Re: Nonsense

"Lady Shooter" <tripleflaming7s@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
<snip> Mason may never win a Mr. Congeniality Award <snip>
Uncongenial? Moi?
--
Onward thru the fog,
Mason


"Lady Shooter" <tripleflaming7s@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1136037037.144461.65950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ACDOC wrote:
>
>
>> Funny, he used it at the top of this thread?
>
>
> Is that a question or a statement?
>
> Either way, you just amply demonstrate your singular ability to get it
> wrong in the face of 100% irrefutable documentary evidence.
>
> Mason did not use "memoryless" at the top of this thread or anywhere
> else in this thread. He has *never* used the term.
>
>
>> I guess your search wasn't as complete as you thought it was.
>
>
> Keep it up. All you're doing is proving to anyone reading that you
> have absolutely zero credibility and don't even carefully read what's
> written. But that won't stop you from making yourself look like a
> braying jackass.
>
>
>> The point of this is that Mason describes the properties of a poisson
>> process, but cannot make the connection between decisions and that well
>> known stochastic process.
>
>
> The point is that Mason disagrees with your assertions. I am an
> admitted math ignoramus, so the proofs presented on various websites to
> describe "memoryless" are far beyond my understanding. Just two
> examples:
>
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Memoryless.html
>
> http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/MemorylessRandomVariable.html
>
>
> That means I have two choices. I can either believe Mason or I can
> believe you.
>
> I believe Mason.
>
> I may be a dunce when it comes to math, but I came into this world with
> a factory-installed, original equipment, finely calibrated
> Bull***-o-Meter. Mason may never win a Mr. Congeniality Award, but my
> Bull***-o-Meter flatlines when I read his posts. He even manages to
> discuss the complex topic of theoretical math as it applies to craps
> without resorting to a blizzard of cant and jargon.
>
> You send my Bull***-o-Meter off the gauge.
>
> When you first started posting here last year, the term you repeated ad
> nauseum was "Bankroll Volatility". That was a term you made up. It
> has no meaning other than in your own little self-absorbed, arrogant
> universe.
>
> You never used the word "stochastic" until a few weeks ago. Then,
> beginning in November, it was your new lexicographic "best friend".
> You couldn't post without it. It's like you'd just discovered it and
> fell in love at first sight. Stochastic Volatility this, Stochastic
> Volatility that.
>
> I wonder how poor little Bankroll feels, rejected and tossed aside in
> favor of Stochastic.
>
> What I'm getting at is that if you were so full of math wisdom and
> knowledge, you'd have used the term "stochastic" from the get-go, when
> Alan Shank asked you for mathematical proof of your claims of validity
> for your pet theory about "Bankroll Volatility". But you didn't. You
> just kept repeating your claim without relying on any known
> mathematical process to prove it.
>
> Enter (on or around November 12, 2005) - ACDOC's new mathematical
> ***-cushion/debutante, Stochastic. All you've done since is tart her
> up with gaudy Zircons and cheap fur stripped from cats and dogs in
> China.
>
> You come across as an intellectual fraud.
>
> And *that* is why I believe Mason, and not you.
>
> Good day, Sir.
>
>
> Lady Shooter
>


.

Quantcast