| |
Main
Date: 18 Dec 2006 08:37:19
From: FellKnight
Subject: A Sklansky gem
|
Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
--------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 19:20:59
From: Tanya AKA MissT74
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
"...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sklansky (evidently a gambler and
poker author of some renown, unless he writes his own Wikipedia page) "
LOL, my favorite part of the whole damn thing.
T
On Dec 18 2006 9:37 AM, FellKnight wrote:
> Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
>
> http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
>
> Fell
> --
> Website: http://www.fellknight.com/
> Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 11:20:46
From: bo dark
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
GrouchySmurf1002 wrote:
> On Dec 18 2006 12:09 PM, bo dark wrote:
>
> > FellKnight wrote:
> > > Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
> > >
> > > http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
> > >
> > > Fell
> > > --
> > > Website: www.fellknight.com
> > > Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
> > >
> > guess sklansky thinks math aptitude is the great barometer of
> > intelligence,wonder what the world would be like with just
> > mathematicians?
> > bet slansky couldn't back a 53 foot trailer up to a dock door
> > blindsided with a conventional tractor?,wonder if he could do a brake
> > job on his car?
>
> He probably couldn't, but I bet he thinks he could do a better job than
> someone who isn't an atheist.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
your probably right,he doesn't lack confidence in what he knows,or what
he thinks he knows or his sense of self importance.he seems to think
he's some sort of inquisitor,that makes sure that those deemed
intelligent must give an account to him.
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 10:37:57
From: bo dark
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
GrouchySmurf1002 wrote:
> On Dec 18 2006 12:09 PM, bo dark wrote:
>
> > FellKnight wrote:
> > > Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
> > >
> > > http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
> > >
> > > Fell
> > > --
> > > Website: www.fellknight.com
> > > Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
> > >
> > guess sklansky thinks math aptitude is the great barometer of
> > intelligence,wonder what the world would be like with just
> > mathematicians?
> > bet slansky couldn't back a 53 foot trailer up to a dock door
> > blindsided with a conventional tractor?,wonder if he could do a brake
> > job on his car?
>
> He probably couldn't, but I bet he thinks he could do a better job than
> someone who isn't an atheist.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
your probably right,he doesn't lack confidence in what he knows,or what
he thinks he knows or his sense of self importance.he seems to think
he's some sort of inquisitor,that makes sure that those deemed
intelligent must give an account to him.
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 10:11:33
From: bo dark
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
Bill Walker wrote:
> FellKnight wrote:
> > Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
> >
> > http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
> >
> > Fell
>
> This is not news. It's been long known and is readily obvious that
> the more religious a person is the stupider they are. Look at
> igotskilz, vegas vic, and a few others that post ridiculous off topic
> nonsense here.
>
> However, there is an exception that could trip up David. Some extremely
> intelligent people with very high IQs are insane. One of these types
> could be religious and intelligent.
has it been known as long and as readily obvious that 50% of extremely
intelligent people are impotent and the other half pedophiles?
|
| | |
Date: 19 Dec 21:14:56
From: Roy
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
And 5 out of 4 of those people don't know how to do fractions...
Roy
On Dec 18 2006 1:11 PM, bo dark wrote:
> Bill Walker wrote:
> > FellKnight wrote:
> > > Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
> > >
> > > http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
> > >
> > > Fell
> >
> > This is not news. It's been long known and is readily obvious that
> > the more religious a person is the stupider they are. Look at
> > igotskilz, vegas vic, and a few others that post ridiculous off topic
> > nonsense here.
> >
> > However, there is an exception that could trip up David. Some extremely
> > intelligent people with very high IQs are insane. One of these types
> > could be religious and intelligent.
>
>
>
> has it been known as long and as readily obvious that 50% of extremely
> intelligent people are impotent and the other half pedophiles?
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 09:40:57
From: Bill Walker
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
FellKnight wrote:
> Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
>
> http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
>
> Fell
This is not news. It's been long known and is readily obvious that
the more religious a person is the stupider they are. Look at
igotskilz, vegas vic, and a few others that post ridiculous off topic
nonsense here.
However, there is an exception that could trip up David. Some extremely
intelligent people with very high IQs are insane. One of these types
could be religious and intelligent.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 10:01:52
From: pokerchimp
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
Are you speaking of a specific RGP poster, WC or PP for example?
On Dec 18 2006 12:40 PM, Bill Walker wrote:
> FellKnight wrote:
> > Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
> >
> > http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
> >
> > Fell
>
> This is not news. It's been long known and is readily obvious that
> the more religious a person is the stupider they are. Look at
> igotskilz, vegas vic, and a few others that post ridiculous off topic
> nonsense here.
>
> However, there is an exception that could trip up David. Some extremely
> intelligent people with very high IQs are insane. One of these types
> could be religious and intelligent.
thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 02:08:19
From: ben carr
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
I have a very high IQ. I alway scored in the top 99% in the country in
every subject when I took those aptitude tests in school. I was even put
into the gifted program. Im not bragging, just saying that I am smart
and nearly crazy. I have accomplished nothing. Accomplishments dont
prove intelligence. It might prove how hard you work, how diligent you
are, how lucky you are, but not how smart you are. Besides, what is
really an accomplishment? Some people graduate high school and its an
accomplishment. Some dont get knocked up and theyre happy about it.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 21:50:33
From: igotskillz com
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
What kind of pain could i pray for to happen to you that would prove to
you that i am right ?
On Dec 18 2006 1:40 PM, Bill Walker wrote:
> FellKnight wrote:
> > Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
> >
> > http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
> >
> > Fell
>
> This is not news. It's been long known and is readily obvious that
> the more religious a person is the stupider they are. Look at
> igotskilz, vegas vic, and a few others that post ridiculous off topic
> nonsense here.
>
> However, there is an exception that could trip up David. Some extremely
> intelligent people with very high IQs are insane. One of these types
> could be religious and intelligent.
Thank YOU
www.igotskillz.com
______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 17:22:57
From: Porsche_Dan
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
Sklansky is a very clever man.... fear him.
On Dec 18 2006 10:37 AM, FellKnight wrote:
> Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
>
> http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
>
> Fell
> --
> Website: http://www.fellknight.com
> Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 09:09:36
From: bo dark
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
FellKnight wrote:
> Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
>
> http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
>
> Fell
> --
> Website: www.fellknight.com
> Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
>
> --------
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
guess sklansky thinks math aptitude is the great barometer of
intelligence,wonder what the world would be like with just
mathematicians?
bet slansky couldn't back a 53 foot trailer up to a dock door
blindsided with a conventional tractor?,wonder if he could do a brake
job on his car?
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 09:40:03
From: GrouchySmurf1002
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
On Dec 18 2006 12:09 PM, bo dark wrote:
> FellKnight wrote:
> > Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
> >
> > http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
> >
> > Fell
> > --
> > Website: www.fellknight.com
> > Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
> >
> guess sklansky thinks math aptitude is the great barometer of
> intelligence,wonder what the world would be like with just
> mathematicians?
> bet slansky couldn't back a 53 foot trailer up to a dock door
> blindsided with a conventional tractor?,wonder if he could do a brake
> job on his car?
He probably couldn't, but I bet he thinks he could do a better job than
someone who isn't an atheist.
_____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 09:25:32
From: mo_charles
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
> guess sklansky thinks math aptitude is the great barometer of
> intelligence,wonder what the world would be like with just
> mathematicians?
> bet slansky couldn't back a 53 foot trailer up to a dock door
> blindsided with a conventional tractor?,wonder if he could do a brake
> job on his car?
if you think his SAT score's something special, you should check out his
Iowa basics. rather than having people realize ability via achievement,
we should just hand out the awards to the kids with the most potential.
imagine the house sklansky should be living in!
mo_charles
________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 12:58:09
From: bo dark
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
ChrisRobin wrote:
> On Dec 18 2006 11:09 AM, bo dark wrote:
>
> > FellKnight wrote:
> > > Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
> > >
> > > http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
> > >
> > > Fell
> > > --
> > > Website: http://www.fellknight.com
> > > Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
> > guess sklansky thinks math aptitude is the great barometer of
> > intelligence,wonder what the world would be like with just
> > mathematicians?
> > bet slansky couldn't back a 53 foot trailer up to a dock door
> > blindsided with a conventional tractor?,wonder if he could do a brake
> > job on his car?
>
> Just a hunch, but I'm guessing that if intelligence was measurable by anything
> involving trailers or tractors, you'd be a certifiable genius.
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
the only thing that's certified is that your bigoted against tractors
and trailers.do geniuses have to be certified?ted kacynski lived in a
plywood box,your neighbor maybe?
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 15:08:28
From: bo dark
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
ChrisRobin wrote:
> On Dec 18 2006 2:58 PM, bo dark wrote:
>
> > ChrisRobin wrote:
> > > On Dec 18 2006 11:09 AM, bo dark wrote:
> > >
> > > > FellKnight wrote:
> > > > > Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
> > > > >
> > > > > Fell
> > > > > --
> > > > > Website: http://www.fellknight.com
> > > > > Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
> > > > guess sklansky thinks math aptitude is the great barometer of
> > > > intelligence,wonder what the world would be like with just
> > > > mathematicians?
> > > > bet slansky couldn't back a 53 foot trailer up to a dock door
> > > > blindsided with a conventional tractor?,wonder if he could do a brake
> > > > job on his car?
> > >
> > > Just a hunch, but I'm guessing that if intelligence was measurable by
> > > anything involving trailers or tractors, you'd be a certifiable genius.
> > >
> > the only thing that's certified is that your bigoted against tractors
> > and trailers.
>
> No, LMAO, just against dopes who think that possessing the basic motor skills
> necessary to operate a tractor somehow qualifies as "intelligence."
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
the tractor i was referring to is a truck,used to pull over the road
trailers,they deliver most of your lifes necessities,a conventional
tractor is long in of itself,backing a trailer with one,in between two
others in a tight spot requires skill and more than just basic motor
skills.
it requires a knack and depth persception which some can not learn.not
to be sexist but the warehouse i worked at never had a woman back one
in on the more difficult side,they usually came in to ask one of the
male truck drivers to do it for them.
this isn't a put down,i couldn't do it myself,it was really hard for
even the best.math aptitude is an ability,not a sign of intelligence.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Dec 22:40:59
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
On Dec 18 2006 2:58 PM, bo dark wrote:
> ChrisRobin wrote:
> > On Dec 18 2006 11:09 AM, bo dark wrote:
> >
> > > FellKnight wrote:
> > > > Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
> > > >
> > > > http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
> > > >
> > > > Fell
> > > > --
> > > > Website: http://www.fellknight.com
> > > > Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
> > > guess sklansky thinks math aptitude is the great barometer of
> > > intelligence,wonder what the world would be like with just
> > > mathematicians?
> > > bet slansky couldn't back a 53 foot trailer up to a dock door
> > > blindsided with a conventional tractor?,wonder if he could do a brake
> > > job on his car?
> >
> > Just a hunch, but I'm guessing that if intelligence was measurable by
> > anything involving trailers or tractors, you'd be a certifiable genius.
> >
> the only thing that's certified is that your bigoted against tractors
> and trailers.
No, LMAO, just against dopes who think that possessing the basic motor skills
necessary to operate a tractor somehow qualifies as "intelligence."
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 17:50:51
From: Mark B \(Diputsur\)
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
"ChrisRobin" <43080668@recpoker.com > wrote in message
news:1166481659$923857@recpoker.com...
> On Dec 18 2006 2:58 PM, bo dark wrote:
>> ChrisRobin wrote:
>> > On Dec 18 2006 11:09 AM, bo dark wrote:
>> >
>> > > FellKnight wrote:
>> > > > Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
>> > > >
>> > > > http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
>> > > >
>> > > > Fell
>> > > > --
>> > > > Website: http://www.fellknight.com
>> > > > Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
>> > > guess sklansky thinks math aptitude is the great barometer of
>> > > intelligence,wonder what the world would be like with just
>> > > mathematicians?
>> > > bet slansky couldn't back a 53 foot trailer up to a dock door
>> > > blindsided with a conventional tractor?,wonder if he could do a brake
>> > > job on his car?
>> >
>> > Just a hunch, but I'm guessing that if intelligence was measurable by
>> > anything involving trailers or tractors, you'd be a certifiable genius.
>> >
>> the only thing that's certified is that your bigoted against tractors
>> and trailers.
>
> No, LMAO, just against dopes who think that possessing the basic motor
> skills
> necessary to operate a tractor somehow qualifies as "intelligence."
Truckers have mad math skills too... they're always babbling in numbers!
Breaker one nine... Ten four good buddy.
That has to count for something, no? :-)
Mark
--
www.myspace.com/diputsur
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 18:30:58
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:50:51 -0500, "Mark B \(Diputsur\)" <diputsur@gmail.com >
wrote:
>Truckers have mad math skills too... they're always babbling in numbers!
>Breaker one nine... Ten four good buddy.
>That has to count for something, no? :-)
Calling a hand like T4 "good buddy" is proof positive of idiocy.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 18:42:13
From: Mark B \(Diputsur\)
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo > wrote in message
news:c49eo2tpcllocg339pbhcfiutuep2c9sai@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:50:51 -0500, "Mark B \(Diputsur\)"
> <diputsur@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Truckers have mad math skills too... they're always babbling in numbers!
>>Breaker one nine... Ten four good buddy.
>>That has to count for something, no? :-)
>
> Calling a hand like T4 "good buddy" is proof positive of idiocy.
Speaking of idiocy, what happened to you last Thursday?
I missed your final hand, was it the 6-4 you posted about?
How'd you like my QQ? A lot more when they were turned
over huh ;-) That hand probably cost you close to $100 !!!
I take it you did receive your piece of me on stars, yes?
We'll have to do it again some time.
Mark
--
www.myspace.com/diputsur
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 19:02:47
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:42:13 -0500, "Mark B \(Diputsur\)" <diputsur@gmail.com >
wrote:
>"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo> wrote in message
>news:c49eo2tpcllocg339pbhcfiutuep2c9sai@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:50:51 -0500, "Mark B \(Diputsur\)"
>> <diputsur@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>Truckers have mad math skills too... they're always babbling in numbers!
>>>Breaker one nine... Ten four good buddy.
>>>That has to count for something, no? :-)
>> Calling a hand like T4 "good buddy" is proof positive of idiocy.
>Speaking of idiocy, what happened to you last Thursday?
>I missed your final hand, was it the 6-4 you posted about?
Yes, it was the 6-4 that I've been bullheadedly defending.
>How'd you like my QQ? A lot more when they were turned
>over huh ;-) That hand probably cost you close to $100 !!!
>I take it you did receive your piece of me on stars, yes?
>We'll have to do it again some time.
Yes! If I end up in the thing again. I sometimes play the
$3 feeders.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 20:24:26
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
On Dec 18 2006 11:09 AM, bo dark wrote:
> FellKnight wrote:
> > Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
> >
> > http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
> >
> > Fell
> > --
> > Website: http://www.fellknight.com
> > Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
> guess sklansky thinks math aptitude is the great barometer of
> intelligence,wonder what the world would be like with just
> mathematicians?
> bet slansky couldn't back a 53 foot trailer up to a dock door
> blindsided with a conventional tractor?,wonder if he could do a brake
> job on his car?
Just a hunch, but I'm guessing that if intelligence was measurable by anything
involving trailers or tractors, you'd be a certifiable genius.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 08:51:12
From: pokerchimp
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
Ken Jennings rocks. I am a big jeopardy fan. I guess Sklansky really is
the a hole that Carson pointed out to me yesterday.
On Dec 18 2006 11:37 AM, FellKnight wrote:
> Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
>
> http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
>
> Fell
> --
> Website: www.fellknight.com
> Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
_____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 20:13:57
From: bo dark
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote:
> On Dec 18 2006 7:43 PM, bo dark wrote:
>
> > Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote:
> > > On Dec 18 2006 8:37 AM, FellKnight wrote:
> > >
> > > > Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
> > > >
> > > > http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
> > > >
> > > > Fell
> > > > --
> > > > Website: www.fellknight.com
> > > > Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
> > >
> > > Sklansky is an idiot, and a dick too. Sat next to him for a very short
> > > time in a WSOP tourney and he refused to even acknowledge that I was
> > > talking to him.
> > >
> > > On another note, the religious zealots here (skillz, pp, etc.) could do to
> > > read this line from Ken Jennings blog (and keep in mind that there is
> > > nothing evil AT ALL implied by the term "atheist":
> > >
> > > (Latter-day Saints don't believe heaven will be some all-Mormon church
> > > social. According to Mormon belief, all the great philosophers and
> > > religious teachers were inspired by God, and good-hearted people of all
> > > faiths, or no faith at all, will be saved.)
> > >
> > > So you see? I don't have to do that "accept jesus as my lord and savior"
> > > thing, cause I'll get saved anyhow, and I won't waste my time with church
> > > on Sundays to do it. Seems like a win win to me.
> > >
> > > ------
> > > brewmaster at brewcam dot com
> > >
> > > "Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if
> > > you look at it right" -RH
> > >
> > hey brew,couple of flaws with this statement by mister jennings,if
> > everyone is going to heaven why do mormons proseltize?why do it's
> > members go on missions?if everyones going to heaven aren't they wasting
> > their time?
> >
> > who defines good hearted people?does anybody go to hell?what is the
> > penalty for smoking cigarettes,drinking coffee and tea and other such
> > prohibitions of the mormon church?
> >
> > i guess you feel relieved that a game show champion has vindicated your
> > core beliefs.
>
> Nah, I was just trying to get the goat of some of the religious nuts here.
>
>
> ------
> brewmaster at brewcam dot com
>
> "Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if
> you look at it right" -RH
>
> ---
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
hey,i'm a religious nut,but you didn't get my goat.when i read the
jennings deal i was as surprised as you were,i didn't know this was a
morman doctrine,all that bike riding and going to south america seems a
waste.
i'm sure it's tied to some reward system once you get to heaven.
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 19:25:18
From: Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
On Dec 18 2006 8:37 AM, FellKnight wrote:
> Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
>
> http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
>
> Fell
> --
> Website: www.fellknight.com
> Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
Sklansky is an idiot, and a dick too. Sat next to him for a very short
time in a WSOP tourney and he refused to even acknowledge that I was
talking to him.
On another note, the religious zealots here (skillz, pp, etc.) could do to
read this line from Ken Jennings blog (and keep in mind that there is
nothing evil AT ALL implied by the term "atheist":
(Latter-day Saints don’t believe heaven will be some all-Mormon church
social. According to Mormon belief, all the great philosophers and
religious teachers were inspired by God, and good-hearted people of all
faiths, or no faith at all, will be saved.)
So you see? I don't have to do that "accept jesus as my lord and savior"
thing, cause I'll get saved anyhow, and I won't waste my time with church
on Sundays to do it. Seems like a win win to me.
------
brewmaster at brewcam dot com
"Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if
you look at it right" -RH
--------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 22:54:58
From: bo dark
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
Omaha8_Beach wrote:
> bo dark wrote:
>
> > according to ken even unbelievers will go to heaven,this is contrary to
> > the teaching of
> > Christ,so if this is a part of mormon doctrine then i wouldn't think
> > they would be christian.multiple wives is also contrary to to new
> > testament teachings,and although this is not a position of the mormon
> > church today it was at it's inception and joseph smith and and brigham
> > young practiced polygomy just 140 short years or so ago and it was only
> > prohibited as a means of gaining statehood if my memory serves me
> > right.
> >
> >
> > most protestant denominations don't consider mormons christians,i'm not
> > sure about the catholic churches stand but i don't think they do
> > either.if your secure in what you believe no one can move you off of it.
>
> I agree that most wouldn't consider it a Christian church. In my
> opinion it's close enough but if you have your own idea on what is true
> then there is no such thing as "close enough". As for the Mormon
> teachings about going to Heaven being contrary, I've always wondered
> this, most Christian churches teach in Justification by faith (even
> some Justification by faith alone) yet in Revelation when it describes
> the last Judgment it specifically says that everyone will be judged by
> a Book of works. How is this reconciled?
>
> Ken
omaha,i believe your works will be judged,but it doesn't have a bearing
on your salvation,it has to do with how your works are
rewarded.justification by faith alone is what i believe,otherwise you
would never have any peace,you would always wonder if your works were
sufficent.
i have no animosity towards mormons,i just disagree with them.while
reading about mormons when reading about ken jennings,they have a high
percentage of college graduates as a faith,many mormons are scientists
and the proved a problem to those trying to tie intellect or the lack
thereof to religious faith,it may have to do with their acceptance of
evolution.i'd consider them an asset to our culture.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 22:31:20
From: Omaha8_Beach
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
bo dark wrote:
> according to ken even unbelievers will go to heaven,this is contrary to
> the teaching of
> Christ,so if this is a part of mormon doctrine then i wouldn't think
> they would be christian.multiple wives is also contrary to to new
> testament teachings,and although this is not a position of the mormon
> church today it was at it's inception and joseph smith and and brigham
> young practiced polygomy just 140 short years or so ago and it was only
> prohibited as a means of gaining statehood if my memory serves me
> right.
>
>
> most protestant denominations don't consider mormons christians,i'm not
> sure about the catholic churches stand but i don't think they do
> either.if your secure in what you believe no one can move you off of it.
I agree that most wouldn't consider it a Christian church. In my
opinion it's close enough but if you have your own idea on what is true
then there is no such thing as "close enough". As for the Mormon
teachings about going to Heaven being contrary, I've always wondered
this, most Christian churches teach in Justification by faith (even
some Justification by faith alone) yet in Revelation when it describes
the last Judgment it specifically says that everyone will be judged by
a Book of works. How is this reconciled?
Ken
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 21:50:40
From: bo dark
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
Omaha8_Beach wrote:
> bo dark wrote:
> > hey brew,couple of flaws with this statement by mister jennings,if
> > everyone is going to heaven why do mormons proseltize?why do it's
> > members go on missions?if everyones going to heaven aren't they wasting
> > their time?
>
> He didn't say everyone is going to Heaven. As far as the afterlife,
> Mormons believe in three kingdoms in ascending order of glory: the
> telestial, terrestial, and the celestial. As for Hell, some really bad
> people may be sent to an "Outer Darkness" but most Mormons believe that
> only really, really bad people will be punished this way. The
> Celestial kingdom is the highest kingdom to achieve and part of the
> proselytizing may be to educate people on this (the sealing of families
> and marriages are related to this kingdom and I think they are only
> valid if those sealed achieve this kingdom). In addition, the
> proselytizing probably has as a goal to teach people to just be better
> people. From what I know, central to Mormon theology is the concept of
> spiritual progression. By proselytizing, they enable some people to
> progress even more than if they had not heard "the truth."
>
> > who defines good hearted people?does anybody go to hell?what is the
> > penalty for smoking cigarettes,drinking coffee and tea and other such
> > prohibitions of the mormon church?
> >
> > i guess you feel relieved that a game show champion has vindicated your
> > core beliefs.
>
> I don't think the prohibition of smoking, drinking tea, etc., are part
> of the Book of Mormon proper so I doubt there is any penalty associated
> with them other then the damages they already do to the body. By the
> way, if caffeine is consumed for a legitimate purpose as a stimulant,
> this may not be considered as bad as consuming it in a beverage,
> according to some. I don't know about alcohol.
>
> As for who defines good hearted people, probably the same person who
> does the judging in other forms of Christianity.
>
> Ken
according to ken even unbelievers will go to heaven,this is contrary to
the teaching of
Christ,so if this is a part of mormon doctrine then i wouldn't think
they would be christian.multiple wives is also contrary to to new
testament teachings,and although this is not a position of the mormon
church today it was at it's inception and joseph smith and and brigham
young practiced polygomy just 140 short years or so ago and it was only
prohibited as a means of gaining statehood if my memory serves me
right.
most protestant denominations don't consider mormons christians,i'm not
sure about the catholic churches stand but i don't think they do
either.if your secure in what you believe no one can move you off of it.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 22:36:40
From: igotskillz com
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
non believers will meet Jesus and then have the choice to accept him.
They will spend lifetimes paying for their sins.
On Dec 19 2006 1:50 AM, bo dark wrote:
> Omaha8_Beach wrote:
> > bo dark wrote:
> > > hey brew,couple of flaws with this statement by mister jennings,if
> > > everyone is going to heaven why do mormons proseltize?why do it's
> > > members go on missions?if everyones going to heaven aren't they wasting
> > > their time?
> >
> > He didn't say everyone is going to Heaven. As far as the afterlife,
> > Mormons believe in three kingdoms in ascending order of glory: the
> > telestial, terrestial, and the celestial. As for Hell, some really bad
> > people may be sent to an "Outer Darkness" but most Mormons believe that
> > only really, really bad people will be punished this way. The
> > Celestial kingdom is the highest kingdom to achieve and part of the
> > proselytizing may be to educate people on this (the sealing of families
> > and marriages are related to this kingdom and I think they are only
> > valid if those sealed achieve this kingdom). In addition, the
> > proselytizing probably has as a goal to teach people to just be better
> > people. From what I know, central to Mormon theology is the concept of
> > spiritual progression. By proselytizing, they enable some people to
> > progress even more than if they had not heard "the truth."
> >
> > > who defines good hearted people?does anybody go to hell?what is the
> > > penalty for smoking cigarettes,drinking coffee and tea and other such
> > > prohibitions of the mormon church?
> > >
> > > i guess you feel relieved that a game show champion has vindicated your
> > > core beliefs.
> >
> > I don't think the prohibition of smoking, drinking tea, etc., are part
> > of the Book of Mormon proper so I doubt there is any penalty associated
> > with them other then the damages they already do to the body. By the
> > way, if caffeine is consumed for a legitimate purpose as a stimulant,
> > this may not be considered as bad as consuming it in a beverage,
> > according to some. I don't know about alcohol.
> >
> > As for who defines good hearted people, probably the same person who
> > does the judging in other forms of Christianity.
> >
> > Ken
>
>
> according to ken even unbelievers will go to heaven,this is contrary to
> the teaching of
> Christ,so if this is a part of mormon doctrine then i wouldn't think
> they would be christian.multiple wives is also contrary to to new
> testament teachings,and although this is not a position of the mormon
> church today it was at it's inception and joseph smith and and brigham
> young practiced polygomy just 140 short years or so ago and it was only
> prohibited as a means of gaining statehood if my memory serves me
> right.
>
>
> most protestant denominations don't consider mormons christians,i'm not
> sure about the catholic churches stand but i don't think they do
> either.if your secure in what you believe no one can move you off of it.
Thank YOU
www.igotskillz.com
----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 21:20:27
From: bo dark
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
scotty wrote:
> Richard Dawkins is not a game show host. He is a brillant science
> professor from Oxford University. He is appalled by the igrnorance in
> this country. Over 50 per cent of Americans believe that the earth is
> les than 10,000 years old.
>
>
> bo dark wrote:
> > Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote:
> > > On Dec 18 2006 8:37 AM, FellKnight wrote:
> > >
> > > > Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
> > > >
> > > > http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
> > > >
> > > > Fell
> > > > --
> > > > Website: www.fellknight.com
> > > > Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
> > >
> > > Sklansky is an idiot, and a dick too. Sat next to him for a very short
> > > time in a WSOP tourney and he refused to even acknowledge that I was
> > > talking to him.
> > >
> > > On another note, the religious zealots here (skillz, pp, etc.) could do to
> > > read this line from Ken Jennings blog (and keep in mind that there is
> > > nothing evil AT ALL implied by the term "atheist":
> > >
> > > (Latter-day Saints don't believe heaven will be some all-Mormon church
> > > social. According to Mormon belief, all the great philosophers and
> > > religious teachers were inspired by God, and good-hearted people of all
> > > faiths, or no faith at all, will be saved.)
> > >
> > > So you see? I don't have to do that "accept jesus as my lord and savior"
> > > thing, cause I'll get saved anyhow, and I won't waste my time with church
> > > on Sundays to do it. Seems like a win win to me.
> > >
> > > ------
> > > brewmaster at brewcam dot com
> > >
> > > "Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if
> > > you look at it right" -RH
> > >
> > > --------
> > > looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > hey brew,couple of flaws with this statement by mister jennings,if
> > everyone is going to heaven why do mormons proseltize?why do it's
> > members go on missions?if everyones going to heaven aren't they wasting
> > their time?
> >
> > who defines good hearted people?does anybody go to hell?what is the
> > penalty for smoking cigarettes,drinking coffee and tea and other such
> > prohibitions of the mormon church?
> >
> > i guess you feel relieved that a game show champion has vindicated your
> > core beliefs.
all comments made in this thread regarding game shows were made in
reference to a game show contestant, ken jennings.you have your wires
crossed.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 09:20:48
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
igotskillz com wrote:
> non believers will meet Jesus and then have the choice to accept him.
Interesting and not unchartitable viewpoint. On the other hand,
top-posting worm, who really knows?
>
> They will spend lifetimes paying for their sins.
Not unlike the concept of Purgatory. I didn't know you were a Roman
Catholic.
Will in New Haven
--
"This is the inner circle of Hell, for top-posters"
And then said their guide, the noble Virgil
>
>
> On Dec 19 2006 1:50 AM, bo dark wrote:
>
> > Omaha8_Beach wrote:
> > > bo dark wrote:
> > > > hey brew,couple of flaws with this statement by mister jennings,if
> > > > everyone is going to heaven why do mormons proseltize?why do it's
> > > > members go on missions?if everyones going to heaven aren't they wasting
> > > > their time?
> > >
> > > He didn't say everyone is going to Heaven. As far as the afterlife,
> > > Mormons believe in three kingdoms in ascending order of glory: the
> > > telestial, terrestial, and the celestial. As for Hell, some really bad
> > > people may be sent to an "Outer Darkness" but most Mormons believe that
> > > only really, really bad people will be punished this way. The
> > > Celestial kingdom is the highest kingdom to achieve and part of the
> > > proselytizing may be to educate people on this (the sealing of families
> > > and marriages are related to this kingdom and I think they are only
> > > valid if those sealed achieve this kingdom). In addition, the
> > > proselytizing probably has as a goal to teach people to just be better
> > > people. From what I know, central to Mormon theology is the concept of
> > > spiritual progression. By proselytizing, they enable some people to
> > > progress even more than if they had not heard "the truth."
> > >
> > > > who defines good hearted people?does anybody go to hell?what is the
> > > > penalty for smoking cigarettes,drinking coffee and tea and other such
> > > > prohibitions of the mormon church?
> > > >
> > > > i guess you feel relieved that a game show champion has vindicated your
> > > > core beliefs.
> > >
> > > I don't think the prohibition of smoking, drinking tea, etc., are part
> > > of the Book of Mormon proper so I doubt there is any penalty associated
> > > with them other then the damages they already do to the body. By the
> > > way, if caffeine is consumed for a legitimate purpose as a stimulant,
> > > this may not be considered as bad as consuming it in a beverage,
> > > according to some. I don't know about alcohol.
> > >
> > > As for who defines good hearted people, probably the same person who
> > > does the judging in other forms of Christianity.
> > >
> > > Ken
> >
> >
> > according to ken even unbelievers will go to heaven,this is contrary to
> > the teaching of
> > Christ,so if this is a part of mormon doctrine then i wouldn't think
> > they would be christian.multiple wives is also contrary to to new
> > testament teachings,and although this is not a position of the mormon
> > church today it was at it's inception and joseph smith and and brigham
> > young practiced polygomy just 140 short years or so ago and it was only
> > prohibited as a means of gaining statehood if my memory serves me
> > right.
> >
> >
> > most protestant denominations don't consider mormons christians,i'm not
> > sure about the catholic churches stand but i don't think they do
> > either.if your secure in what you believe no one can move you off of it.
>
>
> Thank YOU
>
> www.igotskillz.com
>
> ----
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 22:32:19
From: TeddyKKB
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
Sklansky is a genius, but so what? If you have the social skills of
an asswipe, and you're best friends with Mason Malmuth how fucking
smart can you be?
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec
From: Max Coin
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
On Dec 18 2006 8:37 AM, FellKnight wrote:
> Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
>
> http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
>
> Fell
> --
> Website: http://www.fellknight.com/
> Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
WTG Ken! Fuck him up!
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 17:50:52
From: eleaticus
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
"FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com > wrhote in message
news:vmsi54xqh9.ln2@recgroups.com...
> Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
>
> http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
LOL.
Those who could pass the polygraph would certainly be functional idiots in
some regards, but in choosing math as the basis of the challenge, he is way
off his rocker.
And his 95% certainty wasn't a very intelligently posed criterion; it allows
for a degree of uncertainty that is counter to his basic challenge: those
who passed might well be showing an extreme use of intellect versus their
basic beliefs.
Interest and facility in mathematics has nothing to do with knee/all-jerk
religiousity, it being in no way being subject to Bush-like 'knowing'
without learning, study, and objectivity. There is nothing about math that
is fucked over by the passionate ignorance such a particular religiousity so
often entails.
A challenge is math is like a challenge in chess, bridge, music composition,
and .... Religousity is not relevant.
I know a small bunch only of rightwingers who would pass the polygraph even
with a 100% feeling of certainty being the belief standard, and when people,
society, culture, religion, politics are not involved they reason quite
well, thank you, which is one reason such rightwingers amongst the masses do
very well in comparison to their less-doctrinal co-religionists.
BTW, Sklansky would certainly lose if the criterion were spelling.
--
eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus
eleaticus@bellsouth.net
>
> Fell
> --
> Website: www.fellknight.com
> Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
>
> --------
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
>
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 15:47:30
From:
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
Old Wolf wrote:
> FellKnight wrote:
> > Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
> >
> > http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
>
> What amuses me is that he claims to be such a genius, but his
> post is full of spelling mistakes. There must be someone out
> there who can take this bet down.
Odds are against the challenger I'm afraid. However it's possible there
is someone out there with higher scored, they're probably not
religious. Of course, it's just like a poker player to make the fallacy
of assuming a strong probability leads to a "correct" conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 18:17:06
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:37:19 -0800, "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
>http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
That's a terrible bet. I'm sure someone will collect his $50K if he keeps
it up. Even if one were to assume an actual literal correlation between
some specific religious belief and IQ or some other objective metric,
it would stand to reason that there would still be exceptional cases.
I frankly don't believe Sklansky is so many sigmas to the right in the
standard distribution that you would not find a single fundie outlier
who could beat him.
Talk about -EV. Sklansky should re-read his own book on getting the
best of it.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 21:37:00
From: NCL
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo > wrote in message
news:g78eo2t9hshlmp4ihduvskho80c813c656@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:37:19 -0800, "FellKnight"
> <jordandevenport@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
>
>>http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
>
> That's a terrible bet. I'm sure someone will collect his $50K if he keeps
> it up.
He probably has perfect scores on the tests in question, making it
impossible for him to lose the bet.
JFC people how hard was that?
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 00:41:33
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:37:00 -0800, "NCL" <don$%&wallo@hotmail.com > wrote:
>"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo> wrote in message
>news:g78eo2t9hshlmp4ihduvskho80c813c656@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:37:19 -0800, "FellKnight"
>> <jordandevenport@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
>>>http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
>> That's a terrible bet. I'm sure someone will collect his $50K if he keeps
>> it up.
>He probably has perfect scores on the tests in question, making it
>impossible for him to lose the bet.
>JFC people how hard was that?
He's proposing new tests. AFAIK he got a perfect score on the SAT the
first time he took it.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 05:41:00
From: Bill Vanek
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:37:00 -0800, "NCL" <don$%&wallo@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>
>"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo> wrote in message
>news:g78eo2t9hshlmp4ihduvskho80c813c656@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:37:19 -0800, "FellKnight"
>> <jordandevenport@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
>>
>>>http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
>>
>> That's a terrible bet. I'm sure someone will collect his $50K if he keeps
>> it up.
>
>
>He probably has perfect scores on the tests in question, making it
>impossible for him to lose the bet.
That's what he claimed long ago. I think everyone believes he's
offering to retake the test along with his challenger, but I can't see
why they would think that. In other words, you're right.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 03:49:27
From: ben carr
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
Cubic jerkonia. Thats some funny shit. Genious material there. Should be
a writer for NBC.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 00:35:36
From: NCL
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo > wrote in message
news:g78eo2t9hshlmp4ihduvskho80c813c656@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:37:19 -0800, "FellKnight"
> <jordandevenport@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
>
>>http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
>
> That's a terrible bet. I'm sure someone will collect his $50K if he keeps
> it up. Even if one were to assume an actual literal correlation between
> some specific religious belief and IQ or some other objective metric,
> it would stand to reason that there would still be exceptional cases.
> I frankly don't believe Sklansky is so many sigmas to the right in the
> standard distribution that you would not find a single fundie outlier
> who could beat him.
>
I was relying on KJ's summary when I said the bet was a lock for DS. But
upon reading the 2+2 thread apparently Sklansky does intend that they retake
the test, side by side. Even worse for Sklansky they will do it in a
foreshortened interval, to decrease the likelihood of tying with perfect
scores.
All I can say is unless Sklansky believes Christians are exceptionally bad
at evaluating their own intelligence, this bet has got to be very -EV in
practice. I am sure that there are lots of Christians in this country who
have better quant skills than Sklansky.
I am very much of the opinion that religion is insane, but you have to be
pretty ignorant of the world not to realize that there are a lot of smart
Christians out there, some brilliant ones, and some geniuses. Given that we
are only talking about a superficial math test I have no doubt there is at
least one teenage Indian math whiz who is also a Christian who could crush
Sklansky.
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 14:24:01
From: igotskillz com
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
I read some of this, my cousin scored 800 on her math SAT's, whatever a
perfect score is.
She is a Christian. Did David make any mistakes ?
On Dec 18 2006 12:37 PM, FellKnight wrote:
> Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
>
> http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
>
> Fell
> --
> Website: www.fellknight.com
> Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
Thank YOU
www.igotskillz.com
_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 14:11:00
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
The only gems Sklansky has is 'cubic jerkonia'.
Russ Georgiev
www.pokermafia.com
FellKnight wrote:
> Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
>
> http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
>
> Fell
> --
> Website: www.fellknight.com
> Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
>
> --------
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2006 12:58:38
From: Old Wolf
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
FellKnight wrote:
> Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
>
> http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
What amuses me is that he claims to be such a genius, but his
post is full of spelling mistakes. There must be someone out
there who can take this bet down.
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2006 07:17:26
From: Iceman
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:37:00 -0800, "NCL" <don$%&wallo@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo> wrote in message
> >news:g78eo2t9hshlmp4ihduvskho80c813c656@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:37:19 -0800, "FellKnight"
> >> <jordandevenport@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>Got this link from another RGPer, but had to share:
>
> >>>http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=287
>
> >> That's a terrible bet. I'm sure someone will collect his $50K if he keeps
> >> it up.
>
> >He probably has perfect scores on the tests in question, making it
> >impossible for him to lose the bet.
>
> >JFC people how hard was that?
>
> He's proposing new tests. AFAIK he got a perfect score on the SAT the
> first time he took it.
On the math SAT only. Definitely not the verbal!
|
| | |
Date: 19 Dec 16:21:42
From: guy
Subject: Re: A Sklansky gem
|
Stop the insanity! Didn't Sklansky say that if he had spent more time in pursuit
of academics instead of Poker, he would have won the Nobel prize? He must be
smart.
May you NEVER "seven-out," ...*guy...
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
|
