[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Too long Kirk didnt read,

[Crimson Dynamo]

as i said

when we read about all Kirks bets based on "feelings" that did not win

then, we have a thread

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I feel like a bit of a hypocrite now to be fair, mine was a bit long too...

[Marsh.]

This happens to me a lot. When I hear a new word that I didn't know before and suddenly I keep hearing it all over the place.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

This happens to me a lot. When I hear a new word that I didn't know before and suddenly I keep hearing it all over the place.

That is to do with the canes in your brain

[Marsh.]

I never said it was magic so there.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

That is to do with the canes in your brain

What like a walking stick or candy

[user104658]

Not to beat a dead horse but...

NAAS 1.30

33/1 winner vs a 4/5 odds on sp favourite in 2nd.


Plumpton 2.20

20/1 winner ahead of 9/2 in 2nd and 11/4 fav in 3rd.

Those were both today and it's a slow racing day. Want some synchronicity? The 11/1 winner of the 2.50 is called "I told you". Which I did. Oh and "remember I told you" was of course a famous catchphrase of a big brother contestant who was evicted. And we are on a big brother forum! Omg omg omg someone call morpheus, I think I'm The One.

[Kizzy]

Proper little rainclouds of doom some people

[bots]

If one believes in synchronicity, where is the harm in it?

Thing is, everyone automatically shuts off when they hear the word statistics but statistical mechanics applied to a universe can explain anything. Mix this together with the fact that events are only truly random up to a given point and you get what can be described as synchronicity

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

If one believes in synchronicity, where is the harm in it?

Thing is, everyone automatically shuts off when they hear the word statistics but statistical mechanics applied to a universe can explain anything. Mix this together with the fact that events are only truly random up to a given point and you get what can be described as synchronicity

There's no harm in it in general, but when it comes to gambling it drives me mental when people try to apply anything to it other than plain dumb luck. There isn't anything more to it. I've heard 7 million "systems" and double that of "feelings" of various descriptions and it... just... no.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Too long Kirk, didn't read. .

LMFAO -- This post is longer but I advise you to read it:
.
I have told you before on other threads that once your 'strawman' responses are challenged you "keep moving the goalposts" and this exactly what you are doing now.

You made sweeping and ridiculously erroneous presumptions which you passed off as authorative facts in your response, but yet once I rebutted this nonsense of yours with facts, and challenged you to provide corroborating evidence for your ludicrous statements, you try to cover up the fact that you cannot provide such evidence by ridiculously claiming 'not to have read' the post because it's "too long".

How can anyone seriously respond to a post on any thread without first properly reading and therefore understanding the post they are commenting on?

In addition, it is incredible if you didn't read my response, that you have so clearly tried to tailor your response to the points made in it (even though you fail miserably to counter them by doing so. As you always do.) Instead, you trot out psychobabble and opinionated waffle about statistics and mathematics which are irrelevant and do not address the points I made in my original post, or the points I challenged in your response.

For example, you stated: “A 33/1 shot coming first is not rare, it's not even unusual, it happens every day. 100/1 shots come in every day. It happens against odds on favourites...”

Then - as if to corroborate the truth of the above stupid statement, you quote (after googling The Racing Post results);

“33/1 winner vs a 4/5 odds on sp favourite in 2nd.” And, “20/1 winner ahead of 9/2 in 2nd and 11/4 fav in 3rd.” Yet this does not corroborate anything, for 2 races from one single day, is not “everyday”, and where is the 100/1 daily winner you stated as fact? Never mind one against an odds on shot.

Further, you post; “Those were both today and it's a slow racing day.” and by this statement - in true dishonest ‘Strawman’ fashion - you seek to persuade the readers who are not familiar with horseracing that ‘on a better day, when racing isn’t "slow" there would be even more 33/1 winners in addition to the boasted of daily 100/1 winner. So let’s test the truth of this:

Here’s the results for the 3rd of January 2015:
CORK: 10/1, 7/4, 2/1, 5/1, Evens, 5/2, 3/1
LINGFIEL 3/1, 10/1, 6/1, 5/1,3/1, 5/1, 7/2
WINCANTON: 11/10, 11/4, 10/1, 5/1, 7/2, 8/1
NEWCASTLE: 30/100, 5/2, 13/2, 7/1, 7/2, 7/2, 3/1
SANDOWN: 3/1, 6/4, 5/1, 5/2, 4/9, 9/1, 5/2

So here we have 34 different grade and types of races at 5 different class and types of course so it was definitely not a ”slow racing day”, and yet there is no 33/1 shot or 100/1 shot in sight. In fact, the highest SP was a mere 10/1.

That was informative, let's do it again:

Here’s the results for just the 2nd of January 2015:
AYR: 8/13, 9/2, 14/1, 4/1, 7/2, 7/2, 11/10
DUNDALK: 100/30, 7/1, 6/1, 7/4, 13/2, 8/1, 9/4
SOUTHWELL: 13/8, 10/1, 11/2, 6/5, 9/4, 1/3, 11/4
FFOS LAS: 1/4, 5/2, 11/2, 3/1 11/1, 10/11, 4/6
WOLVERHAMPTON: 5/2, 4/1, 6/4, 6/1, 4/1, 5/6

So here we have another 34 different grade and types of races at another 5 different class and types of course, and also then, another day when it was definitely not a ”slow racing day”, and yet there's still no sign of your boasted ‘daily’ 33/1 shot or ‘daily’ 100/1 shot. In fact, the highest SP was a mere 14/1.

So are your two ‘authorative statements’, that: “A 33/1 shot coming first is not rare, it's not even unusual, it happens every day. 100/1 shots come in every day. It happens against odds on favourites...” and: “33/1 shots win every day. 100/1 shots win several times a week.” really as factual and true as you try to have us believe?

ARE THEY HELL. They are totally untrue, and just more totally ridiculous and dishonest smoke-screening by a master ‘Strawman’ proponent to try to justify his total lack of real substance in a counter argument he – once again – waged to make himself appear ‘clever’.

33/1 winners do happen – I’ve backed them. 100/1 winners do happen – I’ve backed two. But they are not common as you claim as fact and do not "happen every day" as you stupidly claim as fact, and nor do the true statistical facts bear out your ridiculous, hysterical, and immature claims.

Your utter dishonesty in making such claims appear as fact is further compounded when one takes into account your further statement; “I've worked as a manager for a (very busy) bookmakers for five and a half years.” because, if you work in a bookies, then you know full well that "33/1 winners do not happen every day”, and "100/1 winners" certainly do not "happen every day" or even "several times a week”as you ridiculously claim as fact.

The above statement of yours actually baffles me, because it’s just a week ago on another thread where you were similarly embroiled in another ‘Strawman’ argument against me, that you claimed you were a ‘psychologist’:

"28-12-2014, 09:18 AM.
although as a psychologist I certainly don't find it shocking”


Anyway, back to your stupid statements of fact; to deliberately use such false ‘statistics’ to prop up a non-existent argument is dishonest, as is your next piece of ‘Flim-Flam’:

“Last week a Ł3 lucky fifteen return thousands because all four horses won, none of them at less than 15/1, one at 50/1. In the last year, I have taken / processed over 100,000 bets.”

Winning multiple bets such as Lucky 15’s, Heinz, Canadians, etc do happen, but they are not at all common because of the odds involved, which simply calculated are 2,839 x the Ł3 total stake, or a return of Ł8518.20 – and that’s calculating odds of 50/1, 15/1, 15/1 and 15/1, on a (presumable) each way bet at 1/5 of the odds for a place, because you stated I x 50/1 winner and that all other winners were at least 15/1.

Odds of over 2,800 to 1, yet you deviously use this ‘winning multiple’ bet to try to persuade the reader that such winning bets involving big priced winners are common – which they most certainly are not, as the odds clearly show, and as does the fact that bookies would be wiped out if they were.

Now onto your claim that: “In the last year, I have taken / processed over 100,000 bets.”

Let’s generously assume that you work a 5 day week and 8 hours per day. That’s 40 hours per week. Let’s further assume that you work 48 weeks per year.

That’s 1,920 hours per year. 100,000 bets divided by 1,920 = 52.08 bets taken/processed per hour. Or almost one bet each and every minute of every hour of every 5 day week – without lunch breaks, tea breaks or toilet breaks, and without having to answer telephone calls, talk to punters, or go to the bank?

My bets are written out so precisely and I've never been served in a bookies as quickly as that – and that is only when the bet is being accepted and photocopied then handed back, it gets even more messy and lengthy if I ask for the 'on show odds' to be written on and authorised.

Of course, as a ‘Manager’ you may be referring to processing’ bets, i.e.; checking them to see which horse won, which horse lost, which were ‘non runners’, calculating returns on winners etc , in which case one bet processed every minute is miraculous – especially without allowing for lunch breaks, tea breaks or toilet breaks, and having to answer telephone calls, talk to punters, or go to the bank, and the ridiculousness of such a statement is magnified if you work fewer than 8 hours per day, or fewer than 5 days per week, or fewer than 48 weeks per year, because I’ve allowed you those totals - - I'm just generous like that I suppose. LMAO.

So far from being relevant and substantiating, your statement: “In the last year, I have taken / processed over 100,000 bets.” is just yet another totally laughable false claim passed off as ‘authorative fact’ as part of your ‘Strawman’ Modus Operandi.

Now let’s come to the part where you write: “That's me, personally. So yeah... That's my sources. First hand experience. If you like." and perhaps then you will explain just why you feel your ‘first hand experience’ should be accepted as a valid ‘source’ of ‘substantiating evidence’ when you so arrogantly and totally ignore or dismiss my personal first hand experiences as ‘untrue’ or ‘nonsense’?

I write with truth, passion and integrity. I do not ‘dream’, exaggerate or delude myself – I am probably one of the most coldly clinical, analytical people you could meet when it comes to serious matters, and just because my own personal experiences do not fit in with your own blinkered views of life, does not render them ‘untrue’ or ‘nonsense’.

Your statements above have been shown up for the laughable mistruths they are, and your 'authorative statement' that the 7/4 favourite in that particular field was "not a strong favourite" is equally as laughable.

What's more, the rest of your post is totally irrelevant to the subject of my original post.

I do not need educating on 'insider knowledge’,’ false favourites’, or any other of the irrelevant waffle which you use to obscure the very real fact, that having once again, succumbed to ego, and butted into one of my posts merely to defeat my contentions to make yourself appear ‘clever’, you have once again done so without any genuine factual or relative arguments with which to help you counter my contentions, and so, once again, have resorted to ridiculing without cause, disagreeing without factual justification, passing off fallacy as fact, and relying on the ‘Strawman’ principle that that the audience is ignorant of the nuances in the original argument.

Anyone really analysing your great wodge of text and referring to my original post 'side by side' which your ‘great wodge of text‘supposedly addresses, can clearly see that far from addressing it, your ‘great wodge of text’ is totally irrelevant.

For example; “Average punters who do not have this insider knowledge - and who are not involved in odds fixing rings online - do not have sustained wins over time. Period” is irrelevant and incongruous, because in my original post I do not claim that they do. In fact I never even mention such a matter, nor anything remotely to do with it. So your inclusion of this statement is just more unrelated, unwarranted, irrelevant waffle used dishonestly to obscure the fact that you have nothing to honestly counter my contentions with – 'a smokescreen’ in other words.

Just as this further irrelevant waffle is also more 'smoke-screening':“The reason for this is that psychic abilities / mysticism / future prediction is nonsense, because lucky streaks are based purely on coincidence which can be completely and easily deconstructed with a basic understanding of statistics. To put it simply: thousands of things are happening to almost 7 billion people every day, running to a total of several trillion "events per day". That several of these events will coincidence in ways that seem highly improbable is not strange, it is not providence, it is not paranormal - it is mathematical certainty” -–

-- Which all sounds very impressive you clever little man, but all totally irrelevant and therefore having no place in any response or counter to my original post, because, once again I never mentioned “psychic abilities, mysticism, or future prediction” anywhere in my post.

What’s more, I couldn’t give two flying fecks how many events are happening to how many billions of people “every day” because such statistics have nothing at all to do with my post, which was ‘specific’ to my own totally true, totally inexplicable experience involving a specific race, at a given time, on a given day, and involved ‘intuition’ and ‘synchronicity’ – both very real, scientifically recognised phenomena despite what you, the self proclaimed “Sage of All Truth” arrogantly claim to the contrary in the face of overwhelming evidence which you do not address.

Finally, I’ll come to your juvenile attempt at ridiculing me; “Want some synchronicity? The 11/1 winner of the 2.50 is called "I told you". Which I did. Oh and "remember I told you" was of course a famous catchphrase of a big brother contestant who was evicted. And we are on a big brother forum! Omg omg omg someone call morpheus, I think I'm The One”

Oh yes, oh yes, you certainly think you are the one, because your arrogant egoism is overwhelming but your credentials for being so are underwhelming, and you are not as ‘clever’ as you think you are. Far from it.

You would not last one round with me in a properly conducted formal debate, where ‘Strawman’ tactics are instantly recognised and prohibited, and only legitimate ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ arguments are permitted, and the examples you cite in your last piece of nonsense are not ‘synchronicity’, do not relate in any way to the experience I relate in my original post, and your inclusion of them is neither to add to the subject discussion, nor genuinely offer a legitimate counter view – it is to ridicule me, and elevate your own wrongly perceived ‘status’ as an intellectual.

To prove to all readers that you are merely perpetuating the same 'Strawman' tactics you have always done in arguments with me, I reproduce below extracts from certain responses I made to you after suffering the same fraudulent hokum on other threads:

Quote:
“The true irony in your attempt at sarcasm T.S., is that - once again - you are deliberately misquoting what I said in my many posts on this subject, the last of which I reproduce below:

'Gunman takes hostages in Sydney cafe' 18-12-2014, 02:01 PM

"First of all T.S. you are once again starting to argue from a completely false premise because I have already stated - at length - that not all terrorists are 'psychopaths' who were simply 'born wrong', and I am not going to keep repeating myself to defend myself against false argument for argument's sake."

[I]“You elected to 'exit' that particular 'debate' without answering the above lengthy post, so please now have the grace not to continue to attempt to ridicule me by misquoting what I said.

If you feel that my post above did not satisfactorily resolve our 'difference of opinion', then you should rejoin that particular thread with yet another 'counter argument' - not petulantly continue to misquote me in other posts on other threads.” End of Quote.

After I made the above response to you, you posted another 4 times including one very lengthy response to Ammi, but you did not answer my response quoted above, or even acknowledge it.


And later, when I posted to you:

Quote:
“LMAO - You are the one misquoting others in order to cover up fatal flaws in your very weak argument - not me, and you have resorted to childish skits instead of properly addressing my last post on the 'Gunman takes hostages in Sydney cafe' thread, which you completely avoided. So who is 'backpedaling'?
Come let us debate and discuss like sensible informed adults.” –-

-- you tellingly failed to answer that post too.

Anyway, you have a right to disagree with any propositions or views in my post, but you have not the right to call me a liar when I make truthful statements regarding personal experiences.

You have the right to offer opposing views if such views are genuine, but you have not the right to oppose my views when such opposition is pure ridicule unaccompanied by any corroborating facts.

As outlined in the above two excerpts of mine from another thread, you attack and ridicule without justification, using dishonest ‘Strawman’ techniques to do so, then when you are exposed for doing so, you run and hide and no longer address the issue directly, but instead immaturely ‘snipe’ by making groundless, sarcastic reference to the thread you have fled from on other threads.

I acknowledge your intelligence and knowledge, but I deplore your continued dishonest tactics, and therefore feel it better if you now ignore my posts and I will reciprocate in kind, because there is nothing to be gained in trying to debate or discuss with you.

Thank you.

[Crimson Dynamo]

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I must admit I thought you were better than this Kirk Women retiring to the kitchen while the menfolk watched TV - I don't know about Deja Vu, but I hope your wife gave you a kick up the ass when they left and you remembered it.

But OT, yeah this happens to me sometimes (not the betting thing but like you'll say a word and a second later they'll say the same word on TV or whatever) More often though it doesn't happen so I don't think it's that weird that the odd time it does

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

But necessary - Old Chinese Ploverb:

"Pwenty sheet need pwenty toiwet paper"

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

But necessary - Old Chinese Ploverb:

"Pwenty sheet need pwenty toiwet paper"

that was coined by

Hoo Flung Dung

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

that was coined by

Hoo Flung Dung

Will I ever get the last 'funny' in with you?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

If one believes in synchronicity, where is the harm in it?

Thing is, everyone automatically shuts off when they hear the word statistics but statistical mechanics applied to a universe can explain anything. Mix this together with the fact that events are only truly random up to a given point and you get what can be described as synchronicity

Thank you Bitontheslide for your intelligent and knowledgeable input.

[user104658]

Tedious again Kirk... you need to work on your prose.

A) I never claimed that "daily" 33/1 shots coming in are all horse bets. 33/1 bets come in every day. I promise. It's just a fact. I also didn't say that 100/1 shots win every day. I said "several times per week". Now who's twisting facts to suit, Kirk? Or perhaps you didn't properly read the post. Tut tut. Tut.

B) I have never claimed to be employed as "a psychologist" - I have a degree in Psychology, and work for a bookmakers. Both of these facts have been mentioned several times by me in several threads - it's not a secret. I am aware that it's pretty disheartening, but there you go. I have qualifications, and an ongoing interest, in psychology.

C)

Let’s generously assume that you work a 5 day week and 8 hours per day. That’s 40 hours per week. Let’s further assume that you work 48 weeks per year.

That’s 1,920 hours per year. 100,000 bets divided by 1,920 = 52.08 bets taken/processed per hour. Or almost one bet each and every minute of every hour of every 5 day week – without lunch breaks, tea breaks or toilet breaks, and without having to answer telephone calls, talk to punters, or go to the bank?

I work 3 to 5 days per week, but you're being a bit generous with the shift length there. A full shift is 13 hours. A "short" shift is 7. My shop takes roughly 1000 bets per day on a normal weekday, roughly 1.5k on a Friday and almost 2k on a Saturday. Max 2 staff Sunday to Friday and single-manned 5.5 hours per day. I was estimating, but feel free to do your little maths bit with the figures in hand. Again - these are not all horse bets but that is completely irrelevant... bets are bets and odds are odds and presumably, synchronicity is synchronicity, and isn't somehow magically related to only one sport. Maybe that's being presumptuous? Maybe magical horse-racing fairies are indeed involved with this particular super power. If that is the case then please accept my sincerest apologies in advance.

Originally Posted by kirk

You would not last one round with me in a properly conducted formal debate, where ‘Strawman’ tactics are instantly recognised and prohibited, and only legitimate ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ arguments are permitted

Do you know what else is recognised? Ad hominem. And red-faced frustration, Kirk. *ahem* *finger flex*

1) "total lack of real substance in a counter argument he – once again – waged

2) to make himself appear ‘clever’."

3) "as you stupidly claim as fact, and nor do the true statistical facts bear out your:

4) ridiculous,

5) hysterical,

6) and immature claims"

7) "your stupid statements of fact;"

8) "your next piece of ‘Flim-Flam’"

9) "arrogant"

10) "your blinkered views of life"

11) "laughable"

12) "irrelevant waffle"

13: "make yourself appear ‘clever'"

14) "sounds very impressive you clever little man"

15) "the self proclaimed “Sage of All Truth” "

16) "juvenile attempt"

17) "Oh yes, oh yes, you certainly think you are the one"

18) "your arrogant egoism is overwhelming but your credentials for being so are underwhelming"

19) "you are not as ‘clever’ as you think you are. Far from it."

20) to round this out to 20, you also use "LMFAO" at least twice...

You also use the word "Strawman" to attack me personally no less than NINE times. Naughty, naughty Kirk. You would be out of any formal debate on your arse because you can't hold your temper . You also have precisely zero experience of what I am like in a formal debate because this is a reality TV forum that I come onto for entertainment... usually in my pyjamas. You're being massively presumptuous. Maybe you would be different, too? I don't know. I'm not convinced, because you have such a temper, Kirk! How does one keep that in check, formal setting or not?

Regardless, if you were truly the expert masterdebater that you claim to be, you would be well aware that repeatedly bleating "strawmaaaan" is not a particularly effective debating tactic.

Then, of course, there's the issue of your unashamed hypocrisy:

Originally Posted by kirk

but you have not the right to call me a liar when I make truthful statements

You call me a liar throughout your entire post, good sir. Or perhaps you feel that you have a greater number of "rights" than I do?

[kirklancaster]

[QUOTE=Toy Soldier;7449038]Tedious again Kirk... you need to work on your prose.

A) I never claimed that "daily" 33/1 shots coming in are all horse bets. 33/1 bets come in every day. I promise. It's just a fact. I also didn't say that 100/1 shots win every day. I said "several times per week". Now who's twisting facts to suit, Kirk? Or perhaps you didn't properly read the post. Tut tut. Tut.
/QUOTE]

More side-shifting, backtracking and smoke-screening - Don't those Goal Posts get heavy when you keep shifting them as much as you do?

1) You're saying you didn't say that "100/1 shots win every day"
2) I said you did , so now you accuse me of "twisting facts to suit."

Let's see who is telling the truth shall we? Here cut and pasted in its entirety is your post on this very thread from yesterday at 1.16 PM. Post Number 15:

QUOTE:
Yesterday, 01:16 PM #15
Toy Soldier

"If this was real there would be gamblers who, on average over a year, are making profits. There aren't. Not unless they're cheating (with either insider info or odds manipulation via betfair). They don't exist. Therefore what you're talking about is a combination of coincidence (incidentally - occasional improbable coincidence is a statistical certainty) and plain old dumb luck. A 33/1 shot coming first is not rare, it's not even unusual, it happens every day. 100/1 shots come in every day. It happens against odds on favourites... The favourite you're talking about wasn't even a strong favourite at those odds. Also you mentioned that the race was paying only two places, which means there weren't many horses in the race. And... Err... One of those was disqualified."
______________________________________
Last edited by Toy Soldier; Yesterday at 01:27 PM.
END OF QUOTE.

Didn't say it? Psychologist heal thyself thy mind be delusional.

QUOTE:
"I never claimed that "daily" 33/1 shots coming in are all horse bets. 33/1 bets come in every day. I promise. It's just a fact."
END OF QUOTE.

More blatant side-shifting, backtracking and smoke-screening because seeing as how my post was specifically to do with a HORSERACE and no other sport, and the phraseology of your response was specific to HORSERACING, it is pathetic nonsense to now try and claim that the daily 33/1 shots coming in which you stated as 'truth' didn't just refer to HORSE BETS. Desperate or what?

I mean, come on now - look at your terminology and phraseology:

QUOTE:
"A 33/1 shot coming first is not rare, it's not even unusual, it happens every day. 100/1 shots come in every day. It happens against odds on favourites.. The favourite you're talking about wasn't even a strong favourite at those odds. Also you mentioned that the race was paying only two places, which means there weren't many horses in the race. And... Err... One of those was disqualified."
END OF QUOTE.

What other sports are won by 33/1 shots on a DAILY basis? Golf? Football Matches? Darts? Boxing? Egg And Spoon Races?

And what about: "The favourite you're talking about wasn't even a strong favourite at those odds. Also you mentioned that the race was paying only two places, which means there weren't many horses in the race. And... Err... One of those was disqualified." Does this not PROVE that you were referring to my post which was HORSERACE specific and that you were talking specifically about HORSERACING bets? LMFAO

QUOTE:
B) I have never claimed to be employed as "a psychologist" - I have a degree in Psychology, and work for a bookmakers. Both of these facts have been mentioned several times by me in several threads - it's not a secret. I am aware that it's pretty disheartening, but there you go. I have qualifications, and an ongoing interest, in psychology.
END OF QUOTE.

When someone qualifies an opinion in a post with "As a PSYCHOLOGIST" , then he is passing himself off as if that was his profession.

You may well have a "degree in psychology"" but I would not guess as much from the psychobabble dross in your posts, and it certainly does not 'dishearten' me. Why should it? I am happy being me, and certainly have discerned nothing in you as far as I'm able to, to create any form of 'envy' in me because I am not in the slightest an envious person anyway, and am much too stoical and philosophical for such traits.

There is one thing though - if you do have a 'degree in psychology', it may beggar the question of why you have worked in a bookies for 5 1/2 years?

The rest of your long post is utter drivel in which you continue to smoke-screen and continue to present assumptions dressed as authorative fact without any factual basis for doing so.

Such as repeatedly stating that I can't hold my temper. LMFAO.

I have boxed since I was 8 years old and worked as a doorman for 20 years in clubs from Leeds to Scarborough to Liverpool to London, so I am superbly disciplined in staying physically cool under pressure and maintaining my 'temper'.

I have also debated individually and as part of a team for many years, so I am superbly disciplined in staying emotionally and psychologically 'cool' - even when faced with tiresome pseudo intellectuals - and in maintaining my 'temper'.

And nowhere in my posts do I display any signs of 'losing my temper' so you have no factual basis for making your false statement -- but when did that ever stop you as I have proved above.

Unless you are such an adept 'qualified psychologist' that you can diagnose such a clinical condition in me over cyberspace without knowing, meeting or seeing me, and without any discernible manifestations of symptoms to aid you in such a diagnosis?

Which, if are such a 'hot shot', then beggars the question of why you have worked in a bookies for 5 1/2 years?

Anyway, as to the lengthy list of my transgressions (pity you do not exercise such diligence when ensuring your posts are honest and actually relevant to the subject matter) yes - I plead guilty to deliberately and wilfully using terms such as 'ridiculous', 'immature' and 'stupid' because the only way to best describe something is by using the best and most apt descriptors, but this has nothing to do with; "Ad hominem" and if you view it as attacking your character then so be it, because you have certainly attacked mine by calling me a liar first among other things.

You're a 'psychologist' so you should be familiar with the terminology for someone who attacks without grounds only to whinge when the person being attacked retaliates with greater force. You know; like I'm minding my own business and someone punches me repeatedly for no reason, but inflicts little or no damage, but then I punch him back and he complains because my one punch broke his jaw? Well, it's the same with verbal arguing. If I post, then you elect to respond with pap laced with insult, then don't whinge and complain when I give it back but with more potency.

And as for; "red-faced frustration" I will coldly and calculatingly assure you of this - you do not possess any quality to cause in me "red-faced frustration" and you flatter yourself if you delude yourself that you do.

Finally; because you most certainly do employ 'Strawman' tactics, then I make no apologies for stating as much.

Now, I suggest we bid 'farewell and adieu' - unless you wish to continue?

[user104658]

Kirk, I have NOT accused you of being a liar or of making your story up. These things happen. In fact, a month or so ago, I placed a little bet on a horse at 11/1, because my wife had texted me to tell me that my daughter Betty was being particularly moody (changing the name and the emotion for the sake of privacy in this example) and then not ten minutes later, I spotted a horse called "Betty Is Moody". It was an outsider and won. This is the sort of event that you are referring to in your OP - I have absolutely no dispute with the FACTS of your post - I merely disagree with the reasons for it happening. i.e. it is purely chance / coincidence, my wife sends me dozens of texts every day, hundreds of horses run every day, the names coincided, and it happened to win, as outsiders often (yes, often) do. It is not Fate or The Universe or Jesus or Gandalf or Mystic Meg. But I am perfectly willing to accept that you believe whatever mumbo-jumbo you happen to believe. People believe in far stranger things . That doesn't mean I have to accept it as any sort of reality.

tl;dr: I think what you're saying is utter bull**** but I accept that it's a brand of bull**** that you buy into. That doesn't make you a liar. I have not called you a liar.

Now, onto your huge, pathetic angry rant: That was one massive ad hominem personal attack there Kirk. And you claim to be able to hold your temper whilst resorting to repeated personal insult after personal insult? Mocking my job and asking "why I would be doing it" when you have little / zero idea what my personal circumstances are? I'd have been more than willing to tell you, had you asked, but instead, you have been attempting to (for unfathomable reasons) physically intimidate me by pointing out that you "were a bouncer for 20 years" and then later alluding to "punching people repeatedly" and "breaking their jaw"? I have plenty that I could say about you kirk, based on your opinions in a number of threads, but have not, because I have enough decorum not to reduce myself to such loutishness.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Kirk, I have NOT accused you of being a liar or of making your story up. These things happen. In fact, a month or so ago, I placed a little bet on a horse at 11/1, because my wife had texted me to tell me that my daughter Betty was being particularly moody (changing the name and the emotion for the sake of privacy in this example) and then not ten minutes later, I spotted a horse called "Betty Is Moody". It was an outsider and won. This is the sort of event that you are referring to in your OP - I have absolutely no dispute with the FACTS of your post - I merely disagree with the reasons for it happening. i.e. it is purely chance / coincidence, my wife sends me dozens of texts every day, hundreds of horses run every day, the names coincided, and it happened to win, as outsiders often (yes, often) do. It is not Fate or The Universe or Jesus or Gandalf or Mystic Meg. But I am perfectly willing to accept that you believe whatever mumbo-jumbo you happen to believe. People believe in far stranger things . That doesn't mean I have to accept it as any sort of reality.

tl;dr: I think what you're saying is utter bull**** but I accept that it's a brand of bull**** that you buy into. That doesn't make you a liar. I have not called you a liar.

Now, onto your huge, pathetic angry rant: That was one massive ad hominem personal attack there Kirk. And you claim to be able to hold your temper whilst resorting to repeated personal insult after personal insult? Mocking my job and asking "why I would be doing it" when you have little / zero idea what my personal circumstances are? I'd have been more than willing to tell you, had you asked, but instead, you have been attempting to (for unfathomable reasons) physically intimidate me by pointing out that you "were a bouncer for 20 years" and then later alluding to "punching people repeatedly" and "breaking their jaw"? I have plenty that I could say about you kirk, based on your opinions in a number of threads, but have not, because I have enough decorum not to reduce myself to such loutishness.

Oh Dear Lord.

I think you really need to sit down and look back through the threads, then
be truthful with yourself, because we are where we are now because I have finally tired of you constantly posing responses to my posts which were definitely nothing more than deliberate sniping and misquoting and misconstruing of what I was stating for no other reason than to make yourself look superior at the cost of making me look foolish and ill informed.

You even continued to snipe at me with sarcastic comments on other threads where I had not even then posted, as the following excerpt from the 'White Jihadi' thread proves. I had not even posted on that thread when you wrote:

"Impossible! Terrorism is genetic and only affects brown monsters, not white humans."


This was a direct reference to my views from another thread, but you were - of course - misquoting me, even though I had repeatedly told you that you were doing so when you made the same misquote on the other thread.

First Livia recognised what you were so wrongly trying to do and posted to 'put you right' but to no avail, then Ammi did the same, but you then went on to make yet another snide sarcastic comment again misquoting me into the bargain:

"Oh, and how to rape pretty little white boys. Apparently."

I never mentioned anyone 'raping' anyone in the post I made which you based your snide remark on and that is a fact. I was making reference to a young, effeminate looking, long haired white boy joining ISIL and the fondness for just such boys which certain Arab races are famous for.

I was referring to consensual mutual sex between what was then considered to be a Western boy traitor and the disgusting murdering bastards he was thought to have joined, and it was scathing ridicule to be honest.

Yet, misquote me you had done in yet another unwarranted sarcastic comment.

And it did not stop there, because later, in your response to Ammi, you said:

"Despite Kirk's inference (and after, with hypocrisy, suggesting that I have misquoted HIM)"


Again, I was not involved with any conversation with you, but again, you make a snide comment about me and actually call me a hypocrite for suggesting that you have misquoted me. But I was not a hypocrite because I told you once again that you had misquoted me - which you had, once again.

As for not calling me a liar - you have done so by intimation or default several times: but I cannot be arsed to search for instances.

You believe what I'm saying is utter bull**** and I believe the psychobabble which you spew out is utter bull****. So we'll leave that there.

Further: I have never bullied anyone in my life and never tried to intimidate anyone either. How does physical intimidation work over cyberspace when two people are hundreds of miles apart and both are unknown to each other?

I genuinely used the 'punch' analogy (as I have used it on here before) to illustrate that it is wrong for you to whine that I have been personal and to list examples, when it was you who invaded my space to attack me and get personal several times - as I have shown above.

More: Just as you revealed your degree in psychology to lend weight to an argument, and revealed your 5 1/2 years as a bookies 'Manager' to help illustrate your point about betting, then I revealed the fact that I boxed and worked the doors, and have debated for years, to illustrate my point that I am disciplined physically, mentally, and emotionally not to lose my temper, and this was simply to rebut your ridiculous accusation that I had lost my temper. Nothing more, nothing less - but I explained as much in my post.

Finally, I am amazed by your last paragraph:

"I have plenty that I could say about you kirk, based on your opinions in a number of threads, but have not, because I have enough decorum not to reduce myself to such loutishness."

I welcome any legitimate response to anything which I have to say if it is not a thinly veiled attempt to ridicule for ridicule's sake. I adore Livia, Ammi and Nedusa, but all three have not always agreed with my opinions, but we have never fallen out.

I have had massive ding-dongs with LeatherTrumpet over differences of opinion and he can take the piss, but I seriously, deeply respect him, in fact I have great affection for him.

So you see, my problem with you is not of my making or choosing.

And now - again - I suggest we leave it here.

[user104658]

OK then, a little honesty, I was utterly dumbfounded by your xenophobic comments in the "hereditary terrorism" thread and have taken against you since then. I can admit that. I don't think I misread what you were saying - although I have paraphrased it in extreme ways - I know what you meant and I know what I think of it. Perhaps I need to let that go. But then, somewhat astoundingly, you've even felt the need to add little droplets of casual racism to this very thread so it's not particularly easy. I get that you're "of another time". Or whatever. I still think it reeks.

Also, since you mention other members / liking / respect - I get the distinct impression that you're quite often given extra leeway / the occasional free pass with these extreme views by other members because they happen to generally like you otherwise. That irks me. I don't like favouritism in any form and I think you benefit from it.

You've stated that we should "leave it" several times now but I note that you are apparently not willing to do so unless you are the one to "have the last word"... so, I will allow you that, despite myself not being the one to previously suggest that the matter is dropped. I don't really have anything more to say than this, anyway.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

OK then, a little honesty, I was utterly dumbfounded by your xenophobic comments in the "hereditary terrorism" thread and have taken against you since then. I can admit that. I don't think I misread what you were saying - although I have paraphrased it in extreme ways - I know what you meant and I know what I think of it. Perhaps I need to let that go. But then, somewhat astoundingly, you've even felt the need to add little droplets of casual racism to this very thread so it's not particularly easy. I get that you're "of another time". Or whatever. I still think it reeks.

Also, since you mention other members / liking / respect - I get the distinct impression that you're quite often given extra leeway / the occasional free pass with these extreme views by other members because they happen to generally like you otherwise. That irks me. I don't like favouritism in any form and I think you benefit from it.

You've stated that we should "leave it" several times now but I note that you are apparently not willing to do so unless you are the one to "have the last word"... so, I will allow you that, despite myself not being the one to previously suggest that the matter is dropped. I don't really have anything more to say than this, anyway.

Thank you T.S for your admission. As far as I am concerned we have cleared the air and should both continue unshackled by past issues.

I do not hold grudges anyway, and I am very fair when it comes to giving credit where I believe it is due. If you look back through the threads you will see where I have applauded several of your posts because I personally identified and agreed with what you were saying in them. I did not allow any disagreement we had on other subjects on other threads to affect my objectivity and never will to the best of my ability.

As for my opinions on 'Terrorism'; I detest all forms of bullying, and to me terrorism is the ultimate form of bullying, and therefore I detest terrorists with a vengeance.

When my extreme hatred of terrorists is reflected in my posts on the subject and is perceived as xenophobia or racism by others, then so be it. I seek only to be offensive to terrorists, and if others who have more 'moderate' views on terrorists are also offended, then that is 'collateral damage' as far as I am concerned because these 'others' were not my target. So I make no apologies for any view I have ever expressed on terrorists.

As for "other Forum Members 'giving me a free pass' because they like me", and "favoritism" - I sincerely do not believe that I am that popular on here, so I must disagree with you. I feel that the more likely truth, is that more people actually agree with my 'extremist' views on terrorism than you realise, and this - and only this - is the reason that more people do not take issue with me when I post those views.

Finally, T.S. I posted this - not to have the last word, but to try to clear up the couple of points above, as well as assure you that for me, this matter is now ended and I hope that we can now both move forward.

[Northern Monkey]

Well thank god for that.My eyes are bleeding