UglyJimStudly

Don't really see the point of flat-calling PF, looks to me like it's a push or fold spot. Given that UTG is second stack and raising the big stack's BB he certainly has some kind of hand, so I imagine you're either in a coinflip or a big underdog, and that would make me lean towards folding. There will be better spots to double up, and you can wait a few hands for something better while giving the short-stack time to bust out.As played, I'd give serious thought to calling on the flop, UTG's bet looks a lot like a "the flop missed both of us, now go away" move. It'd depend on whether he's made

Well, as pre-flop raiser you could be on a pretty wide range of hands. Call flop, raise a brick on the turn is a pretty standard betting scheme to see just how serious a pre-flop raiser is - if you've got something like AJ or AQ or even QQ, it leaves you with a tough decision. But with TPTK, you should be feeling anywhere from OK to pretty good about your hand.

Ditto.

I'm in pool 1. As I understand it, all the people who signed up before Jan 1 are randomly assigned to one of the first four pools, and the folks who signed up after that get 5-8. I busted out of the first pool early thanks to an email failure, hope this one goes a bit better. The prize is certainly interesting.

No way, I have socks older than that.

This is a strawman. I never claimed that either was entirely valid (or invalid), merely that they are not equally valid. Yet again, you leap to an incorrect conclusion because you refuse to read what other people write. You really need to shake that bad habit if you want anybody to take you at all seriously.

That's nice. You'll find that I said it required personal faith, not specifically religious faith. Since you're kinda confused about what "spirituality" actually means - about which, more later - I wouldn't presume to imagine that you're only speaking of religious faith. Little clue for your future efforts: when you're quoting me, the important thing is what I meant, not what interpretation you might put on it. A recurring theme since you started posting in this thread is that you have more or less ignored what other posters have said - for example, you were completely unaware that Loismustdi

But according to you, LMD's personal beliefs on this spiritual matter are every bit as valid as science. More seriously, the evangelical Christian movement by and large considers hell to be a very real place (or possibly condition), and I think that collectively they should certainly be considered a "major religion". If you're unfamiliar with that movement - the fastest growing group of Christian faiths in the world today - then I respectfully suggest you have a bit of reading to do. They're most certainly not faking, and as a result there's no real reason to believe LMD is, either.

Not the definition you've given in the past; your claim is that spirituality is dependent on personal faith in addition to experience. Objective observations that can be repeated by others, pretty much by definition, or not dependent on any personal faith. If we disagree on the rate of acceleration at which a given object falls at sea level, we can objectively determine what that rate of acceleration is; it will not change based on whether one of us lacks faith in gravity. The same cannot be said for spirituality.So if you're changing your definition of spirituality to something that can be ob

With the important difference that I'm trusting that experience in an objectively provable situation - if I, for example, "put my faith" in a scientific description of gravity or the atom, it rests on observational results that anybody can repeat for confirmation, if they're so inclined and willing to put in the effort. That is definitively not true for matters of personal faith - in fact, your argument is that personal faith is completely the opposite. I was, and said so explicitly, so your efforts to counter what I said are obviously doomed to failure. If you some day learn to read and quote

Ah, goalpost shifting. Yeah, that's another classic backpedal move, nice demonstration. Not instinct, but rather a matter of drawing on experience - asking "why?" has always taken me somewhere that I can evaluate objectively as useful, if rarely where I expected to go. From observation, I believe declaring the question "why?" to be moot is the far more instinctive option - most people are quite happy to avoid thinking about such things. I certainly didn't ask "why?" nearly as often when I was younger and thought I knew a whole lot more, but experience has taught me that the question is pretty

There's always two different jobs to choose from, and the winner picks one. Generally one choice - the right one, in Trump's eyes - involves working directly with Trump, the other offers some actual independence. I think the only time this didn't happen was the season with two women finalists - both jobs offerred that season were relatively far from the center of Trump's universe.

OK, I'm willing to accept that you truly believe both of these statements. And given that, your comparison of religious faith to science - which, you'll note, was the topic on which I was disagreeing with you - is completely invalid, because the question of "why?" is most certainly not moot in science. If you're now backpedaling to decouple the two, then we have no real disagreement.

Actually, it rests on beliefs that would be trivial to disprove if they were grossly false. That is what distinguishes science from religion (and most other types of human knowledge) - science invites attempts to disprove or debunk theories, since that leads to better understanding of the phenomena those theories describe. The question of "why?" - the very question that you and Loismustdie and others so hate to hear when applied to religion - is the driving force of science, and science as we know it could not exist without that doubt, that questioning.Which is not to say that scientists don't

This is true. All sorts of people believe in some kind of higher power. And your beliefs, as stated in this thread, disagree with most of them. Lots of people with different beliefs are at least as certain that their beliefs are correct as you are about yours. And yet, you can't all be right - if in fact any of you are.If you some day grasp that truth, you might actually come to understand why it is that your pronouncements ring so hollow.