Repost: Sigma Research - Successor in Interest.
Michael A. Solinas
Last time I nailed Doug for his counter catcher service solicitation,
he scrambled to downplay his association with Sigma Research. Well,
he leaves more paper than a troup of soldiers with the shits, so it
was easy to find these tidbits.
Note - I fully expect Doug to play his "I don't own the copyright"
game, but this post proves that Grant is the successor in interest for
Sigma Research. It sure looks like he would own that copyright.
He's never said who does own it, after being repeatedly asked.
Either:
(1) someone else owns it, and Doug is keeping this quiet for some
uknown reason, or
(2) Doug owns it as successor in interest, but it is EMBARASSING since
the excerpts I've posted show the document for what it is - little
more than a solicitation for counter catcher services.
Mike
mi...@solinas.com (Michael A. Solinas) wrote:
>Doug has been working very hard to divorce himself from Sigma Research
>- the company that tried to peddle anti-counter services. He's tried
>to distance himself from the corporation, claiming that he started it,
>but sold off his interests, etc. Sure made it look like he got out,
>didn't it?
>
>Well, as usual, Doug is trying to mislead. Personally, I think he was
>in it up to his eyeballs the whole time - using it as a shell
>corporation to promote his schools, and later counter catchers.
>
>Can I prove Doug was involved throughout the life of Sigma Research?
>No, that would be impossible. He sold his stock to "legally" separate
>himself from the company. But guess what happened when Sigma Research
>went under? It's extremely interesting. We find Doug did not split
>from the company and go away. If he wasn't involved the whole time,
>he sure came back.
>
>I quote from Doug's "Verified Complaint and Jury Demand":
>
>"59. Plaintiff Sigma Research Inc. (SIGMA RESEARCH) was, until on or
>about July 30 1992, a corporation organized under the laws of New
>Jersey. Said plaintiff was officially dissolved by Shareholder
>Resolution on or about July 30 1992. Doug Grant, Inc. is the
>successor-in-interest to Sigma Research Inc."
>
>
>You were in it up to your eyeballs when it started. You are in it up
>to your eyeballs now, which you tried to hide from people here by
>making it look like you parted ways with the company.
>
>You made the separation look final. It wasn't. You clearly tried to
>mislead people here. Why should we think you are not lying about
>being involved throughout that middle time?
>
>The Big Con is over, Doug. Welcome to the light of day.
>
>Mike
>
>
>--
> ***** I do NOT reply to KOOKS and PUPPETS *****
--
Michael A. Solinas (mi...@solinas.com)
WWW: http://www.solinas.com/
ftp: ftp.solinas.com
ICQ UIN: 489952
DOUGLAS REIMAN
Solinas is lying again. More lies and libel, yawn. Gosh what a
surprise. OK Michael, put your accusations in affidavit form and I
will do the same. If you refuse again (about 20 refusuals so far)
we will all know that you are making up stories again to hide the
fact you are using fraud to sell worthless casino systems.
Michael A. Solinas wrote in message
<34ea6450...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
>Last time I nailed Doug for his counter catcher service
solicitation,
>he scrambled to downplay his association with Sigma Research.
Well,
>he leaves more paper than a troup of soldiers with the shits, so it
>was easy to find these tidbits.
The only thing Solinas has ever "nailed" is a guarantee he will
never show up in court or back up his lies with anything official.
He is lying and he knows it.
>Note - I fully expect Doug to play his "I don't own the copyright"
>game, but this post proves that Grant is the successor in interest
for
>Sigma Research. It sure looks like he would own that copyright.
>He's never said who does own it, after being repeatedly asked.
>Either:
Solinas is soooo stupid. Maybe he should read the Sigma stock deal
where it specified what was being sent to Doug Grant Inc,. and what
was remaining with Sigma. The court looked at that document real
close in the Flagship case that we won. And the same issue came up
in the Campione case, and the jury awarded us 1.5 million dollars,
so they must have understood what was asorbed by me, and what was
not. And the court records, and both companies, and the collective
corporate records all prove Solinas a liar. So how about it
Solinas, instead of making a complete ass out of yourself as usual,
why don't you just agree to put your money where your mouth is.
Affidavit, asshole, you know the things that force people to "tell
the truth."
>(1) someone else owns it, and Doug is keeping this quiet for some
>uknown reason, or
>(2) Doug owns it as successor in interest, but it is EMBARASSING
since
>the excerpts I've posted show the document for what it is - little
>more than a solicitation for counter catcher services.
More lies. Solinas knows that Sigma never did business with any
casino, nor was it ever licensed to do so, nor did it ever apply to
do so, nor even if it did I certainly had nothing to do with the
Company at that time. Moreover, the Sigma Report was exactly that,
A REPORT! If you write an article about casinos and card counting
does that mean you are soliciting casinos? If that is true, then
Snyder and Wong and Solinas are soliciting casinos with every
article they write! Moreover, unlike Sigma, ConJelCo (Solinas's
baby) IS LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE CASINOS - and of course
they also sell systems they claim will beat the very casinos they
call their clients!
So Solinas, kettle pot black. You know you are lying about Sigma,
but you have been caught in your own false accusation. You know
that ConJelCo is licensed to do business with the casinos, and you
know they are and have solicited business while they were secretly
selling systems they claimed would beat the very casinos they were
dealing with!
Now if you wish to deny this "fact" - then deny it and I will post
the list we received from the Gaming Commissions. BTW they keep
records all the way back including applications that were denied.
Strange, no company by the name of Sigma ever even applied to do
business with the casinos. You are caught again Solinas.
Apparently you were too stupid to realize those lists can be
secured. That list proves you have been lying all along about this
issue.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Michael Solinas
DOUGLAS REIMAN wrote:
> Solinas is lying again. More lies and libel, yawn. Gosh what a
> surprise. OK Michael, put your accusations in affidavit form and I
> will do the same. If you refuse again (about 20 refusuals so far)
> we will all know that you are making up stories again to hide the
> fact you are using fraud to sell worthless casino systems.
No need for an affidavit, Doug. Just respond to what has been
repeatedly asked. Who owns the copyright for The Sigma Report?
> The only thing Solinas has ever "nailed" is a guarantee he will
> never show up in court or back up his lies with anything official.
> He is lying and he knows it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! (I figured I'd post something
you might be able to comprehend)
> >Note - I fully expect Doug to play his "I don't own the copyright"
> >game, but this post proves that Grant is the successor in interest
> for
> >Sigma Research. It sure looks like he would own that copyright.
> >He's never said who does own it, after being repeatedly asked.
> >Either:
> Solinas is soooo stupid. Maybe he should read the Sigma stock deal
> where it specified what was being sent to Doug Grant Inc,. and what
> was remaining with Sigma. The court looked at that document real
> close in the Flagship case that we won. And the same issue came up
> in the Campione case, and the jury awarded us 1.5 million dollars,
> so they must have understood what was asorbed by me, and what was
> not. And the court records, and both companies, and the collective
> corporate records all prove Solinas a liar. So how about it
> Solinas, instead of making a complete ass out of yourself as usual,
> why don't you just agree to put your money where your mouth is.
> Affidavit, asshole, you know the things that force people to "tell
> the truth."
Just answer the very simple question, Doug. Who owns the copyright to
The Sigma Report?
> >(1) someone else owns it, and Doug is keeping this quiet for some
> >uknown reason, or
> >(2) Doug owns it as successor in interest, but it is EMBARASSING
> since
> >the excerpts I've posted show the document for what it is - little
> >more than a solicitation for counter catcher services.
> More lies. Solinas knows that Sigma never did business with any
> casino, nor was it ever licensed to do so, nor did it ever apply to
> do so, nor even if it did I certainly had nothing to do with the
> Company at that time.
The counter catcher business was a miserable failure. That we all agree
on, Doug. I've never said you were SUCCESSFUL at your counter catcher
business, simply that the Sigma Report was clearly a solicitation for
counter catcher services.
You couldn't successfully peddle your wares to casinos. That's the
bottom line. It failed.
>Moreover, the Sigma Report was exactly that,
> A REPORT! If you write an article about casinos and card counting
> does that mean you are soliciting casinos?
Nonsense. I've posted the excerpts, and they are clear. You can rant
that it is a report all you want, but the excerpts are ACCURATE, and
they show that your "report" is little more than a solicitation for
counter catching services.
>If that is true, then
> Snyder and Wong and Solinas are soliciting casinos with every
> article they write! Moreover, unlike Sigma, ConJelCo (Solinas's
> baby)
You are dead wrong again, Doug. I have no participation in ConJelCo.
My only business with them was PURCHASING a piece of software from
them. I paid. No comp.
You claim I have some other participation - then post proof, or retract
your statement.
> IS LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE CASINOS - and of course
> they also sell systems they claim will beat the very casinos they
> call their clients!
Again - prove I have any association with ConJelCo. I do not.
> So Solinas, kettle pot black. You know you are lying about Sigma,
> but you have been caught in your own false accusation.
The quotes speak for themselves. Your big con is over.
> You know
> that ConJelCo is licensed to do business with the casinos, and you
> know they are and have solicited business while they were secretly
> selling systems they claimed would beat the very casinos they were
> dealing with!
I have no participation in ConJelCo. Never did.
> Now if you wish to deny this "fact" - then deny it and I will post
> the list we received from the Gaming Commissions.
I deny all participation with ConJelCo. Post your proof. Your bluff
has been called.
> BTW they keep
> records all the way back including applications that were denied.
I have never applied to a Gaming Commission for anything.
> Strange, no company by the name of Sigma ever even applied to do
> business with the casinos.
That business was a miserable failure.
> You are caught again Solinas.
> Apparently you were too stupid to realize those lists can be
> secured. That list proves you have been lying all along about this
> issue.
> Doug Grant (Tm)
Post proof, or retract your statement.
Michael Solinas
Scott Klee
DOUGLAS REIMAN wrote:
> Moreover, unlike Sigma, ConJelCo (Solinas's
> baby) IS LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE CASINOS - and of course
> they also sell systems they claim will beat the very casinos they
> call their clients!
Gee whiz, golly gee, who woulda thunk it?
I wonder if we have any other dirt on system sellers? :)
Scott Klee
DOUGLAS REIMAN
It is mounting up so fast I cannot keep track of it. Our last reply
made the casinos jump and they are spilling the beans. What fun!
Doug
Scott Klee wrote in message <34E4CA9D...@pond.com>...
>
>
>DOUGLAS REIMAN wrote:
>
>> Moreover, unlike Sigma, ConJelCo (Solinas's
>> baby) IS LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE CASINOS - and of course
>> they also sell systems they claim will beat the very casinos they
>> call their clients!
>
DOUGLAS REIMAN
Michael Solinas wrote in message <34E4DB...@solinas.com>...
>DOUGLAS REIMAN wrote:
>> Solinas is lying again. More lies and libel, yawn. Gosh what a
>> surprise. OK Michael, put your accusations in affidavit form and
I
>> will do the same. If you refuse again (about 20 refusuals so
far)
>> we will all know that you are making up stories again to hide the
>> fact you are using fraud to sell worthless casino systems.
>
>No need for an affidavit, Doug. Just respond to what has been
>repeatedly asked. Who owns the copyright for The Sigma Report?
I have no idea who owns any report that you have forged. If you
want me to answer that question, then post the name of the person
you allege signed the document and the date. If you have an
unsigned document without a date and no copyright statement, then I
would assume it is not a real document and a copyright could not
exist. How would I know the name of the author of any document you
forged?
I will be glad to answer that question as soon as you tell us the
name of the author and the date of the document! I do not know even
if you have an authentic Sigma Report. The excerpts and copyright
violations you have already posted did not sound familar to me, but
then I read the Report only two or three times many years ago. So
if you really want to know the answer to your question THEN POST THE
AUTHOR AND THE DATE, OR AT LEAST ANYONE THAT SIGNED THE DOCUMENT!
Solinas, if you fail to post the name of the author or the date, and
continue to ask me to name a copyright holder for a document that
you will not describe, then even the suckers that are stupid enough
to purchase your losing systems will know you are lying.
>> >(1) someone else owns it, and Doug is keeping this quiet for
some
>> >uknown reason, or
>> >(2) Doug owns it as successor in interest, but it is EMBARASSING
>> since
>> >the excerpts I've posted show the document for what it is -
little
>> >more than a solicitation for counter catcher services.
>> More lies. Solinas knows that Sigma never did business with any
>> casino, nor was it ever licensed to do so, nor did it ever apply
to
>> do so, nor even if it did I certainly had nothing to do with the
>> Company at that time.
>
>The counter catcher business was a miserable failure. That we all
agree
>on, Doug. I've never said you were SUCCESSFUL at your counter
catcher
>business, simply that the Sigma Report was clearly a solicitation
for
>counter catcher services.
>
>You couldn't successfully peddle your wares to casinos. That's the
>bottom line. It failed.
>
Yawn. Please name any casino, JUST ONE CASINO, which was contacted
or solicted by Sigma Research Inc., for ANY purpose. How can one
fail at something that one never tried? Only in the pathetic
foolish mind of Solinas can such an event take place.
>>Moreover, the Sigma Report was exactly that,
>> A REPORT! If you write an article about casinos and card
counting
>> does that mean you are soliciting casinos?
>
>Nonsense. I've posted the excerpts, and they are clear. You can
rant
>that it is a report all you want, but the excerpts are ACCURATE,
and
>they show that your "report" is little more than a solicitation for
>counter catching services.
Again that is a lie. Your report is a fabrication, you cannot even
name an author or a date or even a signatore of your obvious
forgery. Moreover, you cannot name any casino that received your
so-called solicitation, nor any register nor license Sigma even had
or applied to do business with any casino. You are lying and
forging documents that's all.
But how about CONJELCO? I say they ARE listed to do business with
casinos. The proof is in the license Solinas - what about them?
Dare you not mention that you are attempting to accuse me of THE
VERY SAME FRAUD THAT YOU AND CONJELCO ARE PERPETRATING ON THE
SUCKERS THAT BUY YOUR SYSTEMS?
>>If that is true, then
>> Snyder and Wong and Solinas are soliciting casinos with every
>> article they write! Moreover, unlike Sigma, ConJelCo (Solinas's
>> baby)
>
>You are dead wrong again, Doug. I have no participation in
ConJelCo.
>My only business with them was PURCHASING a piece of software from
>them. I paid. No comp.
Do they sell your products? Do they sell your partner's products?
Of course they do liar. Of course you are involved with CONJELCO!
And you know they are working for the casinos! Yet you post forged
document after forged document in a feeble attempt to divet
attention away from the fact that CONJELCO has been secrectly
working for the casinos for years while all the time selling your
system and others they claimed would beat the very casinos that were
paying their consulting fees! What a racket!
>You claim I have some other participation - then post proof, or
retract
>your statement.
>
>
>> IS LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE CASINOS - and of course
>> they also sell systems they claim will beat the very casinos they
>> call their clients!
>
>Again - prove I have any association with ConJelCo. I do not.
>
Then I suspect I will not see any products written by you or your
employer Arnold Snyder sold by CONJELCO?
>> So Solinas, kettle pot black. You know you are lying about
Sigma,
>> but you have been caught in your own false accusation.
>
>The quotes speak for themselves. Your big con is over.
>
Your so-called "quotes" are fabrications of your desperate mind.
You made them up, and lied about the entire matter. If you were
telling the truth you would post the author of the document, and at
least the date, not to mention the person that signed the so-called
solicitation as fast as you can say Con Man City a.k.a. RGBM! Fact
is you do not know the name of the author, and you need it if you
expect your forgery to be believed. So you are desperate. But
once again, you have been caught lying to this newsgroup. You
should slither back down to Con Man City where you belong.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>> You know
>> that ConJelCo is licensed to do business with the casinos, and
you
>> know they are and have solicited business while they were
secretly
>> selling systems they claimed would beat the very casinos they
were
>> dealing with!
>
>I have no participation in ConJelCo. Never did.
>
>
>> Now if you wish to deny this "fact" - then deny it and I will
post
>> the list we received from the Gaming Commissions.
>
>I deny all participation with ConJelCo. Post your proof. Your
bluff
>has been called.
>
>
>> BTW they keep
>> records all the way back including applications that were denied.
>
>I have never applied to a Gaming Commission for anything.
>
>
>> Strange, no company by the name of Sigma ever even applied to do
>> business with the casinos.
>
>That business was a miserable failure.
>
How can a business be a failure when it never was in business?
Please name ONE casino Sigma approached, solicited, spoke with,
asked money from, anything - JUST ONE NAME WILL DO THE TRICK! NO?
I know you are stupid and all that, but just what is your impression
of "business?" Usually that means someone is selling or soliciting
something from some other person or entity. You know like when you
want to sell a book containing a losing system, you ask some hapless
sucker to buy it and tell them the system will win. It is a
fraudulent business for sure, but still a "business." So if Sigma
wrote a report and did not attempt to sell anyone anything, nor
contacted anyone for any purpose, but wrote the report for an
obvious other reason, then how can Sigma be considered in "business"
with the casinos? On the other hand however, now we know that
"Bishop Associates" (woops let that one slip) and CONJELCO are
secretly working for the casinos because WE HAVE HARD EVIDENCE
PROVING THAT FACT FROM THE NJ CCC! And it is that you wish to avoid
talking about with your forged "quotes."
>> You are caught again Solinas.
>> Apparently you were too stupid to realize those lists can be
>> secured. That list proves you have been lying all along about
this
>> issue.
>> Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>Post proof, or retract your statement.
>
If you wish to contact the NJ CCC directly to prove that CONJELCO
is a listed casino vendor and consultant, then just ask and I will
give you the name of the NJ CCC rep to call. What more proof do you
need? (I suspect Solinas will NEVER make this call and admit it -
so how about any of the rest of you - care to prove Solinas the liar
he is?)
>Michael Solinas
Michael A. Solinas
"DOUGLAS REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I have no idea who owns any report that you have forged. If you
>want me to answer that question, then post the name of the person
>you allege signed the document and the date. If you have an
>unsigned document without a date and no copyright statement,
Stop the foolishness, Doug. You know damn well that is the situation,
since I've had to describe it to you several times for you to
understand it.
There is no copyright date.
There is no person listed as author, although you claim co-authorship.
Now - those are side issues. Address the real issue. Are the quotes
I made accurate?
>then I
>would assume it is not a real document and a copyright could not
>exist.
Assumptions are not necessary, Doug. You don't have to draw any
conclusions - just say if the quotes are accurate or not. This should
be simple. What are you hiding?
>How would I know the name of the author of any document you
>forged?
Again - are the quotes accurate?
>>Just answer the very simple question, Doug. Who owns the copyright
>to
>>The Sigma Report?
>I will be glad to answer that question as soon as you tell us the
>name of the author and the date of the document!
Doug, you know I've told you repeatedly that there is no author, nor
copyright date. So - it's clear you are trying to set conditions to
let you off the hook - but you're fooling no one. Stop your dancing,
and answer the very simple question - who owns the copyright on the
Sigma Report?
There is no reason for you to avoid this, unless it *IS* a
solicitation for counter catcher services, you own the copyright, and
you were in it up to your eyeballs. Just what are you trying to hide?
>I do not know even
>if you have an authentic Sigma Report. The excerpts and copyright
>violations you have already posted did not sound familar to me, but
>then I read the Report only two or three times many years ago.
Liar. You have claimed to be a co-author of it. Now you've only read
it a few times? My back peddling prediction came through!!! Thanks,
Doogie.
>So
>if you really want to know the answer to your question THEN POST THE
>AUTHOR AND THE DATE, OR AT LEAST ANYONE THAT SIGNED THE DOCUMENT!
Completely irrelevent. The issue is - are the quotes accurate?
>Solinas, if you fail to post the name of the author or the date, and
>continue to ask me to name a copyright holder for a document that
>you will not describe, then even the suckers that are stupid enough
>to purchase your losing systems will know you are lying.
Your attempt to dodge is pathetic, Doug, and you're fooling no one.
Shut up - there may still be some newbies around who don't know what a
fool you are. Don't continue to remove all doubt.
>Yawn. Please name any casino, JUST ONE CASINO, which was contacted
>or solicted by Sigma Research Inc., for ANY purpose.
You've claimed, on the internet, that the Sigma Report was distributed
to casinos for free. Are you retracting this statement?
>How can one
>fail at something that one never tried?
By offering services which no one signs up for.
>But how about CONJELCO? I say they ARE listed to do business with
>casinos. The proof is in the license Solinas - what about them?
>Dare you not mention that you are attempting to accuse me of THE
>VERY SAME FRAUD THAT YOU AND CONJELCO ARE PERPETRATING ON THE
>SUCKERS THAT BUY YOUR SYSTEMS?
You've claimed ConJelCo is "my baby." I asked for proof, and now
you're dancing away from your original statement.
Admit it, Doug. I am not associated with ConJelCo.
>>>If that is true, then
>>> Snyder and Wong and Solinas are soliciting casinos with every
>>> article they write! Moreover, unlike Sigma, ConJelCo (Solinas's
>>> baby)
>>You are dead wrong again, Doug. I have no participation in
>ConJelCo.
>>My only business with them was PURCHASING a piece of software from
>>them. I paid. No comp.
>Do they sell your products?
Nope. I get no royalties of any type from ConJelCo. Never have.
>Do they sell your partner's products?
They couldn't. I don't have partners.
>Of course they do liar.
This is a lie. I demand you retract this statement.
>Of course you are involved with CONJELCO!
>And you know they are working for the casinos! Yet you post forged
>document after forged document in a feeble attempt to divet
>attention away from the fact that CONJELCO has been secrectly
>working for the casinos for years while all the time selling your
>system and others they claimed would beat the very casinos that were
>paying their consulting fees! What a racket!
You damn fool. I am not associated with ConJelCo. Retract your
statements.
>>You claim I have some other participation - then post proof, or
>retract
>>your statement.
>>> IS LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE CASINOS - and of course
>>> they also sell systems they claim will beat the very casinos they
>>> call their clients!
>>Again - prove I have any association with ConJelCo. I do not.
>Then I suspect I will not see any products written by you or your
>employer Arnold Snyder sold by CONJELCO?
Snyder is not my employer.
Any work I have done in the past does NOT earn me royalties.
I have never received compensation from ConJelCo.
Is this simple enough for you to understand, Doug?
Retract your statements.
MIke
wein...@conjelco.com
In article <6c2cdk$7...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
"DOUGLAS REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> article they write! Moreover, unlike Sigma, ConJelCo (Solinas's
> baby) IS LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE CASINOS - and of course
> they also sell systems they claim will beat the very casinos they
> call their clients!
>
1. Mike Solinas has never been associated with ConJelCo except (I hope) as a
satisifed customer. He is, however, a friend.
2. ConJelCo *is* licensed by the CCC to do business with the New Jersey
casinos. As far as I know a vendor is required to be licensed in order
to (for instance) sell books to a casino gift shop.
3. ConJelCo became registered in order to provide the Taj poker room with
web pages before they had their own server up and running. Will Espin
(now at the Tropicana) can confirm this. You can also look at Taj
advertisements in Card Player from a few years ago to confirm this.
4. We have had no other commercial dealings with any New Jersey casino.
5. This is all I intend to say about this matter.
Chuck Weinstock
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Michael A. Solinas
wein...@conjelco.com wrote:
>In article <6c2cdk$7...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> "DOUGLAS REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> article they write! Moreover, unlike Sigma, ConJelCo (Solinas's
>> baby) IS LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE CASINOS - and of course
>> they also sell systems they claim will beat the very casinos they
>> call their clients!
>1. Mike Solinas has never been associated with ConJelCo except (I hope) as a
> satisifed customer. He is, however, a friend.
Satisfied customer? Certainly. Friend? I'm honored! Chuck is a
class act, and a hell of a nice guy. Yes, I consider Chuck a friend.
>2. ConJelCo *is* licensed by the CCC to do business with the New Jersey
> casinos. As far as I know a vendor is required to be licensed in order
> to (for instance) sell books to a casino gift shop.
Innocent enough. It figures Grant would try to twist this into
appearing to be something sinister.
>3. ConJelCo became registered in order to provide the Taj poker room with
> web pages before they had their own server up and running. Will Espin
> (now at the Tropicana) can confirm this. You can also look at Taj
> advertisements in Card Player from a few years ago to confirm this.
See above comments.
>4. We have had no other commercial dealings with any New Jersey casino.
I'll also bet you never solicited counter catcher services. The Sigma
Research boys can't say the same!
>5. This is all I intend to say about this matter.
It was clear, straightforward, and simple to understand. I still
expect Doug to rant about it, though.
Mike
DOUGLAS REIMAN
Michael A. Solinas<MI...@SOLINAS.NOSPAM.COM wrote in message
<34e61b5a...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
>wein...@conjelco.com wrote: > >>In article
<6c2cdk$7...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, >> "DOUGLAS REIMAN" <
dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>> baby) IS LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE CASINOS - and of
course >>> they also sell systems they claim will beat the very
casinos they >>> call their clients!
>>1. Mike Solinas has never been associated with ConJelCo except (I
hope) as a >> satisfied customer. He is, however, a friend. >
>Satisfied customer? Certainly. Friend? I'm honored! Chuck is a
>class act, and a hell of a nice guy. Yes, I consider Chuck a
friend.
Smooch -smooch - kiss kiss.
>>2. ConJelCo *is* licensed by the CCC to do business with the New
Jersey >> casinos. As far as I know a vendor is required to be
licensed in order >> to (for instance) sell books to a casino gift
shop.
So your *friend* and you are doing business with casino gift shops
only? Is that what you are trying to say? That of course means that
casino gift shops sell your card counting and other how to beat the
casino books? So the casinos are helping you sell card counting
books. That is what we thought. Also, are you registered for
another reason? Did you provide any services to the casinos other
than allowing them to sell books on how to take their money?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. YOU MUST THINK THE WORLD IS AN IDIOT! But keep
talking, at least you are amusing! HAHAHAHAHAHA.
>Innocent enough. It figures Grant would try to twist this into
>appearing to be something sinister.
>>3. ConJelCo became registered in order to provide the Taj poker
room with >> web pages before they had their own server up and
running. Will Espin >> (now at the Tropicana) can confirm this. You
can also look at Taj >> advertisements in Card Player from a few
years ago to confirm this.
Wait a minute! I thought you just said that you only dealt with the
casinos in respect to their sale of your how to beat casino books.
Now you tell us that you also provided the casinos with computer
consultation! Gosh what a surprise! So I guess my information was
correct - you are working for casinos, you are registered to do
business with the very clients you claim your systems will beat! And
what is even more outrageous, YOU HAVE ADMITTED HERE AND NOW THAT
CONJELCO AND THE CASINOS ARE PARTNERS IN THE SALE OF GAMBLING SYSTEM
BOOKS! WEEOOOOO - JACKPOT!
>See above comments. > >>4. We have had no other commercial dealings
with any New Jersey casino.
Let me see now. (1) You admit that you and the NJ Casinos are
partners in the sale of gambling system books and of course, card
counting books. So the casinos are helping you sell books that
contain systems that you claim will beat the VERY CASINO THAT IS
SELLING THE BOOK! What a racket!
(2) That you have provided computer consultation to some of the New
Jersey casinos. How about the Nevada casinos? Or any of the other
casinos? Any dealings with them? Please do not lie now. We already
know all about CONJELCO and its dealings with casinos. Fess up now -
not that it makes any difference since you have already admitted you
and the casinos share the profits from selling card counting
systems. So you and the casinos have joined together to sell the
book that sets the sucker up, and then the casino uses the
preferential shuffle to fleece the sucker! WHAT A RACKET!
>I will also bet you never solicited counter catcher services. The
Sigma >Research boys can't say the same!
Oh Yeah? Please furnish the name and time Sigma ever solicited
anything from any casino. While you are at it, please furnish the
Gaming Commission list that contains the name of Sigma Research
Inc., or my name, or any officer of Sigma. You are so stupid you do
not realize that the casino card counter catchers wrote down the
name "Sigma" on card counting logs for years. Sigma was the big team
moron! Unlike CONJELCO, Sigma could not do business with the
casinos if they wanted to! I was saving this for Solinas, but
SIGMA'S CORPORATE MINUTES ARE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD WHEN SIGMA
SUED THE FLAGSHIP HOTEL AND WON! So you see boys, another public
record slam dunks your lies to the ground! If you read Sigma
Research's Inc., minutes you will see they could not do business
with any casino even if they wanted to!
>>five. This is all I intend to say about this matter.
I guess so! You certainly should want to avoid naming the other
casinos you are working for. You certainly do not want to see
anymore hard questions like; What are the names of all the other
casinos CONJELCO was working for while meanwhile selling card
counting books that claimed they would beat the very casinos that
are employing CONJELCO!
I guess I would not want to "talk about it any more" either if I
were CONJELCO!
I suppose you provided clear statements to all of your suckers, er,
"clients" that purchased how to beat casino books that the casinos
also employed you as a consultant? And the casinos that employed
you were the very casinos your systems claimed would beat? I also
assume you advised each purchaser of how to beat casino books that
the casinos themselves were partners with you in the sale of such
investment scams? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Say, does the word "FRAUD"
mean anything to you CONJELCO?
>It was clear, straightforward, and simple to understand. I still
>expect Doug to rant about it, though. > >Mike
Look Mike. Read what the man said! My God man he confessed to
exactly what we wanted him to confess to. Also I know you are
involved with CONJELCO. Stop lying about it. You know that you and
Snyder are involved with that company. Are you going to try and tell
me that you nor your partner Snyder ever made a deal with CONJELCO
to huckster your systems or books? Or that one of your companies
never dealt with CONJELCO and their casino partners? PLEEZE! You
know that is a lie, you and Snyder are in neck deep with the
casinos.
Here we have a company that is holding the Con Man City FAQ on their
home page, and has just confessed that the casinos and they are
partners in the sale of books on how to beat the casinos!
Don't you think that is worth a little rant or two? ALSO, WHO IS
THE MODERATOR FOR CON MAN CITY A.K.A.
REC.GAMBLING.BLACKJACK.MODERATED? WHY IT IS *GUESS WHO* MICHAEL
SOLINAS THAT'S WHO! SO LET US REVIEW:
1. CONJELCO has admitted they furnish card counting system books
to the casinos to sell to the suckers.
2. CONJELCO has admitted they provide computer consultation to the
casino industry.
3. CONJELCO is holding the RGBM (a.k.a. Con Man City) FAQ on their
home page.
4. Mr. Michael Solinas is the MODERATOR FOR CON MAN CITY!
And now Solinas wants us to believe he has no connection with
CONJELCO! Sure Mike, yep, Uh Huh - I guess someone might believe
it.
Also, Solinas, tell me about "Bishop Associates." Also, tell me when
you first helped to write Uston SS system. Also tell me, wait, we
have hundreds of new questions. I will save them for later.
Doug Grant (Tm)
P.S. (I urge everyone that has ever purchased a gambling system to
keep this post. This is a classic case of pure fraud and represents
a direct connection between the system hucksters and the casinos.
And more is on the way -much more.)
Michael A. Solinas
"DOUGLAS REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>So your *friend* and you are doing business with casino gift shops
>only? Is that what you are trying to say?
No, you idiot. I am not associated with ConJelCo, and obtain NO money
from casino gift shops.
>hat of course means that
>casino gift shops sell your card counting and other how to beat the
>casino books? So the casinos are helping you sell card counting
>books. That is what we thought.
You thought wrong, then.
>Also, are you registered for
>another reason? Did you provide any services to the casinos other
>than allowing them to sell books on how to take their money?
I'm not registered at all, for any reason. Nor did I ever solicit
counter catching services, unlike Sigma Research, which was "your
baby."
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. YOU MUST THINK THE WORLD IS AN IDIOT! But keep
>talking, at least you are amusing! HAHAHAHAHAHA.
No, I simply think a few people in this world is an idiot. Doug - if
the shoe fits..... (or should I say - if the sock fits....)?
>>Innocent enough. It figures Grant would try to twist this into
>>appearing to be something sinister.
Heh.
>>>3. ConJelCo became registered in order to provide the Taj poker
>room with >> web pages before they had their own server up and
>running. Will Espin >> (now at the Tropicana) can confirm this. You
>can also look at Taj >> advertisements in Card Player from a few
>years ago to confirm this.
>Wait a minute! I thought you just said that you only dealt with the
>casinos in respect to their sale of your how to beat casino books.
>Now you tell us that you also provided the casinos with computer
>consultation! Gosh what a surprise! So I guess my information was
>correct - you are working for casinos, you are registered to do
>business with the very clients you claim your systems will beat! And
>what is even more outrageous, YOU HAVE ADMITTED HERE AND NOW THAT
>CONJELCO AND THE CASINOS ARE PARTNERS IN THE SALE OF GAMBLING SYSTEM
>BOOKS! WEEOOOOO - JACKPOT!
Nope, not me, Doug. Are you really that confused? Have you really not
yet figured out how to decipher threaded posts? Or - is this yet
another of your trolls?
>>See above comments. > >>4. We have had no other commercial dealings
>with any New Jersey casino.
>Let me see now. (1) You admit that you and the NJ Casinos are
>partners in the sale of gambling system books and of course, card
>counting books. So the casinos are helping you sell books that
>contain systems that you claim will beat the VERY CASINO THAT IS
>SELLING THE BOOK! What a racket!
Not me, Doug. And you are replying to my post.
>(2) That you have provided computer consultation to some of the New
>>I will also bet you never solicited counter catcher services. The
>Sigma >Research boys can't say the same!
>Oh Yeah? Please furnish the name and time Sigma ever solicited
>anything from any casino.
Sure, Doogie. In the Sigma Report - a piece of shit that was little
more than a solicitation for counter catcher services. I've posted
the excerpts - the conclusion is clear.
> While you are at it, please furnish the
>Gaming Commission list that contains the name of Sigma Research
>Inc., or my name, or any officer of Sigma.
From what you've lead me to believe, the counter catcher service was a
miserable failure, so you never had to register. Isn't that correct?
>You are so stupid you do
>not realize that the casino card counter catchers wrote down the
>name "Sigma" on card counting logs for years. Sigma was the big team
>moron!
I'm referring to your baby, the Sigma Report.
>Unlike CONJELCO, Sigma could not do business with the
>casinos if they wanted to! I was saving this for Solinas, but
>SIGMA'S CORPORATE MINUTES ARE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD WHEN SIGMA
>SUED THE FLAGSHIP HOTEL AND WON! So you see boys, another public
>record slam dunks your lies to the ground! If you read Sigma
>Research's Inc., minutes you will see they could not do business
>with any casino even if they wanted to!
I'd believe you were too stupid to know this when Sigma Research
solicited its counter catcher services in The Sigma Report
>I suppose you provided clear statements to all of your suckers, er,
>"clients" that purchased how to beat casino books that the casinos
>also employed you as a consultant? And the casinos that employed
>you were the very casinos your systems claimed would beat? I also
>assume you advised each purchaser of how to beat casino books that
>the casinos themselves were partners with you in the sale of such
>investment scams? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Say, does the word "FRAUD"
>mean anything to you CONJELCO?
I am not associated with ConJelCo, you fool.
>>It was clear, straightforward, and simple to understand. I still
>>expect Doug to rant about it, though. > >Mike
>Look Mike. Read what the man said! My God man he confessed to
>exactly what we wanted him to confess to. Also I know you are
>involved with CONJELCO. Stop lying about it.
Stop lying, Grant. You are full of shit. I am NOT associated with
ConJelCo. Why are you insisting on this chilidish assertion? Are you
mad? Have you finally gone over the deep end?
>You know that you and
>Snyder are involved with that company. Are you going to try and tell
>me that you nor your partner Snyder ever made a deal with CONJELCO
>to huckster your systems or books?
As I've repeatedly told you - Snyder is not my partner, and I'm not
associated with ConJelCo. What is so difficult for you to understand
about these simple statement? Or - is this like your other posts -
simply a troll?
> Or that one of your companies
>never dealt with CONJELCO and their casino partners? PLEEZE! You
>know that is a lie, you and Snyder are in neck deep with the
>casinos.
You are either an idiot, or trolling.
>Here we have a company that is holding the Con Man City FAQ on their
>home page, and has just confessed that the casinos and they are
>partners in the sale of books on how to beat the casinos!
>Don't you think that is worth a little rant or two? ALSO, WHO IS
>THE MODERATOR FOR CON MAN CITY A.K.A.
>REC.GAMBLING.BLACKJACK.MODERATED? WHY IT IS *GUESS WHO* MICHAEL
>SOLINAS THAT'S WHO! SO LET US REVIEW:
This should be either (1) funny, or (2) more of your trolling
bullshit. Let's read on.
>1. CONJELCO has admitted they furnish card counting system books
>to the casinos to sell to the suckers.
That's none of my business.
>2. CONJELCO has admitted they provide computer consultation to the
>casino industry.
Again - none of my business.
>3. CONJELCO is holding the RGBM (a.k.a. Con Man City) FAQ on their
>home page.
No, you are wrong. Conjelco is holding the RGB faq, by Jacobs, on the
site. This is NOT an RGBM faq.
>4. Mr. Michael Solinas is the MODERATOR FOR CON MAN CITY!
No, I am a moderator for RGBM. Only you, and your puppet Klee, call
it Con Man City.
>And now Solinas wants us to believe he has no connection with
>CONJELCO! Sure Mike, yep, Uh Huh - I guess someone might believe
>it.
Trolling, or are you really that stupid? Bets, anyone?
>Also, Solinas, tell me about "Bishop Associates."
You tell me. This is the first I've heard the term.
>Also, tell me when
>you first helped to write Uston SS system.
Kiss my ass.
>Also tell me, wait, we
>have hundreds of new questions. I will save them for later.
You can shove them. You've completely refused to acknowledge what
I've repeatedly explained to you already - I am NOT a partner of
Snyder, and I have no association with ConJelCo. Why should I bother
with another of your idiotic questions when either you cant comprehend
the answers, or when you understand, but continue to lie?
Write the rest of your questions on rough paper, and shove them, Doug.
I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
>Doug Grant (Tm)
>P.S. (I urge everyone that has ever purchased a gambling system to
>keep this post. This is a classic case of pure fraud and represents
>a direct connection between the system hucksters and the casinos.
>And more is on the way -much more.)
Don't bother saving it. Just do a search on alt.usenet.kooks.
Mike
Cipher
In article <34e68e2c...@nntp1.ba.best.com> Michael A. Solinas,
Bingo! 2 for 2.
Cipher
Visit one of my Mac help sites at
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/4404/
http://www.mindspring.com/~cipher/
http://www.erols.com/cipher1138/
PGP Public Key available at my website
DOUGLAS REIMAN
Let me get this straight now Michael. Are you speaking for yourself
or CONJELCO? My address was obviosly to ConJelCo, and you are now
speaking for that company. I thought you said you had nothing to do
with that company?
Heh.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Michael A. Solinas wrote in message
<34e68e2c...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
DOUGLAS REIMAN
Are you now saying that CONJELCO is lying about their secret
connections with the casinos and you and your partner Snyder?
Doug Grant (Tm)
Cipher wrote in message <6c6pag$u...@camel19.mindspring.com>...
>In article <34e68e2c...@nntp1.ba.best.com> Michael A.
Solinas,
>mi...@solinas.NoSPAM.com writes:
>>You are either an idiot, or trolling.
>
>
Cipher
In article <6c8fbg$f...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> DOUGLAS REIMAN,
dgg...@worldnet.att.net writes:
>Let me get this straight now Michael. Are you speaking for yourself
>or CONJELCO? My address was obviosly to ConJelCo, and you are now
>speaking for that company. I thought you said you had nothing to do
>with that company?
Can you read? He said he WAS NOT associated with them! Several times.
Responding to your charges, in the negative, doesn't put him on someone's
payroll.
I got a sack of hammers that could best your score on an SAT.
Cipher
In article <6c8g8p$m...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> DOUGLAS REIMAN,
dgg...@worldnet.att.net writes:
>Are you now saying that CONJELCO is lying about their secret
>connections with the casinos and you and your partner Snyder?
No.
I'm saying you're stupider than a sack of hammers.
Clear enough?
Robert Palmer
mi...@solinas.NoSPAM.com (Michael A. Solinas) writes:
>"DOUGLAS REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>I have no idea who owns any report that you have forged. If you
>>want me to answer that question, then post the name of the person
>>you allege signed the document and the date. If you have an
>>unsigned document without a date and no copyright statement,
>Stop the foolishness, Doug. You know damn well that is the situation,
>since I've had to describe it to you several times for you to
>understand it.
>There is no copyright date.
>There is no person listed as author, although you claim co-authorship.
>Now - those are side issues. Address the real issue. Are the quotes
>I made accurate?
>>then I
>>would assume it is not a real document and a copyright could not
>>exist.
<snip>
A simple thought-experiment (so put your thinking cap on, Doug) to show
how worthless Doug's argument is in this case:
Assume this copy of the Sigma Report *was* the real thing; assume it
was one of the originals, even. Suppose it had the original ink
signatures of every author on the last page. Now suppose I photocopied
that report *except for the last page*. Does the leaving-out of the
signatures invalidate the report? Hardly.
Answer Mr. Solinas' question, Doug. Do his excerpts match your copy of
the Sigma Report? If so, then I would agree that they prove that you
attempted (and failed) to work as a counter-catcher for casinos. If not,
then just say so. (Which, may I point out, you have never done.)
I am,
-Rob.
Scott Klee
Cipher wrote:
> In article <6c8g8p$m...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> DOUGLAS REIMAN,
> dgg...@worldnet.att.net writes:
> >Are you now saying that CONJELCO is lying about their secret
> >connections with the casinos and you and your partner Snyder?
>
> No.
>
> I'm saying you're stupider than a sack of hammers.
>
> Clear enough?
If you said that Doug was very persistent - I'd agree with you.
If you said that Doug can be somewhat abusive when he wants
to be - I'd agree with you.
However, you say that Doug is stupid. There are many, many
words to describe Doug, but stupid is definitely not one of
them. You can't be one of the foremost experts on the game
of blackjack in the world by being stupid. Of course, you
don't know what your talking about anyway since you're just
trolling. Have fun..
Scott Klee
Cipher
In article <34E8B370...@pond.com> Scott Klee, sck...@pond.com
writes:
>However, you say that Doug is stupid. There are many, many
>words to describe Doug, but stupid is definitely not one of
>them. You can't be one of the foremost experts on the game
>of blackjack in the world by being stupid. Of course, you
>don't know what your talking about anyway since you're just
>trolling. Have fun..
Hmmm.... let's see....
He tries to rig a Big 8 Usenet vote with an AOL account, the SAME account
mind you, using different screen names. And some web based mail. And
the protests all sound the same after he was nailed. None can be traced
to individuals with their own accounts, per the rules...
Doug IS stupid. Are you one of his Sock Puppets?
*foremost experts on the game of blackjack in the world* ? You're
kidding, right?
Michael A. Solinas
"DOUGLAS REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Let me get this straight now Michael. Are you speaking for yourself
>or CONJELCO? My address was obviosly to ConJelCo, and you are now
>speaking for that company. I thought you said you had nothing to do
>with that company?
>Heh.
>Doug Grant (Tm)
You idiot. Check the HEADERS of the message you were replying to.
(I'll post them below. You replied to ME, not to the ConJelCo post.
so I answered.
If you had paid attention during your reply, you would have noticed
who you were replying to, and you wouldn't have confused yourself.
So we're really to believe you are the Worlds Greatest Blackjack
Player? With THAT attention to detail? With the inability to produce
any math? Laughable.
Go have a junior high kid show you how to use your newsreader. It's
really simple, Doug, to keep "who sent what" straight. Even you can
do it, with practice.
Mike "Not associated with ConJelCo, even when Grant confuses himself "
Solinas
The header follows:
Michael A. Solinas<MI...@SOLINAS.NOSPAM.COM wrote in message
<34e61b5a...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
>wein...@conjelco.com wrote: > >>In article
<6c2cdk$7...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, >> "DOUGLAS REIMAN" <
dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>> articles they write! Moreover, unlike Sigma, ConJelCo (Solinas's
>>> baby) IS LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE CASINOS - and of
course >>> they also sell systems they claim will beat the very
casinos they >>> call their clients!
--
Michael A. Solinas
Doug, are you stupidly mangling quotes again, or do you hold the
paranoid belief that Cipher is really me?
Mike
"DOUGLAS REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Are you now saying that CONJELCO is lying about their secret
>connections with the casinos and you and your partner Snyder?
>
>Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>Cipher wrote in message <6c6pag$u...@camel19.mindspring.com>...
>>In article <34e68e2c...@nntp1.ba.best.com> Michael A.
>Solinas,
>>mi...@solinas.NoSPAM.com writes:
>>>You are either an idiot, or trolling.
>>
>>
>>Bingo! 2 for 2.
>>
>>
>>Cipher
>>Visit one of my Mac help sites at
>>http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/4404/
>>http://www.mindspring.com/~cipher/
>>http://www.erols.com/cipher1138/
>>PGP Public Key available at my website
--
Michael A. Solinas
Cipher, either Grant thinks YOU are ME, or he's badly mangling threads
again. Seriously - if there is more than one message quoted, he gets
completely confused. I can't imagine him keeping an accurate count
with such limited cognative abilities.
Mike
Cipher <cip...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <6c8g8p$m...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> DOUGLAS REIMAN,
>dgg...@worldnet.att.net writes:
>>Are you now saying that CONJELCO is lying about their secret
>>connections with the casinos and you and your partner Snyder?
>
>
>No.
>
>I'm saying you're stupider than a sack of hammers.
>
>Clear enough?
>
>
>Cipher
>Visit one of my Mac help sites at
>http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/4404/
>http://www.mindspring.com/~cipher/
>http://www.erols.com/cipher1138/
>PGP Public Key available at my website
--
Michael A. Solinas
Scott Klee <sck...@pond.com> wrote:
>Cipher wrote:
>> In article <6c8g8p$m...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> DOUGLAS REIMAN,
>> dgg...@worldnet.att.net writes:
>> >Are you now saying that CONJELCO is lying about their secret
>> >connections with the casinos and you and your partner Snyder?
>> No.
>> I'm saying you're stupider than a sack of hammers.
>> Clear enough?
>If you said that Doug was very persistent - I'd agree with you.
>If you said that Doug can be somewhat abusive when he wants
>to be - I'd agree with you.
>However, you say that Doug is stupid. There are many, many
>words to describe Doug, but stupid is definitely not one of
>them.
No, he's stupid. Look again at the message you quoted. He's replying
to Cipher as if it was me. Just a few messages ago, he asked why I
responded to a post he made to ConJelCo, which he actually made to me.
Threaded messages aren't terribly difficult. Here we have repeated
cases where headers AREN'T trimmed, and the nesting CLEARLY shows who
said what, and he's completely at a loss to comprehend any of it.
"Stupid" is the correct word.
>You can't be one of the foremost experts on the game
>of blackjack in the world by being stupid.
Nonsense. No "foremost expert" would be completely stopped by
preferential shuffles. He's the only "foremost expert" who can't get
a bet down. Some expert!
>Of course, you
>don't know what your talking about anyway since you're just
>trolling. Have fun..
>Scott Klee
Sure you are.
Cipher
In article <34ec446e....@nntp1.ba.best.com> Michael A. Solinas,
mi...@solinas.NoSPAM.com writes:
>Cipher, either Grant thinks YOU are ME, or he's badly mangling threads
>again. Seriously - if there is more than one message quoted, he gets
>completely confused. I can't imagine him keeping an accurate count
>with such limited cognative abilities.
I mentioned my sack of hammers, didn't I?
It's the kind of confusion that led him to believe that he rig the vote
using one AOL account.
You know, I want to play cards with this guy! I could use the money!!
Scott Klee
Cipher wrote:
> In article <34E8B370...@pond.com> Scott Klee, sck...@pond.com
> writes:
> >However, you say that Doug is stupid. There are many, many
> >words to describe Doug, but stupid is definitely not one of
> >them. You can't be one of the foremost experts on the game
> >of blackjack in the world by being stupid. Of course, you
> >don't know what your talking about anyway since you're just
> >trolling. Have fun..
>
> Hmmm.... let's see....
>
> He tries to rig a Big 8 Usenet vote with an AOL account, the SAME account
> mind you, using different screen names. And some web based mail. And
> the protests all sound the same after he was nailed. None can be traced
> to individuals with their own accounts, per the rules...
That is a bald faced lie. Post your proof.
> Doug IS stupid. Are you one of his Sock Puppets?
I'm wondering what the official definition of "Sock Puppet" is.I am a Doug
Grant supporter if that's what you are getting
at.
>
>
> *foremost experts on the game of blackjack in the world* ? You're
> kidding, right?
Nope, not kidding at all. In fact, I may have been understating..
There's *no one* else with Doug Grant's credentials with respect
to blackjack systems and play. He has 60,000 former students,
is the organizer of the largest and most successful blackjack
teams, and he has come up with many innovations with respect
to blackjack systems and new winning systems for other games.
In general, the other system sellers repackage the same old shit
that Dr. Thorpe came out with *35* years ago with virtually no
innovation - and their customers *LOSE*! And these guys also
*secretly work for the casino industry*!
I know that *you* think Doug Grant is a kook. Personally, I
think Doug Grant is the casino industry's worst nightmare. We'll
have the historic opportunity to see who's right soon. :-)
Scott Klee
Scott Klee
Cipher wrote:
[snip]
> You know, I want to play cards with this guy! I could use the money!!
hehe. Doug would probably be quite agreeable to that so long as
your bankroll was at least 20 grand.
Scott Klee
Cipher
In article <34E9C8F2...@pond.com> Scott Klee, sck...@pond.com
writes:
>That is a bald faced lie. Post your proof.
news:news.groups
>Nope, not kidding at all. In fact, I may have been understating..
>There's *no one* else with Doug Grant's credentials with respect
>to blackjack systems and play. He has 60,000 former students,
>is the organizer of the largest and most successful blackjack
>teams, and he has come up with many innovations with respect
>to blackjack systems and new winning systems for other games.
60,000 PAYING students? Most successful blackjack teams?
Why does he fuck around with Usenet then?
You may think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, however most of
Usenet KNOWS he's full of shit.
>I know that *you* think Doug Grant is a kook. Personally, I
>think Doug Grant is the casino industry's worst nightmare. We'll
>have the historic opportunity to see who's right soon. :-)
Grant IS a Kook... properly elected...
Historic BULLSHIT! Talk this shit a few more weeks, a few more months, a
few more years....
It will still be BULLSHIT!
Please archive this post so you can hammer me with it in the future...
You're so full of shit....
God I love HISTORIC OPPORTUNITIES...
Scott Klee
Cipher wrote:
> >I know that *you* think Doug Grant is a kook. Personally, I
> >think Doug Grant is the casino industry's worst nightmare. We'll
> >have the historic opportunity to see who's right soon. :-)
>
> Grant IS a Kook... properly elected...
>
> Historic BULLSHIT! Talk this shit a few more weeks, a few more months, a
> few more years....
>
> It will still be BULLSHIT!
>
> Please archive this post so you can hammer me with it in the future...
>
> You're so full of shit....
>
> God I love HISTORIC OPPORTUNITIES...
You don't have any idea what I'm talking about, do you?
You just like to flame for no apparent reason, and without
knowledge.
Again, have fun!
Scott Klee
Ed Brizzolara
Scott Klee wrote:
That's it. I do not think Scott Klee is writing these posts. However
it is easy to prove me wrong. Send me your phone number (private
E-mail) so I can phone you. If I am wrong, I will post in all caps that
I am wrong. I await your mail.
If I don't get your phone number, then I will tell all that Scott Klee
posts are not Scott Klee's. Your bluff is called Doug. Put up or shut
up.
Big Ed
> Cipher wrote:
>
> > In article <34E8B370...@pond.com> Scott Klee, sck...@pond.com
> > writes:
> > >However, you say that Doug is stupid. There are many, many
> > >words to describe Doug, but stupid is definitely not one of
> > >them. You can't be one of the foremost experts on the game
> > >of blackjack in the world by being stupid. Of course, you
> > >don't know what your talking about anyway since you're just
> > >trolling. Have fun..
> >
> > Hmmm.... let's see....
> >
> > He tries to rig a Big 8 Usenet vote with an AOL account, the SAME
> account
> > mind you, using different screen names. And some web based mail.
> And
> > the protests all sound the same after he was nailed. None can be
> traced
> > to individuals with their own accounts, per the rules...
>
> That is a bald faced lie. Post your proof.
>
> > Doug IS stupid. Are you one of his Sock Puppets?
>
> I'm wondering what the official definition of "Sock Puppet" is.I am a
> Doug
> Grant supporter if that's what you are getting
> at.
>
> >
> >
> > *foremost experts on the game of blackjack in the world* ? You're
> > kidding, right?
>
> Nope, not kidding at all. In fact, I may have been understating..
> There's *no one* else with Doug Grant's credentials with respect
> to blackjack systems and play. He has 60,000 former students,
> is the organizer of the largest and most successful blackjack
> teams, and he has come up with many innovations with respect
> to blackjack systems and new winning systems for other games.
> In general, the other system sellers repackage the same old shit
> that Dr. Thorpe came out with *35* years ago with virtually no
> innovation - and their customers *LOSE*! And these guys also
> *secretly work for the casino industry*!
>
> I know that *you* think Doug Grant is a kook. Personally, I
> think Doug Grant is the casino industry's worst nightmare. We'll
> have the historic opportunity to see who's right soon. :-)
>
> Scott Klee
sck...@pond.com
In article <34EA9697...@roanoke.infi.net>,
e...@roanoke.infi.net wrote:
>
> Scott Klee wrote:
>
> That's it. I do not think Scott Klee is writing these posts. However
> it is easy to prove me wrong. Send me your phone number (private
> E-mail) so I can phone you. If I am wrong, I will post in all caps that
> I am wrong. I await your mail.
>
> If I don't get your phone number, then I will tell all that Scott Klee
> posts are not Scott Klee's. Your bluff is called Doug. Put up or shut
> up.
>
> Big Ed
>
Just to let everyone know, email has been sent. Give me a call
Big Ed. It'll be good to speak to you again..
Scott
RUSTYBLKJK
>However, you say that Doug is stupid. There are many, many words to describe
>Doug, but stupid is definitely not one of them. You can't be one of the
>foremost experts on the game of blackjack in the world by being stupid.
Knowing how to set up a team that eventually can't get a bet down, is
indicative that Doug is *not* a foremost expert.
Having the most pac man players at the arcade with the most quarters does not a
pac man expert make, not if they all get "Game Over" (wok wok).
Rusty Martin
Phoenix: A fabulous bird, reborn from the ashes of its former life.
Rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated: Phoenix
sck...@pond.com
In article <34ed44c7....@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
mi...@solinas.NoSPAM.com (Michael A. Solinas) wrote:
>
> Scott Klee <sck...@pond.com> wrote:
>
> >Cipher wrote:
> >> In article <6c8g8p$m...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> DOUGLAS REIMAN,
> >> dgg...@worldnet.att.net writes:
> >> >Are you now saying that CONJELCO is lying about their secret
> >> >connections with the casinos and you and your partner Snyder?
> >> No.
> >> I'm saying you're stupider than a sack of hammers.
> >> Clear enough?
> >If you said that Doug was very persistent - I'd agree with you.
> >If you said that Doug can be somewhat abusive when he wants
> >to be - I'd agree with you.
> >words to describe Doug, but stupid is definitely not one of
> >them.
>
> to Cipher as if it was me. Just a few messages ago, he asked why I
> responded to a post he made to ConJelCo, which he actually made to me.
Actually, it seems like a reasonable mistake to me - he was
spewing the same type of BS as you typically do.
>
> Threaded messages aren't terribly difficult. Here we have repeated
> cases where headers AREN'T trimmed, and the nesting CLEARLY shows who
> said what, and he's completely at a loss to comprehend any of it.
>
> "Stupid" is the correct word.
Well, if confusing who said what is "stupid" then let me tell
you something that's *really* stupid. Arnold Snyder said in
his sworn depositions in the Campione V Adamar case (He was an
expert witness for Adamar - the company that owns the Tropicana
casino in Atlantic City) that no one could sustain an advantage
using a card counting system, and yet he continues to sell
card counting systems to the public (If you object to my wording,
please have Arnold explain in his own words what he MEANT to
say on the newsgroup - certainly he has access since the con man
sees you every week and he has his own website). I'm wondering
if you could explain to me why someone would be so "stupid" to
do that? Or is he committing blatant fraud?
Could you explain to me why someone who sells systems that
supposedly "beat" casinos also secretly works for them? Could
you explain to me why Arnold gave card counting seminars
*IN CASINOS*? Could you explain to me why Arnold enticed one
of Doug's students to violate their non-divulgence agreement
to get one of Doug's copyrighted blackjack systems and turn
around and *SELL IT* to the TropWorld casino in AC for $1500?
You can call Doug "Stupid" if you like, but I've got a few
stronger words for Arnold.
Also, so far you've dodged all of Doug's questions about the
Uston SS and you relationship with Ken Uston. So, when did
you create the Uston SS system and what was your relationship
like with Ken Uston. You know, Uston also testified before
the NJ CCC and said that no one could sustain an advantage
either (correct me if I'm wrong Doug). So quit hiding from
our tough questions and answer them for once, Solinas.
(I'm getting ready for the typical Solinas response of "I
wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire". Well Solinas,
the feeling is mutual.)
>
> >You can't be one of the foremost experts on the game
> >of blackjack in the world by being stupid.
>
> Nonsense. No "foremost expert" would be completely stopped by
> preferential shuffles. He's the only "foremost expert" who can't get
> a bet down. Some expert!
Yeah, I guess Arnold probably wouldn't have much of a problem
getting his typical bet size down - *TWO DOLLARS*! (Also from
Snyder's sworn deposition)
> >Of course, you
> >don't know what your talking about anyway since you're just
> >trolling. Have fun..
> >Scott Klee
>
> Sure you are.
Hopefully, you get confirmation of that soon, but even if
you do, I'm certain that you keep saying this - it's really
all you've got left.
Scott Klee
Michael Solinas
sck...@pond.com wrote:
> In article <34ed44c7....@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
> mi...@solinas.NoSPAM.com (Michael A. Solinas) wrote:
> > Scott Klee <sck...@pond.com> wrote:
> > >Cipher wrote:
> > >> In article <6c8g8p$m...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> DOUGLAS REIMAN,
> > >> dgg...@worldnet.att.net writes:
> > >> >Are you now saying that CONJELCO is lying about their secret
> > >> >connections with the casinos and you and your partner Snyder?
> > >> No.
> > >> I'm saying you're stupider than a sack of hammers.
> > >> Clear enough?
> > >If you said that Doug was very persistent - I'd agree with you.
> > >If you said that Doug can be somewhat abusive when he wants
> > >to be - I'd agree with you.
> > >However, you say that Doug is stupid. There are many, many
> > >words to describe Doug, but stupid is definitely not one of
> > >them.
> > No, he's stupid. Look again at the message you quoted. He's replying
> > to Cipher as if it was me. Just a few messages ago, he asked why I
> > responded to a post he made to ConJelCo, which he actually made to me.
> Actually, it seems like a reasonable mistake to me - he was
> spewing the same type of BS as you typically do.
The ConJelCo post was a VERY different style than mine. As far as the
Cipher post goes - it's a reasonable mistake for a newbie. Doug's been
at this for years now, and this problem of his has been pointed out
many, many times. He's either terminally sloppy, or stupid.
> > Threaded messages aren't terribly difficult. Here we have repeated
> > cases where headers AREN'T trimmed, and the nesting CLEARLY shows who
> > said what, and he's completely at a loss to comprehend any of it.
> >
> > "Stupid" is the correct word.
> Well, if confusing who said what is "stupid" then let me tell
> you something that's *really* stupid. Arnold Snyder said in
> his sworn depositions in the Campione V Adamar case (He was an
> expert witness for Adamar - the company that owns the Tropicana
> casino in Atlantic City) that no one could sustain an advantage
> using a card counting system, and yet he continues to sell
> card counting systems to the public (If you object to my wording,
> please have Arnold explain in his own words what he MEANT to
> say on the newsgroup - certainly he has access since the con man
> sees you every week and he has his own website). I'm wondering
> if you could explain to me why someone would be so "stupid" to
> do that? Or is he committing blatant fraud?
Neither. The quotes were taken out of context. He was saying that many
people who consider themselves counters don't play a winning game. I
agree.
> Could you explain to me why someone who sells systems that
> supposedly "beat" casinos also secretly works for them? Could
> you explain to me why Arnold gave card counting seminars
> *IN CASINOS*? Could you explain to me why Arnold enticed one
> of Doug's students to violate their non-divulgence agreement
> to get one of Doug's copyrighted blackjack systems and turn
> around and *SELL IT* to the TropWorld casino in AC for $1500?
Boy, you sound like Doug.
> You can call Doug "Stupid" if you like, but I've got a few
> stronger words for Arnold.
No doubt. Your language, and the content of your messages, has really
gone to hell for the past few months. You appear to be more like Doug
every day.
> Also, so far you've dodged all of Doug's questions about the
> Uston SS and you relationship with Ken Uston. So, when did
> you create the Uston SS system and what was your relationship
> like with Ken Uston. You know, Uston also testified before
> the NJ CCC and said that no one could sustain an advantage
> either (correct me if I'm wrong Doug). So quit hiding from
> our tough questions and answer them for once, Solinas.
I haven't dodged a thing.
I did some computer work calculating the strategy indices for the SS
count.
As far as when, I've answered it - I honestly don't remember. It was
quite a while ago, years. I don't remember when.
Answer this one for me - why are you and Doug so hung up on WHEN the
work was done? I've asked Doug repeatedly, and he's dodged that one
every time.
> (I'm getting ready for the typical Solinas response of "I
> wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire". Well Solinas,
> the feeling is mutual.)
Sorry to disappoint you.
> > >You can't be one of the foremost experts on the game
> > >of blackjack in the world by being stupid.
> > Nonsense. No "foremost expert" would be completely stopped by
> > preferential shuffles. He's the only "foremost expert" who can't get
> > a bet down. Some expert!
> Yeah, I guess Arnold probably wouldn't have much of a problem
> getting his typical bet size down - *TWO DOLLARS*! (Also from
> Snyder's sworn deposition)
Heh.
Mike
sck...@pond.com
In article <34EB38...@solinas.com>,
Neither I nor Doug care what you think about him.
>
> > > Threaded messages aren't terribly difficult. Here we have repeated
> > > cases where headers AREN'T trimmed, and the nesting CLEARLY shows who
> > > said what, and he's completely at a loss to comprehend any of it.
> > >
> > > "Stupid" is the correct word.
> > Well, if confusing who said what is "stupid" then let me tell
> > you something that's *really* stupid. Arnold Snyder said in
> > his sworn depositions in the Campione V Adamar case (He was an
> > expert witness for Adamar - the company that owns the Tropicana
> > casino in Atlantic City) that no one could sustain an advantage
> > using a card counting system, and yet he continues to sell
> > card counting systems to the public (If you object to my wording,
> > please have Arnold explain in his own words what he MEANT to
> > say on the newsgroup - certainly he has access since the con man
> > sees you every week and he has his own website). I'm wondering
> > if you could explain to me why someone would be so "stupid" to
> > do that? Or is he committing blatant fraud?
>
> Neither. The quotes were taken out of context. He was saying that many
> people who consider themselves counters don't play a winning game. I
> agree.
Oh OK, they were taken out of context. Ah, that clears everything
up - yeah right.
From reading the quotes of the sworn deposition it is clear that
what you say here is *not* what Arnie meant. But if this is what
he meant, I'd ask that you have Arnie come to the newsgroup and
explain his position on the issue, so we may evaluate whether he
committed perjury in his sworn depositions.
Ironically, I certainly agree with your statement here. Most
people who consider themselves card counters do not play a winning
game. It is clear to me that Arnie and the rest of the worthless
card counting system sellers give their customers just enough
information to make them lose their shirts quite effectively in
casinos. No wonder Arnie gave seminars in casinos.
>
> > Could you explain to me why someone who sells systems that
> > supposedly "beat" casinos also secretly works for them? Could
> > you explain to me why Arnold gave card counting seminars
> > *IN CASINOS*? Could you explain to me why Arnold enticed one
> > of Doug's students to violate their non-divulgence agreement
> > to get one of Doug's copyrighted blackjack systems and turn
> > around and *SELL IT* to the TropWorld casino in AC for $1500?
>
> Boy, you sound like Doug.
Sure seems like you have a serious reading comprehension problem
here. I asked you three *separate* questions here, and not one
of them had anything to do with me "sounding like" Doug. Answer
the questions Solinas, quit dodging. Or could it be that any
bullshit answer you come up with would make Arnie look like the
casino employee that he is?
> > You can call Doug "Stupid" if you like, but I've got a few
> > stronger words for Arnold.
>
> No doubt. Your language, and the content of your messages, has really
> gone to hell for the past few months. You appear to be more like Doug
> every day.
I couldn't give a flying fuck about what you think of my language.
Yes, I used to patiently answer all questions that were asked of
me and I used to be nice. There's only so much bullshit I can take
though.
>
> > Also, so far you've dodged all of Doug's questions about the
> > Uston SS and you relationship with Ken Uston. So, when did
> > you create the Uston SS system and what was your relationship
> > like with Ken Uston. You know, Uston also testified before
> > the NJ CCC and said that no one could sustain an advantage
> > either (correct me if I'm wrong Doug). So quit hiding from
> > our tough questions and answer them for once, Solinas.
>
> I haven't dodged a thing.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> I did some computer work calculating the strategy indices for the SS
> count.
Gosh, you know how to use a computer?
> As far as when, I've answered it - I honestly don't remember. It was
> quite a while ago, years. I don't remember when.
How about a ballpark figure? Early eighties, mid eighties, late
eighties, early nineties, mid nineties - take your pick. What
kind of computer did you use?
> Answer this one for me - why are you and Doug so hung up on WHEN the
> work was done? I've asked Doug repeatedly, and he's dodged that one
> every time.
We'd like to put together a timeline - now answer the question, stop
dodging.
> > (I'm getting ready for the typical Solinas response of "I
> > wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire". Well Solinas,
> > the feeling is mutual.)
>
> Sorry to disappoint you.
I'm sure you'll say it again to me sometime.
> > > >You can't be one of the foremost experts on the game
> > > >of blackjack in the world by being stupid.
> > > Nonsense. No "foremost expert" would be completely stopped by
> > > preferential shuffles. He's the only "foremost expert" who can't get
> > > a bet down. Some expert!
> > Yeah, I guess Arnold probably wouldn't have much of a problem
> > getting his typical bet size down - *TWO DOLLARS*! (Also from
> > Snyder's sworn deposition)
>
> Heh.
Any refutation? You see, Doug actually has played his systems for big
money. Arnie is scared to play his - I wonder why?
Michael Luzzi
Cipher wrote:
>
> In article <34EB38...@solinas.com> Michael Solinas, mi...@solinas.com
> writes:
> >No doubt. Your language, and the content of your messages, has really
> >gone to hell for the past few months. You appear to be more like Doug
> >every day.
>
>
> Cipher
> Visit one of my Mac help sites at
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/4404/
> http://www.mindspring.com/~cipher/
> http://www.erols.com/cipher1138/
> PGP Public Key available at my website
Uh, I think you owe the ducks an apology. I have never seen a duck
try to rig a newsgroup vote.
Mike
jac...@xmission.com
Scott Klee <sck...@pond.com> writes:
> I'm wondering what the official definition of "Sock Puppet" is.I am a Doug
> Grant supporter if that's what you are getting at.
In that case, you're not a sock puppet, you're a JOCK puppet :-)
The very fact that you can't figure out the meaning of "sock puppet"
helps to support the theory that you are one.
--
Steve Jacobs (jac...@xmission.com) \ Do you play Video Poker? Try VP Freebie
"Expectation isn't everything..." \ http://www.conjelco.com/vpfreebie.html
jac...@xmission.com
sck...@pond.com writes:
[munch]
> > No doubt. Your language, and the content of your messages, has really
> > gone to hell for the past few months. You appear to be more like Doug
> > every day.
>
> I couldn't give a flying fuck about what you think of my language.
> Yes, I used to patiently answer all questions that were asked of
> me and I used to be nice. There's only so much bullshit I can take
> though.
In other words, you can dish it out but you can't take it? If it is all
too much to bear, perhaps you should find a new hobby.
Cipher
>gone to hell for the past few months. You appear to be more like Doug
>every day.
jaso...@hotmail.com
In article <34E9C8F2...@pond.com>,
Scott Klee <sck...@pond.com> wrote:
>That is a bald faced lie. Post your proof.
You have been proved a liar, over, and over again. You have lied so
many times, and have been caught lying, that your word or statements
are immediately suspect by everyone on this newsgroup. You lied
then, and you are lying now. You lie to the ISP's, and you lie to
this newsgroup every opportunity you get. You are afraid to post any
proof "becuase" you know none exists.
>I'm wondering what the official definition of "Sock Puppet" is.I am a Doug
>Grant supporter if that's what you are getting
>at.
Normally I feel a twinge of pity for wimps like you, but in some
cases I simply acknowledge that pure and pristine *idiots* must exist
in the world for cannon fodder. Too bad there is not a war on. Con
men tactics seem to be evident in each one of your posts, and you
cannot even begin to comprehend the intricacies of playing a winning
game of blackjack.
>Nope, not kidding at all. In fact, I may have been understating..
Hmmm... that's too bad.
>There's *no one* else with Doug Grant's credentials with respect
>to blackjack systems and play. He has 60,000 former students,
>is the organizer of the largest and most successful blackjack
>teams, and he has come up with many innovations with respect
>to blackjack systems and new winning systems for other games.
Blackjack? I thought the topic of this newsgroup was Doug Grant!
Doug Grant can't play blackjack, so the topics are mutually
exclusive! Every time you Grant gofers open your mouths you stick my
**** in it!
>In general, the other system sellers repackage the same old shit
>that Dr. Thorpe came out with *35* years ago with virtually no
>innovation - and their customers *LOSE*! And these guys also
>*secretly work for the casino industry*!
The garbage that comes out of your mouth is most foul. I feel sorry
for you, mate. I have before me a list of all the Griffin agents.
You are one of them.
>In general, the other system sellers repackage the same old shit
>that Dr. Thorpe came out with *35* years ago with virtually no
>innovation - and their customers *LOSE*! And these guys also
>*secretly work for the casino industry*!
The garbage that comes out of your mouth is most foul. I feel sorry
for you, mate. I have before me a list of all the Griffin agents.
You are one of them.
>think Doug Grant is the casino industry's worst nightmare. We'll
>have the historic opportunity to see who's right soon. :-)
What a coincidence, you know that *you* think doug grant is a kook -
that makes two of us! Scurry back to your little hole and think up
some other nonsensical post. I don't think we will have
the historic opportunity to see who is right soon at all!
>Scott Klee
Scott Klee used to have a mind of his own.
-Jason Wit
jaso...@hotmail.com
sck...@pond.com
In article <6cikbq$h...@camel15.mindspring.com>,
Cipher <cip...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> In article <34EB38...@solinas.com> Michael Solinas, mi...@solinas.com
> writes:
> >gone to hell for the past few months. You appear to be more like Doug
> >every day.
>
What are you trying to say? Let's get specific now, shall we?
sck...@pond.com
In article <jacobs67m...@xmission.com>,
jac...@xmission.com wrote:
>
> Scott Klee <sck...@pond.com> writes:
>
> > I'm wondering what the official definition of "Sock Puppet" is.I am a Doug
> > Grant supporter if that's what you are getting at.
>
At least you're a funny worthless software seller and Conjelco
touter.
> The very fact that you can't figure out the meaning of "sock puppet"
> helps to support the theory that you are one.
Here's the problem. The RGB definition of "sock puppet" is anyone
who agrees with anything that Doug Grant says. For example, I think
Russell Hall and JSTAT were both called sock puppets at one time.
I think there is probably a formal definition somewhere, and if I
am one, I'll gladly accept the title so long as you accept the
title of Conjelco sock puppet.
> --
> Steve Jacobs (jac...@xmission.com) \ Do you play Video Poker? Try VP
Freebie
> "Expectation isn't everything..." \
http://www.conjelco.com/vpfreebie.html
>
Still giving away worthless software, ehh? It may not cost anything,
but it certainly isn't "free". Have you fixed the FAQ yet to reflect
real casino conditions, or are you going to keep on misleading
people into believing that they can sustain an advantage versus
real-world casino conditions?
sck...@pond.com
In article <6cjs81$qdf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
jaso...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <34E9C8F2...@pond.com>,
> Scott Klee <sck...@pond.com> wrote:
>
> >That is a bald faced lie. Post your proof.
>
> You have been proved a liar, over, and over again. You have lied so
> many times, and have been caught lying, that your word or statements
> are immediately suspect by everyone on this newsgroup. You lied
> then, and you are lying now. You lie to the ISP's, and you lie to
> this newsgroup every opportunity you get. You are afraid to post any
> proof "becuase" you know none exists.
Lies: 8
Good lie density! 1.33 lies/per line!
> >I'm wondering what the official definition of "Sock Puppet" is.I am a Doug
> >Grant supporter if that's what you are getting
> >at.
>
> Normally I feel a twinge of pity for wimps like you, but in some
> cases I simply acknowledge that pure and pristine *idiots* must exist
> in the world for cannon fodder. Too bad there is not a war on. Con
> men tactics seem to be evident in each one of your posts, and you
> cannot even begin to comprehend the intricacies of playing a winning
> game of blackjack.
2 more lies, and some incorrect opinion.
Total Lies: 10
>
> >Nope, not kidding at all. In fact, I may have been understating..
>
> Hmmm... that's too bad.
>
> >There's *no one* else with Doug Grant's credentials with respect
> >to blackjack systems and play. He has 60,000 former students,
> >is the organizer of the largest and most successful blackjack
> >teams, and he has come up with many innovations with respect
> >to blackjack systems and new winning systems for other games.
>
> Blackjack? I thought the topic of this newsgroup was Doug Grant!
> Doug Grant can't play blackjack, so the topics are mutually
> exclusive! Every time you Grant gofers open your mouths you stick my
> **** in it!
Chalk up 3 more
Total Lies: 13
> >In general, the other system sellers repackage the same old shit
> >that Dr. Thorpe came out with *35* years ago with virtually no
> >innovation - and their customers *LOSE*! And these guys also
> >*secretly work for the casino industry*!
>
> The garbage that comes out of your mouth is most foul. I feel sorry
> for you, mate. I have before me a list of all the Griffin agents.
> You are one of them.
Hmmm, I'll give you 2 more there.
Total Lies: 15
So I'm one of the people I'm suing? HAHAHAHAHAHA
> >In general, the other system sellers repackage the same old shit
> >that Dr. Thorpe came out with *35* years ago with virtually no
> >innovation - and their customers *LOSE*! And these guys also
> >*secretly work for the casino industry*!
>
> The garbage that comes out of your mouth is most foul. I feel sorry
> for you, mate. I have before me a list of all the Griffin agents.
> You are one of them.
I won't count your repetitive crap over again.
> >think Doug Grant is the casino industry's worst nightmare. We'll
> >have the historic opportunity to see who's right soon. :-)
>
> What a coincidence, you know that *you* think doug grant is a kook -
> that makes two of us! Scurry back to your little hole and think up
> some other nonsensical post. I don't think we will have
> the historic opportunity to see who is right soon at all!
There are at least 2 lies here. I'd give you more but I'm conservative
with respect to how I classify lies.
Total lies: 17
>
> >Scott Klee
>
> Scott Klee used to have a mind of his own.
Still does, and chalk up one last lie.
Total lies: 18!
Congratulations! I think that breaks Ken Hale's record of 16.
While I can appreciate your lie density, Ken Hale still has you
beat because of the entertainment value of his posts. You see,
he'd include JPEG's of chimps with his messages and refer to
the chimps as Doug Grant's team. Work at it, though. You
certainly show some promise.
jac...@xmission.com
sck...@pond.com writes:
>
> In article <jacobs67m...@xmission.com>,
> jac...@xmission.com wrote:
> >
> > Scott Klee <sck...@pond.com> writes:
> >
> > > I'm wondering what the official definition of "Sock Puppet" is.I am a Doug
> > > Grant supporter if that's what you are getting at.
> >
> > In that case, you're not a sock puppet, you're a JOCK puppet :-)
>
> At least you're a funny worthless software seller and Conjelco
> touter.
>
> > The very fact that you can't figure out the meaning of "sock puppet"
> > helps to support the theory that you are one.
>
> Here's the problem. The RGB definition of "sock puppet" is anyone
> who agrees with anything that Doug Grant says.
*BZZZZT*. No, but thank you for playing.
> For example, I think
> Russell Hall and JSTAT were both called sock puppets at one time.
Nah, they don't tow the Doogie line consistently enough to qualify
as sock puppets. In addition, they don't mysteriously disappear from
the newsgroup the instand the Doogie disappears. Neither do they
mysterisouly re-appear the very instant that Doogie once again rears
his ugly head.
> I think there is probably a formal definition somewhere, and if I
> am one, I'll gladly accept the title so long as you accept the
> title of Conjelco sock puppet.
I'm sorry, this is just too pathetic to go on any longer. You really don't
know what a sock puppet is? Sigh. I guess we'll have to help you out
then, just as we have to constantly help Doogie with his reading comprehension
problem. You take off a sock, paint a face on it, put it over your
hand, and when you move your hand the sock puppet's mouth moves while
you speak the words. The implication is that a Doogie Sock Puppet (tm)
speaks Doogie's words, simply because Doogie has full control over the
sock puppet. Doogie Sock Puppets (tm) go everywhere that Doogie goes,
and that is why their disappearance and re-appearance coincides exactly
with Doogie's. You quite clearly fit the pattern.
I'm afraid I can't accept the title of "ConJelCo sock puppet". You see,
ConJelCo isn't a person, and ConJelCo doesn't post here. On a few rare
occasions, the owner of ConJelCo will post a message here, but I don't
think there have been more than three of those in the last year. So, it
is pretty obvious that I speak for myself. Of course, you will now proceed
to make all kinds of goofy claims about my connection with ConJelCo, but
we've come to expect that from you.
> > --
> > Steve Jacobs (jac...@xmission.com) \ Do you play Video Poker? Try VP
> Freebie
> > "Expectation isn't everything..." \
> http://www.conjelco.com/vpfreebie.html
> >
>
> Still giving away worthless software, ehh? It may not cost anything,
> but it certainly isn't "free".
I'd bet $100 that you haven't even seen it. I'm sure you've got some really
goofy definition of the word "free" that you'll proceeed to share with us.
But, thank you for the "endorsement". The phrase "not endorsed by Scott Klee"
should inspire some people to take a look at it and decide for themselves
whether it has any value. Of course, "not endorsed by Doug Grant" has much
greater advertising value, since sock puppets do not garner anywhere near the
draw as the PuppetMaster himself.
> Have you fixed the FAQ yet to reflect
> real casino conditions, or are you going to keep on misleading
> people into believing that they can sustain an advantage versus
> real-world casino conditions?
Thank you for attacking the FAQ. Instead of "fixing" anything, I'm
quite content to simply post the URL http://www.conjelco.com/faq and
let people decide for themselves whether it has value. Of the comments
I've received, the vast majority are positive, so I'll let the document
speak for itself. Nice propaganda, though it still doesn't fool anyone.
JSTAT
> Russell Hall and JSTAT were both called sock puppets at one time.
I play blackjack and win and don't appreciate people like
Steve Jacobs who don't even play high limit blackjack to
cut us down....Bite me Jacobs-you suck.When was the last
time you made a $100.00 bet? At least Doug Grant played
21 and got barred,does Jacobs have the balls to take the
bull by horns and take on the casinos in real life play?
Can Jacobs walk the walk or is he only a snake oil saleman
who can only talk the talk? Jacobs is only a cupcake who
has not played the major leagues of blackjack and is only
in the "Bobby socks" league of just talking instead of doing...
When playing single deck 21 look for no tens and aces during
the first hand.Sit in the middle of table to peek at your
neighbors cards to gain the edge for insurance.The tens
should be counted as -2 and the non tens(except the aces)
at +1.With a side count of aces you can calculate perfect
insurance bets.According to to Don Schlesinger,the insurance
bet is the number one factor to beat single deck blackjack.
Good Luck to all,
JSTAT
JSTAT
bet is the number one factor to beat beat single deck blackjack.
jac...@xmission.com
JSTAT <js...@earthlink.net> writes:
> sck...@pond.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Here's the problem. The RGB definition of "sock puppet" is anyone
> > who agrees with anything that Doug Grant says. For example, I think
> > Russell Hall and JSTAT were both called sock puppets at one time.
>
> I play blackjack and win and don't appreciate people like
> Steve Jacobs who don't even play high limit blackjack to
> cut us down....Bite me Jacobs-you suck.
Excuse me? I've never called you a sock puppet. Now you're
being taken in by the propaganda of a sock puppet. In fact, if
you'd bother to read the rest of the posts here, you'd find that
I DEFENDED YOU against Scott's claim and stated that you were NOT
a sock puppet.
It is true that I may have *once* or *twice* accused you of being
a lackey for Doug, but only after you presented evidence of that
fact by getting sucked in by Doogie propaganda.
> When was the last time you made a $100.00 bet?
Oh, about two weeks ago. Is that really any business of yours?
> At least Doug Grant played
> 21 and got barred,does Jacobs have the balls to take the
> bull by horns and take on the casinos in real life play?
See what I mean? You defend Doug here, like a good lackey, so
you deserve the title. Is Doug your hero?
I play from time to time. Doug claims that casinos have been
unbeatable for the last 7 years. If you believe Doug's claims,
then you'd have to assume that he hasn't played much (if any)
blackjack for the last 7 years. In that case, I'd bet I've played
A LOT more blackjack than he has in recent years.
> Can Jacobs walk the walk or is he only a snake oil saleman
> who can only talk the talk? Jacobs is only a cupcake who
> has not played the major leagues of blackjack and is only
> in the "Bobby socks" league of just talking instead of doing...
This is hilarious. You don't know hardly anything about me, yet you
are making all these wild claims about what I do or don't do. This
is exactly the kind of unsubstantiated bullshit that causes Doogie
to be labelled a liar. You are doing Doogie's bidding by posting
libel. Good lackey, here's a cookie.
> When playing single deck 21 look for no tens and aces during
> the first hand.Sit in the middle of table to peek at your
> neighbors cards to gain the edge for insurance.The tens
> should be counted as -2 and the non tens(except the aces)
> at +1.With a side count of aces you can calculate perfect
> insurance bets.According to to Don Schlesinger,the insurance
> bet is the number one factor to beat single deck blackjack.
Wow, actual BJ content. Your post wasn't a total waste after all.
> Good Luck to all,
> JSTAT
Good luck to you too JSTAT. If you are this easily manipulated by
Doogie and his socks, you will NEED IT :-)
Cipher
In article <6ck13g$u7f$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> , sck...@pond.com writes:
>> If it walks like a duck....
>
>What are you trying to say? Let's get specific now, shall we?
>
>Scott Klee
Doug Grant is as stupid as a sack of hammers.
There, is that clear enough, dumbass?
sck...@pond.com
In article <jacobs67m...@xmission.com>,
jac...@xmission.com wrote:
>
> sck...@pond.com writes:
>
> >
> > In article <jacobs67m...@xmission.com>,
> > jac...@xmission.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Scott Klee <sck...@pond.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > I'm wondering what the official definition of "Sock Puppet" is.I am a
Doug
> > > > Grant supporter if that's what you are getting at.
> > >
> > > In that case, you're not a sock puppet, you're a JOCK puppet :-)
> >
> > At least you're a funny worthless software seller and Conjelco
> > touter.
> >
> > > The very fact that you can't figure out the meaning of "sock puppet"
> > > helps to support the theory that you are one.
> >
> > who agrees with anything that Doug Grant says.
>
>
> > Russell Hall and JSTAT were both called sock puppets at one time.
>
> as sock puppets. In addition, they don't mysteriously disappear from
> the newsgroup the instand the Doogie disappears. Neither do they
> mysterisouly re-appear the very instant that Doogie once again rears
> his ugly head.
Interesting, so let me see if I have this straight. People who
post to this newsgroup who do not agree with the majority are
viewed as sock puppets until they prove that they are not sock
puppets.
We are somewhat coordinated in our posting efforts. Remember,
we are on the same mission. Doug has *very occasionally* told
me what I should be pounding on (like maybe twice). Other
than that, I have had virtually no input from Doug about posting.
I simply speak my mind. As far as the timing of us leaving and
coming back goes, yes we are coordinated. Simply put, when I'm
told not to post, I don't post, and when I'm told that I can
post, I post. Pretty simple, ehh?
> > I think there is probably a formal definition somewhere, and if I
> > am one, I'll gladly accept the title so long as you accept the
> > title of Conjelco sock puppet.
>
> I'm sorry, this is just too pathetic to go on any longer. You really don't
> know what a sock puppet is? Sigh. I guess we'll have to help you out
> then, just as we have to constantly help Doogie with his reading
comprehension
> problem. You take off a sock, paint a face on it, put it over your
> hand, and when you move your hand the sock puppet's mouth moves while
> you speak the words. The implication is that a Doogie Sock Puppet (tm)
> speaks Doogie's words, simply because Doogie has full control over the
> sock puppet. Doogie Sock Puppets (tm) go everywhere that Doogie goes,
> and that is why their disappearance and re-appearance coincides exactly
> with Doogie's. You quite clearly fit the pattern.
Again, we are coordinated in the timing of our "disappearance and re-
appearance". Doug has virtually no control over what I post, but
I suspect that he approves of my posts, generally. We have the same
message to tell, after all.
> I'm afraid I can't accept the title of "ConJelCo sock puppet". You see,
> ConJelCo isn't a person, and ConJelCo doesn't post here. On a few rare
> occasions, the owner of ConJelCo will post a message here, but I don't
> think there have been more than three of those in the last year. So, it
> is pretty obvious that I speak for myself. Of course, you will now proceed
> to make all kinds of goofy claims about my connection with ConJelCo, but
> we've come to expect that from you.
At *every single* opportunity, you tout ConJelCo, which is certainly
interesting. Let me ask another "goofy" question. How did you know
that ConManCo oops I mean ConJelCo was working on the Trump Taj Mahal
webpage? Seems like you have some type of connection there. Also,
I'm wondering if you would comment on why the Trump Taj would contact
the seller of "winning" systems to do work on their webpage?????
Did the Trump Taj know that ConJelCo had expertise in conning gamblers?
They are plenty of people around who can do html and webpage work.
Why ConJelCo?
> > > --
> > > Steve Jacobs (jac...@xmission.com) \ Do you play Video Poker? Try VP
> > Freebie
> > > "Expectation isn't everything..." \
> > http://www.conjelco.com/vpfreebie.html
> > >
> >
> > Still giving away worthless software, ehh? It may not cost anything,
> > but it certainly isn't "free".
>
> I'd bet $100 that you haven't even seen it. I'm sure you've got some really
> goofy definition of the word "free" that you'll proceeed to share with us.
> But, thank you for the "endorsement". The phrase "not endorsed by Scott
Klee"
> should inspire some people to take a look at it and decide for themselves
> whether it has any value. Of course, "not endorsed by Doug Grant" has much
> greater advertising value, since sock puppets do not garner anywhere near
the
> draw as the PuppetMaster himself.
Bummer, ehh?
>
> > Have you fixed the FAQ yet to reflect
> > real casino conditions, or are you going to keep on misleading
> > people into believing that they can sustain an advantage versus
> > real-world casino conditions?
>
> Thank you for attacking the FAQ. Instead of "fixing" anything, I'm
> quite content to simply post the URL http://www.conjelco.com/faq and
> let people decide for themselves whether it has value. Of the comments
> I've received, the vast majority are positive, so I'll let the document
> speak for itself. Nice propaganda, though it still doesn't fool anyone.
Gosh, my posting is so futile. I'm so sad. But I do like to piss
into the wind, so I think I'll keep on posting my "propaganda" to
try to get people to save their money.
The gambling public has lost a great deal of money because of
ConManCo. Fortunately, they'll be taken down soon.
sck...@pond.com
In article <jacobshg5...@xmission.com>,
jac...@xmission.com wrote:
>
> JSTAT <js...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> > sck...@pond.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Russell Hall and JSTAT were both called sock puppets at one time.
> >
> > Steve Jacobs who don't even play high limit blackjack to
> > cut us down....Bite me Jacobs-you suck.
>
> Excuse me? I've never called you a sock puppet. Now you're
> being taken in by the propaganda of a sock puppet. In fact, if
> you'd bother to read the rest of the posts here, you'd find that
> I DEFENDED YOU against Scott's claim and stated that you were NOT
> a sock puppet.
>
> It is true that I may have *once* or *twice* accused you of being
> a lackey for Doug, but only after you presented evidence of that
> fact by getting sucked in by Doogie propaganda.
I don't mean to put words in JSTAT's mouth, but I suspect that
JSTAT would rather be called a sock puppet than to agree with
your ConJelCo/Casino sponsered bullshit.
> > At least Doug Grant played
> > 21 and got barred,does Jacobs have the balls to take the
> > bull by horns and take on the casinos in real life play?
>
> See what I mean? You defend Doug here, like a good lackey, so
> you deserve the title. Is Doug your hero?
>
> I play from time to time. Doug claims that casinos have been
> unbeatable for the last 7 years. If you believe Doug's claims,
> then you'd have to assume that he hasn't played much (if any)
> blackjack for the last 7 years. In that case, I'd bet I've played
> A LOT more blackjack than he has in recent years.
By systems based solely on card counting.
>
> > Can Jacobs walk the walk or is he only a snake oil saleman
> > who can only talk the talk? Jacobs is only a cupcake who
> > has not played the major leagues of blackjack and is only
> > in the "Bobby socks" league of just talking instead of doing...
>
> This is hilarious. You don't know hardly anything about me, yet you
> are making all these wild claims about what I do or don't do. This
> is exactly the kind of unsubstantiated bullshit that causes Doogie
> to be labelled a liar. You are doing Doogie's bidding by posting
> libel. Good lackey, here's a cookie.
Libel? That doesn't look like libel to me. (The cookie is in
the mail JSTAT. :-)
jac...@xmission.com
sck...@pond.com writes:
That isn't what I said, stop twisting things.
> We are somewhat coordinated in our posting efforts. Remember,
> we are on the same mission. Doug has *very occasionally* told
> me what I should be pounding on (like maybe twice).
Ergo, you do not think for yourself.
> Other
> than that, I have had virtually no input from Doug about posting.
> I simply speak my mind. As far as the timing of us leaving and
> coming back goes, yes we are coordinated. Simply put, when I'm
> told not to post, I don't post, and when I'm told that I can
> post, I post. Pretty simple, ehh?
So, you post what you are told to post, when you are told to post,
and you stop posting when you are told to stop.
Pretty simple definition of a "sock puppet", eh? OK, you claim
you are only a sock puppet some of the time, and the rest of the
time Doug let's you have a little control of yourself. Oh well,
thanks for having the balls to admit that you do Doug's bidding.
That is an outright, blatant lie. There are thousands of my posts on
DejaNews that contain not a single mention of ConJelCo. Anyone can
check this out for themselves, and verify that you have once again
lied to this newsgroup.
> Let me ask another "goofy" question. How did you know
> that ConManCo oops I mean ConJelCo was working on the Trump Taj Mahal
> webpage? Seems like you have some type of connection there.
I already explained this in a recent post. I will not repeat myself,
especially to those with limited ability to comprehend written English.
> Also,
> I'm wondering if you would comment on why the Trump Taj would contact
> the seller of "winning" systems to do work on their webpage?????
You'd have to ask someone at Trump Taj. I've never even been there.
> Did the Trump Taj know that ConJelCo had expertise in conning gamblers?
More propaganda. Yawn.
> They are plenty of people around who can do html and webpage work.
> Why ConJelCo?
Why not? If I'm not mistaken, there are many r.g.p readers who play
poker at the Trump Taj. Perhaps one of them recommended ConJelCo, I
really don't know.
Knock yourself out.
> The gambling public has lost a great deal of money because of
> ConManCo. Fortunately, they'll be taken down soon.
Typical propaganda. No further response warranted.
John Harkness
John Harkness writes:
> sck...@pond.com writes:
> > We are somewhat coordinated in our posting efforts. Remember,
> > we are on the same mission. Doug has *very occasionally* told
> > me what I should be pounding on (like maybe twice).
> > Other
> > than that, I have had virtually no input from Doug about posting.
> > I simply speak my mind. As far as the timing of us leaving and
> > coming back goes, yes we are coordinated. Simply put, when I'm
> > told not to post, I don't post, and when I'm told that I can
> > post, I post. Pretty simple, ehh?
When you're told that you can post?
Good dog. Have a tasty treat.
John
JackOffetc
> Simply put, when I'm
>told not to post, I don't post, and when I'm told that I can
>post, I post. Pretty simple, ehh?
>
Well I post whenever I damn well feel like it or when I'm in a bad mood.
BRubin7878
>Subject: Re: ConJelCo ADMITS casinos are partners!
>From: jacko...@aol.com (JackOffetc)
>Date: Mon, Feb 23, 1998 15:43 EST
>Message-id: <19980223204...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Doug you are embarrassing yourself. Cut it out, I am starting to feel sorry
for you and thats no fun.
Scott Klee
jac...@xmission.com wrote:
But it certainly is what you meant, right?
>
>
> > We are somewhat coordinated in our posting efforts. Remember,
> > we are on the same mission. Doug has *very occasionally* told
> > me what I should be pounding on (like maybe twice).
>
> Ergo, you do not think for yourself.
Oh OK, that's ample evidence that I don't think for myself.A couple of times, Doug
suggests something that I should
post about, so that means I can't think for myself. That
dreaded mental affliction called con-man logic must have
infected you.
> > Other
> > than that, I have had virtually no input from Doug about posting.
> > I simply speak my mind. As far as the timing of us leaving and
> > coming back goes, yes we are coordinated. Simply put, when I'm
> > told not to post, I don't post, and when I'm told that I can
> > post, I post. Pretty simple, ehh?
>
> So, you post what you are told to post, when you are told to post,
> and you stop posting when you are told to stop.
We never made any secret of that. In fact, I even said that inmy post on 7/17/97
when we left RGB. What a detective
you are Jacobs! Do you still have your Dick Tracy secret
decoder ring?
> Pretty simple definition of a "sock puppet", eh? OK, you claim
> you are only a sock puppet some of the time, and the rest of the
> time Doug let's you have a little control of yourself. Oh well,
> thanks for having the balls to admit that you do Doug's bidding.
More of that dreaded affliction "con-man logic" here. Seekhelp, Jacobs.
You only do it when you can get away with it. If you did it allthe time, then you
would be viewed by the majority as a spammer.
That would be inappropriate because it would hurt sales.
> > Let me ask another "goofy" question. How did you know
> > that ConManCo oops I mean ConJelCo was working on the Trump Taj Mahal
> > webpage? Seems like you have some type of connection there.
>
> I already explained this in a recent post. I will not repeat myself,
> especially to those with limited ability to comprehend written English.
Post the date of the post, or quote the article. I couldn't findit and furthermore,
I don't believe you.
> > Also,
> > I'm wondering if you would comment on why the Trump Taj would contact
> > the seller of "winning" systems to do work on their webpage?????
>
> You'd have to ask someone at Trump Taj. I've never even been there.
The address of ConJelCo is Pittsburgh. That's an awfully long way fromAtlantic
City. There are certainly plenty of consultants in New Jersey.
I don't understand why they'd use ConmanCo. (well, actually I do)
> > Did the Trump Taj know that ConJelCo had expertise in conning gamblers?
>
> More propaganda. Yawn.
Seems like a valid question to me, since a seller of "winning systems" anda casino
should be *enemies* of one another.
> > They are plenty of people around who can do html and webpage work.
> > Why ConJelCo?
>
> Why not? If I'm not mistaken, there are many r.g.p readers who play
> poker at the Trump Taj. Perhaps one of them recommended ConJelCo, I
> really don't know.
>
Yes, perhaps there is a poker shill who reads RGP who made thesuggestion.
I'll do that, thanks for your continued support.
> > The gambling public has lost a great deal of money because of
> > ConManCo. Fortunately, they'll be taken down soon.
>
> Typical propaganda. No further response warranted.
You may call it propaganda, but it's true. Do you refute the
truth of this statement?
Scott Klee
Scott Klee
John Harkness wrote:
> John Harkness writes:
>
> > sck...@pond.com writes:
>
> > > We are somewhat coordinated in our posting efforts. Remember,
> > > we are on the same mission. Doug has *very occasionally* told
> > > me what I should be pounding on (like maybe twice).
>
> > > Other
> > > than that, I have had virtually no input from Doug about posting.
> > > I simply speak my mind. As far as the timing of us leaving and
> > > coming back goes, yes we are coordinated. Simply put, when I'm
> > > told not to post, I don't post, and when I'm told that I can
> > > post, I post. Pretty simple, ehh?
>
> When you're told that you can post?
>
> Good dog. Have a tasty treat.
What? No "Have a nice day"? I'm offended.
Get a clue Harkness - you're pathetic when you're
desparate. ..And now, I didn't even consult with
Doug before making this post. He has an ongoing
command that is good all the time - "Sick 'em!".
Scott Klee
Jack B Nimble
Scott Klee <sck...@pond.com> wrote:
:John Harkness wrote:
:> John Harkness writes:
:>
:> > sck...@pond.com writes:
:>
:> > > We are somewhat coordinated in our posting efforts. Remember,
:> > > we are on the same mission. Doug has *very occasionally* told
:> > > me what I should be pounding on (like maybe twice).
:>
:> > > Other
:> > > than that, I have had virtually no input from Doug about posting.
:> > > I simply speak my mind. As far as the timing of us leaving and
:> > > coming back goes, yes we are coordinated. Simply put, when I'm
:> > > told not to post, I don't post, and when I'm told that I can
:> > > post, I post. Pretty simple, ehh?
:>
:> When you're told that you can post?
:>
:> Good dog. Have a tasty treat.
:What? No "Have a nice day"? I'm offended.
:Get a clue Harkness - you're pathetic when you're
:desparate. ..And now, I didn't even consult with
:Doug before making this post. He has an ongoing
:command that is good all the time - "Sick 'em!".
Any carpet burns of your knees yet?
:Scott Klee
Pete Moss
jac...@xmission.com wrote:
>
> So, you post what you are told to post, when you are told to post,
> and you stop posting when you are told to stop.
>
> Pretty simple definition of a "sock puppet", eh?
Sock Puppet (n.)
an alternate, ficticious net-persona adopted by a net.kook
to make it appear that there are others who agree with him.
"On the internet, no one knows you're a dog."
Pete Moss (so far as you know)
Michael Solinas
Scott Klee wrote:
> > > Interesting, so let me see if I have this straight. People who
> > > post to this newsgroup who do not agree with the majority are
> > > viewed as sock puppets until they prove that they are not sock
> > > puppets.
> > That isn't what I said, stop twisting things.
> But it certainly is what you meant, right?
That isn't what I thought when I read his post.
> > > We are somewhat coordinated in our posting efforts. Remember,
> > > we are on the same mission. Doug has *very occasionally* told
> > > me what I should be pounding on (like maybe twice).
> > Ergo, you do not think for yourself.
> Oh OK, that's ample evidence that I don't think for myself.A couple of times, Doug
> suggests something that I should
> post about, so that means I can't think for myself. That
> dreaded mental affliction called con-man logic must have
> infected you.
Jeez, the evidence of puppethood is mounting.
> > > Other
> > > than that, I have had virtually no input from Doug about posting.
> > > I simply speak my mind. As far as the timing of us leaving and
> > > coming back goes, yes we are coordinated. Simply put, when I'm
> > > told not to post, I don't post, and when I'm told that I can
> > > post, I post. Pretty simple, ehh?
> > So, you post what you are told to post, when you are told to post,
> > and you stop posting when you are told to stop.
> We never made any secret of that. In fact, I even said that inmy post on 7/17/97
> when we left RGB.
This is precisely why you are called a sock puppet.
> > That is an outright, blatant lie. There are thousands of my posts on
> > DejaNews that contain not a single mention of ConJelCo. Anyone can
> > check this out for themselves, and verify that you have once again
> > lied to this newsgroup.
> You only do it when you can get away with it. If you did it allthe time, then you
> would be viewed by the majority as a spammer.
> That would be inappropriate because it would hurt sales.
Do you really believe this rubbish?
> > > Also,
> > > I'm wondering if you would comment on why the Trump Taj would contact
> > > the seller of "winning" systems to do work on their webpage?????
> > You'd have to ask someone at Trump Taj. I've never even been there.
> The address of ConJelCo is Pittsburgh. That's an awfully long way fromAtlantic
> City. There are certainly plenty of consultants in New Jersey.
> I don't understand why they'd use ConmanCo. (well, actually I do)
I can wager a guess. Probably because Chuck understands gambling,
marketing, the internet, and web page design. I'd be willing to bet
that few consultants have the knowledge or experience for gambling
related web pages that Chuck has.
Why do you always see a conspiracy when obvious answers are so apparent?
> > > Did the Trump Taj know that ConJelCo had expertise in conning gamblers?
> > More propaganda. Yawn.
> Seems like a valid question to me, since a seller of "winning systems" anda casino
> should be *enemies* of one another.
Then why did Sigma Research solicit counter catcher services in The
Sigma Report?
> > > They are plenty of people around who can do html and webpage work.
> > > Why ConJelCo?
> > Why not? If I'm not mistaken, there are many r.g.p readers who play
> > poker at the Trump Taj. Perhaps one of them recommended ConJelCo, I
> > really don't know.
> Yes, perhaps there is a poker shill who reads RGP who made thesuggestion.
Or - someone at the Trump Taj wanted a gambling web page, did a little
searching, and liked Chuck's work.
Mike
Michael Solinas
sck...@pond.com wrote:
> > > Could you explain to me why someone who sells systems that
> > > supposedly "beat" casinos also secretly works for them? Could
> > > you explain to me why Arnold gave card counting seminars
> > > *IN CASINOS*? Could you explain to me why Arnold enticed one
> > > of Doug's students to violate their non-divulgence agreement
> > > to get one of Doug's copyrighted blackjack systems and turn
> > > around and *SELL IT* to the TropWorld casino in AC for $1500?
> > Boy, you sound like Doug.
> Sure seems like you have a serious reading comprehension problem
> here. I asked you three *separate* questions here, and not one
> of them had anything to do with me "sounding like" Doug. Answer
> the questions Solinas, quit dodging.
You've got it. The answers are pretty simple, actually:
(1) I don't believe Snyder "secretly works for them."
(2) Seminars are held in casinos because GAMBLERS GO TO CASINOS, and
casinos rent conference rooms.
(3) People send Snyder stuff all the time, unsolicited.
Now you answer this one: Do you have any proof whatsoever that Snyder
ENTICED a student to violate their non-divulgence agreement? Don't say
his posession is proof, it isn't. The "donor" may just have been a
dissatisfied customer, someone unable to get his money back, someone who
no longer wanted it, etc. Is there ANY PROOF of your allegation that
Snyder actively enticed someone to provide the materials?
> Or could it be that any
> bullshit answer you come up with would make Arnie look like the
> casino employee that he is?
Nope. You and Doug have yet to prove Snyder is a casino employee. I
believe he is not.
> > > You can call Doug "Stupid" if you like, but I've got a few
> > > stronger words for Arnold.
> > No doubt. Your language, and the content of your messages, has really
> > gone to hell for the past few months. You appear to be more like Doug
> > every day.
> I couldn't give a flying fuck about what you think of my language.
Apparently. But the content of your messages has also degenerated.
> Yes, I used to patiently answer all questions that were asked of
> me and I used to be nice. There's only so much bullshit I can take
> though.
That's true for many here, which is why RGBM was such a success!
> > > Also, so far you've dodged all of Doug's questions about the
> > > Uston SS and you relationship with Ken Uston. So, when did
> > > you create the Uston SS system and what was your relationship
> > > like with Ken Uston. You know, Uston also testified before
> > > the NJ CCC and said that no one could sustain an advantage
> > > either (correct me if I'm wrong Doug). So quit hiding from
> > > our tough questions and answer them for once, Solinas.
> > I haven't dodged a thing.
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Very Doug-like.
> > I did some computer work calculating the strategy indices for the SS
> > count.
> Gosh, you know how to use a computer?
Well, that comment was certainly worth the bandwidth.
> > As far as when, I've answered it - I honestly don't remember. It was
> > quite a while ago, years. I don't remember when.
> How about a ballpark figure? Early eighties, mid eighties, late
> eighties, early nineties, mid nineties - take your pick. What
> kind of computer did you use?
Seriously - I have no clue when it was. We can rule out the '70s, but
that's about it. I used a spreadsheet, Lotus 123, with Snyder's
Algebraic Approximation algorithm, to generate the index tables.
You can probably estimate the date from when it was published. My
involvement was probably a few months before the publication date.
Again - this is a guess, but should give you the ballpark you need.
Just see when it came out, and backtrack less than a year.
> > Answer this one for me - why are you and Doug so hung up on WHEN the
> > work was done? I've asked Doug repeatedly, and he's dodged that one
> > every time.
> We'd like to put together a timeline - now answer the question, stop
> dodging.
I'm not dodging. I've answered as best as I can. Again - I've been
involved in Blackjack for years, and work done around a decade ago blurs
timewise. It wasn't my most important work, although it may be my best
known.
> > > (I'm getting ready for the typical Solinas response of "I
> > > wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire". Well Solinas,
> > > the feeling is mutual.)
> > Sorry to disappoint you.
> I'm sure you'll say it again to me sometime.
If you keep asking for favors, yes, you're probably right.
> > > > >You can't be one of the foremost experts on the game
> > > > >of blackjack in the world by being stupid.
> > > > Nonsense. No "foremost expert" would be completely stopped by
> > > > preferential shuffles. He's the only "foremost expert" who can't get
> > > > a bet down. Some expert!
> > > Yeah, I guess Arnold probably wouldn't have much of a problem
> > > getting his typical bet size down - *TWO DOLLARS*! (Also from
> > > Snyder's sworn deposition)
> > Heh.
> Any refutation? You see, Doug actually has played his systems for big
> money. Arnie is scared to play his - I wonder why?
Heh.
Mike
jac...@xmission.com
No, it isn't what I meant. You are just trying to put words into
my mouth, as usual.
>
> >
> >
> > > We are somewhat coordinated in our posting efforts. Remember,
> > > we are on the same mission. Doug has *very occasionally* told
> > > me what I should be pounding on (like maybe twice).
> >
> > Ergo, you do not think for yourself.
>
> Oh OK, that's ample evidence that I don't think for myself.A couple of times, Doug
> suggests something that I should
> post about, so that means I can't think for myself. That
> dreaded mental affliction called con-man logic must have
> infected you.
If you were fully able to think for yourself, then there would be
no need to Doug Grant to ever tell you what to post, or when, or
when to stop.
Get it, Pinochio?
> > > At *every single* opportunity, you tout ConJelCo, which is certainly
> > > interesting.
> >
> > That is an outright, blatant lie. There are thousands of my posts on
> > DejaNews that contain not a single mention of ConJelCo. Anyone can
> > check this out for themselves, and verify that you have once again
> > lied to this newsgroup.
>
> You only do it when you can get away with it.
Well, which is it? Is it "*every single* opportunity", or is "only
when you can get away with it"?
One of your statements was a lie. Please retract the lie. Now *that*
would really be refreshing.
> > > Let me ask another "goofy" question. How did you know
> > > that ConManCo oops I mean ConJelCo was working on the Trump Taj Mahal
> > > webpage? Seems like you have some type of connection there.
> >
> > I already explained this in a recent post. I will not repeat myself,
> > especially to those with limited ability to comprehend written English.
>
> Post the date of the post, or quote the article. I couldn't findit and
> furthermore, I don't believe you.
I don't care if you believe me. If you want me to find it for you, my
consulting rate is $100/hr with a four hour minimum paid in advance.
> > > The gambling public has lost a great deal of money because of
> > > ConManCo. Fortunately, they'll be taken down soon.
> >
> > Typical propaganda. No further response warranted.
>
> You may call it propaganda, but it's true. Do you refute the
> truth of this statement?
If you have specific evidence that shows massive financial losses,
and shows that they are linked directly to ConJelCo customers,
then post it. Since you've never posted *anything* to prove *any*
of your other bullshit claims, I see no reason for anyone to believe
you now.
In short, "Typical propaganda. No further response warranted."
sck...@pond.com
In article <34F29B...@ix.netcrom.com>,
Pete Moss <jsdf8098...@ix.netcrom.com> wrote:
>
> jac...@xmission.com wrote:
> >
> > So, you post what you are told to post, when you are told to post,
> > and you stop posting when you are told to stop.
> >
> > Pretty simple definition of a "sock puppet", eh?
>
>
> an alternate, ficticious net-persona adopted by a net.kook
> to make it appear that there are others who agree with him.
>
So therefore, I'm not a sock puppet since:
a) Doug is not a net.kook
b) I am certainly not a virtual/fictitious entity.
In fact, it certainly appears like saying that Doug ever
had "sock puppets" is a libelous statement.
sck...@pond.com
In article <34F31...@solinas.com>,
Michael Solinas <mi...@solinas.com> wrote:
>
> sck...@pond.com wrote:
> > > > Could you explain to me why someone who sells systems that
> > > > supposedly "beat" casinos also secretly works for them? Could
> > > > you explain to me why Arnold gave card counting seminars
> > > > *IN CASINOS*? Could you explain to me why Arnold enticed one
> > > > of Doug's students to violate their non-divulgence agreement
> > > > to get one of Doug's copyrighted blackjack systems and turn
> > > > around and *SELL IT* to the TropWorld casino in AC for $1500?
> > > Boy, you sound like Doug.
> > Sure seems like you have a serious reading comprehension problem
> > here. I asked you three *separate* questions here, and not one
> > of them had anything to do with me "sounding like" Doug. Answer
> > the questions Solinas, quit dodging.
>
> You've got it. The answers are pretty simple, actually:
>
> (1) I don't believe Snyder "secretly works for them."
You don't believe he secretly works for them. Oh, ok. So, I
presume that the con man said that he was working for the
casinos in an issue of Blackjack Forum or an advertisement
for his worthless systems, or he said it *somewhere* to make
it known that he had a conflict of interest, right?
> (2) Seminars are held in casinos because GAMBLERS GO TO CASINOS, and
> casinos rent conference rooms.
Of course, a majority of the population are gamblers. Perhaps
a better place to hold a seminar would be a non-casino hotel.
The thought that comes to my mind would be what would happen
if Doug held a seminar in a casino. You can be sure that the
conference room would be prepared somewhat differently than
normal - like there'd be hand grenades evenly spaced in the
ceiling tiles or something like that.
Of course, given Arnold's sworn testimony in the Campione case,
the recent SEC investigation of card counting systems, casino
advertisements that entice people to count cards, and Arnold's
history of working with the casino industry, it is clear that
Arnold knew that he was rounding up another batch of suckers
for the casinos to slaughter at his seminars. I'll call him a
con man.
> (3) People send Snyder stuff all the time, unsolicited.
His eyes must have popped out when he received Doug's course
"unsolicited", ehh?
> Now you answer this one: Do you have any proof whatsoever that Snyder
> ENTICED a student to violate their non-divulgence agreement? Don't say
> his posession is proof, it isn't. The "donor" may just have been a
> dissatisfied customer, someone unable to get his money back, someone who
> no longer wanted it, etc. Is there ANY PROOF of your allegation that
> Snyder actively enticed someone to provide the materials?
Jeez, you sound like Clinton. :-)
Obviously, your con-man buddy knows. Why don't you just ask
him to post how he got it, or you can ask him how he got it
and post what he said. I know it's difficult for you to do
this since you see him once a week. hehe
>
> > Or could it be that any
> > bullshit answer you come up with would make Arnie look like the
> > casino employee that he is?
>
> Nope. You and Doug have yet to prove Snyder is a casino employee. I
> believe he is not.
Again, this you "believe" he's not. Either he is or he isn't, and
you ought to know. Does he just receive an occasional check, or
does he receive his checks bi-weekly? He does help the profit
picture for casinos nicely, so he *should* be paid handsomely.
>
> > > > You can call Doug "Stupid" if you like, but I've got a few
> > > > stronger words for Arnold.
> > > No doubt. Your language, and the content of your messages, has really
> > > gone to hell for the past few months. You appear to be more like Doug
> > > every day.
> > I couldn't give a flying fuck about what you think of my language.
>
> Apparently. But the content of your messages has also degenerated.
Why thank you. I really enjoy picking on Arnie.
> > Yes, I used to patiently answer all questions that were asked of
> > me and I used to be nice. There's only so much bullshit I can take
> > though.
>
> That's true for many here, which is why RGBM was such a success!
"was", hehe
> > > > Also, so far you've dodged all of Doug's questions about the
> > > > Uston SS and you relationship with Ken Uston. So, when did
> > > > you create the Uston SS system and what was your relationship
> > > > like with Ken Uston. You know, Uston also testified before
> > > > the NJ CCC and said that no one could sustain an advantage
> > > > either (correct me if I'm wrong Doug). So quit hiding from
> > > > our tough questions and answer them for once, Solinas.
> > > I haven't dodged a thing.
> > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> Very Doug-like.
That makes me Doug Grant, right?
"Dodge" is practically your middle name, Solinas.
> > > > (I'm getting ready for the typical Solinas response of "I
> > > > wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire". Well Solinas,
> > > > the feeling is mutual.)
> > > Sorry to disappoint you.
> > I'm sure you'll say it again to me sometime.
>
> If you keep asking for favors, yes, you're probably right.
I knew I could count on you.
>
> > > > > >You can't be one of the foremost experts on the game
> > > > > >of blackjack in the world by being stupid.
> > > > > Nonsense. No "foremost expert" would be completely stopped by
> > > > > preferential shuffles. He's the only "foremost expert" who can't
get
> > > > > a bet down. Some expert!
> > > > Yeah, I guess Arnold probably wouldn't have much of a problem
> > > > getting his typical bet size down - *TWO DOLLARS*! (Also from
> > > > Snyder's sworn deposition)
> > > Heh.
> > Any refutation? You see, Doug actually has played his systems for big
> > money. Arnie is scared to play his - I wonder why?
>
> Heh.
Still no refutation. Heh.
BRubin7878
>
>So therefore, I'm not a sock puppet since:
>
>a) Doug is not a net.kook
>b) I am certainly not a v
Without a doubt, the biggest lie in this whole sitcom is "Doug is not a
net.kook" That one is worth the price of admission, in itself.
John Harkness
John Harkness writes:
He even won an award for it!
John
Michael Solinas
sck...@pond.com wrote:
> In article <34F31...@solinas.com>,
> Michael Solinas <mi...@solinas.com> wrote:
> > sck...@pond.com wrote:
> > > > > Could you explain to me why someone who sells systems that
> > > > > supposedly "beat" casinos also secretly works for them? Could
> > > > > you explain to me why Arnold gave card counting seminars
> > > > > *IN CASINOS*? Could you explain to me why Arnold enticed one
> > > > > of Doug's students to violate their non-divulgence agreement
> > > > > to get one of Doug's copyrighted blackjack systems and turn
> > > > > around and *SELL IT* to the TropWorld casino in AC for $1500?
> > > > Boy, you sound like Doug.
> > > Sure seems like you have a serious reading comprehension problem
> > > here. I asked you three *separate* questions here, and not one
> > > of them had anything to do with me "sounding like" Doug. Answer
> > > the questions Solinas, quit dodging.
> > You've got it. The answers are pretty simple, actually:
> > (1) I don't believe Snyder "secretly works for them."
> You don't believe he secretly works for them. Oh, ok. So, I
> presume that the con man said that he was working for the
> casinos in an issue of Blackjack Forum or an advertisement
> for his worthless systems, or he said it *somewhere* to make
> it known that he had a conflict of interest, right?
Specifically what "work" are you talking about?
> > (2) Seminars are held in casinos because GAMBLERS GO TO CASINOS, and
> > casinos rent conference rooms.
> Of course, a majority of the population are gamblers. Perhaps
> a better place to hold a seminar would be a non-casino hotel.
> The thought that comes to my mind would be what would happen
> if Doug held a seminar in a casino. You can be sure that the
> conference room would be prepared somewhat differently than
> normal - like there'd be hand grenades evenly spaced in the
> ceiling tiles or something like that.
Hand grenades? Naw. Straight jackets, maybe.
> Of course, given Arnold's sworn testimony in the Campione case,
> the recent SEC investigation of card counting systems, casino
> advertisements that entice people to count cards, and Arnold's
> history of working with the casino industry, it is clear that
> Arnold knew that he was rounding up another batch of suckers
> for the casinos to slaughter at his seminars. I'll call him a
> con man.
The only con man I've seen is the guy who ran classes, then tried to
start a counter catching business. What was the intent - to turn in his
own students?
> > (3) People send Snyder stuff all the time, unsolicited.
> His eyes must have popped out when he received Doug's course
> "unsolicited", ehh?
Eyes rolling is probably a better description. You sock puppets have a
very warped perception of his importance.
> > Now you answer this one: Do you have any proof whatsoever that Snyder
> > ENTICED a student to violate their non-divulgence agreement? Don't say
> > his posession is proof, it isn't. The "donor" may just have been a
> > dissatisfied customer, someone unable to get his money back, someone who
> > no longer wanted it, etc. Is there ANY PROOF of your allegation that
> > Snyder actively enticed someone to provide the materials?
> Jeez, you sound like Clinton. :-)
> Obviously, your con-man buddy knows. Why don't you just ask
> him to post how he got it, or you can ask him how he got it
> and post what he said. I know it's difficult for you to do
> this since you see him once a week. hehe
Don't dodge the question. I'll state it again - do you have ANY PROOF
of your allegation that Snyder ENTICED a student to voilate his
non-disclosure agreement?
Or - is this just yet another baseless lie?
> > > Or could it be that any
> > > bullshit answer you come up with would make Arnie look like the
> > > casino employee that he is?
> > Nope. You and Doug have yet to prove Snyder is a casino employee. I
> > believe he is not.
> Again, this you "believe" he's not. Either he is or he isn't, and
> you ought to know. Does he just receive an occasional check, or
> does he receive his checks bi-weekly? He does help the profit
> picture for casinos nicely, so he *should* be paid handsomely.
Do you have any proof whatsoever that Snyder is a casino employee?
> > > Yes, I used to patiently answer all questions that were asked of
> > > me and I used to be nice. There's only so much bullshit I can take
> > > though.
> > That's true for many here, which is why RGBM was such a success!
> "was", hehe
Still is. Will be, too!
> > > > > Also, so far you've dodged all of Doug's questions about the
> > > > > Uston SS and you relationship with Ken Uston. So, when did
> > > > > you create the Uston SS system and what was your relationship
> > > > > like with Ken Uston. You know, Uston also testified before
> > > > > the NJ CCC and said that no one could sustain an advantage
> > > > > either (correct me if I'm wrong Doug). So quit hiding from
> > > > > our tough questions and answer them for once, Solinas.
> > > > I haven't dodged a thing.
> > > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> > Very Doug-like.
> That makes me Doug Grant, right?
Did I say that?
> > > > I did some computer work calculating the strategy indices for the SS
> > > > count.
> > > Gosh, you know how to use a computer?
> > Well, that comment was certainly worth the bandwidth.
> > > > As far as when, I've answered it - I honestly don't remember. It was
> > > > quite a while ago, years. I don't remember when.
> > > How about a ballpark figure? Early eighties, mid eighties, late
> > > eighties, early nineties, mid nineties - take your pick. What
> > > kind of computer did you use?
> > Seriously - I have no clue when it was. We can rule out the '70s, but
> > that's about it. I used a spreadsheet, Lotus 123, with Snyder's
> > Algebraic Approximation algorithm, to generate the index tables.
> > You can probably estimate the date from when it was published. My
> > involvement was probably a few months before the publication date.
> > Again - this is a guess, but should give you the ballpark you need.
> > Just see when it came out, and backtrack less than a year.
No comments on this one. I give you a proper answer to your question,
and you fall silent.
> > > > Answer this one for me - why are you and Doug so hung up on WHEN the
> > > > work was done? I've asked Doug repeatedly, and he's dodged that one
> > > > every time.
> > > We'd like to put together a timeline - now answer the question, stop
> > > dodging.
> > I'm not dodging. I've answered as best as I can. Again - I've been
> > involved in Blackjack for years, and work done around a decade ago blurs
> > timewise. It wasn't my most important work, although it may be my best
> > known.
> "Dodge" is practically your middle name, Solinas.
The King of Dodge had a song named after him. "The Doogie Shuffle."
Again - you have your answers.
> > > > > > >You can't be one of the foremost experts on the game
> > > > > > >of blackjack in the world by being stupid.
> > > > > > Nonsense. No "foremost expert" would be completely stopped by
> > > > > > preferential shuffles. He's the only "foremost expert" who can't
> get
> > > > > > a bet down. Some expert!
> > > > > Yeah, I guess Arnold probably wouldn't have much of a problem
> > > > > getting his typical bet size down - *TWO DOLLARS*! (Also from
> > > > > Snyder's sworn deposition)
> > > > Heh.
> > > Any refutation? You see, Doug actually has played his systems for big
> > > money. Arnie is scared to play his - I wonder why?
> > Heh.
> Still no refutation. Heh.
Heh.
Mike
RUSTYBLKJK
>a) Doug is not a net.kook
You forgot to add:
- The earth is flat
- Bill didn't get a hummer from Monica
- Counting cards is okay at Barbary Coast
- They don't get F-4 tornadoes in Florida
- You can't get pregnant the first time
- Walt Disney is frozen and stored under Tommorowland
- Oswald acted alone
- There is a Vulcan death grip
- Michael Corleone didn't kill Carlo
And finally...
- The Sigma Report didn't solicit-counter catching services.
Rusty Martin
Phoenix: A fabulous bird, reborn from the ashes of its former life.
Rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated: Phoenix
RUSTYBLKJK
>the recent SEC investigation of card counting systems
The recent "SEC" investigation? Do you just make this bullshit up as you go
along? Or does Doug use the Jedi Mind Trick on you?
Please cite to me *any* fact about *any* SEC investigation about card counting
systems you lying sack of sh*t!!
DOUGLAS REIMAN
Would you like for me to answer that question? We submitted the
letters from the SEC AND THE CASINOS with our lawsuit. What's the
matter Rusty, never learned to read?
Doug Grant (Tm)
P.S. It is hard to believe you guys just keep getting dumber and
dumber and dumber. Now you are challenging me to post something
that will make you into a liar, real smart move - but somehow it
figures.
RUSTYBLKJK wrote in message
<19980226023...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
DOUGLAS REIMAN
Stanford Wong wrote a letter to the Econ people thanking them for
all their work they did for the casinos. Was that a solicitation
for card counter catcher services? At least Wong's letter was dated
and signed, and that is more than this idiot can say about any of
his fabricated claims. Plus Rusty has already admitted working for
the casinos. So think about it. No one that works for the casinos
can be very smart or honest, not to mention trustworthy.
Doug Grant (Tm)
RUSTYBLKJK wrote in message
<19980226023...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>In article <6d13kg$2d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, sck...@pond.com
writes:
>
>>a) Doug is not a net.kook
>
>You forgot to add:
>
>- The earth is flat
>- Bill didn't get a hummer from Monica
>- Counting cards is okay at Barbary Coast
>- They don't get F-4 tornadoes in Florida
>- You can't get pregnant the first time
>- Walt Disney is frozen and stored under Tommorowland
>- Oswald acted alone
>- There is a Vulcan death grip
>- Michael Corleone didn't kill Carlo
>
>And finally...
>
>- The Sigma Report didn't solicit-counter catching services.
>
>
>
DOUGLAS REIMAN
I like Solinas's new answer "Heh." Somehow it fits. We are still
waiting for Solinas and Snyder to give up all the secret deals they
have had with the casinos. Michael, me boyo, are you now attempting
to state for the record that neither you or your partner Arnold
Snyder ever worked for the casino industry to help them identify
card counters?
Doug Grant (Tm)
Michael Solinas wrote in message <34F492...@solinas.com>...
sck...@pond.com
In article <19980226023...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
rusty...@aol.com (RUSTYBLKJK) wrote:
>
> In article <6d17c8$3k5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, sck...@pond.com writes:
>
> >the recent SEC investigation of card counting systems
>
> The recent "SEC" investigation? Do you just make this bullshit up as you go
> along? Or does Doug use the Jedi Mind Trick on you?
>
> Please cite to me *any* fact about *any* SEC investigation about card
counting
> systems you lying sack of sh*t!!
Yes Rusty, an SEC investigation, and SEC means: United States
Securities and Exchange Commission. Is that clear enough for
you, liar?
Doug has never used any Jedi Mind Trick on me, although I think
I'm turning to the dark side of the force.
jaso...@hotmail.com
In article <34EDB1...@earthlink.net>,
js...@earthlink.net wrote:
>I play blackjack and win and don't appreciate people like
>Steve Jacobs who don't even play high limit blackjack to
>cut us down....Bite me Jacobs-you suck.When was the last
>time you made a $100.00 bet? At least Doug Grant played
>21 and got barred,does Jacobs have the balls to take the
>bull by horns and take on the casinos in real life play?
ARE YOU INSANE? Just read what you have posted and stop and think how
inane your post really is.
>Can Jacobs walk the walk or is he only a snake oil saleman
>who can only talk the talk? Jacobs is only a cupcake who
>has not played the major leagues of blackjack and is only
>in the "Bobby socks" league of just talking instead of doing...
All you wanna do is talk, talk. ObBlackjack: You can place more
action with less heat by playing two hands. Keep it at two hands,
though, because changing the number of hands according to the count
is something the pit critters watch for.
>When playing single deck 21 look for no tens and aces during
>neighbors cards to gain the edge for insurance.The tens
>should be counted as -2 and the non tens(except the aces)
>at +1.With a side count of aces you can calculate perfect
>insurance bets.According to to Don Schlesinger,the insurance
>bet is the number one factor to beat single deck blackjack.
That's not too good, is it? But you're the expert on mathematics!
STOP SPEAKING ABOUT A SUBJECT THAT YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING ABOUT!
> Good Luck to all,
> JSTAT
Ummmm... your command of the English language is tenuous to say the least.
-Jason Wit (no Tm)
jaso...@hotmail.com
jaso...@hotmail.com
In article <6ckan1$6k8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
sck...@pond.com wrote:
>
>In article <6cjs81$qdf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> jaso...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <34E9C8F2...@pond.com>,
>> Scott Klee <sck...@pond.com> wrote:
>>
>> >That is a bald faced lie. Post your proof.
>>
>> You have been proved a liar, over, and over again. You have lied so
>> many times, and have been caught lying, that your word or statements
>> are immediately suspect by everyone on this newsgroup. You lied
>> then, and you are lying now. You lie to the ISP's, and you lie to
>> this newsgroup every opportunity you get. You are afraid to post any
>> proof "becuase" you know none exists.
>
>Lies: 8
If you really want to find out what all these Grant gofers are afraid
for you to read- then send me a hard address and I will send you a 55
page treatise FREE.
>Good lie density! 1.33 lies/per line!
Don't worry, the truth will never go away regardless of the lies you
post. What lies?
>> >I'm wondering what the official definition of "Sock Puppet" is.I am a Doug
>> >Grant supporter if that's what you are getting
>> >at.
>>
>> Normally I feel a twinge of pity for wimps like you, but in some
>> cases I simply acknowledge that pure and pristine *idiots* must exist
>> in the world for cannon fodder. Too bad there is not a war on. Con
>> men tactics seem to be evident in each one of your posts, and you
>> cannot even begin to comprehend the intricacies of playing a winning
>> game of blackjack.
>
>2 more lies, and some incorrect opinion.
No! Bugger off! Silly person!
>Total Lies: 10
So how do you explain your lies this time? More rock running? Also
how come you and the rest of your moron club were afraid to take my
challenge to post the name of any casino that ANYONE could use
Snyder's system in and experiencing a premature shuffle or get barred
before the first deck is out?
>
>>
>> >Nope, not kidding at all. In fact, I may have been understating..
>>
>> Hmmm... that's too bad.
>>
>> >There's *no one* else with Doug Grant's credentials with respect
>> >to blackjack systems and play. He has 60,000 former students,
>> >is the organizer of the largest and most successful blackjack
>> >teams, and he has come up with many innovations with respect
>> >to blackjack systems and new winning systems for other games.
>>
>> Blackjack? I thought the topic of this newsgroup was Doug Grant!
>> Doug Grant can't play blackjack, so the topics are mutually
>> exclusive! Every time you Grant gofers open your mouths you stick my
>> **** in it!
>
>Chalk up 3 more
My God - more BULLSHIT! PLEASE DON'T TELL ME THIS IS FROM DOUG GRANT!
>Total Lies: 13
Moron!
>> >In general, the other system sellers repackage the same old shit
>> >that Dr. Thorpe came out with *35* years ago with virtually no
>> >innovation - and their customers *LOSE*! And these guys also
>> >*secretly work for the casino industry*!
>>
>> The garbage that comes out of your mouth is most foul. I feel sorry
>> for you, mate. I have before me a list of all the Griffin agents.
>> You are one of them.
>
>Hmmm, I'll give you 2 more there.
>Total Lies: 15
We all know that Klee does not play, and that Grant has not been able
to win more than $5000 in 25 years! Yannessa has admitted losing
overall with what he calls "the best card counting system ever!"
>So I'm one of the people I'm suing? HAHAHAHAHAHA
>> >In general, the other system sellers repackage the same old shit
>> >that Dr. Thorpe came out with *35* years ago with virtually no
>> >innovation - and their customers *LOSE*! And these guys also
>>
>> The garbage that comes out of your mouth is most foul. I feel sorry
>> for you, mate. I have before me a list of all the Griffin agents.
>> You are one of them.
>
>I won't count your repetitive crap over again.
Hey, like I *really* care...
>> >think Doug Grant is the casino industry's worst nightmare. We'll
>> >have the historic opportunity to see who's right soon. :-)
>>
>> What a coincidence, you know that *you* think doug grant is a kook -
>> that makes two of us! Scurry back to your little hole and think up
>> some other nonsensical post. I don't think we will have
>> the historic opportunity to see who is right soon at all!
>
>There are at least 2 lies here. I'd give you more but I'm conservative
>with respect to how I classify lies.
Who knows whether at least 2 lies here are? Who gives a toss?
Didn't I already tell you?
>Total lies: 17
Liar, liar, pants on fire!
>>
>> >Scott Klee
>>
>> Scott Klee used to have a mind of his own.
>
>Still does, and chalk up one last lie.
That is pure bullshit.
>Total lies: 18!
>
>Congratulations! I think that breaks Ken Hale's record of 16.
>
>While I can appreciate your lie density, Ken Hale still has you
>beat because of the entertainment value of his posts. You see,
>he'd include JPEG's of chimps with his messages and refer to
>the chimps as Doug Grant's team. Work at it, though. You
>certainly show some promise.
Lie? You are the one who lies! OK - so you're going! YES I AM
CERTAIN. NOW NAFF OFF!
>Scott Klee
Klee used to be much smarter than Doogie.
jaso...@hotmail.com
DOUGLAS REIMAN wrote:
>Stanford Wong wrote a letter to the Econ people thanking them for
>all their work they did for the casinos. Was that a solicitation
>for card counter catcher services? At least Wong's letter was dated
>and signed, and that is more than this idiot can say about any of
>his fabricated claims. Plus Rusty has already admitted working for
>the casinos. So think about it. No one that works for the casinos
>can be very smart or honest, not to mention trustworthy.
An open letter to all Grant lackeys: Since you apparently know how to
use a kill file, why do you care what I post? Are you the net
censor? Can you dispute the very important facts I post? Or, are
you simply afraid that others will read the truth? You Grant lackeys
are starting something that you cannot win. Grant, Klee and Yannessa
are selling worthless lawuits, and they are grossly misrepresenting
them to anyone that will buy them. Moreover, Grant has a tendency to
attack those that question the validity of his worthless systems and
lawsuits. Any rational person that has experience playing BJ and
counting cards (my experience transcends 65000 thousand - that's 65
*million* compared to Grant's mere 60 thousand - students and the
best playing teams in history) knows that considering the casino
conditions that exist today, card counting and some other BJ systems
are quite effective. If you dispute that fact, then you either a
fool or you make money by selling such worthless systems or lawsuits
directly or indirectly. I will continue to post the truth as often
as I wish. Moreover, if you, and others continue with your campaign
to attempt to stop me, I will release the flood gates and allow
others to join me. They have been begging me to join this flame war
for some time, but I didn't see the need for hundreds of people to
enter r.g.b. and essentially say the same thing. But since you Grant
lackeys seem to want to play that way - so be it. You don't know any
counters! If you would like to know what all these Flame Wars are
really all about, then provide me with a snail mail address and I
will send you a copyrighted 55 page treatise FREE. Over a thousand
people have already sent for this treatise, and the majority of
E-mail I received praised it's contents for a refreshing view of the
real character and casino connections of Doug Grant, Scott Klee, Paul
Yannessa and others. (Please note that Grant, Klee and Yannessa have
been HIDING from these issues and are afraid to post anything in
reference to such issues on this newsgroup). But their aliases and
lackeys are out in force in a transparent attempt to stop you from
reading the truth! DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THEIR ATTEMPTS TO
HIDE THE TRUTH FROM YOU!
>Doug Grant (Tm)
Moron.
Michael A. Solinas
"DOUGLAS REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I like Solinas's new answer "Heh." Somehow it fits. We are still
>waiting for Solinas and Snyder to give up all the secret deals they
>have had with the casinos. Michael, me boyo, are you now attempting
>to state for the record that neither you or your partner Arnold
>Snyder ever worked for the casino industry to help them identify
>card counters?
>Doug Grant (Tm)
Doogie, I know this is very simple, and you continue to have trouble
with it, but I'll try again.
Arnold is not my partner.
Please get a child to read that to you. Maybe he can get through to
you.
Speaking for myself - I have never worked for the casino industry to
help them identify card counters.
Clear enough for you?
By the way - you have real BALLS to ask this. Your company, Sigma
Research, produced the Sigma Report, which was a clear solicitation
for counter catcher services. This post from you is typical - you use
aliases, then accuse others of it. Your history on the Internet is
FULL of your projection of your own twisted tactics on others.
No, I've never worked as a counter catcher. Nor have I ever wanted
to.
You snake.
Mike
--
Michael A. Solinas (mi...@solinas.com)
WWW: http://www.solinas.com/
ftp: ftp.solinas.com
ICQ UIN: 489952
Michael A. Solinas
"DOUGLAS REIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Would you like for me to answer that question? We submitted the
>letters from the SEC AND THE CASINOS with our lawsuit. What's the
>matter Rusty, never learned to read?
And I suppose we can find these on your non-existant web site? The
one run by the ISP you were starting?
Fool.
>P.S. It is hard to believe you guys just keep getting dumber and
>dumber and dumber. Now you are challenging me to post something
>that will make you into a liar, real smart move - but somehow it
>figures.
He knows it's safe to give you that challenge. You are so full of
shit, there is no chance your lawsuit will be posted here, nor the
attachments you claim.
Sonny Ammitzbøll
On 25 Feb 1998 21:40:54 GMT, brubi...@aol.com (BRubin7878) wrote:
>Without a doubt, the biggest lie in this whole sitcom is "Doug is not a
>net.kook" That one is worth the price of admission, in itself.
Not a sitcom.. more like a soap. Sitcoms are usually funny.
--
Sonny Ammitzbřll
tyr...@eradic8.dk
BRubin7878
>Not a sitcom.. more like a soap. Sitcoms are usually funny.
>
>--
>
>Sonny Ammitzbřll
>tyr...@eradic8.dk
I disagree they dont come any funnier than Scott and Doug. As a matter of
fact,look up the word joke in the dictionary and you will see a picture of the
two of them. On the plus side net.kooks such as them do provide entertainment
and should thanked for that effort.
JSTAT
jaso...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <34EDB1...@earthlink.net>,
> js...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >When playing single deck 21 look for no tens and aces during
> >neighbors cards to gain the edge for insurance.The tens
> >should be counted as -2 and the non tens(except the aces)
> >at +1.With a side count of aces you can calculate perfect
> >insurance bets.According to to Don Schlesinger,the insurance
> >bet is the number one factor to beat single deck blackjack.
>
> That's not too good, is it? But you're the expert on mathematics!
> STOP SPEAKING ABOUT A SUBJECT THAT YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW ABSOLUTELY
> NOTHING ABOUT!
Do you care to tell us what is wrong with the count above? This
count is the foundation of JSTAT II and it is the best count in the
world.
I've used JSTAT II all over the world and have won...Please
tell us what is wrong with this count because I seem to win money with
it.
JSTAT
RUSTYBLKJK
In article <6d5icn$s...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "DOUGLAS REIMAN"
<dgg...@worldnet.att.net> lies:
>Plus Rusty has already admitted working for the casinos.
You're a lying sack of shit.
I am offering $100,000 to you, right now, if before this weekend is out you can
come up with one single instance where Rusty ever admitted anything of the
sort. Just post anything from dejanews with full headers.
I hope the fact that you are incapable of telling the truth is brought out
repeatedly during your trial. Bite me maroon.
Rusty Martin
An offer of $100,000 is on the table for the maroon.
Can he win it? Not a prayer. But, can he show that the real
Sigma Report doesn't offer counter-catcher services? Nope.
RUSTYBLKJK
>Yes Rusty, an SEC investigation, and SEC means: United States Securities and
>Exchange Commission. Is that clear enough for you, liar?
Fine, I'll restate the question dickless: Please cite to me *any* fact about
*any* SEC investigation about card counting systems you lying sack of sh*t!!
Do you understand "cite"? Tell me what SEC investigation you are referring to.
Tell me who is conducting it and why. Cite the report if there is one. Just
stating that there is one is not proof. But, that's what you maroons always
do. Cite the report dickhead.
>Doug has never
>used any Jedi Mind Trick on me, although I think I'm turning to the dark side
>of the force.
Fine, I'll be happy to push the emperor and you over the rail.
Doug Weller
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 08:51:30 GMT, in rec.gambling.blackjack, Sonny Ammitzbřll
wrote:
>On 25 Feb 1998 21:40:54 GMT, brubi...@aol.com (BRubin7878) wrote:
>
>>Without a doubt, the biggest lie in this whole sitcom is "Doug is not a
>>net.kook" That one is worth the price of admission, in itself.
>
>Not a sitcom.. more like a soap. Sitcoms are usually funny.
Someone has just posted to alt.archaeology claiming I am Doug Grant! I've only
posted twice to this newsgroup, once last night in response to an idiotic post
about UCE, and this one. My first visit to r.g.b was yesterday in response to
something in newsroups that caught my eye. Glad I did, or I wouldn't have known
what the attack on me was about
(The accusation was also that I harass teenage girls on the gymnastic newsgroups
-- is this yet another Doug, or is it also Doug the net.kook?)
Doug Weller
wilfo
Doug Weller wrote:
> Someone has just posted to alt.archaeology claiming I am Doug Grant! I've only
> posted twice to this newsgroup, once last night in response to an idiotic post
> about UCE, and this one. My first visit to r.g.b was yesterday in response to
> something in newsroups that caught my eye. Glad I did, or I wouldn't have known
> what the attack on me was about
i saw some of your posts on alt.archeology, and they appear to me to be
rational, informative, and on-topic.
sir, you are no doug grant.
wilfo
PS if you're really interested in blackjack, check out
news:rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated
--
help put an end to spam. join the
Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email
http://www.cauce.org/
JSTAT
JSTAT II is free. Is that why Jason Wit(Arnold Snyder?) won't
answer my question? What is wrong with JSTAT II ? JSTAT II wins
and I am insulted for giving it to the world for FREE...That's why I
am being
flamed by Mr. Wit and being ignored for further discussion...Let's
talk this out for the betterment of players. Are there any takers
like Steve Jacobs,Michael Solinas or Abdul Jalib that will willing
to endorse JSTAT II ? How about Arnold Snyder or Stanford Wong?
Let's try to beat this game without charging anyone a price? Any
takers?
JSTAT
>>JSTAT's comeback to Jason Wit
sck...@pond.com
In article <19980301160...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
rusty...@aol.com (RUSTYBLKJK) wrote:
>
> In article <6d6fqs$8d1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, sck...@pond.com writes:
>
> >Yes Rusty, an SEC investigation, and SEC means: United States Securities
and
> >Exchange Commission. Is that clear enough for you, liar?
>
> Fine, I'll restate the question dickless: Please cite to me *any* fact
about
> *any* SEC investigation about card counting systems you lying sack of sh*t!!
Dickless? I'll give you a fact. The investigation was done during
this past year. How's that for a fact, ehh?
>
> Do you understand "cite"? Tell me what SEC investigation you are referring
to.
> Tell me who is conducting it and why. Cite the report if there is one.
Just
> stating that there is one is not proof. But, that's what you maroons always
> do. Cite the report dickhead.
>
Now I'm a dickhead? I don't have the report in front of me so I
can't cite anything. You'll have to wait for Doug to tell you
the details and prove you are a liar. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
But perhaps if you think a little Rusty, you can figure out why
the investigation occurred - I know, I'm asking too much of you.
Scott Klee
BRubin7878
><HTML><PRE><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">Subject: Re: ConJelCo ADMITS casinos are
>partners!
>From: sck...@pond.com
>Date: Mon, Mar 2, 1998 08:07 EST
>Message-id: <6deatt$96u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
This is really funny. So let me see if I have this right. You cannot cite any
facts and you haven't any proof that the SEC is involved in an investigation of
card counters but we still must take your statement on faith. Well given your
history with the truth I dont see why this should be a problem. By the way I
was abducted by aliens last night and they requested to know if Doogie can
still control a dice throw. The told me that they gave him that power and also
the power to make government organizations do his bidding.
Keep up the good work Scott and Doug ,you gus are the best since Cheech and
Chong.
Jason Wit
JSTAT <js...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> JSTAT II is free. Is that why Jason Wit(Arnold Snyder?) won't
> answer my question? What is wrong with JSTAT II ? JSTAT II wins
> and I am insulted for giving it to the world for FREE...That's why I
> am being
> flamed by Mr. Wit and being ignored for further discussion...Let's
> talk this out for the betterment of players. Are there any takers
> like Steve Jacobs,Michael Solinas or Abdul Jalib that will willing
> to endorse JSTAT II ? How about Arnold Snyder or Stanford Wong?
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Pete Moss
In answer to your question, the betting correlation coefficient
is .72, as opposed to, say, Hi/Lo .97. (Perfect would be 1.00.)
No flame, just a simple mathematical fact. Don't shoot
the messenger.
Pete
Anonymous
JSTAT <js...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> JSTAT II is free. Is that why Jason Wit(Arnold Snyder?) won't
> answer my question? What is wrong with JSTAT II ? JSTAT II wins
> and I am insulted for giving it to the world for FREE...That's why I
> am being
> flamed by Mr. Wit and being ignored for further discussion...Let's
> talk this out for the betterment of players. Are there any takers
> like Steve Jacobs,Michael Solinas or Abdul Jalib that will willing
> to endorse JSTAT II ? How about Arnold Snyder or Stanford Wong?
You tell me if free is. It sounds interesting... Duh, bet me dat me
name is not me name, duh. ????? Recently, the Grant gofers, lackeys
and aliases have been running amuck with outright lies. You are an
idiot. Sheesh!
> Let's try to beat this game without charging anyone a price? Any
> takers?
I like to play the game, and win money. And when I say that the game
can be beaten you should listen. I am not in business to sell
courses, newsletters or books. And I certainly do not make money as
a secret casino consultant like the people you associate with.
>
> JSTAT
jac...@xmission.com
JSTAT <js...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> JSTAT II is free. Is that why Jason Wit(Arnold Snyder?) won't
> answer my question? What is wrong with JSTAT II ? JSTAT II wins
> and I am insulted for giving it to the world for FREE...That's why I
> am being
> flamed by Mr. Wit and being ignored for further discussion...Let's
> talk this out for the betterment of players. Are there any takers
> like Steve Jacobs,Michael Solinas or Abdul Jalib that will willing
> to endorse JSTAT II ? How about Arnold Snyder or Stanford Wong?
> Let's try to beat this game without charging anyone a price? Any
> takers?
JSTAT, you don't understand. I don't endorse ANY system, despite
whatever you may have heard from Doogie & socks. Those who are
interested in finding a system to use should be open to judging
the systems for themselves, whether by simulation or actively
playing them.
If you were to write up a description of JSTAT II and post it to
RGBM (and/or RGB), perhaps some interesting discussion would result,
to the benefit of all interested. If you choose not to describe
your system, then it isn't likely that anyone will have much to
say about it either way.
> >>JSTAT's comeback to Jason Wit
> >
> > jaso...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <34EDB1...@earthlink.net>,
> > > js...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > >When playing single deck 21 look for no tens and aces during
> > > >neighbors cards to gain the edge for insurance.The tens
> > > >should be counted as -2 and the non tens(except the aces)
> > > >at +1.With a side count of aces you can calculate perfect
> > > >insurance bets.According to to Don Schlesinger,the insurance
> > > >bet is the number one factor to beat single deck blackjack.
> > >
> > > That's not too good, is it? But you're the expert on mathematics!
> > > STOP SPEAKING ABOUT A SUBJECT THAT YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW ABSOLUTELY
> > > NOTHING ABOUT!
> >
> > Do you care to tell us what is wrong with the count above? This
> > count is the foundation of JSTAT II and it is the best count in the
> > world.
> > I've used JSTAT II all over the world and have won...Please
> > tell us what is wrong with this count because I seem to win money with
> > it.
> >
> > JSTAT
--
Steve Jacobs (jac...@xmission.com) \ Do you play Video Poker? Try VP Freebie
"Expectation isn't everything..." \ http://www.conjelco.com/vpfreebie.html
Jason Wit
JSTAT <js...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> jaso...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <34EDB1...@earthlink.net>,
> > js...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > >When playing single deck 21 look for no tens and aces during
> > >neighbors cards to gain the edge for insurance.The tens
> > >should be counted as -2 and the non tens(except the aces)
> > >at +1.With a side count of aces you can calculate perfect
> > >insurance bets.According to to Don Schlesinger,the insurance
> > >bet is the number one factor to beat single deck blackjack.
> >
> > That's not too good, is it? But you're the expert on mathematics!
> > STOP SPEAKING ABOUT A SUBJECT THAT YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW ABSOLUTELY
> > NOTHING ABOUT!
>
> Do you care to tell us what is wrong with the count above? This
> count is the foundation of JSTAT II and it is the best count in the
> world.
Why do you guys always run back under your rocks when a honest
question is posted?
> I've used JSTAT II all over the world and have won...Please
> tell us what is wrong with this count because I seem to win money with
> it.
What a coincidence, you have used jstat ii all over the world and
have won - that makes two of us! I think you misspelled "becuase".
>
> JSTAT
>
What's the use in arguing with a con man like you?
Jason Wit
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 08:51:30 GMT, in rec.gambling.blackjack, Sonny Ammitzbll wrote:
>
> >On 25 Feb 1998 21:40:54 GMT, brubi...@aol.com (BRubin7878) wrote:
> >
> >>Without a doubt, the biggest lie in this whole sitcom is "Doug is not a
> >>net.kook" That one is worth the price of admission, in itself.
> >
> >Not a sitcom.. more like a soap. Sitcoms are usually funny.
>
> posted twice to this newsgroup, once last night in response to an idiotic post
> about UCE, and this one. My first visit to r.g.b was yesterday in response to
> something in newsroups that caught my eye. Glad I did, or I wouldn't have known
> what the attack on me was about
>
Well, if just posted to alt has it certainly makes me happy... Doug
Grant is a moron. You are a kook.
> (The accusation was also that I harass teenage girls on the gymnastic newsgroups
> -- is this yet another Doug, or is it also Doug the net.kook?)
>
This is *my* newsgroup. Now go home.
> Doug Weller
>
I know more about blackjack than everyone else in the world, combined.
JSTAT
Pete,
Did you leave out the aces with the non tens? JSTAT II is not
the Archer or Roberts ten count.JSTAT II is closer to HI-OPT II
and the betting correlation coefficient is dramatically better than
the
results you presented.
JSTAT
Pete Moss
I misunderstood. I thought you were proposing the 10-count
as a playing system. Tell me what the card tags are
and I'll post the betting correlation, if you like.
Pete
RUSTYBLKJK
In article <6deatt$96u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, sck...@pond.com writes:
>Dickless?
Rusty, quoting "Ghostbusters":
"Is this true?"
"Yes, it's true, this man has no dick."
>I'll give you a fact. The investigation was done during
>this past year. How's that for a fact, ehh?
How's that for a fact? It's completely inadequate. If there was an
investigation and a report give the details.
>Now I'm a dickhead?
Okay, I guess we can agree on this point, let's move on.
>I don't have the report in front of me so
>I can't cite anything.
Why is this not surprising? You can't cite anything and you don't have the
report. That's because your original statement was either a lie, or simply
something Doug told you which you believe is true. But you still haven't cited
it, or told us anything that would assist us in verifying your claim.
>You'll have to wait for Doug to tell you the details
>and prove you are a liar. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Considering we've been waiting nine months for Doug to give us the URL of his
website, I'm not holding my breath. Considering neither of you can cite the
Docket number of this so-called RICO lawsuit, I'm just figuring this is just
more bullshit propaganda from you two.
Kinda like when Doug claimed that I admitted I worked for casinos. I offered
$100,000 to find any one instance where that happened, and he ignored me.
Typical propaganda bullshit.
>But perhaps if you think a
>little Rusty, you can figure out why the investigation occurred - I know, I'm
>asking too much of you.
It's not a guessing game schmuck, it is either true, or it isn't. If it's
true, it should be quite easy for you to cite the report. If it's not, you'll
make excuses like the dickless wonder that you are.
If there is a report, I know how to find it and read it. Just like the Sigma
Report. So just cite it, or go pull a Monica on Doug and leave us alone.
Rusty Martin
Be sure to send Mr. Gingrich a thank you note when you
pay your reduced capital gains tax this year.
sck...@pond.com
In article <19980302135...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
brubi...@aol.com (BRubin7878) wrote:
[snip]
> This is really funny. So let me see if I have this right. You cannot cite
any
> facts and you haven't any proof that the SEC is involved in an investigation
of
> card counters but we still must take your statement on faith.
Consider: I do not have the report in front of me. Therefore, I
would prefer not to say anything about it so I do not misrepresent
any facts. You see, unlike you, I am not a liar and I would prefer
to not misrepresent *any* facts.
> Well given your
> history with the truth I dont see why this should be a problem. By the way
I
> was abducted by aliens last night
Interesting story.. Perhaps you might like to tell that story to
some nice gentlemen wearing nice clean white coats.
>and they requested to know if Doogie can
> still control a dice throw.
Yes, he can, if he's in practice.
> The told me that they gave him that power and also
> the power to make government organizations do his bidding.
That would be nice, but you are lying *yet again*. If you are
referring to the SEC investigation - legitimate questions were
asked and the SEC delivered its findings. Pretty simple, ehh?
That's what investigations are all about..
Also, I recall you saying that you are in a position where you
review NJ CCC documentation as a part of your responsibilities.
I'm wondering if you could explain the reason for this.
sck...@pond.com
In article <19980304114...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
rusty...@aol.com (RUSTYBLKJK) wrote:
>
> In article <6deatt$96u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, sck...@pond.com writes:
>
> >Dickless?
>
> Rusty, quoting "Ghostbusters":
> "Is this true?"
> "Yes, it's true, this man has no dick."
>
> >I'll give you a fact. The investigation was done during
> >this past year. How's that for a fact, ehh?
>
> How's that for a fact? It's completely inadequate. If there was an
> investigation and a report give the details.
>
> >Now I'm a dickhead?
>
> Okay, I guess we can agree on this point, let's move on.
Oh Rusty, nice flaming. You're still a liar but at least you're
entertaining.
>
> >I don't have the report in front of me so
> >I can't cite anything.
>
> Why is this not surprising? You can't cite anything and you don't have the
> report. That's because your original statement was either a lie, or simply
> something Doug told you which you believe is true. But you still haven't
cited
> it, or told us anything that would assist us in verifying your claim.
More typical "con-man logic". Gotta love it.
>
> >You'll have to wait for Doug to tell you the details
> >and prove you are a liar. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> Considering we've been waiting nine months for Doug to give us the URL of
his
> website, I'm not holding my breath. Considering neither of you can cite the
> Docket number of this so-called RICO lawsuit, I'm just figuring this is just
> more bullshit propaganda from you two.
Hell, the professional idiot Bill Vanek called the court house and
posted the docket number. Sheesh.
Our "RICO lawsuit" is filed in the federal court in Camden NJ. The
case name is Doug Grant Inc. et al versus Greate Bay Casino Corp et al,
and the docket number is 97-cv-04291. Of course, you could pick up
the phone and confirm this for yourself, but you probably would rather
not, since then you would be shown to be an obvious liar. If you want
more info on the SEC investigation, you'll have to wait for Doug to
post it.
Patessary
There are many effective Black Jack count systems that are effective. If you
have one that works for you stay with it. As we have said in many discussions
before a 10 rich deck, knowing how many aces are left in the deck are certainly
keys to winning at this game.
I did a bit of research after I read your Message. For those who don't know,
Don Schlesinger is the Author of a Book called Black Jack Attack. There is
some great books out there with many effective systems. Have a great day and
I'll see you at the BJ tables.
Pat Essary
Poway, Ca.
Doug_Grant_is_lame
Can you read? People just want to what Doug's URL is. What part of that do you
fail to understand? Oh, I'm sorry...it must be a "secret web page"... I promise I
won't tell anyone, Scott, just e-mail me the URL.
Jason Wit
sck...@pond.com wrote:
>
> In article <19980304114...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> rusty...@aol.com (RUSTYBLKJK) wrote:
> >
> > In article <6deatt$96u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, sck...@pond.com writes:
> >
> > >Dickless?
> >
> > Rusty, quoting "Ghostbusters":
> > "Is this true?"
> > "Yes, it's true, this man has no dick."
> >
> > >I'll give you a fact. The investigation was done during
> > >this past year. How's that for a fact, ehh?
> >
> > How's that for a fact? It's completely inadequate. If there was an
> > investigation and a report give the details.
> >
> > >Now I'm a dickhead?
> >
> > Okay, I guess we can agree on this point, let's move on.
>
> Oh Rusty, nice flaming. You're still a liar but at least you're
> entertaining.
Don't strain your single digit IQ brain. This proof is irrefutable,
and you are attempting to hide it.
>
> >
> > >I don't have the report in front of me so
> > >I can't cite anything.
> >
> > Why is this not surprising? You can't cite anything and you don't have the
> > report. That's because your original statement was either a lie, or simply
> > something Doug told you which you believe is true. But you still haven't
> cited
> > it, or told us anything that would assist us in verifying your claim.
>
> More typical "con-man logic". Gotta love it.
I am the world's best blackjack player.
>
> >
> > >You'll have to wait for Doug to tell you the details
> > >and prove you are a liar. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> >
> > Considering we've been waiting nine months for Doug to give us the URL of
> his
> > website, I'm not holding my breath. Considering neither of you can cite the
> > Docket number of this so-called RICO lawsuit, I'm just figuring this is just
> > more bullshit propaganda from you two.
>
> Hell, the professional idiot Bill Vanek called the court house and
> posted the docket number. Sheesh.
If I were you I would be afraid of court also considering the lies,
libel and fraudulent misrepresentations you have been making to sell
your worthless lawsuit.
>
> Our "RICO lawsuit" is filed in the federal court in Camden NJ. The
> case name is Doug Grant Inc. et al versus Greate Bay Casino Corp et al,
> and the docket number is 97-cv-04291. Of course, you could pick up
> the phone and confirm this for yourself, but you probably would rather
> not, since then you would be shown to be an obvious liar. If you want
> more info on the SEC investigation, you'll have to wait for Doug to
> post it.
Keep in mind that a Plaintiff has several years in which to file a
lawsuit for various reasons. I doubt seriously if my threats to sue
should be taken lightly. Some others in past have found that out the
hard way. But, this issue certainly will be resolved and if you
slander or libel anyone you should be prepared to defend yourself in
a competent court of law. Grant is attempting to recruit everyone
into his conspiracy to discredit Arnold Sndyer and Stanford Wong, and
he is telling you that you need not worry about a lawsuit or a
criminal action if you join him. He is lying to you. I strongly
urge you to speak with your own lawyer in respect to this matter, and
stop listening to the legal advice provided by Mr. Grant. Grant is
in the business of selling worthless lawsuits and not playing on nor
organizing teams. Grant ducks and covers on this newsgroup because
he was afraid of my questions about proof of his fantastic claims
that you cannot beat modern day blackjack, horses, poker machines,
and tournaments on keno, craps and slots. If I were him I would run
and hide too. What's amazing is these guys have never been sued nor
investigated for mail fraud. Now *that's* a question for you to
ponder. I know I have. Obviously, the smarter the player, and the
more skilled the player, the less the player will encounter casino
countermeasures. Hell, if it weren't for lies, you'd have nothing to
say. Lame ass.
>
> Scott Klee
>
Fleabag.