Then who were you quoting?
R.Suave » 17 Apr 2024, 3:53 pm » wrote: ↑ Hiding behind another question.
The terms were clear..
Do we have a deal?
This is about whether I do, or not..Vegas » 17 Apr 2024, 4:14 pm » wrote: ↑ They weren't clear. You are ignoring if it applies to you.
Answer. Now.
This is now the second time I have to ask. You just can't answer the first time. You can't do it.
R.Suave » 17 Apr 2024, 4:18 pm » wrote: ↑ This is about whether I do, or not..
One example and you're history.
Yet you used quotation marks...
*rippy38 » 17 Apr 2024, 2:34 pm » wrote: ↑ Nothing in my reply you quoted even remotely resembles any kind of "rule" so it's irrelevant.
Now... since you obviously CAN'T show me the "rule" you claim I made, I'm just gonna chalk it up to yet another lie from you and move on.
You are now Snave (@Deezer Shoove ) and no longer Rico since it fits so much better.
LOL
Sure...Vegas » 17 Apr 2024, 4:22 pm » wrote: ↑ So it's one sided. Just what I thought. You are too much of a coward to have it apply to you.
Here is the deal: You do- I am gone. You can't- you are gone. Period.
**** your blatant cowardice. God you are such a coward. Coward! Coward! Coward!
That sounds a lot like you intend to investigate yourself, and then find that you did nothing wrong.R.Suave » 17 Apr 2024, 5:15 pm » wrote: ↑ Sure...
But I will determine if I've satisfied the standard of evidence..
Shouldn't be an issue if you can be the judge of what defines "Survivorship bias".
My judgement is final.
Let's begin.
So if you weren't attributing the non-quote in quotes to me, then you can't say that I didn't answer your question... since you weren't quoting me.
R.Suave » 17 Apr 2024, 5:15 pm » wrote: ↑ Sure...
But I will determine if I've satisfied the standard of evidence..
My judgement is final.
Let's begin.
Nothing surprises me out of that idiot anymore.Vegas » 17 Apr 2024, 5:57 pm » wrote: ↑![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
No *******. I will not have you as the stupid judge. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?
No really. You have said a lot of stupid things, including what you thought survivorship bias was, but this one even tops that.
He wants to be his own judge.![]()
![]()
Stupid!
@rippy 38 @Huey
So you agree that it is silly for me to allow you, a moron, to be the judge of what defines Survivorship bias.Vegas » 17 Apr 2024, 5:57 pm » wrote: ↑![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
No *******. I will not have you as the stupid judge. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?
No really. You have said a lot of stupid things, including what you thought survivorship bias was, but this one even tops that.
He wants to be his own judge.![]()
![]()
Stupid!
@rippy 38 @Huey
And what's so funny is... he probably legit thought that was a solid deal and that you would accept it.Vegas » 17 Apr 2024, 6:03 pm » wrote: ↑ I can't let him live this one down. I just can't. I am left with no choice to utterly demoralize him daily for this gem.![]()
*rippy38 » 17 Apr 2024, 6:08 pm » wrote: ↑ And what's so funny is... he probably legit thought that was a solid deal and that you would accept it.
I mean hell, what's more fair than him making the "final judgement" on his own "standard of evidence"?
You think that inappropriate?*rippy38 » 17 Apr 2024, 5:45 pm » wrote: ↑ That sounds a lot like you intend to investigate yourself, and then find that you did nothing wrong.
What a moran.
LOL
His own judge ^^^^
Hold your breath while you wait.