Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

I am an infrequent cigar smoker. Perhaps 1 per year, and only if free. I have several at home in a humidor, properly stored, and may never smoke them. I have no interest in addressing the Cuban Cigar thread. I could not tell the difference.

You are partially correct about disagreeing with Singer. However, the easiest way to ignore him is to hit the "ignore" forum feature here on LVA. He brought his banning on himself, and although I believe everyone has a right to not be censored, the right to free speech, I believe his banning on LVA is/was justified because he just did not "behave".

And as for your question about poker machines and my "beliefs"..... I am NOT going down this road with you.

I do not choose to have this conversation with you. This question has, most likely, been asked, "discussed to death", and brought up again several times in the past. Perhaps couched in different phrasing, and "information changes", but it's still the same, in general, and not worth much of my time.

But, my answer to that question, for practical purposes, is "NO" from a technological and mechanical mentality. There are numerous historical "fixes" designed to cheat that are well documented. Is that still happening? I don't know. And, for practical purposes, don't really care considering that the vast majority of my action is in the live poker games, and my machine play is the FSP I earn from the poker tables, usually converted to cash and taken home. The only time I "play" VP with "my" money is in Vegas. And my last trip was late 2009. And my VP play for the 55 days I spent there was profitable.

I did not say that "all machines are not random". I said some are designed to be random and some are designed to not be random. Each type of machine can be found across the country depending on the jurisdiction.

My obtuse rewrite of Lincoln's famous address was meant to denigrate Arc's regurgitation of old atrocities.

Kaypea said the VP machines are random enough. What did you read that you interpreted otherwise?

Money, you are still so hilarious I can hardly stand it.

I posted the reference to this information on your site about a month ago. You ignored it. I also posted evidence that most of Singer's special plays do not lead to more wins. You ignored it. I also posted references to several of Singer's outright lies. You ignored it.

Now you want me to post all that information again for what reason? so ... you ... can ... ignore ... it ... again? Like I said, absolutely hilarious.

Tell you what. Find my posts, come up with a response, and get back to me when are ready to discuss them. Oh yeah, you said you didn't want to discuss what was said at other forums. Looks like you might have to change that view.

Hint: search for freevpfree

Arc....

He's good at ignoring portions of any discussion he can not or does not want to address.

However, since I will not "patronize" his forum, would you consider copy/pasteing the gist of what you said here?

That way, it becomes a little more difficult to ignore.

Arc. Here is your chance to set the record straight. COPY and PASTE Singer's own posts from FIVE years ago. Do it now.

Set the record straight? This bullshit has been raging for 5 years. Let it die.

While wondering if Arc does have that information available at his fingertips, I did a brief inquiry into the "Internet Archives".

At this link, Archive: R S site you will find many of his written articles from his site, dating back as far as April, 2003.

These easily available site archives show 10 "captures" from 2007, and a total of 37 "web crawls" going back as far as 2003.

Perhaps Money should take a look at much of what Singer has written himself, and perhaps be able to set the record stright himself.

Or, ignore it.

Nope, not going to do your work for you. In fact, it should be easy for you as I gave you a hint to make it easy. Now, go away and don't come back until you've complete your homework.

IMHO, it should not be a problem for Money to do his own "research".

As a "reporter", television newscaster it should be a breeze, and there is an obligation to be certain he brings all the facts to the table when "reporting" accurately and without bias.

Mere mortals can have bias. But those trained to report factually to the "public" have an obligation to their "audience" to fact check for accuracy.