the massive advantage the house holds over the player.

Like you said, jsarno probably has an excellent understanding of the game and the smarts to know when to quit. In the gambling world, that's the only system you really need.

It seems the limits and bets are smaller but thats seems to be more of a comfort zone thing which is also a matter of discipline. Gambling at most levels can probably be easily beaten with a decent amount of self-control, game knowledge and self-discipline.

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=mheisig;423991]That's the beauty of conspiracy theories - all it takes is to stand around and raise vague questions.

If the conspiracy theorist can latch on to the .01% chance that something different than the official story happened, all they have to do is ask "Why not?" There's really no way to refute them.

[B] Oh, I'm with Matty - there's some unanswered questions about the whole thing and a lot of it seems shady. I'm not sure who to blame or even what to post blame about, but there's a number of things that seem pretty odd.[/B][/quote]

Ya, that's how I was left feeling after all was said and done. Not that is HAD to be a conspiracy, just that there were way too many odd coincidences and unanswered questions for me not to wonder.

Re: Loose Change
 

Having worked at NORAD I can safely say it would take such a massive undertaking to quieting down all of the personnel that have access to the resources that would allow one to view a plane being shot down that we/I would have heard from someone with some decent information about it by now. At the very least 100 people between the civilian, officer and enlisted people there would know what happened, which is that the plane was forced down by the people piloting the plane.

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=724Skinsfan;424034]Having worked at NORAD I can safely say it would take such a massive undertaking to quieting down all of the personnel that have access to the resources that would allow one to view a plane being shot down that we/I would have heard from someone with some decent information about it by now. At the very least 100 people between the civilian, officer and enlisted people there would know what happened, which is that the plane was forced down by the people piloting the plane.[/quote]

Well gee whiz, that just makes too much sense to be true!

Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=724Skinsfan;424034]Having worked at NORAD I can safely say it would take such a massive undertaking to quieting down all of the personnel that have access to the resources that would allow one to view a plane being shot down that we/I would have heard from someone with some decent information about it by now. At the very least 100 people between the civilian, officer and enlisted people there would know what happened, which is that the plane was forced down by the people piloting the plane.[/QUOTE]

That's my feeling. I always am amazed at how people can think a massive conspiracy can take place and not get out. People are people and people talk. If there were more than one shooter in JFK's assassination then we'd know by now. If the US gov't shot down a plane I just find it completely inconceivable that it could be kept quiet. And I also wonder why? If they shot the plane down I have no idea why they wouldn't just say so. It was clearly intended to be a missile to take out a gov't target so the people on it were doomed anyways. I don't really think there would have been that great an outcry.

Re: Loose Change
 

Has there ever been a really good conspiracy that was proven?

Re: Loose Change
 

Public skepticism is good for our democracy, provided it isn't directed at one and only one source of information (e.g., the government). We should be skeptical of the official government line AND conspiracy theories. But, for whatever reason, many people only direct their skepticism at the government and become "sheep-like" when presented with a wacky conspiracy theory. Therein lies a great deal of irony; the conspiracy theorists chuckle at the general public for buying the official government line and then proceed to buy into a conspiracy theory that defies the laws of science and is premised on the notion that thousands of people could keep a secret of massive proportions.

The sad fact is that many people find comfort in the notion that the universe is orderly and that all events are controlled by a small group of people. According to these people, whom I shall call "idiots," there is always a man hiding behind a curtain pulling strings. The "idiots" cannot come to grips with the notion that the universe is dominated by one thing...chaos.

Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;424066]Public skepticism is good for our democracy, provided it isn't directed at one and only one source of information (e.g., the government). We should be skeptical of the official government line AND conspiracy theories. But, for whatever reason, many people only direct their skepticism at the government and become "sheep-like" when presented with a wacky conspiracy theory. Therein lies a great deal of irony; the conspiracy theorists chuckle at the general public for buying the official government line and then proceed to buy into a conspiracy theory that defies the laws of science and is premised on the notion that thousands of people could keep a secret of massive proportions.

The sad fact is that many people find comfort in the notion that the universe is orderly and that all events are controlled by a small group of people. According to these people, whom I shall call "idiots," there is always a man hiding behind a curtain pulling strings. The "idiots" cannot come to grips with the notion that the universe is dominated by one thing...chaos.[/QUOTE]
I gotta agree. The need to define and "see" a problem through some organized set of variables goes our nature of wanting to control things...or fix them. Many things aren't so simply fixed. Or simply can't just be blamed on one person or source.

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=724Skinsfan;424065]Has there ever been a really good conspiracy that was proven?[/quote]

Good question, I highly doubt there are many.

Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;424066]Public skepticism is good for our democracy, provided it isn't directed at one and only one source of information (e.g., the government). We should be skeptical of the official government line AND conspiracy theories. But, for whatever reason, many people only direct their skepticism at the government and become "sheep-like" when presented with a wacky conspiracy theory. Therein lies a great deal of irony; the conspiracy theorists chuckle at the general public for buying the official government line and then proceed to buy into a conspiracy theory that defies the laws of science and is premised on the notion that thousands of people could keep a secret of massive proportions.

The sad fact is that many people find comfort in the notion that the universe is orderly and that all events are controlled by a small group of people. According to these people, whom I shall call "idiots," there is always a man hiding behind a curtain pulling strings. [B]The "idiots" cannot come to grips with the notion that the universe is dominated by one thing...chaos[/B].[/QUOTE]

Ahh, but from the chaos God brought order.

Since we've had conspiracy theories, gambling, and conspriracy theory redux (did I miss one?), I just thought I'd threadjack it into a religious debate about the essence of the universe.

Now, if we can just work in the Simpsons, the Nazis and a sprinkling of cowboy hate, we would have the beginnings of another epic thread.

Re: Loose Change
 

i just watched the biography of Hitler on the history channel. does that count?

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=dmek25;424093]i just watched the biography of Hitler on the history channel. does that count?[/quote]

If you are interested in documentaries like that you should checkout alluc.org [URL="http://www.alluc.org"]Home / News[/URL] dmek. They have a ton of documentaries, many from the history channel you can watch off your computer without downloading. They have Ken Burn's Civil War series, which is absolutely amazing.

Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;424082]Ahh, but from the chaos God brought order.

Since we've had conspiracy theories, gambling, and conspriracy theory redux (did I miss one?), I just thought I'd threadjack it into a religious debate about the essence of the universe.

Now, if we can just work in the Simpsons, the Nazis and a sprinkling of cowboy hate, we would have the beginnings of another epic thread.[/QUOTE]

Bart: OK, it's not painfully clear the adults are definitely paving the way for an invasion by the saucer people.

Milhouse: You fool! Can't you see it's a massive government conspiracy?
Or have they gotten to you too?

Lisa: Hey! Hey, hey, stop it! Stop it! Why are you guys jumping to such ridiculous conclusions? Haven't you ever heard of Occam's Razor? "The simplest explanation is probably the correct one."

Bart: So what's the simplest explanation?

Lisa: I don't know. Maybe they're all reverse vampires and they have to get home before dark.

Everyone: Aah! Reverse vampires! Reverse vampires!

Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=724Skinsfan;424065]Has there ever been a really good conspiracy that was proven?[/QUOTE]

Probably not, which is precisely why people love them - they're almost impossible to prove or disprove.

Taking the skeptics position is great because you can almost always be seen as right and rarely seen as wrong if you phrase things correctly.