Astrolottology: Experiment in Timing of Lottery Ticket Purchases - Your Help Required
Shane McDermott
I'm investigating the possibility that lottery tickets purchased at certain
times may be 'luckier' than tickets bought at other times. I will be
focusing on the planetary day-ruler and, in particular, planetary
hour-ruler; the assumption being that tickets bought when the Benifics -
Jupiter and Venus - are ruling will be more likely to win.
I intend to time my ticket purchases, but I need the help of other lottery
players to build up a decent body of results.
I need people who buy lottery tickets to tell me:
1. Where they were bought. (Including the nearest large town or city.)
2. On what date.
3. At what time.
4. How many tickets were bought.
5. Whether they were 'quick-picks' or 'hand-picks'.
6. How many numbers came up in the draw.
For the moment I'm restricting the experiment to Pick-6 type draws.
The primary aim is to determine if planetary day- and hour-ruler have any
role to play in determining an auspicious moment to play the lottery. The
secondary aim is to build up, over time, a database of horoscopes for big
wins, in the hope that there might be other more subtle correlations.
Of course what I'm looking for most is the purchase time of big winners, so
if you feel you can't tell me if you strike it lucky big-time, it's probably
best not to take part. If it helps, I can promise confidentiality, and you
are of course free to use a pseudonym and send me your results via an
anonymous address such as Hotmail. (Assuming msn can still guarantee
anonymity from hackers.)
I appreciate this is an onerous task, and I don't expect many replies to
this post but, who knows, there might be one or two individuals out there
with the time and energy to participate in what could be a ground-breaking
experiment.
I intend to post my analysis of the results here at regular intervals, and
invite comment from those of you with a statistical bent.
Any constructive comments on the methodology of this experiment are, as
ever, very welcome.
Thank you.
Shane McDermott
Thad Floryan
| Greetings, astrolottology fans!
|
| I'm investigating the possibility that lottery tickets purchased at certain
| times may be 'luckier' than tickets bought at other times. I will be
| focusing on the planetary day-ruler and, in particular, planetary
| hour-ruler; the assumption being that tickets bought when the Benifics -
| Jupiter and Venus - are ruling will be more likely to win.
|
| I intend to time my ticket purchases, but I need the help of other lottery
| players to build up a decent body of results.
|
| I need people who buy lottery tickets to tell me:
| 1. Where they were bought. (Including the nearest large town or city.)
| 2. On what date.
| 3. At what time.
| 4. How many tickets were bought.
| 5. Whether they were 'quick-picks' or 'hand-picks'.
| 6. How many numbers came up in the draw.
FWIW, using a GPS receiver (Magellans are < US$100 nowadays) one can determine
one's latitude, longitude, elevation, and the precise time-of-day.
Don't laugh [too hard!] but last year on a lark I was attempting to correlate
moon phases, tides, and even USGS earthquake data for the Calif. SuperLOTTO
since I have the software and data bases.
I even had the weird idea (before I knew better :-) the areal density of the
numbers on the balls affected the draws. Humidity and/or barometric pressure
"might" perturb the balls (since they're rubber), but I have no access to the
lottery balls to test this idea. [Think of a "spitball" or a bald spot on an
auto tire or dimples on a golfball; yeah, I was really "reaching" last year
when the jackpot was approaching US$87 Million and my palms were sweating.]
| For the moment I'm restricting the experiment to Pick-6 type draws.
|
| The primary aim is to determine if planetary day- and hour-ruler have any
| role to play in determining an auspicious moment to play the lottery. The
| secondary aim is to build up, over time, a database of horoscopes for big
| wins, in the hope that there might be other more subtle correlations.
Frankly, the Moon would have more potential effect than planets. Think back
to 1976 and the "Jupiter Effect" pseudo-planetary alignment claims. Given
astronomy is one of my hobbies, I have one system here dedicated solely to
astronomical calculations 24/7 and I can even bring up the solar system in any
view including the moons of the superior planets along with the asteroids.
Remember gravitational force decreases with the cube of the distance; as far
as the Earth is concerned the major effects are solely from the Sun and the
Moon for all practical purposes.
| Of course what I'm looking for most is the purchase time of big winners, so
| if you feel you can't tell me if you strike it lucky big-time, it's probably
| best not to take part.
Please note time reverts to "daylight savings time" on April 2 this year so
you'd be better off recording times in GMT/UTC if you really want to pursue
your line of inquiry/research.
| If it helps, I can promise confidentiality, and you
| are of course free to use a pseudonym and send me your results via an
| anonymous address such as Hotmail. (Assuming msn can still guarantee
| anonymity from hackers.)
FWIW, they cannot. It recently took me all of 2 minutes to track a "clown"
right down to the IP address of his desktop workstation inside a US Navy
site in San Diego after he posted some threats via Hotmail. It took another
minute to locate the phone number and email address of the admin at the site
who took "corrective action". The "clown" wasn't smiling/smirking anymore
after that and is presumably wiser now.
And I wasn't even using Echelon or SORM-2. If you don't know what those are,
be sure you're sitting down before browing these two URLs:
http://www.aclu.org/echelonwatch/index.html
http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/2000/ma00/ma00richelson.html
Also FWIW, that "bullatomsci" is the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
The NymServer still provides anonymity but it costs $35/year last time I
checked several years ago; its URL is www.nymserver.com
| I appreciate this is an onerous task, and I don't expect many replies to
| this post but, who knows, there might be one or two individuals out there
| with the time and energy to participate in what could be a ground-breaking
| experiment.
I wish you success; who knows, you might find something.
| I intend to post my analysis of the results here at regular intervals, and
| invite comment from those of you with a statistical bent.
Cool!
| Any constructive comments on the methodology of this experiment are, as
| ever, very welcome.
|
| Thank you.
|
| Shane McDermott
Again, good luck!
Thad
Thad Floryan
presence "may" prevent appearance in RGL depending on the AAM moderator's
whim.]
Thad Floryan
| [...]
| Remember gravitational force decreases with the cube of the distance; as far
Aiee! I'm a "night person" who's been more-or-less working beginning at 7am
the past several weeks out of necessity.
A kindly correspondent just informed me via email:
I've always thought it was the square of distance?
to which I replied:
You're correct: inversely as the square of the distance.
I was thinking of something else (damifino what, maybe magnetism); I need
either 48 hours' sleep or more coffee or some beer. :-)
Thanks! I'll post a correction.
Sorry for any confusion, folks. I don't [yet] have the power to alter the
laws of physics; if I did the next lottery draw would be 1-2-3-4-5-6 as a
perverse joke on those who claim that sequence "doesn't look random".
:-)
Thad
Dick Adams
> I'm investigating the possibility that lottery tickets purchased
> at certain times may be 'luckier' than tickets bought at other
> times. I will be focusing on the planetary day-ruler and, in
> particular, planetary hour-ruler; the assumption being that
> tickets bought when the Benifics - Jupiter and Venus - are
> ruling will be more likely to win.
[ big snip ]
I too have investigated similar possibilities. I have empirical
evidence that numbers chosen while inebriated are more random
than numbers chosen while sober.
However, keeping track of planetary movements requires much more
reading light than can be found in the average saloon -- thus
I have concluded that it does not matter when you buy the tickets,
but rather your condition when you fill out the lotto form.
Dick -- The Wizard of Odds and sometimes Taxes too.
Todd
black hole effect.........sucks them in every time. I spent the money
on lottery tickets instead of groceries honey because the solar system
told me to......Sorry Shane but are we talking astronomy or astrology
predictions?
Todd
BOOZER
< alt="Click for Hagerstown, Maryland Forecast" height=40 width=467>Shane McDermott
I'm grateful for your support and comments.
If I can clarify my position, I'm not looking at current planetary positions
or other astronomical/metrological patterns. Neither am I suggesting that
there is a causative relationship between such phenomena and lottery draws.
What I am investigating is whether the traditional astrological doctrine of
'planetary hour-rulers' can assist us in picking the best time to play the
lottery. The idea that each moment has it's own planetary ruler is a very
old one, originating in Egyptian cosmology. Each day has its own ruler, and
during the day each hour has its individual ruler, cycling through the seven
ancient 'planets' (the five visible planets plus Sun and Moon) in the
Chaldean order - Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon - which
you will see are ordered in increasing geocentic speed. So, according to
this doctrine, a good time to buy lottery tickets would be the fifth hour of
Friday (day-ruler Venus, hour-ruler Jupiter) whereas a bad time to play
would be the sixth hour of Tuesday (day-ruler Mars, hour-ruler Saturn).
Well, that's the theory, but whether the evidence will support this or not
remains to be seen.
Shane
Thad Floryan <th...@thadlabs.com> wrote in message
news:38d6e2cc$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> Remember gravitational force decreases with the cube of the distance; as
far
Shane McDermott
Such nostalgic vistas on the world of the tavern-dweller are no doubt a
great source of rib-tickling mirth to us all, but your 'conclusions' on the
timing of ticket purchases would assume an altogether higher credibility if
they were supported by research you had done in this direction, or could
point me to. It is precisely my intention to gather such data.
Shane
Dick Adams <rda...@clark.net> wrote in message
news:d4XB4.10136$AT6....@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
Shane McDermott
I can't answer for what avenues of discussion 'we' may follow, but the focus
of the original post in this thread is 'elective astrology', that branch of
astrology that concerns not so much 'predictions' but choosing an auspicious
moment to do something, in this case, playing the lottery.
Shane
Todd <tcam...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:38D88654...@sympatico.ca...
Robert Perkis
it said I was on a double high for Monday the 20th and a
triple high for Wednesday the 22nd. So among others I let
the program choose a Pick-5 and a Pick-6 ticket for those
respective days. Both lost, in fact Wednesday was such a
bad lotto day the tv overran their movie and forgot to show
the drawing.
Now I know bio-rhythm isn't astrology, but In both
cases I fail to see how either one can have its prediction
of a good or bad day welded to the lottery outcome which
must be the same for everyone irregardless of whether
their day is to be a lucky one or not. I would guess it is
possible to enjoy a predicted lucky day even if your lottery
ticket loses.
To take things a step further, maybe it only applies to buying
Quick Picks, where timing may be a factor in what you get.
Though that would mean only one person could get lucky if
the Quick Picks must run through every combination before
repeating. Perhaps everyone needs to create their combination
randomly at the appropriate moment, then how lucky is it to
share the prize with many winners using this method, likewise
how lucky is it to get 5 of the 6 winning numbers?
Do you have to believe in astrolottology for it to work? As
millions of tickets are sold for a draw, every hour of legal
selling time is well covered by ticket buyers using all kinds
of methods. How much of a leg up would we be getting
over people buying randomly chosen numbers ahead and
behind us in line or around the world for that matter. RP
John Griffin
>Shane McDermott <sh...@paracelsus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>Dick Adams <rda...@clark.net> wrote in message
>>> I too have investigated similar possibilities. I have empirical
>>> evidence that numbers chosen while inebriated are more random
>>> than numbers chosen while sober.
>>>
>>> However, keeping track of planetary movements requires much more
>>> reading light than can be found in the average saloon -- thus
>>> I have concluded that it does not matter when you buy the tickets,
>>> but rather your condition when you fill out the lotto form.
>> Such nostalgic vistas on the world of the tavern-dweller are no doubt
>> a great source of rib-tickling mirth to us all, but your 'conclusions'
>> on the timing of ticket purchases would assume an altogether higher
>> credibility if they were supported by research you had done in this
>> direction, or could point me to. It is precisely my intention to gather
>> such data.
>Want empirical evidence? Ask ten people who have no knowledge of this
>dialogue to pick 10 plays of a specific lotto and then get ten people
>drunk (I volunteer and I believe John will too -- plus I'd be shocked
>if my friend Mike Sharkey would turn down the opportunity) and have
>them do the same. THEN monitor the Lotto game for 20 draws.
>Dick -- The Wizard of Odds
Your hypothesis is far more scientifically sound than his idle conjecture.
I'd bet that damn near everyone who has ever won a lottery jackpot had
consumed at least one beer in the year before winning. On the other hand,
all scientific analyses have shown that the odds of gaining something by
buying into astromancy are far more remote than winning a lottery.
We have one little problem here. I think the best way to do your
experiment would be to take a couple of bucks into the nearest 7-11 and
buy one bottle of Labatt and one lottery ticket at the same time. After
you stop resisting and have your first Labatt, you'd need to find a store
which has only one bottle, to keep you from doing the natural thing -
buying two Labatts and forgetting the lottery ticket.
Richard D. Adams
Thad Floryan
| [...]
| We have one little problem here. I think the best way to do your
| experiment would be to take a couple of bucks into the nearest 7-11 and
| buy one bottle of Labatt and one lottery ticket at the same time. After
| you stop resisting and have your first Labatt, you'd need to find a store
| which has only one bottle, to keep you from doing the natural thing -
| buying two Labatts and forgetting the lottery ticket.
Sounds reasonable, and there is evidence supporting your scenario: I've
noticed more winning California SuperLOTTO tickets are sold at 7-11 stores
than all the rest combined.
For example, Wednesday's winning ticket (for a US$35 Million jackpot) was
purchased at a 7-11 in Oxnard CA per:
http://www.calottery.com/games/superlotto/drawresults.html
and after reviewing all the jackpot wins for the past year, "7-11" stores
just pop off the screen as the winning ticket vendor(s) of choice with
liquor/beer stores as the second-most common.
Of course, there _are_ a lot of "7-11" and liquor/beer stores in California,
so knowing that winning tickets are purchased at such establishments shouldn't
be a surprise, but maybe, just maybe, the "karma" of those places and/or one's
state of inebriation could be attuning the psychic-sensitive rubber used to
manufacture the lottery balls aligning them based on the ink formulation one
uses to mark the playslips in conjunction with the Earth-Moon-Sun vector,
tidal basin water flow, sidereal time-of-day, and the number of times one has
to pee after consuming the Labatt (sp?).
Or maybe it's just pure luck?
:-)
Thad
Thad Floryan
| so knowing that winning tickets are purchased at such establishments shouldn't
| be a surprise, but maybe, just maybe, the "karma" of those places and/or one's
| state of inebriation could be attuning the psychic-sensitive rubber used to
| manufacture the lottery balls aligning them based on the ink formulation one
| uses to mark the playslips in conjunction with the Earth-Moon-Sun vector,
| tidal basin water flow, sidereal time-of-day, and the number of times one has
| to pee after consuming the Labatt (sp?).
Hmmm, after reflecting on the above, a fun new way to pick winning lottery
numbers comes to mind: 4 groups of volunteers (of legal drinking age) will
be needed for this experiment per:
+ "Group A" drinks Labatt
+ "Group B" drinks some other beer
+ "Group C" drinks Labatt
+ "Group D" drinks some other beer
Groups A and B weigh their "specimen" cups using the English system, and
Groups C and D weigh their "specimen" cups using the metric system.
The corresponding weights (in ounces or dekagrams) are the number picks for
each group.
Groups B and D can be sub-divided into many other groups defined by specific
beers.
Sound reasonable? Any volunteers? :-)
Thad
Shane McDermott
Many of us will have experienced times in our lives that we felt were
intrinsically 'lucky' or 'unlucky', but luck takes on a myriad forms -
career progression, academic success, personal relationships, winning at
gambling, making a killing on the stock market. Astrology (for which no
belief in it is required) makes some attempt at differenciation, so for
instance a strong Mercury would suggest a good time for communications; a
strong Venus, personal relationships; a strong Jupiter, material growth -
although there is no guarantee that this will translate into a winning
lottery ticket. Bearing in mind those who say their lives have been ruined
by winning the jackpot, it may be that a lottery win is, in some cases, a
mixed blessing.
I should also say that luck does not come to us all in equal measure. One
person may play the lottery in the lucky period and scoop the jackpot; a
second may play also and only win a tenner. This answers the objection of
hundreds playing at the same time and all sharing the jackpot. If I can
express my intention this way, it is not to establish a time guaranteed to
win the jackpot, but rather to find a best time, if there is one, to play.
Your point on Quick Picks is very important. If we consciously choose which
numbers to play, moreover if we play the same numbers regularly, it seems
improbable (though not impossible) that Fate will bend to us, that the
future will be altered, because we play at an auspicious time. If however we
use Quick Picks or, what I consider to be equivalent, pick up a play-slip
and mark off the first six numbers that enter our heads, leaving Chance to
work her magic, then it appears more credible that we might share in any
good fortune that might be in the ether. It was for this reason that I asked
participants to indicate whether their purchases were Quick Picks.
Shane
Robert Perkis <robe...@gate.net> wrote in message
news:38DA2817...@gate.net...
Shane McDermott
John Griffin <hilb...@bigger.aa.net> wrote in message
news:38db0f02$1...@huge.aa.net...
> all scientific analyses have shown that the odds of gaining something by
> buying into astromancy are far more remote than winning a lottery.
Can you direct me to "all [the] scientific analyses" that back up this
statement?
Or was this just the booze talking?
Shane McDermott
Richard D. Adams <rda...@smarty.smart.net> wrote in message
news:8benf8$3am$1...@news.smart.net...
> Shane McDermott <sh...@paracelsus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > Dick Adams <rda...@smart.net> wrote:
>
> >Dick Adams <rda...@clark.net> wrote in message
>
> >> I too have investigated similar possibilities. I have empirical
> >> evidence that numbers chosen while inebriated are more random
> >> than numbers chosen while sober.
> >>
> >> However, keeping track of planetary movements requires much more
> >> reading light than can be found in the average saloon -- thus
> >> I have concluded that it does not matter when you buy the tickets,
> >> but rather your condition when you fill out the lotto form.
>
> > Such nostalgic vistas on the world of the tavern-dweller are no doubt
> > a great source of rib-tickling mirth to us all, but your 'conclusions'
> > on the timing of ticket purchases would assume an altogether higher
> > credibility if they were supported by research you had done in this
> > direction, or could point me to. It is precisely my intention to gather
> > such data.
>
> Want empirical evidence?
Evidence of what?
Of the influence of timing on lottery wins? Absolutely! Who wouldn't?!
Of the influence of blood alcohol levels on lottery wins?
Err..............no.
If you intend to persist with this theory of yours, I suggest you take
yourself, your spitoon and your drinking buddies to a fresh thread, where it
will attract the attention it so richly deserves. It pains me to see the
good name of astrology sullied by such nonsensical talk.
Todd
Would one have to beleive in this or have faith? I am not
knocking your system you seem intelligent.
Todd.
Todd
Todd
I know all about the ancient Egyptians and have yet to make a judgement.
Shane McDermott
time, yet, as I don't have any evidence to back up this statement, and such
a belief would be premature, or "previous" as Michael Caine would say.
I do believe in astrology, not that it is the answer to life, the universe
and everything, but to the extent that there is "something to it". I also
believe, incidently, that any intelligent person who takes the time to study
the subject will be incapable of dismissing it out of hand, and that those
who so dismiss it have never studied it. As Sir Isaac Newton said to Sir
Edmund Halley, when the latter upbraided him for his belief in the validity
of astrological principles: "Evidently you have not looked into Astrology; I
have!"
It is a fundamental tenet of astrology that anything begun at a certain
moment of time shares the quality of that moment. More specifically, a body
of principles has been built up over the years on choosing the correct
moment to begin any enterprise, from a business venture to a marriage, to a
new job. This branch is known as "electional astrology". (I erroneously
called it "elective" in an earlier post.)
It makes sense, to me at least, to hypothecate that the 'quality' of a
lottery ticket may be conditioned by the time it is 'created', although,
playing Devil's Advocate here, buying a lottery ticket is a more ephemeral
matter than, say, setting up a business, and may be too 'light' a matter to
figure in the cosmic scheme of things.
I floated the idea of a possible connection between time of purchase and
winning partly to stimulate debate (well, we can only digest so much spam at
one sitting) and partly to recruit some participants into my trial.
If there is such a link, it would require no belief on the part of the
player. As has been pointed out in this forum, the most stupid, ignorant and
drunk of people can, and do, win the lottery.
Shane
Todd <tcam...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:38DBCAFB...@sympatico.ca...
John Griffin
No. Once you swallow nonsense like astrology, alchemy, free pussy, etc.,
no one can ever lead you to anything, as it's obvious that you can only
go in directions that you like regardless of any rational impetus to go
some other direction. Anyway, isn't there someone whose job is to protect
you from things like that? Just imagine the reaction if someone decided
to publish his results in that moderated wacko group, whose moderator
pees his pants whenever someone tries to post some innocuous criticism
of your goofy religion.
>Or was this just the booze talking?
I hope you can take this news...booze is just an inanimate fluid.
It doesn't talk. You might think that makes it stupid or something,
but at least it doesn't think the moon has any effect on it.
However, you were right in not disputing my assertion that Dick's
idea is far more likely to succeed than is yours.
Richard D. Adams
This appears to me to be a very serious scientific approach to some
important empirical questions, i.e., do LaBatts' drinkers win more
often than other beer drinkers and does the calibration of your urine
sample cup have an effect on your personal wealth?
Dick -- The Wizard of Odds and Sometimes Taxes too
Richard D. Adams
>
> If you intend to persist with this theory of yours, I suggest you take
> yourself, your spitoon and your drinking buddies to a fresh thread, where
> it will attract the attention it so richly deserves. It pains me to see
> the good name of astrology sullied by such nonsensical talk.
You have made an honorable point. But, I am unable to speak for my
drinking buddies. So we'll probably stay here.
Richard D. Adams
> Shane McDermott <sh...@paracelsus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>> all scientific analyses have shown that the odds of gaining something by
>>> buying into astromancy are far more remote than winning a lottery.
>> Can you direct me to "all [the] scientific analyses" that back up this
>> statement?
> No. Once you swallow nonsense like astrology, alchemy, free pussy, etc.,
> no one can ever lead you to anything, as it's obvious that you can only
> go in directions that you like regardless of any rational impetus to go
> some other direction. Anyway, isn't there someone whose job is to protect
> you from things like that? Just imagine the reaction if someone decided
> to publish his results in that moderated wacko group, whose moderator
> pees his pants whenever someone tries to post some innocuous criticism
> of your goofy religion.
John, this guy's a flame baiter. Let's cut our waste of resources short
on this one.
>> Or was this just the booze talking?
> I hope you can take this news...booze is just an inanimate fluid.
> It doesn't talk. You might think that makes it stupid or something,
> but at least it doesn't think the moon has any effect on it.
My astrology book "Mooning Your Lotto Balls" is still selling at $19.95
> However, you were right in not disputing my assertion that Dick's
> idea is far more likely to succeed than is yours.
I don't remember that.
Dick -- The Wizard of Odds and Sometimes Taxes too.
Robert Perkis
form of reply.
My views on astrology are tempered on the one hand by
a total disbelief in the subject and on the other by "experts"
in the "science" who have informed me, the efforts of most
practitioner of the art, are a waste of charting paper.
As most lotto charting results in an equally worthless selection
of lotto numbers, one might well ask if astrology would result
in a useful distribution of numbers from best to worst equal to
generating them by random means.
Can Astrolottology pick six winning numbers, or tell you the
best time to buy your Quick Pick? I doubt it. Can playing
a distribution of numbers different from what all the hundreds
of Hot-to-Cold software, systems and newspaper columns
report be an improvement? Could be, maybe. ;-)
Do we really need to burn down the side-show to save the
circus? RP
John Griffin
One thing we know for sure: Labatt drinkers should win more. First, it
seems reasonable to assume that they'd be consistent, which automatically
implies that they'd make better lotto-number choices. Second, they're
just more deserving than the average person. Third, lots of sub-Labatt
guys think those calibrations are for measuring the tool, and while
they're trying to figure out how that works, they miss the drawing.
>Dick -- The Wizard of Odds and Sometimes Taxes too
One day a few years ago, I made the mistake of posting "my" lotto numbers
(2-7-9-11-20-46). I heard later that 575757 people rushed out and got
tickets with those numbers. Not that they thought they were going to win
- just that they wanted to keep me from getting rich in case my numbers
came up. I'm going to start my own lottery. Tickets are $1 each, and the
prize is $1,000,000, rounded down to the nearest whole dollar in case of
ties. I offer far better odds than the state of Washington. It's going to
be a slightly modified 5/39 game. The modification is that the $1,000,000
will only be awarded if I happen to win $1,000,000 or more. The beauty of
this is that since everyone knows my numbers, the odds of picking
correctly are 1:1! You can't lose! (Unless I do...) I figure all those
people will want to spend a buck twice a week for the same reason they did
it before. I have all their names. (Send the money (one year in advance
preferred) in a plain brown envelope. No urine samples, please.)
So, now that you pointed out this opportunity to do some research, I'll
insist that all ticket buyers fill out a beer/astromancy/shoe-size
questionnaire and we'll soon have all the answers we need here.
Shane McDermott
and how true it is, although I'm not sure why you're directing your insults
on the moderator of another newsgroup to me.
John Griffin <hilb...@bigger.aa.net> wrote in message
news:38dc0dfe$1...@huge.aa.net...
> Shane McDermott <sh...@paracelsus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >John Griffin <hilb...@bigger.aa.net> wrote in message
> >news:38db0f02$1...@huge.aa.net...
> >> all scientific analyses have shown that the odds of gaining something
by
> >> buying into astromancy are far more remote than winning a lottery.
>
>
> >Can you direct me to "all [the] scientific analyses" that back up this
> >statement?
>
> No.
Your inability to substantiate your claim has been duly noted.
Oh deary me, has the Great Griffin been caught out talking through his arse
yet again? If you can't refrain from blurting out such wild and unprovable
generalisations, I suggest you have your posts proof-read by your friend Mr
Adams, who seems to be in possession of a greater literary restraint than
you have yet mastered.
(And lest you object to my turn of phrase, I am of course aware that one
cannot literally talk through one's arse; this is what we in the
English-speaking world refer to as a 'metaphor'.)
You see, John, I have no problem with common-or-garden bigots; the world is
aready heavily populated with those already, and the addition of one or two
more makes no difference in the great scheme of things. But what really gets
my goat (metaphorically-speaking, you understand - I don't actually HAVE A
GOAT) is people who cloak their bigotry in a mantle of pseudo-scientific
respectability, and this at a time when popular opinion of science is
already at an all-time low, without it being dragged further into the mire.
If you don't believe in astrology, just say so, but don't hide behind a
barrage of non-existent "analyses"; and try to say it without giving
yourself airs and graces out of all proportion to your study of the subject,
your understanding of it, or your research into its effects.
> I hope you can take this news...booze is just an inanimate fluid.
> It doesn't talk. You might think that makes it stupid or something,
> but at least it doesn't think the moon has any effect on it.
I wouldn't be quite so swift in discounting the Moon's effect on inamimate
fluids, unless I had a convincing alternative explanation for the phenomenon
of tides.
> However, you were right in not disputing my assertion that Dick's
> idea is far more likely to succeed than is yours.
I thought I expressed myself forcefully on this point elsewhere in this
thread, but obiously not, so let me recap - I have no interest in such
nonsensical waffle on beer-swilling. As to the success or otherwise of my
hypothesis, time alone will tell.
Shane McDermott
Richard D. Adams <rda...@smarty.smart.net> wrote in message
news:8bhj0r$dc7$1...@news.smart.net...
> John, this guy's a flame baiter. Let's cut our waste of resources short
> on this one.
Au contrere, mon ami, in my submission it is you and Mr Griffin who are the
flame-baiters, not I; it is you who have intruded on my post, posted in good
faith and sincerity, with your banal, tedious wittering on about 'beer', in
the hope, I suppose, of garnishing a laugh at my expense. Well, you've
chosen the wrong person to sneer at.
I do not habitually engage in slanging matches, as a preusal of my posts in
Deja.com will show.
But neither am I prepared to sit back and let my posts be hijacked by a
couple of jokers, congenital sneerers, joined at the brain-stem but
miraculously separated at birth; who have yet, as far as I can see, to
contribute anything original, thought-provoking or of substance to the
theory or practice of lottery-playing; who seem unable to raise their
intellectual game beyond a discussion of the multifarious ales on the
market; who labour under the misguided notion that their lame and repetitive
attempts at humour, if they ever were funny, are funny still; who have by
their perseverence turned a running joke into more of a running sore; whose
constant refrain of "Get a job" leads me to suppose they may be failed
career guidance counsellors; who are afraid to open their minds, lest their
brains might fall out; who have the understanding of scientific method of a
Grand Inquisitor; who evince a visceral, almost anaphylactic reaction to
astrology, a subject they have clearly never studied, yet feel able to
denigrate from on high; who think that, because they can string three
sentences together, this gives them some sort of intellectual superiority,
to sneer at the viewpoints of others on subjects of which they know nothing
and understand even less.
So if you'd care to engage me on a discussion of the topic delineated in the
subject line of this thread, please feel free.
But if you'd rather trade insults, bring them on, and I'll try to accomodate
you as best my mild-mannered nature will allow.
Paul
have watched this brewing over the past while and correctly predicted
that Heckle & Jeckle would follow their typical pattern of smartass
comments in order to somehow demonstrate their supposed superiority over
just about anybody who dares to post here. Griffin certainly has my vote
as miserable prick of the year. He and his bumboy somehow always manage
to return the focus back to their incessant ramblings about beer and
pissing contests. Some observers interpret this as a kind of jovial
banter between a couple of good 'ole boys that keeps them entertained. I
just find it has become extremely tiresome and feel that it has no place
in this group. I enjoy good humour as much as anyone but I find their
brand of humour to be mostly mean-spirited and negative.
While I may not share in Shane's enthusiasm for applying astrology to
the lottery, I believe it is his (or anyone else's) right to be able to
raise a subject for discussion without being harassed by a clique of
self-appointed experts who rarely (if ever) contribute anything of real
value to this group. At least Shane's posts are genuine and
*on-topic*...something that can't always be said for those attacking
him. You have my support Shane. I suspect there are a lot of lurkers out
there who feel somewhat the same way.
My comments are not in any way meant to fan the flames of a potentially
nasty situation. Just my opinion.
Sincerely,
Paul McCoy
--
Remove NOSPAM from my E-mail address to reply
The Lottery Mine http://webhome.idirect.com/~ixl
John Griffin
>It's often said that those who fear losing the argument resort to insults,
>and how true it is, although I'm not sure why you're directing your insults
>on the moderator of another newsgroup to me.
I don't know how often that's said, but I do know that people who are
speaking from untenable positions say it quite a lot.
>John Griffin <hilb...@bigger.aa.net> wrote in message
>news:38dc0dfe$1...@huge.aa.net...
>> Shane McDermott <sh...@paracelsus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >John Griffin <hilb...@bigger.aa.net> wrote in message
>> >news:38db0f02$1...@huge.aa.net...
>> >> all scientific analyses have shown that the odds of gaining something
>by
>> >> buying into astromancy are far more remote than winning a lottery.
>>
>>
>> >Can you direct me to "all [the] scientific analyses" that back up this
>> >statement?
>>
>> No.
>Your inability to substantiate your claim has been duly noted.
Noted, but hardly "duly" - which would imply some degree of honesty. I
doubt that you and I are the only ones who know about the indisputable
comments you were afraid to retain in that quote.
Let me remind you...people like you are not amenable to directions. You
believe what your emotions tell you to believe, and if someone buries you
in facts that contradict, you'll just snip them and go blissfully on your
course. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The process of developing
that sort of trait is so common that there's a name for it. It's called
"getting religion."
>Oh deary me, has the Great Griffin been caught out talking through his arse
>yet again? If you can't refrain from blurting out such wild and unprovable
>generalisations, I suggest you have your posts proof-read by your friend Mr
>Adams, who seems to be in possession of a greater literary restraint than
>you have yet mastered.
"Literary restraint" sounds like some nazi thing to me, not to mention
a serious self contradiction. I can see you burning all the science
books, but Mr. Adams's only problem is that he's sometimes too nice.
>(And lest you object to my turn of phrase, I am of course aware that one
>cannot literally talk through one's arse; this is what we in the
>English-speaking world refer to as a 'metaphor'.)
I'm glad you mentioned that. I hadn't seen any reason to assume
such sophisticated awareness in you.
>You see, John, I have no problem with common-or-garden bigots; the world is
>aready heavily populated with those already, and the addition of one or two
>more makes no difference in the great scheme of things. But what really gets
>my goat (metaphorically-speaking, you understand - I don't actually HAVE A
>GOAT) is people who cloak their bigotry in a mantle of pseudo-scientific
>respectability, and this at a time when popular opinion of science is
>already at an all-time low, without it being dragged further into the mire.
>If you don't believe in astrology, just say so, but don't hide behind a
>barrage of non-existent "analyses"; and try to say it without giving
>yourself airs and graces out of all proportion to your study of the subject,
>your understanding of it, or your research into its effects.
That was cool. I didn't realize you were so easily manipulable. There's
nothing like a laughable affectation to spice up a good tantrum.
>> I hope you can take this news...booze is just an inanimate fluid.
>> It doesn't talk. You might think that makes it stupid or something,
>> but at least it doesn't think the moon has any effect on it.
>I wouldn't be quite so swift in discounting the Moon's effect on inamimate
>fluids, unless I had a convincing alternative explanation for the phenomenon
>of tides.
It isn't the moon. It's gravity. No particle in the moon has any more
or less effect than any other particle the same distance away.
Anyway, I guess anyone who thinks he sees a tide in his beer is ready to
swallow the absurdity of "astrology."
>> However, you were right in not disputing my assertion that Dick's
>> idea is far more likely to succeed than is yours.
>I thought I expressed myself forcefully on this point elsewhere in this
>thread, but obiously not, so let me recap - I have no interest in such
>nonsensical waffle on beer-swilling. As to the success or otherwise of my
>hypothesis, time alone will tell.
Good grief, you start a thread about nonsensical ideas and then...oh...I
get it...the beer thing isn't nonsensical enough for you.
John Griffin
>...I suspect there are a lot of lurkers out
>there who feel somewhat the same way.
Damn, I would hope you'd be confident, not merely suspicious. Why believe
something if you aren't sure it's good enough for everyone else...or at
least for the slower ones...
>(He said some other stuff too, but it wasn't notable.)
Shane McDermott
Paul's, in your usual lame attempt at being oh-so-funny, oh-so-witty and
oh-so-superior to everyone else. Hardly surprising that it falls flat on its
face......again.
John Griffin <hilb...@bigger.aa.net> wrote in message
news:38dd7...@huge.aa.net...
It was very notable, highly apposite, and immensely funny - unlike the
drivel you repeatedly subject us to in your unappointed role of Court
Jester.
Shane McDermott
> Shane McDermott <sh...@paracelsus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >It's often said that those who fear losing the argument resort to
insults,
> >and how true it is, although I'm not sure why you're directing your
insults
> >on the moderator of another newsgroup to me.
>
> I don't know how often that's said, but I do know that people who are
> speaking from untenable positions say it quite a lot.
Well you're the expert on speaking from untenable positions John, as I've
demonstrated yet again. (Remember the classic? -"In all the lotto draws in
the history of the world, no number has ever been drawn while the position
of the sun was in any way relevant..."? - I'm still waiting for the
breakdown of those extensive "scientific analyses".)
> >John Griffin <hilb...@bigger.aa.net> wrote in message
> >news:38dc0dfe$1...@huge.aa.net...
> >> Shane McDermott <sh...@paracelsus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >John Griffin <hilb...@bigger.aa.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:38db0f02$1...@huge.aa.net...
> >> >> all scientific analyses have shown that the odds of gaining
something
> >by
> >> >> buying into astromancy are far more remote than winning a lottery.
> >>
> >>
> >> >Can you direct me to "all [the] scientific analyses" that back up this
> >> >statement?
> >>
> >> No.
>
> >Your inability to substantiate your claim has been duly noted.
>
> Noted, but hardly "duly" - which would imply some degree of honesty. I
> doubt that you and I are the only ones who know about the indisputable
> comments you were afraid to retain in that quote.
I preserved the essence of your answer to my question, while sparing you the
embarrassment of having to re-read your underhand attempt at undermining me
by lumping me with "free pussy" posts, your bocus analysis of my state of
mind, your rant about the moderator of another newsgroup (although God only
knows what that has to do with anything) and your misconception of astrology
as a "religion". But since you insist, here are your "indisputable comments"
in their full technicolour glory; remember, this is your answer to a simple
question - Can you direct me to "all [the] scientific analyses" that back up
this
statement?":
"No. Once you swallow nonsense like astrology, alchemy, free pussy, etc.,
no one can ever lead you to anything, as it's obvious that you can only
go in directions that you like regardless of any rational impetus to go
some other direction. Anyway, isn't there someone whose job is to protect
you from things like that? Just imagine the reaction if someone decided
to publish his results in that moderated wacko group, whose moderator
pees his pants whenever someone tries to post some innocuous criticism
of your goofy religion."
And you accuse ME of being emotional? And you say I rant? Seriously now, can
you tell me how this piece of prose adds one jot of substance to your answer
to my question? Or why I was 'dishonest' in consigning it to the dustbin,
where it belongs? The more I think about it, the more it takes on the air of
a desperate attempt to fudge the question with irrelevant, untrue or
downright insulting waffle. But that's you all over, isn't it John? -
nothing to say, and 2Gb to say it in.
> Let me remind you...people like you are not amenable to directions. You
> believe what your emotions tell you to believe, and if someone buries you
> in facts that contradict, you'll just snip them and go blissfully on your
> course. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The process of developing
> that sort of trait is so common that there's a name for it. It's called
> "getting religion."
I'm not taking 'reminders' on my thought processes from you, you odious
little twerp. You know nothing about me. You know nothing of what I believe,
how I respond to constructive argument, whether I modify my views in the
light of fresh evidence. If I'm as set in my opinions as you seem to think,
why would I call for research on the subject? Why not pronounce by beliefs
from on high, without bothering to look into the matter, as you usually do?
If you had any scientific curiosity about you, you would approve of what I'm
trying to do, possibly EAGER to see me fall flat on my face, but at least
willing to hold your tongue until you had the evidence to back up your
sneers. But you don't have the patience for that. You don't have the
open-mindedness for that. Want the truth?...........YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE
TRUTH!
> >(And lest you object to my turn of phrase, I am of course aware that one
> >cannot literally talk through one's arse; this is what we in the
> >English-speaking world refer to as a 'metaphor'.)
>
> I'm glad you mentioned that. I hadn't seen any reason to assume
> such sophisticated awareness in you.
First you arrribute to me your closed-minded bigotry, and now you attribute
your stupidity to me - it really is too much. The fact of the matter is, you
failed to recognise my metaphor, or if you did, thought you could safely
play word-games with it, in the hope of getting yourself a cheap laugh
(smacks of desperation again, my boy), and now that you have been rumbled we
see you furiously back-pedaling while trying to regain your composure.
Perhaps you should spend less time in alt.tasteless.jokes and more time in
alt.jokes.that.actually.work.
Shane McDermott
reckoning. I was beginning to feel claustrophobic here with these two
congenital sneerers. Your comments are quite true, and moreover refreshingly
humorous. I myself try to make my points in an entertaining and humorous
fashion, but I have to bow to your superior turn of phrase. I particularly
liked the "Heckle & Jeckle" classification, but which one is which? You
never specified, and they're beginning to sound very alike to
me............actually, that's a slur on Mr Adams - I do apologise Dick.
To be fair to you Paul, you've always made clear your opposition to
astrology and your disbelief in the subject, but you've always done so in a
manner that was courteous and respectful, and that's very laudable. It's
good to see there are some people out there who still uphold the values of a
free-speaking, pluralist world.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - you should post here more
often!!
Best to you,
Shane
Paul <NOSP...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:38DD0A1E...@idirect.com...
> Bravo Shane! Well said. It's about time somebody trimmed their sails. I
> have watched this brewing over the past while and correctly predicted
> that Heckle & Jeckle would follow their typical pattern of smartass
> comments in order to somehow demonstrate their supposed superiority over
> just about anybody who dares to post here. Griffin certainly has my vote
> as miserable prick of the year. He and his bumboy somehow always manage
> to return the focus back to their incessant ramblings about beer and
> pissing contests. Some observers interpret this as a kind of jovial
> banter between a couple of good 'ole boys that keeps them entertained. I
> just find it has become extremely tiresome and feel that it has no place
> in this group. I enjoy good humour as much as anyone but I find their
> brand of humour to be mostly mean-spirited and negative.
>
> While I may not share in Shane's enthusiasm for applying astrology to
> the lottery, I believe it is his (or anyone else's) right to be able to
> raise a subject for discussion without being harassed by a clique of
> self-appointed experts who rarely (if ever) contribute anything of real
> value to this group. At least Shane's posts are genuine and
> *on-topic*...something that can't always be said for those attacking
> him. You have my support Shane. I suspect there are a lot of lurkers out
> there who feel somewhat the same way.
>
Mike Sharkey
Misters McDermott and Griffin. I DO feel I have something to add with
regard to "Astrolottology". (Having gone through this once already with
Joanne and her Long-Lat System)
In article <8bkr2k$bf$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Shane McDermott"
<sh...@paracelsus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>John Griffin <hilb...@bigger.aa.net> wrote in message
>news:38dd75c6$1...@huge.aa.net...
>> Shane McDermott <sh...@paracelsus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
<small snip>
>
>
>Well you're the expert on speaking from untenable positions John, as I've
>demonstrated yet again. (Remember the classic? -"In all the lotto draws in
>the history of the world, no number has ever been drawn while the position
>of the sun was in any way relevant..."? - I'm still waiting for the
>breakdown of those extensive "scientific analyses".)
Extensive? Don't know for sure. However, I did conduct a test about
two or three years ago (called, modestly enough, a Sharkey Challenge)
with a woman from Canada that claimed to use Astrology and Geography
to help predict numbers. Her claims amounted to improving odds by
three or four times above normal. There was a fair amount of confusion,
especially since she didn't know what the odds were supposed to be
in the first place; nor that if she said she would pick 15 numbers, then
picking 15 numbers *plus* 10 'bonus numbers' was against the rules.
Anyhow, the test lasted 32 draws of the 100 she had agreed to test.
(two seperate lotteries, each twice a week, two months lasted)
At about that time I posted the results-to-date (without exposing any
of her actual numbers or methods). She seemed to get upset that her
astrology-influenced picks were only a little better than average, and that
my (random) numbers had done exactly as well as hers.
She threw a number of insults about, was laughed at, and went away.
(She still owes me CN$ 200 )
>
>
>
>> >John Griffin <hilb...@bigger.aa.net> wrote in message
>> >news:38dc0dfe$1...@huge.aa.net...
>> >> Shane McDermott <sh...@paracelsus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >John Griffin <hilb...@bigger.aa.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:38db0f02$1...@huge.aa.net...
>> >> >> all scientific analyses have shown that the odds of gaining
>something
>> >by
>> >> >> buying into astromancy are far more remote than winning a lottery.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Can you direct me to "all [the] scientific analyses" that back up this
>> >> >statement?
>> >>
<much banter snipped>
>
>I'm not taking 'reminders' on my thought processes from you, you odious
>little twerp. You know nothing about me. You know nothing of what I believe,
>how I respond to constructive argument, whether I modify my views in the
>light of fresh evidence. If I'm as set in my opinions as you seem to think,
>why would I call for research on the subject?
>
<and more banter snipped>
Again, I am NOT jumping into the diatribe between Shane, John and Dick.
All three seem to be handling their own positions just fine.
However, Shane seems to indicate in the above selection that he would be
willing to change his mind, given appropriate testing and results.
Is this true, Mr McDermott?
Would you put "Astrolottology" to the test?
The terms of a "Sharkey Challenge" have been stated here before, but the
essence remains the same - to test your predictions in what mght be called
a 'coin flip' against some 'random' null or against the 'anti-predictions'
(you called heads, I call tails). The results are interpreted with a fairly
rigid scientific methodology, using a binomial approximation to the
bell (or normal) curve, with three (3) standard deviations as the criteria.
Interested?
Mike Sharkey
Sometimes a banana is just a banana...
Richard D. Adams
>and how true it is, although I'm not sure why you're directing your insults
>on the moderator of another newsgroup to me.
>
>
>Your inability to substantiate your claim has been duly noted.
>
>yet again? If you can't refrain from blurting out such wild and unprovable
>generalisations, I suggest you have your posts proof-read by your friend Mr
>Adams, who seems to be in possession of a greater literary restraint than
>you have yet mastered.
>
>cannot literally talk through one's arse; this is what we in the
>English-speaking world refer to as a 'metaphor'.)
>
>aready heavily populated with those already, and the addition of one or two
>more makes no difference in the great scheme of things. But what really gets
>my goat (metaphorically-speaking, you understand - I don't actually HAVE A
>GOAT) is people who cloak their bigotry in a mantle of pseudo-scientific
>respectability, and this at a time when popular opinion of science is
>already at an all-time low, without it being dragged further into the mire.
>If you don't believe in astrology, just say so, but don't hide behind a
>barrage of non-existent "analyses"; and try to say it without giving
>yourself airs and graces out of all proportion to your study of the subject,
>your understanding of it, or your research into its effects.
>
>
>I wouldn't be quite so swift in discounting the Moon's effect on inamimate
>fluids, unless I had a convincing alternative explanation for the phenomenon
>of tides.
>
>
>I thought I expressed myself forcefully on this point elsewhere in this
>thread, but obiously not, so let me recap - I have no interest in such
>nonsensical waffle on beer-swilling. As to the success or otherwise of my
>hypothesis, time alone will tell.
Truly amazing!! The man can ramble on forever, but all he leaves behind
is a cacaphony of verbage devoid of even a single coherent thought!!
Todd
Richard D. Adams wrote:
Sorry snipped all comments.
I think this little war started off as being harmless and escalated into
something
big. Dick and John (H&J) were kidding around with Shane and had it been in the
real world all parties would have shared a laugh over the Labatt's or whiskey or
whatever was being consumed. I have read the posts of the three parties involved
and know none are weak of character, so why not fan the flames and get along....
start a new post involving Astrology and Random so we can all learn about your
individual views on the above mentioned. I know if this continues unkind words
will
be exchanged and the only one who will be laughing is Paul McCoy (who will urge
you on Shane). Paul watches this group and when he finds an ally he jumps in and
has his say, the group chews him up and he departs.......until the next time he
says...
"their can only be one" he screams.....sorry group that was McCloud the
Highlander,
I was confused. Anyhow lets patch this up guys, I find the three of you an asset
to this
group. I would like to see this Sharkey challenge for the hell of it though.
Todd
Mike Sharkey wrote:
> Please note: I am NOT getting into the minor flame-war developing between
> Misters McDermott and Griffin. I DO feel I have something to add with
> regard to "Astrolottology". (Having gone through this once already with
> Joanne and her Long-Lat System)
>
> In article <8bkr2k$bf$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Shane McDermott"
> <sh...@paracelsus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >John Griffin <hilb...@bigger.aa.net> wrote in message
> >news:38dd75c6$1...@huge.aa.net...
> >> Shane McDermott <sh...@paracelsus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> <small snip>
> >
> >
> >Well you're the expert on speaking from untenable positions John, as I've
> >demonstrated yet again. (Remember the classic? -"In all the lotto draws in
> >the history of the world, no number has ever been drawn while the position
> >of the sun was in any way relevant..."? - I'm still waiting for the
> >breakdown of those extensive "scientific analyses".)
>
> Extensive? Don't know for sure. However, I did conduct a test about
> two or three years ago (called, modestly enough, a Sharkey Challenge)
> with a woman from Canada that claimed to use Astrology and Geography
> to help predict numbers. Her claims amounted to improving odds by
> three or four times above normal. There was a fair amount of confusion,
> especially since she didn't know what the odds were supposed to be
> in the first place; nor that if she said she would pick 15 numbers, then
> picking 15 numbers *plus* 10 'bonus numbers' was against the rules.
>
> Anyhow, the test lasted 32 draws of the 100 she had agreed to test.
> (two seperate lotteries, each twice a week, two months lasted)
> At about that time I posted the results-to-date (without exposing any
> of her actual numbers or methods). She seemed to get upset that her
> astrology-influenced picks were only a little better than average, and that
> my (random) numbers had done exactly as well as hers.
> She threw a number of insults about, was laughed at, and went away.
> (She still owes me CN$ 200 )
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> >John Griffin <hilb...@bigger.aa.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:38dc0dfe$1...@huge.aa.net...
> >> >> Shane McDermott <sh...@paracelsus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >John Griffin <hilb...@bigger.aa.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:38db0f02$1...@huge.aa.net...
> >> >> >> all scientific analyses have shown that the odds of gaining
> >something
> >> >by
> >> >> >> buying into astromancy are far more remote than winning a lottery.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Can you direct me to "all [the] scientific analyses" that back up this
> >> >> >statement?
> >> >>
>
> <much banter snipped>
> >
> >I'm not taking 'reminders' on my thought processes from you, you odious
> >little twerp. You know nothing about me. You know nothing of what I believe,
> >how I respond to constructive argument, whether I modify my views in the
> >light of fresh evidence. If I'm as set in my opinions as you seem to think,
> >why would I call for research on the subject?
> >
Todd
terms and he will either agree to them or a mutual agreement will be viewed by the
members of this group. Good luck Gentlemen, this will be settled in a new thread
entiled RandomAstrolotto may the best system win.
Todd
Todd wrote:
> What are the rules Mike?
>
> Mike Sharkey wrote:
>
> > Please note: I am NOT getting into the minor flame-war developing between
> > Misters McDermott and Griffin. I DO feel I have something to add with
> > regard to "Astrolottology". (Having gone through this once already with
> > Joanne and her Long-Lat System)
> >
> > In article <8bkr2k$bf$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Shane McDermott"
> > <sh...@paracelsus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >John Griffin <hilb...@bigger.aa.net> wrote in message
> > >news:38dd75c6$1...@huge.aa.net...
> > >> Shane McDermott <sh...@paracelsus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > >>
> > <small snip>
> > >
> > >
> > >Well you're the expert on speaking from untenable positions John, as I've
> > >demonstrated yet again. (Remember the classic? -"In all the lotto draws in
> > >the history of the world, no number has ever been drawn while the position
> > >of the sun was in any way relevant..."? - I'm still waiting for the
> > >breakdown of those extensive "scientific analyses".)
> >
> > Extensive? Don't know for sure. However, I did conduct a test about
> > two or three years ago (called, modestly enough, a Sharkey Challenge)
> > with a woman from Canada that claimed to use Astrology and Geography
> > to help predict numbers. Her claims amounted to improving odds by
> > three or four times above normal. There was a fair amount of confusion,
> > especially since she didn't know what the odds were supposed to be
> > in the first place; nor that if she said she would pick 15 numbers, then
> > picking 15 numbers *plus* 10 'bonus numbers' was against the rules.
> >
> > Anyhow, the test lasted 32 draws of the 100 she had agreed to test.
> > (two seperate lotteries, each twice a week, two months lasted)
> > At about that time I posted the results-to-date (without exposing any
> > of her actual numbers or methods). She seemed to get upset that her
> > astrology-influenced picks were only a little better than average, and that
> > my (random) numbers had done exactly as well as hers.
> > She threw a number of insults about, was laughed at, and went away.
> > (She still owes me CN$ 200 )
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> >John Griffin <hilb...@bigger.aa.net> wrote in message
> > >> >news:38dc0dfe$1...@huge.aa.net...
> > >> >> Shane McDermott <sh...@paracelsus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >John Griffin <hilb...@bigger.aa.net> wrote in message
> > >> >> >news:38db0f02$1...@huge.aa.net...
> > >> >> >> all scientific analyses have shown that the odds of gaining
> > >something
> > >> >by
> > >> >> >> buying into astromancy are far more remote than winning a lottery.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >Can you direct me to "all [the] scientific analyses" that back up this
> > >> >> >statement?
> > >> >>
> >
> > <much banter snipped>
> > >
> > >I'm not taking 'reminders' on my thought processes from you, you odious
> > >little twerp. You know nothing about me. You know nothing of what I believe,
> > >how I respond to constructive argument, whether I modify my views in the
> > >light of fresh evidence. If I'm as set in my opinions as you seem to think,
> > >why would I call for research on the subject?
> > >
Shane McDermott
> Truly amazing!! The man can ramble on forever, but all he leaves behind
> is a cacaphony of verbage devoid of even a single coherent thought!!
>
> Dick -- The Wizard of Odds
The prospect of a coherent thought being added to this thread evaporated
around about the time you and your partner-in-sneering hijacked it with your
asinine beer-swilling jabber. It's nothing to be amazed about, really; I
think you'll find that, in any discussion, nothing lowers the collective IQ
better than the addition of a couple of air-heads.
But tell me, if I am such a rambling idiot, devoid of a single coherent
thought, why have you and your friend expended so much energy (nine posts at
the last count, and no doubt one or two more in the pipeline) replying to my
verbiage? Surely this time would have been better spent perfecting one's
pissing technique, or something? And what would happen if you WERE presented
with a coherent thought? - Apoplectic reactions all round, I suppose.
Speaking of 'coherent thoughts', my invitation to you to contribute YOUR
coherent thought on the topic under discussion (which, and this IS truly
amazing, is still contained in the subject-line of this post) is still open.
But don't spend too long thinking, now; neither of us are getting any
younger.
And now, in the style of John Griffin...............
"Cacophony", 1. Is spelled thus <-----
2. Implies a discordant sound or sounds. (You can tell this by the ending,
from the Greek "phonos".) Now, how can "verbiage" transmitted electronically
and appearing on your screen, assume a sound-like quality? - Unless,
perhaps, the reader is mouthing the words as he reads.
I know, I know, this was a cheap shot, and well below my usual standard of
riposte. I can assure you I thought long and hard about adding it, and it
does detract from the reply as a whole. But I felt that, on balance, you
should experience some of what the rest of us have to go through from the
receiving end.
Shane
Shane McDermott
better time; I was beginning to go quite mad.
I'll reply to Mike's post later, and then I'm outta here. This one's for the
birds.
Shane
Todd <tcam...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:38DEFBA4...@sympatico.ca...
Mike Sharkey
The contender (in this case Shane) picks a group of numbers by their
system-du-jour. (Let us assume for an example that -10- numbers are chosen)
The contender specifies *beforehand*
A. How many numbers will be chosen
B. What lottery or lotteries are being used.
The contender can choose either of two selection methods for *me*.
They can either pick ''bad'' numbers out of the field based, again we presume,
on the sytem-of-choice; or they can have their numbers compared against
an equal group of 'random' numbers that I would pre-choose.
In article <38DEFD84...@sympatico.ca>, Todd <tcam...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>What are the rules Mike?
>
>Mike Sharkey wrote:
>
<snipped>
alan williams
"Shane McDermott" <sh...@paracelsus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Thanks for that injection of reality, Todd, it couldn't have come at a
> better time; I was beginning to go quite mad.
>
> I'll reply to Mike's post later, and then I'm outta here. This one's for the
> birds.
>
>
> Shane
...
There seem to be two groups of people involved here. First there are
those who know nothing of the subject and so need only a few moments
to reply, since basically they have nothing to say - so of course
it doesn't take very long to say it.
Then there are those who do know something about it, and who thus
need longer to prepare a reply; they may need to look up some
references, tidy up some figures for posting, or simply translate
a complicated idea into simple language, so that those in the first
group can comprehend it.
While doing that, however, they'll probably notice the replies
already arriving from the first group, and realise that their time
would be better spent elsewhere.
So, the former group being much larger than the latter, the newsgroup
inevitably gravitates to the level of the lowest common denominator.
C'est la vie.
--
Alan Williams ... alco{at}pentile.demon.co.uk
Todd
for the birds. The best thing to do is not participate in such battles because
they never get better, only escalate more with every message. I also think
you should stick around and continue to post you input, you may receive
comments on these posts but in most cases it is all in fun and not meant to
harm you (the original posts). Mike has explained his challenge, why not
give it a whirl? I think this Sharkey challenge is just for the hell of it since
I didn't see mention of $$$$$ and remember you could fair better, this
game is not rigged.
Todd
good luck
Todd
Shane McDermott wrote:
> Thanks for that injection of reality, Todd, it couldn't have come at a
> better time; I was beginning to go quite mad.
>
> I'll reply to Mike's post later, and then I'm outta here. This one's for the
> birds.
>
> Shane
>
Dick Adams
> Richard D. Adams <rda...@smarty.smart.net> wrote:
>> Truly amazing!! The man can ramble on forever, but all he leaves behind
>> is a cacaphony of verbage devoid of even a single coherent thought!!
> The prospect of a coherent thought being added to this thread
> evaporated around about the time you and your partner-in-sneering
> hijacked it with your asinine beer-swilling jabber.
Nothing like insults to excuse one's low-level of analytical skills!
> It's nothing to be amazed about, really; I think you'll find that,
> in any discussion, nothing lowers the collective IQ better than
> the addition of a couple of air-heads.
We've all noticed that what happens when you come around.
> But tell me, if I am such a rambling idiot, devoid of a single
> coherent thought, why have you and your friend expended so much
> energy (nine posts at the last count, and no doubt one or two more
> in the pipeline) replying to my verbiage? Surely this time would
> have been better spent perfecting one's pissing technique, or
> something? And what would happen if you WERE presented with a
> coherent thought? - Apoplectic reactions all round, I suppose.
Since I lived close enough to the zoo, I spend this time throwing
peanuts at the monkies.
> [ snip ]
>
> And now, in the style of John Griffin...............
>
> "Cacophony", 1. Is spelled thus <-----
> 2. Implies a discordant sound or sounds. (You can tell this by the
> ending, from the Greek "phonos".) Now, how can "verbiage" transmitted
> electronically and appearing on your screen, assume a sound-like
> quality? - Unless, perhaps, the reader is mouthing the words as he reads.
I knew this would force you to use a dictionary. A cacophony is a
discordant mixture of sounds. To "prattle" has been described as
a cacophony of words.
> I know, I know, this was a cheap shot, and well below my usual standard
> of riposte. I can assure you I thought long and hard about adding it,
> and it does detract from the reply as a whole. But I felt that, on
> balance, you should experience some of what the rest of us have to go
> through from the receiving end.
Nah. I thought it was well-above your standards.
Dick -- The Wizard of Odds and sometimes Taxes too.
Shane McDermott
> Shane, it is only the words spoken (or in this case typed) in anger that
are
> for the birds. The best thing to do is not participate in such battles
because
> they never get better, only escalate more with every message. I also think
> you should stick around and continue to post you input, you may receive
> comments on these posts but in most cases it is all in fun and not meant
to
> harm you (the original posts). Mike has explained his challenge, why not
> give it a whirl? I think this Sharkey challenge is just for the hell of it
since
>
> I didn't see mention of $$$$$ and remember you could fair better, this
> game is not rigged.
>
> Todd
>
> good luck
>
> Todd
>
I know I promised not to return to this thread, but I thought a couple of
words of 'closure' would not be out of place. I think I knew that no harm
was intended, and no offence was taken, on my part at least. At the
beginning, I quite enjoyed the banter, but at some point, and I can't quite
say when, something strange happened - somehow, getting the next retort in,
and upping the ante, became the most important thing. I accused Dick and
John of 'hijacking' the thread, but I can see now the fault was as much mine
as theirs- if they were the 'hijackers', I was the 'willing victim'. I
always thought life was too short for flame-wars, but when you get sucked
into one, you realise that it has a certain addictive quality. It seems we
all have our addictive vices: for some of us it's beer; for others,
gambling; and for me, a penchant for flaming. It's something I'll have to
watch in future.
I'm grateful to Todd for showing me the way out before I saw it myself.
You are quite right, Sean - it went on for far too long. I'm also grateful
to Alan (somebody stop me if I start to sound like Gwynneth Paltrow) for his
perceptive insight on the workings of newsgroups. It was brilliant, simple,
and a point I had never even considered before. In my 7 or 8 years dabbling
in the internet, this is the single most profound insight that I can
remember having read. You can come here again Alan!
The thought occurred to me that if John, Dick and I had diverted one
quarter of our energies into something more constructive, we would have
proved the Goldbach Conjecture, got the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem down
to one side of foolscap, and made some startling astrolottological
discoveries by now.................well, always the eternal optimist.
I haven't forgotton my reply to Mike, which I will get round to, but I
have to disappoint those of you who were expecting a revisit to the 'Sharkey
Challenge' - I won't be able to take part in this for some time, for reasons
which I will explain, but which Sean has perceptively foreseen.
Cheers to you all,
Shane.
Don't you just love a happy ending?
Todd
Sean B wrote:
It seems to me that you are doing some assuming of your own Sean.
I have stated that I would like Shane to continue to post to this group,
and "the arguement" you speak of cannot be won . It's like I said, the
war escalates with every post sent in anger and I will not resort to insulting
you and making things worse.
Todd
Mike Sharkey
<sh...@paracelsus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I haven't forgotton my reply to Mike, which I will get round to, but I
>have to disappoint those of you who were expecting a revisit to the 'Sharkey
>Challenge' - I won't be able to take part in this for some time, for reasons
>which I will explain, but which Sean has perceptively foreseen.
>
Ah. I take it that you (yourself) don't particularly have a "astrology-based"
system that you use (or would want subject to the tribulations of the
r.g.l tribe).
That's OK. No picking on you is coming from this corner. I didn't see anyplace
that you *did* make any such claims, and just though that, if you had a system
(or a favorite astrologer) that you cared to test out, it could be done here
in a fairly friendly atmosphere.
As you are (from your writings) a follower or student of one or another of
the astrological ''sciences'' (sorry, but I have to put that in quotes )
if you should see a practitioner making claims to astro-lotto-whatever-o,
please feel free to have their claims tested here.
Note: I am NOT (here) making fun of, or being overly disparaging against
the astrology community. (I'll save that for a more appropriate forum).
>
>Cheers to you all,
>
>Shane.
>
>Don't you just love a happy ending?
Yep.
Gerry
Shane McDermott wrote:
> I know, I know, this was a cheap shot, and well below my usual standard of
> riposte. I can assure you I thought long and hard about adding it, and it
> does detract from the reply as a whole. But I felt that, on balance, you
> should experience some of what the rest of us have to go through from the
> receiving end.
>
> Shane
Hello Shane,
What you got on the receiving end was mild in comparison to
the filthy, repulsive cheapshot email I got from Adams a few
months ago. I went nose to nose with him and found out the
color of his eyes.
Adams isn't worth your time.
Gerry
Todd
You are correct, Shane has never claimed to predict the outcome of any given
lottery.
I apologize to you, Shane and this group for assuming otherwise. If we stop this
nonsense
what do we move on to Sean.....do you have a system that is in need of testing?
Todd
Sean B wrote:
> Todd, You have asked him to make predictions
> something he has never claimed to be able do.
>
> Can we stop this nonsense, now.
>
> Sean B
Todd
Shane doesn't need a big brother, he can take care of himself.
I don't participate in flame wars and you know it so ask the
ones that do these questions by responding to their messages,
I hate the middleman situation. Paul where R/U ? The guys always
wonder where you go when the chips are down? It's kind of creepy
to know they watch us.
Todd
unwilling
participant. I am not taking the bait Sean......sorry.
Sean B wrote:
> "Shane McDermott" <sh...@paracelsus.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >Todd <tcam...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:38DFAEC7...@sympatico.ca...
> >> Shane, it is only the words spoken (or in this case typed) in anger that
> >are
> >> for the birds. The best thing to do is not participate in such battles
> >because
> >> they never get better, only escalate more with every message. I also think
> >> you should stick around and continue to post you input, you may receive
> >> comments on these posts but in most cases it is all in fun and not meant
> >to
>
> The above is OK. That should have been the end
> of your post.
>
> >> harm you (the original posts). Mike has explained his challenge, why not
> >> give it a whirl? I think this Sharkey challenge is just for the hell of it
> >since
>
> See what I mean Todd?
>
> >>
> >> I didn't see mention of $$$$$ and remember you could fair better, this
> >> game is not rigged.
> >>
>
> How could you possibly know this? Do you
> claim to be phychic? Don't answer, just drop
> it.
>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >> good luck
> >>
>
> Again are you phychic or just presumptive?
> (Don't answer).
>
> Sean B
>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >
Todd
No I am not a fortune teller.
I wasn't finished my post so continued, are you my editor?
How do I know it's not rigged...read the details Sean as posted by
Sharkey now and in the past, Random versus any given system.
Robert Perkis
shouldn't be a problem for people claiming powers and
abilities far beyond those of normal men to pick lotto
numbers.
The Lotto-Logix Challenge is easier: Say what you
intend to prove, post your prediction prior to the
drawing. The group judges the quality of your work.
Robert Perkis
Mike Sharkey
se...@IMASmadasafish.com wrote:
>Todd <tcam...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>This guy is afraid of H&J so decides to try and start a flame war with an
>>unwilling
>
>Who is H&J?
Heckle and Jeckle - a ref. to Mssrs Griffin and Adams in the brief
flare-up twixt them and Mr McDermott.
>
>I replied to your post because you were the only one
>trying to force Shane to enter the Sharkey challenge.
Hmmm... Have a hard time reading any of Todds posts as "forcing" anything.
More like hoping Shane would take the Challenge up if he had a system.
>
>Shane was quite capable of sorting that out with
>Mike himself and I am quite sure that they were
>e-mailing one another. I am glad to see that it
>is now sorted.
Yes, he is/was/will be in the future - and no e-mails are being exchanged
as there is no need/desire for a Challenge to take place.
>
>Sean B
<hefty snip>