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.