XGID=----cBD-BA--cC-b-b-eA--AA-:0:0:1:42:0:0:0:0:10

Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O O | | O X X X |
| X O O | | O |
| X | | O |
| | | O |
| | | O |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | X |
| O | | X O |
| O X | | X X O |
| O X X | | X X O |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 165 O: 168 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X to play 42

---
Tim Chow

XGID=----cBD-BA--cC-b-b-eA--AA-:0:0:1:42:0:0:0:0:10

Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O O | | O X X X |
| X O O | | O |
| X | | O |
| | | O |
| | | O |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | X |
| O | | X O |
| O X | | X X O |
| O X X | | X X O |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 165 O: 168 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X to play 42

One rule of thumb we're all taught when beginning to learn backgammon is
that making the "golden point" (as Magriel dubbed the 5pt anchor) is
to be preferred over making some nondescript point such as the 9pt.
Here, 24/20 9/7 does cut down on gammon losses and might be the right
idea at gammon save, but boxing in O's back checkers has higher priority
than defending against O's attacking potential, since she has no board
and only 9 checkers in the zone.

We're not done, though; after 13/9, what's the 2? There are different
factors to consider, but you can arrive at 20/18 with another common
rule of thumb, which is to look for duplication; 20/18 duplicates sixes.

1. Rollout¹ 20/18 13/9 eq:+0.226
Player: 56.25% (G:12.66% B:0.49%)
Opponent: 43.75% (G:11.12% B:0.49%)
Confidence: ±0.014 (+0.212..+0.239) - [100.0%]

2. Rollout¹ 24/22 13/9 eq:+0.168 (-0.058)
Player: 54.46% (G:12.72% B:0.47%)
Opponent: 45.54% (G:11.68% B:0.50%)
Confidence: ±0.014 (+0.153..+0.182) - [0.0%]

3. Rollout¹ 24/20 9/7 eq:+0.153 (-0.073)
Player: 53.55% (G:12.77% B:0.49%)
Opponent: 46.45% (G:8.62% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.014 (+0.139..+0.167) - [0.0%]

4. Rollout¹ 23/21 13/9 eq:+0.145 (-0.080)
Player: 53.77% (G:14.00% B:0.57%)
Opponent: 46.23% (G:12.07% B:0.57%)
Confidence: ±0.017 (+0.129..+0.162) - [0.0%]

¹ 1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 271828
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller

eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.19.211.pre-release

-------
Variant
-------

XGID=----cBD-B-A-cC-b-b-eA--AA-:0:0:1:32:0:0:0:0:10

Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O O | | O X X X |
| X O O | | O |
| X | | O |
| | | O |
| | | O |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | X |
| O | | X O |
| O X | | X X O |
| O X X | | X X O |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 166 O: 168 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X to play 32

1. XG Roller++ 20/18 13/10 eq:+0.208
Player: 55.88% (G:12.82% B:0.45%)
Opponent: 44.12% (G:10.67% B:0.43%)

2. XG Roller++ 23/20 10/8 eq:+0.203 (-0.005)
Player: 54.75% (G:11.79% B:0.36%)
Opponent: 45.25% (G:7.35% B:0.24%)

3. XG Roller++ 24/22 13/10 eq:+0.191 (-0.016)
Player: 55.49% (G:12.42% B:0.45%)
Opponent: 44.51% (G:10.80% B:0.43%)

eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.19.211.pre-release

---
Tim Chow

On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 9:31:16 AM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
> XGID=----cBD-BA--cC-b-b-eA--AA-:0:0:1:42:0:0:0:0:10
>
> Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
> +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
> | X O O | | O X X X |
> | X O O | | O |
> | X | | O |
> | | | O |
> | | | O |
> | |BAR| |
> | | | |
> | | | X |
> | O | | X O |
> | O X | | X X O |
> | O X X | | X X O |
> +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> Pip count X: 165 O: 168 X-O: 0-0
> Cube: 1
> X to play 42
> One rule of thumb we're all taught when beginning to learn backgammon is
> that making the "golden point" (as Magriel dubbed the 5pt anchor) is
> to be preferred over making some nondescript point such as the 9pt.
> Here, 24/20 9/7 does cut down on gammon losses and might be the right
> idea at gammon save, but boxing in O's back checkers has higher priority
> than defending against O's attacking potential, since she has no board
> and only 9 checkers in the zone.
>
> We're not done, though; after 13/9, what's the 2? There are different
> factors to consider, but you can arrive at 20/18 with another common
> rule of thumb, which is to look for duplication; 20/18 duplicates sixes.
>
> 1. Rollout¹ 20/18 13/9 eq:+0.226
> Player: 56.25% (G:12.66% B:0.49%)
> Opponent: 43.75% (G:11.12% B:0.49%)
> Confidence: ±0.014 (+0.212..+0.239) - [100.0%]
>
> 2. Rollout¹ 24/22 13/9 eq:+0.168 (-0.058)
> Player: 54.46% (G:12.72% B:0.47%)
> Opponent: 45.54% (G:11.68% B:0.50%)
> Confidence: ±0.014 (+0.153..+0.182) - [0.0%]
>
> 3. Rollout¹ 24/20 9/7 eq:+0.153 (-0.073)
> Player: 53.55% (G:12.77% B:0.49%)
> Opponent: 46.45% (G:8.62% B:0.37%)
> Confidence: ±0.014 (+0.139..+0.167) - [0.0%]
>
> 4. Rollout¹ 23/21 13/9 eq:+0.145 (-0.080)
> Player: 53.77% (G:14.00% B:0.57%)
> Opponent: 46.23% (G:12.07% B:0.57%)
> Confidence: ±0.017 (+0.129..+0.162) - [0.0%]
>
> ¹ 1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
> Dice Seed: 271828
> Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
>
> eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.19.211.pre-release
>
> -------
> Variant
> -------
>
> XGID=----cBD-B-A-cC-b-b-eA--AA-:0:0:1:32:0:0:0:0:10
> Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
> +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
> | X O O | | O X X X |
> | X O O | | O |
> | X | | O |
> | | | O |
> | | | O |
> | |BAR| |
> | | | |
> | | | X |
> | O | | X O |
> | O X | | X X O |
> | O X X | | X X O |
> +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> Pip count X: 166 O: 168 X-O: 0-0
> Cube: 1
> X to play 32
>
> 1. XG Roller++ 20/18 13/10 eq:+0.208
> Player: 55.88% (G:12.82% B:0.45%)
> Opponent: 44.12% (G:10.67% B:0.43%)
>
> 2. XG Roller++ 23/20 10/8 eq:+0.203 (-0.005)
> Player: 54.75% (G:11.79% B:0.36%)
> Opponent: 45.25% (G:7.35% B:0.24%)
>
> 3. XG Roller++ 24/22 13/10 eq:+0.191 (-0.016)
> Player: 55.49% (G:12.42% B:0.45%)
> Opponent: 44.51% (G:10.80% B:0.43%)
>
> eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.19.211.pre-release
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

Do you at least recognize to a newer backgammon reader you talking about making the 5pt and then none of the play including /5 could be confusing?

Also the reason for /18 isn't duplication of sixes at all.

Stick

On 11/21/2022 4:13 PM, Stick Rice wrote:

> Do you at least recognize to a newer backgammon reader you talking about making the 5pt and then none of the play including /5 could be confusing?

No, I don't. I think you're the only person I've ever encountered who
finds this confusing.

---
Tim Chow

On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 7:20:28 PM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 11/21/2022 4:13 PM, Stick Rice wrote:
>
> > Do you at least recognize to a newer backgammon reader you talking about making the 5pt and then none of the play including /5 could be confusing?
> No, I don't. I think you're the only person I've ever encountered who
> finds this confusing.
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

As we've established before, I encounter far more backgammon players than you do in my line of work, esp. social ones who have maybe played for decades yet until they become somewhat serious (not that they aren't playing for high stakes, but serious in the sense of taking lessons, reading books, working with a bot, etc...) it's all meaningless jargon to them. When one isn't clear from the beginning it causes more issues and confusion for them down the road. So you keep doing you, details do matter and are often one of the sticking points I see between decent and good, good and great, great and brilliant.

Stick

On 11/22/2022 1:52 AM, Stick Rice wrote:
> As we've established before, I encounter far more backgammon players than you do in my line of work, esp. social ones who have maybe played for decades yet until they become somewhat serious (not that they aren't playing for high stakes, but serious in the sense of taking lessons, reading books, working with a bot, etc...) it's all meaningless jargon to them. When one isn't clear from the beginning it causes more issues and confusion for them down the road. So you keep doing you, details do matter and are often one of the sticking points I see between decent and good, good and great, great and brilliant.

While you're at it, you might want to tell Kit Woolsey that his
Encyclopedia is confusing, and that Nack Ballard's "either 5pt beats
either 4pt" is confusing. Or maybe Kit and Nack aren't good enough
backgammon players for you to bother with.

It's hilarious that you think this kind of pedantry about 5pt vs 20pt
is so important, while also thinking that your massively confusing "DMP
rule" has been honed to perfection.

---
Tim Chow

On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 8:56:45 AM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 11/22/2022 1:52 AM, Stick Rice wrote:
> > As we've established before, I encounter far more backgammon players than you do in my line of work, esp. social ones who have maybe played for decades yet until they become somewhat serious (not that they aren't playing for high stakes, but serious in the sense of taking lessons, reading books, working with a bot, etc...) it's all meaningless jargon to them. When one isn't clear from the beginning it causes more issues and confusion for them down the road. So you keep doing you, details do matter and are often one of the sticking points I see between decent and good, good and great, great and brilliant.
> While you're at it, you might want to tell Kit Woolsey that his
> Encyclopedia is confusing, and that Nack Ballard's "either 5pt beats
> either 4pt" is confusing. Or maybe Kit and Nack aren't good enough
> backgammon players for you to bother with.
>
> It's hilarious that you think this kind of pedantry about 5pt vs 20pt
> is so important, while also thinking that your massively confusing "DMP
> rule" has been honed to perfection.
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

You clearly think it's important too since you keep talking about it. And nothing to be done about Kit's work, which is excellent, it came out in a different time. Highly doubt either of those people would release that today. I can ask them if you like? And the dmp rule is fine for those who understand it.

Stick

On 11/22/2022 9:27 PM, Stick Rice wrote:
> You clearly think it's important too since you keep talking about it. And nothing to be done about Kit's work, which is excellent, it came out in a different time. Highly doubt either of those people would release that today. I can ask them if you like? And the dmp rule is fine for those who understand it.

I don't think it's *important to be pedantic* about refusing to refer
to the 20pt as the (opponent's) 5pt. I do think it's *important to
push back* on inappropriate pedantry.

You have had more exposure to backgammon players of all levels than I
have, but you don't have more experience than I do with precise
terminology; I've thought about precise terminology almost every day
for the past 35 years because that's what a mathematician does. There
is a place for precise terminology; if you're writing a computer
program, then of course you can't confuse 5 with 20. That does not
mean that pedantic correctness is appropriate in all circumstances.
Mathematicians even have a special term: "abuse of notation," which
means the intentional use of notation in a way that is, from a pedantic
standpoint, incorrect, because it is convenient or suggestive.

Even from a pedantic standpoint, what you're calling "the 20pt" is
really "the player's 20pt" and is therefore also "the opponent's 5pt."
We typically don't say "the player's 20pt" in full, because it's a
mouthful, so we leave out "the player's," trusting that the omitted
words will be understood. As long as no confusion is created, it's
fine. Similarly, as long as no confusion is created by omitting
"the opponent's" from "the opponent's 5pt," it's fine. If Bob Wachtel
had the opportunity to change his book's title from "ace-point game"
to "24pt-game" today, would he do so? I doubt it. There's no
confusion about which ace point we're talking about.

There may be rare cases where genuine confusion is created. In those
cases, it's important to spell things out in more detail. But that
does not mean that the correct remedy is to be pedantic in all
circumstances so as to forestall every possible source of confusion.
Such an attitude would, for example, forbid Nack from formulating the
heuristic that "either 5pt beats either 4pt," and compel him to say,
"either the 5pt or the 20pt beats either the 4pt or the 21pt" or
"either the player's 5pt or the opponent's 5pt beats either the
player's 4pt or the opponent's 4pt." That's clumsy and unmemorable,
and it's a good example of why it's misguided to insist on pedantic
correctness under all circumstances.

When I've had discussions with novice or intermediate players, they
almost always (again, excluding those rare cases of possible confusion)
have no trouble understanding what "the 5pt anchor" means, and indeed,
they find that easier to grasp than "the 20pt anchor." I half-jokingly
say that it's because they can't count that high---only half a joke
because they really do have trouble figuring out what is meant. The
number 5 is naturally associated with the 5pt anchor because that's
where you land when you roll a 5 from the bar; the number 20 is purely
a notational artifact that isn't needed to play the game.

Now, novice players do have some habits of thought that should be
corrected because they represent *misconceptions about good strategy*.
But the tendency to refer to the (player's) 20pt as the (opponent's)
5pt does not represent any misconception about backgammon strategy.
To claim that pedantically insisting that the 5pt anchor be called
the 20pt anchor is going to turn a good player into a great player
is hilarious nonsense. It's the sort of arrant pedantry up with which
I will not put.

---
Tim Chow

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 10:06:50 AM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 11/22/2022 9:27 PM, Stick Rice wrote:
> > You clearly think it's important too since you keep talking about it. And nothing to be done about Kit's work, which is excellent, it came out in a different time. Highly doubt either of those people would release that today. I can ask them if you like? And the dmp rule is fine for those who understand it.
> I don't think it's *important to be pedantic* about refusing to refer
> to the 20pt as the (opponent's) 5pt. I do think it's *important to
> push back* on inappropriate pedantry.
>
> You have had more exposure to backgammon players of all levels than I
> have, but you don't have more experience than I do with precise
> terminology; I've thought about precise terminology almost every day
> for the past 35 years because that's what a mathematician does. There
> is a place for precise terminology; if you're writing a computer
> program, then of course you can't confuse 5 with 20. That does not
> mean that pedantic correctness is appropriate in all circumstances.
> Mathematicians even have a special term: "abuse of notation," which
> means the intentional use of notation in a way that is, from a pedantic
> standpoint, incorrect, because it is convenient or suggestive.
>
> Even from a pedantic standpoint, what you're calling "the 20pt" is
> really "the player's 20pt" and is therefore also "the opponent's 5pt."
> We typically don't say "the player's 20pt" in full, because it's a
> mouthful, so we leave out "the player's," trusting that the omitted
> words will be understood. As long as no confusion is created, it's
> fine. Similarly, as long as no confusion is created by omitting
> "the opponent's" from "the opponent's 5pt," it's fine. If Bob Wachtel
> had the opportunity to change his book's title from "ace-point game"
> to "24pt-game" today, would he do so? I doubt it. There's no
> confusion about which ace point we're talking about.
>
> There may be rare cases where genuine confusion is created. In those
> cases, it's important to spell things out in more detail. But that
> does not mean that the correct remedy is to be pedantic in all
> circumstances so as to forestall every possible source of confusion.
> Such an attitude would, for example, forbid Nack from formulating the
> heuristic that "either 5pt beats either 4pt," and compel him to say,
> "either the 5pt or the 20pt beats either the 4pt or the 21pt" or
> "either the player's 5pt or the opponent's 5pt beats either the
> player's 4pt or the opponent's 4pt." That's clumsy and unmemorable,
> and it's a good example of why it's misguided to insist on pedantic
> correctness under all circumstances.
>
> When I've had discussions with novice or intermediate players, they
> almost always (again, excluding those rare cases of possible confusion)
> have no trouble understanding what "the 5pt anchor" means, and indeed,
> they find that easier to grasp than "the 20pt anchor." I half-jokingly
> say that it's because they can't count that high---only half a joke
> because they really do have trouble figuring out what is meant. The
> number 5 is naturally associated with the 5pt anchor because that's
> where you land when you roll a 5 from the bar; the number 20 is purely
> a notational artifact that isn't needed to play the game.
>
> Now, novice players do have some habits of thought that should be
> corrected because they represent *misconceptions about good strategy*.
> But the tendency to refer to the (player's) 20pt as the (opponent's)
> 5pt does not represent any misconception about backgammon strategy.
> To claim that pedantically insisting that the 5pt anchor be called
> the 20pt anchor is going to turn a good player into a great player
> is hilarious nonsense. It's the sort of arrant pedantry up with which
> I will not put.
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

Yes, people who study languages hardly ever think about precise terminology..

Stick

On 11/24/2022 2:19 AM, Stick Rice wrote:
> Yes, people who study languages hardly ever think about precise terminology.

Not as much as mathematicians do. I know several languages myself.

---
Tim Chow

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 7:02:26 PM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 11/24/2022 2:19 AM, Stick Rice wrote:
> > Yes, people who study languages hardly ever think about precise terminology.
> Not as much as mathematicians do. I know several languages myself.
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

There's an immense difference between knowing languages and studying them. Maybe you should choose your words more carefully lol

Stick

On 11/24/2022 8:11 PM, Stick Rice wrote:
> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 7:02:26 PM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
>> On 11/24/2022 2:19 AM, Stick Rice wrote:
>>> Yes, people who study languages hardly ever think about precise terminology.
>> Not as much as mathematicians do. I know several languages myself.
>>
>> ---
>> Tim Chow
>
> There's an immense difference between knowing languages and studying them. Maybe you should choose your words more carefully lol

You think I haven't studied languages enough to know that mathematicians
think about precise terminology more than people who study languages do?
LOL. I guess this is the closest we'll ever get to seeing you admit
that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

---
Tim Chow

On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 12:30:46 PM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 11/24/2022 8:11 PM, Stick Rice wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 7:02:26 PM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
> >> On 11/24/2022 2:19 AM, Stick Rice wrote:
> >>> Yes, people who study languages hardly ever think about precise terminology.
> >> Not as much as mathematicians do. I know several languages myself.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Tim Chow
> >
> > There's an immense difference between knowing languages and studying them. Maybe you should choose your words more carefully lol
> You think I haven't studied languages enough to know that mathematicians
> think about precise terminology more than people who study languages do?
> LOL. I guess this is the closest we'll ever get to seeing you admit
> that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

Sometimes you're in left field. This time you're in left field of the wrong ballpark hosting the wrong sport.

Stick

On 11/25/2022 4:31 PM, Stick Rice wrote:
> Sometimes you're in left field. This time you're in left field of the wrong ballpark hosting the wrong sport.

I was just browsing Michy's latest book, "Back Checker Strategy,"
on Amazon. On page 9, in a section intended for beginners and
intermediates, we see a heading, "Butterfly anchor (3-point anchor)".
Guess Michy is just another fish who's behind the times. Maybe if
he took lessons from you, he might make the leap from "decent" to
"good."

---
Tim Chow

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 10:44:09 AM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 11/25/2022 4:31 PM, Stick Rice wrote:
> > Sometimes you're in left field. This time you're in left field of the wrong ballpark hosting the wrong sport.
> I was just browsing Michy's latest book, "Back Checker Strategy,"
> on Amazon. On page 9, in a section intended for beginners and
> intermediates, we see a heading, "Butterfly anchor (3-point anchor)".
> Guess Michy is just another fish who's behind the times. Maybe if
> he took lessons from you, he might make the leap from "decent" to
> "good."
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

It's a high fly ball to left field, Tim is under it, this should be the end but wait, foul on the defense! It's a red card and a 15 yard penalty to be assessed on the kickoff. The redonks lead the zedonks 30-love in the third period.

Stick

On 11/26/2022 1:28 PM, Stick Rice wrote:
> It's a high fly ball to left field, Tim is under it, this should be the end but wait, foul on the defense! It's a red card and a 15 yard penalty to be assessed on the kickoff. The redonks lead the zedonks 30-love in the third period.

So I was wrong. We've gotten even closer to seeing you admit
that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

---
Tim Chow

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 12:24:40 AM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 11/26/2022 1:28 PM, Stick Rice wrote:
> > It's a high fly ball to left field, Tim is under it, this should be the end but wait, foul on the defense! It's a red card and a 15 yard penalty to be assessed on the kickoff. The redonks lead the zedonks 30-love in the third period.
> So I was wrong. We've gotten even closer to seeing you admit
> that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

"we've gotten" from a guy that's studied languages and pays more attention to terminology than a whore does to safe sex.

Marv that's going to be a point penalty per MMA rules. That's a biter and his arcane fire spell won't save him this time folks. One last shot for the hooker to score an albatross ... but no! It's a rim shot instead and he fails to secure his pole position for the next race.

Stick

On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 09:33:34 UTC, Stick Rice wrote:
>
> Marv that's going to be a point penalty per MMA rules. That's a biter and his arcane fire spell won't save him this time folks. One last shot for the hooker to score an albatross ... but no! It's a rim shot instead and he > fails to secure his pole position for the next race.
>
> Stick

You have no idea how apt your phrase "pole position" is wrt Tim :-)

On 11/27/2022 4:33 AM, Stick Rice wrote:
> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 12:24:40 AM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
> "we've gotten" from a guy that's studied languages and pays more attention to terminology than a whore does to safe sex.

Wow, you're giving Murat's sock-puppets a run for their money
in terms of entertainment value! That sentence isn't even
grammatical. That's what your language study has taught you?

This is fun. You're even easier to provoke that Murat is. With
Murat, I have to taunt him to get him to spew insults and nonsense.
In your case, all I have to do is state facts, and out comes
logorrheic bluster. Keep it coming; I can't wait to see what you'll
come up with next!

---
Tim Chow

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 8:32:15 AM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 11/27/2022 4:33 AM, Stick Rice wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 12:24:40 AM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
> > "we've gotten" from a guy that's studied languages and pays more attention to terminology than a whore does to safe sex.
> Wow, you're giving Murat's sock-puppets a run for their money
> in terms of entertainment value! That sentence isn't even
> grammatical. That's what your language study has taught you?
>
> This is fun. You're even easier to provoke that Murat is. With
> Murat, I have to taunt him to get him to spew insults and nonsense.
> In your case, all I have to do is state facts, and out comes
> logorrheic bluster. Keep it coming; I can't wait to see what you'll
> come up with next!
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

Generally speaking, if you want to see who is 'easy to provoke' online you simply go back and count each end user's number of words used. You're the math guy, lmk how it turns out, it's a mystery.

Stick

On November 28, 2022 at 6:32:15 AM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:

> Wow, you're giving Murat's sock-puppets a run
> for their money in terms of entertainment value!
> This is fun. You're even easier to provoke that
> Murat is. With Murat, I have to taunt him to get
> him to spew insults and nonsense.
> logorrheic bluster. Keep it coming; I can't wait
> to see what you'll come up with next!

Many people here exchange insults with most
of them enjoying giving than receiving. You are
an oddity who finds entertainment/fun in being
insulted and so much that you constantly try to
bring it upon yourself by provoking others, etc...

You seem to resort to this usually after getting
slapped hard in a debate by someone, in order
to get even with him by changing the subject to
something that you may prove yourself superior.
When you fail at that also, you then turn it into an
insulting brawl and try prove yourself superior by
acting the tactful vs the brash...

You are sick. Seek help.

MK

On 11/28/2022 4:41 PM, Stick Rice wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 8:32:15 AM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
>> On 11/27/2022 4:33 AM, Stick Rice wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 12:24:40 AM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
>>> "we've gotten" from a guy that's studied languages and pays more attention to terminology than a whore does to safe sex.
>> Wow, you're giving Murat's sock-puppets a run for their money
>> in terms of entertainment value! That sentence isn't even
>> grammatical. That's what your language study has taught you?
>>
>> This is fun. You're even easier to provoke that Murat is. With
>> Murat, I have to taunt him to get him to spew insults and nonsense.
>> In your case, all I have to do is state facts, and out comes
>> logorrheic bluster. Keep it coming; I can't wait to see what you'll
>> come up with next!
>>
>> ---
>> Tim Chow
>
> Generally speaking, if you want to see who is 'easy to provoke' online you simply go back and count each end user's number of words used. You're the math guy, lmk how it turns out, it's a mystery.

Oh, I'm not claiming I'm hard to provoke. It's easy to provoke me.
Just talk nonsense and I'll come running! That's why I always make
sure to read your posts.

---
Tim Chow

On 11/28/2022 10:01 PM, MK wrote:
> Many people here exchange insults with most
> of them enjoying giving than receiving. You are
> an oddity who finds entertainment/fun in being
> insulted and so much that you constantly try to
> bring it upon yourself by provoking others, etc...

That much is true!

> You seem to resort to this usually after getting
> slapped hard in a debate by someone, in order
> to get even with him by changing the subject to
> something that you may prove yourself superior.

Oh, no, it's not to get even. It's the entertainment value of
watching people like you or your sock-puppets talk nonsense!

> When you fail at that also, you then turn it into an
> insulting brawl and try prove yourself superior by
> acting the tactful vs the brash...
>
> You are sick. Seek help.

I'm seeking help right here on this newsgroup. Can't one of your
sock-puppets help me? Maybe your Nasti lawyer friend?

---
Tim Chow

On 11/27/2022 10:11 AM, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 09:33:34 UTC, Stick Rice wrote:
>>
>> Marv that's going to be a point penalty per MMA rules. That's a biter and his arcane fire spell won't save him this time folks. One last shot for the hooker to score an albatross ... but no! It's a rim shot instead and he > fails to secure his pole position for the next race.
>>
>> Stick
>
> You have no idea how apt your phrase "pole position" is wrt Tim :-)

Spoken by one of the finest legal minds of our generation!

I'm still curious as to which law school you took classes from.
Trump University, perhaps?

---
Tim Chow