Re: Dead bimbos

Note: Anyone who wants to see the most idiotic thing ever posted
here without scrolling through this article can scroll down to
where you will see ******.


"Porky Sherry Davis and her midget Jim" <NoSpam@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"The psychotic and newly alcoholically reinforced John Griffin
and his alter ego Gerry"
<thatpsychobilly@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns98236CF138D04thathillbillyyahooco@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

This post is a vast improvement over the whinny "poor me" post
you made earlier.
Glad to see the liquor stores are open and you are back to
normal.

"Uneducable Sherry Davis and her twerp Jim"
<NoSpam@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Come on John you can do better this.
Make me cry bullyboy, make the little girl cry you pathetic
fat, slovenly excuse for a man.

<snicker> Uhoh...the dumb mercurial fat broad is going
superpetulant on us...bwaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!

That factual statement slapped you into three specific learning
opportunities and one more important general one.

First learning opportunity: "Whinny" is a noun in some contexts;
a verb in others; never an adjective.

Uhoh = Uh oh

Second learning opportunity: Where do you find a definition of
"uhoh," "uh-oh" or "uh oh"? (Hint: Nowhere.) Since it's just an
interjection, I wouldn't actually say that your new way is
incorrect...As a matter of fact, no one, even the second lamest
person who ever posted here, would bother with it.

superpetulant = super petulant (super cranky?)

Third learning opportunity: What, exactly, does the prefix
"super" mean in your bimbo lexicon, and why do you believe it
can't be used as a prefix? The concepts of prefix and suffix are
among the early lessons in English grammar. It's too bad you
don't learn.

Serious suggestion: Redirect all the time you spend in your
obsessive and futile search for solecisms in my posts. Use it to
do your Remedial English homework instead.

There are dozens scattered about in this (and all) of your
other post but to point out each and everyone would be too
time consuming and just plain picky.

Another serious suggestion: This one is superessential for you.
DO NOT identify any of the things you think are language sins in
my posts. You just don't need that much more of the same
superhumiliating *** you did to yourself above. You're on the
verge of a complete emotional collapse already, you know, and if
you keep slapping yourself around like that, it's going to happen
sooner than nature intends. However, if you want to amuse the
fuckin' hell out of me instead of saving yourself, please do pick
out a few examples of what you erroneously consider errors and do
more of the same to yourself, but remember that the humiliation
of restricting your airheaded chatter to the vague remarks is
only half as unhealthy.

Better yet, conjure up your imaginary buddy Gerry. He at
least can make an attempt at an insult.

Tell you what, how about a truce with the following terms.
1. You stop making idiotic post full of psychotic BS.

Me: "The only way to improve your chance of winning a lottery
jackpot is to buy another ticket."

The facts:
John: "The only way to improve your chance of winning a
lottery jackpot is to buy another ticket.
Do NOT, repeat DO NOT use the same combination for the
second ticket.
(Corrected for accuracy by restoring the admonition.)

Me: "I purchase 2 tickets. One with the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6
and the second ticket with the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6. How has
this improved my odds?" I then pointed out the correct
statement (from which you misquoted and tried to claim credit
for) is: "The only way to improve your odds for winning a
lottery jackpot is to buy another ticket and make sure it
doesn't have the same numbers you already selected on the
previous ticket" John: "You should have known what I meant"

Yes, airhead, there is no doubt that you should have known what
"Do NOT, repeat DO NOT use the same combination" meant. It's so
obvious that only the lamest of the lame would even think of
questioning it. As a matter of fact, forgetting that one of the
dumbest fat broads who ever posted on usenet might try to read
and comprehend the fact I mentioned, I might have omitted it once
because anyone with an IQ above NO wouldn't need that advice.

You: "You have a little ***."

LOL, You have repeated this lie so many times you actually
believe its true. Please find where I answered any one of your
questions with "You have a little ***".

Since we both, among all others, know that was your very first
tantrum, and I never bother looking at archives, you aren't going
to be able to distance yourself from that. You can look it up,
or if your news server's retention time for this group is long
enough, you can still view it in it's hilarious original.

If you cannot then take a reality break and stop lying about
it

Look it up if you truly need to refresh your memory.

Since your reflexes have taken you exactly in the same
direction every time I've posted a fact about lottery, your
mindless remark makes a hilariously interesting contrast.

Your lottery facts consists of the same old two-sentence
misquote of someone else's statements amongst a spew of
psychotic ranting that include "idiot", "stupid", "crank
sucker", "chain-wanker ", "sh*tforbrains", "Pu**y", "***",
etc, etc,

I thought you'd be able to at least read the herd of handy
reminders, airhead. Silly me...and I really thought you could
count beyond two...sillier me. I knew you couldn't understand
them, but I thought having them serially number from 1 through 13
or whatever would give you the clue that there were more than
two. Damn, underestimating your stupidity is so easy that it's
nearly impossible to avoid it.

However, that contrast pales beside your "I'm an unemployed
mental health councilor."
<snicker>

Again, you have twisted a statement and repeated the lie so
many times you actually believe its true.
Its getting a bit stale so please find where I made the
statement "I'm an unemployed mental health councilor".
If you cannot then take another reality break and cease lying
about it

Look it up while you're rooting around the archives obsessing
over me. If you want to provide the precise quotes, that'll be
fine. It's truly astonishing that neither you nor your pipsqueak
Jim can see what's so funny in that particular one of your
blatant lies.

2. I will stop making post showing how idiotic you are.

You: "The authors of mathematics texts are wrong. You're an
idiot (for having learned what they teach)."

Once again you demonstrate you unchecked propensity of lying
and twisting of statements to excavate yourself from the
embarrassments of your own idiotic statements.

Your laughable attempts to argue against the fair coin and fair
die experiments the authors talk about amount to saying they're
wrong, airhead.

I am the one who quotes, verbatim, the math formula and
theorems. You are the one that calls the great mathematical
minds "dumbasses" and makes up incomprehensible BS that has
been twisted to meet your purpose

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

If you could convince yourself of that idiotic misconstruction,
you'd be the one who believes it.

Hell off a contrast. Fuckin' hilarious.

3. You drink a gallon of bleach.
4. I will send flowers.

Speaking of psychotic, crazy bimbo, are you counting the
times you've wished someone dead? That sort of thing seems
to be one of the dominant mental issues among those having
high positive correlation with unhealthy body mass index.
Have you actually fallen on someone and crushed him to death,
do you often have to suppress the compulsion to do so, or are
you just all bellow and snivel?

Me? Wishing someone (you) dead?
My, whatever gave you that idea?
BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! HA! HA! HA! HA!


Until then, any post by you will be followed by a post by
me, GET USED TO IT.

rotmfflmmfao! You think I don't want to see you mess
yourself by repeating your "The authors of mathematics texts
are wrong"?! I enjoy being amused, and that's fuckin'
hilarious, bimbo. That one gets even funnier...your
knee-jerk response to a challenge to back it up is to repeat
verbatim the same amazingly stupid remark. Do you think I
don't want to see you spewing the idiotic nonsense that
there's some way other buying more tickets to improve your
chance of winning a lottery jackpot?! Why the *** do you
think I challenge you to back up your airheaded gobble, fool?
If you had even minimal learning capacity, you would have
learned that I'm the only one who wants to see your
scatterbrained posts. Thanks for the admonition...
bwaaaaaaaaahahaha!

This is just a combined spew of your idiotic statements made
elsewhere in the post so they have already been addressed.
John, repetition of lies does not make them truths.

That's hilarious, coming from the bimbo who unfailingly just
reeructs another instance of a stupid remark when challenged to
show some supporting evidence for it.

By the way, good choice of words..."a post from me" -- not an
answer, just a post. I love it. You would never allow an
attempt to address the topic to worm its way into your
conditioned response, even if the impulse to do so happened
to strike before you finish regurgitating whatever part of
your laughably stupid cant you choose to spew.

Humm, I believe you are the one who constantly changes the
subject matter whenever you paint yourself in a corner.

Of course you believe that, because you're stupid and illiterate.

PS.
I am young and healthy.
John is old and sickly.
Who's going to get the last post?
BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Are you counting the number of times you're forced to repeat
every childish thought that pops into your little mind?

LOL, look who is talking. The same troll that ends nearly
every post to me with the same old tired set of lies.

Lies? At this point, I'll challenge you to identify one such and
you'll reply "LOL, look who is talking. The same troll that ends
nearly every post to me with the same old tired set of lies."

You zombies will be the last to notice that your need to snip
everything before reposting your reflexive twaddle arises
autonomously from the unassailable fact that you have no idea
how to directly address the facts that set off those
airheaded little fits. Try to notice it today. You're
getting farther behind every minute.

I will continue to snip your spew of psycho babbling whenever
I choose. Why not? It's always the same garbage that you have
posted a hundred times before.

Please do continue to snip everything I say. That act of abject
cowardice is your best way of tacitly admitting that it slaps you
into a shrieking rage and that you have no hope of refuting it
becuse of your cluelessness and because it's true. Besides that,
it's hilarious. Your overt demonstrations of the same abysmal
ignorance are even more hilarious, but those have faded due to
overexposure. No, illiterate bimbo, I don't mean "over
exposure." Prefixes are useful. Learn about that concept today.

Let's see if we can prompt you to have your very first
learning experience...

Your assignment:

1) Tell me exactly why the mathematics textbook authors are
wrong in those hundreds of examples of fair die and fair coin
experiments. As a related matter, tell me why "assume a fair
coin (or die)" is an invalid insturction or totally
confounding to you.

LOL John. Do you think twisting the facts around are going to
make people forget I am the one that quoted Bayes's (and
others) theorems and pointed to the references on its
workings. To refresh you memory reread the thread "A Little Q
& A For John/Gerry (names interchangeable)"

There are no conditional probabilities in a lottery except in one
very restricted sense while the second and subsequent numbers are
being drawn, and you have never copied quoted any formulas or
theorems here. You have babbled your uninformed
misinterpretations of them, if anything.

It would be funny as hell to see you try to provide a detailed
example of how Bayesian Analysis (that's what you're really
babbling about--not the simple relationship called Bayes's
Theorem) applies to a lottery.

Anyway, your answer, translated from Bimboese to English: "I
don't understand the question or the underlying concept." That
was one of the most pathetic of your evasions so far. Why, in
your opinion, are the authors of statistics texts wrong when they
use fair coin and fair die examples? This is a very fucking
simple fucking question, bimbo. Answer it or tacitly admit that
you're just babbling through your well known clue vacuum.

2) Tell me exactly how to improve your chance of winning a
lottery jackpot other than buying another ticket. Note: Since
the event ("reduced set") you've ballyhooed earlier is
actually a consequence of the event you portray as dependent
on it, avoid any reference to conditional probability so as
to minimize your self-humiliation. Let's have a serious
analysis here, okay?

No one has ever disputed that buying additional tickets
(making sure, of course, they do not have the same numbers you
already selected on the previous tickets) is the only
"absolute" way of improving your odds.

<snicker> Answer the fuckin' question or admit that you can't.
You're way to bulky to dance around it. The fact is that in your
mendacious advertisement for your poor software, you claimed that
it would do something to reduce the "astronomical" <snicker>
odds, and you specifically said that you weren't referring to
buying more tickets. So, how does it do that? It's a fuckin'
simple fuckin' question, airhead. Answer it or admit that you
were lying and that you don't understand your own idiotic claim.

However, the facts supplied in multiple places show that lines
produced by humans, using various different methodologies, out
produce randomly selected number lines.

No, they don't.

Need hard data on this? See the attachment to the thread "Draw
Stats - Quick Picks Vs. Choose Your Own"
Of course you have already looked at it but you choose to
ignore it because it does not conform to your fantasy lottery
theory.

Since your misconstruction is hilarious, I'll just stick with
laughing at that instead of looking that archives.

However, I will mention the fact that some people who are far
smarter than you are would be all over that like sweat on a fat
broad if it were true. Notice their silence.

As to the "Tell me exactly how to improve your chance of
winning" part. That 's what everyone would like to discuss if
you would take your psychotic disturbances elsewhere.

Translation from Cretinese to English: "I can't." rotfl

That was an excellent example of the weakness of your mind, by
the way. People will discuss anything they want whether I join
the discussion or not.

3) Background: According to the most fundamental theory of
probability, the likelihood of an outcome of a random event
such as tossing a fair coin (see an elementary probability
text if you don't readily comprehend that term) or drawing a
ball out of a bin is S/N, where S is the number of ways the
event can happen and N is the number of possible outcomes.
According to you, there's another definition in applications.
Question: What, exactly, is that other definition?
(Subsidiary question: Do you intend to publish your unique
"knowledge" of this topic?)

See thread "Fun-filled Facts That Are Not Made Up"

Translation from Airheadish to English: "Those questions caused
me to have a tantrum." It's a simple question, bimbo. What is
your idiopathic definition of probability?

4) You say that the probability that a particular number will
come up in a 6/50 lottery is 1/50+1/49+1/48+1/47+1/46+1/45.
Tell me exactly how you came up with that. (Is it just one of
those things that you see as mystically different in
application versus theory?)

LOL John. Please find where I made this statement.
If you cannot then stop lying about it as lying about it now
will not change the facts. Anyone can go back and read who
said what.

There is no one here who doubts that you made that statement (See
the reminder below). Explain it.

If you want to disavow it, explain what's wrong with it and show
how the actual probability is derived. Note that I'm just toying
with you here--it's universally known that there is no way you
can understand the question. You tried.


******Here follows the most idiotic statement ever posted in this
newsgroup:

My statement was in fact;
"6/50 × 5/49 × 4/48 × 3/47 × 2/46 × 1/45 = 720/11,441,304,000
or 1/15890700"

Did you really say something that fucking idiotic?! The
probability of a particular number being drawn is 1/15890700?!
NO ***?! BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! I don't doubt it; I just don't
remember anyone ever being so colossally stupid.

In your previous most idiotic statement, you started your
embarrassment by agreeing that the likelihood that a particular
number will be drawn first is 1/50. (Okay so far--
congratulations.) Then you said that the chance that it will
come out second is 1/49, because after the first one comes out
there will be only 49 left (very, very dumb); that it will come
third is 1/48, by the same weak attempt at reasoning; etc.
"Thus," you said, amusingly as hell, "the probability of drawing
that number is 6/50." That was some goddamned entertaining Bimbo
Arithmetic: 1/50+1/49+1/48+1/47+1/46+1/45= 6/50. Idiot.

In spite of that lunacy, your new answer is the dumbest fucking
thing anyone can ever say regarding that question. I'll have to
add it to your biography.

I have a feeling you would really like to know how to show that
the probability that a particular number will be drawn in a 6/50
lottery is 1/50+1/50+1/50+1/50+1/50+1/50=6/50. Just beg, and
I'll show you two ways, one of which might possibly be simple
enough for even you and Ricci to understand. Unfortunately, the
formal one, while trivial, would require some understanding of
conditional probabilty which will apply during the drawing of the
second through sixth numbers, and some elementary algebraic
manipulation, but I'll post it just to add to your confusion if
you insist. You love your confusion.

Until you're ready to beg for help, why not post those methods
yourself? After all, you're claiming that you post valid
arguments, theorems, etc. <chuckle> <chuckle> <chuckle> <chuckle>
<chuckle> <chuckle> <chuckle>

Just the facts as you see them--but of course if you insist
on tacitly confessing that you have no ideas on any of that
stuff, just snip it and shriek that it's psychotic babble;
and if you prefer to overtly confes, just say so.

I'm glad we have this opportunity to discuss lottery, aren't
you?

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the lottery but I
fear that cannot be done until you visit the Kevorkian clinic.

Translation from Featherbrain gobble to English: Somewhere in the
back of the back of your mind (there's no forefront of your mind
in the normal sense), you understand that you have no hope of
rationally discussing lotteries, because the topic is way over
your head, so you need to repeat that dimwitticism over and over.

PS.
I am young and healthy.
You are old and sickly.
Who's going to get the last post?
BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

PPS
http://www.accs.net/users/kriel/chapter%20three/roadrunner.jpg
BLEEP-BLEEP


--
Updated...
A brief history of Blimpy & Wimpy (Big Sherry and Li'l Jim)

Me: "Buying a second ticket doubles your chance of winning.
Do NOT, repeat DO NOT use the same combination on both."
Bimbo Sherry and mousy Jim: "That's WRONG! If the first one
has 1,2,3,4,5,6 and the second one has 1,2,3,4,5,6,
how does that double your chances?"

Bimbos: "The probability of a particular number being drawn in
a 6/50 lottery is 1/50+1/49+1/48+1/47+1/46+1/45=1/50."
Normal people: "BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!"
***Note from yr. 'umble 'istorian: The retards still don't see
why that's funny.

Me: "The only way to increase your chance of winning a lottery
jackpot is to buy another ticket."
Bimbos: "SQUUUUUAAAAAWWWWK! You have a little ***!"

Saving the funniest for last...
Giant Porky Bimbo Sherry: "I'm a mental health councilor."

NEWS FLASH 8/19/2006...That is no longer the funniest. This is:
Bimbos: "The probability of a particular number being drawn in a
6/50 lottery is 6/50*5/49*4/48*3/47*2/46*1/45=1/15890700"
(I wonder what the bimbos think is the probability of a
particular combination being drawn...<snicker>)

.