Re: FAQ * r.g.l.faq * 01/17/2006

>>> You seriously need to stop and think about why you think
>>> something I wrote is out of context. I'll give you two hints.
>>> First, you'd need to understand the context. Second, you'd
>>> need to understand what I said.
>>>John Griffin" <thathillbilly@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Go back and re-read all your stuff intentionally aimed at anyone in the
group, John. Especially re-read the entire thread entitled
Lotto games skipped tips

This may enlighten you as to why you haven't yet succeeded at
corresponding pleasantly with humankind, especially when you respond with
spite and contempt and out of context. Reviewing your messages may provide
clues as to why you continue to deteriorate your correspondence in here
downward to hostility levels. We will all be driven to those low levels
along with you, so we should all do something to alleviate those
stresses...You first :) :) :) My observance is that you do not
understand many posts, as you yourself have admitted many times when
something didn't make sense to you, and then you continue to engage in
unpleasant dialogue against the poster of the message, failing to grasp any
worthy concepts that deserve attention...simply rendering it all as
meaningless babble from a host of numb-nuts. You need to view a posted
message with the author's eyes and thoughts, responding pleasantly, as a
teacher should, with your ideas and experiences on the subject, but without
the rough play.

How many times have you responded that a poster didn't make any sense to
you? Or that his/her post was stupid to you? Or that someone else's ideas
didn't add up to your way of thinking? Or that all RGL members are
misinformed because you can't make any sense of their posts, thereby
resigning or assigning all of their comments as funny and laughable or
ridiculous to you? How many times have you responded only to the bits and
pieces of a post that are only relevant to John Griffin Lotto Gospel Speak,
while you ignore the good stuff in a post?
I can only conclude that you have some sort of comprehension problem,
John...and I hope it's not a communicable virus.

You appear to be pre-disposed to talk down to others, and then lead
yourself to answer in a hostile manner, probably because you have always had
to do that to shine behind the moon. I observe that you knowingly and
unknowingly intimidate people...maybe you enjoy the putting down and
trolling for confrontation.

You lead people down the alley and set them up, then twist things around
so you can back out anytime by telling everyone else that you are not the
dummy, or that you were just joking! Why else do you always wind up being
engaged in these kinds of exchanges with anyone you feel like picking off?
Do you take pride in this practice of setting up a " perceived opponent " ?
Do you lust at the insatiable desire to sport an IQ? Do you have a small
penis?

It is your initial attitude that sets people off, not necessarily
everyone else's. You immediately respond negatively to any post, angle, ploy
or strategy that can be devised or discussed at lotto play, and then replace
these ideologies with your own brand " Lucky " virus. You could even provoke
a neutral guy to demand that you change your diaper before the stuff reaches
your eyeballs.

I originally reasoned that familiarising one's self with these proposed
or practised strategies at lotto play would be the catalyst as to why anyone
would want to come to this newsgroup to witness the riff-raff or to become a
posting member with some good ideas to share. I wanted to see what others do
when they play lotto so I could pick up on any tips. Have you seen any new
members lately? Can you blame them?

The math and theories behind lotto is good to discuss, but that facet
does not necessarily prepare anyone to win any lotteries. Neither does John
Griffin's " luck " theory give any credence to your claims that one's time
to win has not yet occurred until lucky *** happens to the individual. Have
you won yet?...Unlucky guy? What ever happened to the philosophy that one
should make their own luck through action by being at the right place and
the right time, and doing whatever needs to be done to maybe cause good ***
to happen? You say that there is no such thing as buying a good ticket or a
bad ticket? All we have to do is buy any ticket, or maybe more tickets to
make good *** maybe happen faster? That's OK, but it seems that this is all
you have to offer, John. Some would subscribe to RGL...to hear everyone's
tips for play, and not just yours.

I came to RGL to see what others do to pick and play their favourite
numbers. Your " luck " strategy is one valid facet of play, but not the only
one, so why try to dominate RGL with that stuff? Most of us are looking for
an edge or a more intelligent way to play. You seemingly claim that there is
none, and that's OK. After exposing that, consider anything else you say as
being contradictory to your own lotto gospel, or count it as just plain
boring repetition of previous posts from yourself.

We all know your strategy, so there's nothing more to discuss,
apparently. If your goal is to discourage onlookers and regulars to " not
play " the lottery at all... or that we are all pissing in the wind and have
fallen prey to the voluntary tax people, then keep posting your own FAQ and
Warnings in your posts to RGL where they can be easily ignored, or start
your own lottery newsgroup to gauge just how sharp you really are at hosting
your beliefs.

WARNING...WIN OR LOSE, PLAYING LOTTERY CAN DESTROY! BUT MAYBE NOT...

Maybe this warning should be inscribed on every ticket of every lottery
game to educate the people.

As an observer, it does appear, John, that you have become a professional
commonplace troll, with a bent answer to anything and everything during your
quaint, subtle joking and mind-game play in RGL...providing any silly-assed
response that side-steps all the points and issues exposed as contradictory
to your past posts. That's obviously because you have had lots of practise
at it. Your attitude drowns out all the good, valid info you tried to teach
us as you manipulated your extreme IQ. That's a shame. You could have been a
valuable component of RGL. Your good points will be sorely missed...in fact
many of your good points have already been sorely missed by most of the
posting members in RGL, it seems.

Which other newsgroups do you frequent? Would we find a common thread
there too? Are you a former RGL member who felt compelled to leave and came
back with an alias to hide behind, and then proceeded to get even with your
adversaries? Hey...Who cares? You can be ignored too...

I'm a lotto player who might have learned something from you. Your
demeanour has me filtering you out as a reject, a sore...sentiments probably
shared by most other thinking people you come into contact with as well. I'm
very sorry if you don't fit in with the lower-end RGL hillbillies under your
pedestal. Previously, I only had you pegged as a " number not yet due ".

I have no idea why you are still here reading this, John, but I suspect
your very next duty will be to re-read my post and point out all the
grammatical errors, so that you can ridicule the poster and ignore or
side-step the real issues. Hey...Who cares? John couldn't become the victim
here...

Actually, don't even bother responding...I already know your chorus. You
have been repeating the same *** post after post, response after
response,...probably because you have it committed to memory by now, knowing
that you will have to use it again and again as you continue picking off all
RGLers who don't share your status. Proud yet? If your self-appointed
mission is to shut people up, your MO does work, but for all the wrong
reasons.

Mr. Perkis, it's probably time to close this place up. The Lottery
Commissions have made serious changes and attempts at enhancing
randomization in the lottery draws to make sure that no one can gather an
edge on play by utilizing any means, and to conclude once and for all that
the old school lotto tricks and number-picking fundamentals cannot be
facilitated anymore. Did the old tricks ever work? So what's left to
discuss? That's why John Griffin is here.

Good Luck.

LottoHackJack

"John Griffin" <thathillbilly@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9753C2B45350thathillbillyyahooco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Jack Ricci" <ricci@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> You seriously need to stop and think about why you think
>>> something I wrote is out of context. I'll give you two hints.
>>> First, you'd need to understand the context. Second, you'd
>>> need to understand what I said.
>> "John Griffin" <thathillbilly@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>
>> ...That was exactly my point to you, John. I'm glad you rubbed
>> in the part about the two derogatory hints to elevate your RGL
>> prowess. If the mirror gets broken, you might avoid having to
>> stare them hints in the face again.
>>
>> ...Here is a direct copy and paste of nan's post, and your
>> response to
>> nan's post...
>>
>> The drawing such as 1-2-3-4-5-6 ,with gap zong all numbers
>> being zero,are far less likely to be drawn than those whose
>> gaps are not zero nan
>> John Griffin ??:
>>
>> Find the guy who fed you that superstitious nonsense and kick
>> the *** out of him for lying to you. In a 6/49 lottery,
>> there are 44 such sequences. There are 13983772 others. That
>> means that it's 317813 times as likely that the drawn numbers
>> will be one of the others. On the other hand, it's 44 times as
>> likely to be one of those than to be any specific one of the
>> others. There is nothing else to say on that topic, except a
>> specific reminder that all 13983816 combinations are equally
>> likely to be drawn...come to think of it, that's all that
>> needs to be said.
>>
>> ("Zong," my ass.)
>>
>> ...You can't have it both ways, John. According to your
>> bull*** above
>> and even forever before in all your lotto gospel preachings,
>> no numbers, combinations or sequences are more likely to occur
>> more than any other...right? You said so in the very last
>> sentence above before your befuddling prelude about the more
>> or less likely sequences that might occur in a 6/49
>> game...Read it in the above copy/paste post yourself, and tell
>> us all that this only means what you want it to mean later
>> when someone points out that this is a John Griffin
>> inconsistency that is suddenly disguised to be John Griffin
>> lotto gospel *** so that the RGL masses can know what's what!
>> Of course, I could never, ever understand your writings for
>> lack of one's intelligence and communication skills...yours
>> maybe?
>
> Holy ***! Even if you start over and write an intelligible
> version of that, it would remain dumb as hell.
>
> I'll have to admit that I'm surprised to see that you couldn't
> understand what I said. (It's exactly correct and it's totally
> consistent with what I've said before, by the way.)
>
>> If I am the posting author and I'm conveying and writing a
>> message within
>> a context, there should appear enough real facts which should
>> cause the reader to understand what I'm expressing, provided I
>> have filled in most of the blanks to get a point across. When
>> you respond, you might at least have the courtesy to respond
>> according to the real jist of the meaning within a
>> communication instead of putting down every poster to draw
>> more power for yourself from all the RGL peasants.
>
> I didn't say anything about any poster. I just corrected a silly
> remark.
>
>> I'm not interested in engaging in one of your he said/she
>> said/they said
>> dialogues, and watch you disect and butcher the real meaning
>> of what is being conveyed so that you can declare yourself as
>> RGL emperor. I noticed that you have lots of spare time for
>> that, so I suspect that you might be locked up in some sort of
>> institution somewhere fitting, with nothing more to do but
>> what you have learned to do best...like maybe, *** all.
>
> That was funny. What makes you think you noticed that I have
> lots of spare time for posting here? Must be the few minutes I
> spend every day laughing at the misinformation posted by you and
> others.
>
>> Apparently, all the more vocal RGL members are noticing the
>> same
>> phenomenon with most of your responses as observed by recent
>> posts. You read stuff into a post which is just not there, and
>> then you invent an evasive answer to respond to it after
>> cutting or diverting some of the relevant material, thinking
>> you've outsmarted everyone!
>
> Everything I've posted has been either unassailable facts or an
> obvious spoof. Either way, your inability to understand it is
> your problem, certainly not mine.
>
>> Any member who points out your youthful shinannigans are
>> then almost
>> immediately convinced of defeat by your subsequent hell-driver
>> responses, later to become all bent and bewildered by your
>> answer to something that was never provoked...a concoction of
>> befuddlement instigated by a brain fart response which you
>> seem to be googling for just before any accusations render
>> your character as uneducated. Of course, it is wise to think
>> before you speak, so your practise of looking things up on
>> google before responding to a post will at least make you
>> appear to be half-fast intelligent.
>
> It's good to see that you don't confine your whining to things
> that actually exist or happen. You need to blow off as much steam
> as possible. The google references are excellent--I love off-
> the-wall stuff like that.
>
>> You would have to re-read all the RGL posts available to
>> all in order to
>> understand what I'm trying to tell you, John, because I just
>> know it's right over your head. You were blinded by the
>> swelling. It's an observation, not an accusation. Your " Who
>> Cares? " defence doesn't cut it anymore as your normal "
>> brush-off " response to any real challenges for your psyche.
>
> "Defence"? Am I threatened by something?
>
>> You also have a fetish for picking out small spelling errors
>> and slightly mis-guided grammar so that you can have a way out
>> to say that someone else must be really dumb, because John
>> Griffin misunderstood... after all, the posting author " can't
>> talk really good english "...
>
> Your use of the word "fetish" made that bitchy little remark.
> Without that, it would have been just plain, typically stupid
> instead or ironically stupid.
>
>> Keep up the good work, John. Enough rope might hang you.
>> Always wear
>> clean underwear so that we can confirm when you
>> crap...Otherwise, bring a shovel along.
>>
>> LottoHackJack
>
> I'm going to look through your typically fucked up article to see
> if you tried to refute that truths that set you off.
> ...slight delay...
> Nope. What's up with that?
>
>>
>>
>> news:Xns9752654CB8601thathillbillyyahooco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> "Jack Ricci" <ricci@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is
>>>>> nothing else to say on that topic, except a specific
>>>>> reminder that all 13983816 combinations are equally likely
>>>>> to be drawn...come to think of it, that's all that needs to
>>>>> be said.
>>>>
>>>> ...That is only YOUR opinion only, John.
>>>
>>> Leave out the "only." It's also the opinion of 100% of those
>>> who have written textbooks on probability theory and at least
>>> 98% of those who have read one or more, and more than 95% of
>>> those who could. Anyway, no one has ever found any reason to
>>> doubt it.
>>>
>>>>Don't preach it to
>>>> the RGL members as gospel truth.
>>>
>>> Okay, I won't ever start preaching if you promise not to call
>>> me "Rev" or "Your Holiness." (Your Assholiness, okay.)
>>>
>>>>Some of us are NOT
>>>> mathematicians or software authors, but we are lotto players
>>>> with our own ideas on how to choose numbers based on what we
>>>> have witnessed as maybe possible, just like you do with your
>>>> bull***!
>>>
>>> Who cares?
>>>
>>>>> ("Zong," my ass.)
>>>> John Griffin" <thathillbilly@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Someone is probably rightly preparing to stick something
>>>> up your ass
>>>> right about now, John...and that's because you deserve it.
>>>>
>>>> LottoHackJack
>>>>
>>>> PS. ...John, please stop bastardising our posts, or
>>>> attacking them while quoting and improperly responding out
>>>> of context. I noticed you have become a master at this
>>>> practise to befuddle all RGL members with your twisted mind
>>>> games in your quest to become RGL top gun and a legend in
>>>> your own mind...Stop kidding yourself...You haven't proven
>>>> *** yet either.
>>>
>>> I bet it would be entertaining to have you answer the
>>> following question: What the *** are you talking about?
>>>
>>> You seriously need to stop and think about why you think
>>> something I wrote is out of context. I'll give you two hints.
>>> First, you'd need to understand the context. Second, you'd
>>> need to understand what I said.
>>>
>>
>>
>


.