Re: this sounds like a whine I know.....

It looks like donut-heads and their ilk have missed me;
so here I am... :)

Patti Beadles wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rayola wrote:

>> Can anyone put their hand on their heart and say that fibs is a
>> truly random program.

> I can.  I'm sure Andreas can.

Isn't Andreas the one who coded FIBS...? If so, then he wouldn't
need to place his hand over his heart to make that statement "in
good faith"... In other words, since he would know it for fact,
he would need no faith to make such a statement...

Aside from that you folks are short on logic, why don't you stop
acting benevolent, place your hands over your hearts and tell us
what you really get out of it...??

If Andreas were a true benevolent, we would have a "gnu-fibs" by
now...! :(

So, let's skip him and ask Patti if she would donate as much time
and effort to a "gnu-fibs" if it had replaced the "shit-pit"...!?

And while we are at it, how about Kit Woolsey? Would he donate as
generously to a "gnu-fibs"...??

Come on fols, place your hands over your hearts or stick them in
your asses but give us the truth, please...!!

Next..

MuffinHead wrote news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Aww man, just when you think the FIBS-dice-are-fixed days are over,
> they come screaming back to haunt you. I guess I'm surprised this
> thread wasn't started by our resident troll, who seems to either
> be back on his medication, or in police custody. Or both. Anyway...

Sorry to disappoint you but neither... :( I was overseas for a month
and after I returned, I realized that I didn't really miss trying to
communicate with brainless ass-kissers...

Obviously, sheer numbers are proof of nothing but shouldn't the fact
that many different people observe and express the same things about
the "shit-pit" cause you to pull your head out of your dumb ass and
wonder if there is indeed something to see...??

> 33 matches is far too small, especially if the matches are against 
> different opponents.

OK, now, for trying to belittle me, you smart-ass get to explain to
us all why does it **especially** matters whether the matches are
played against the same opponent or against different opponents...!?

Speak up, smart-ass and remember that the "resident PHD-clown" will
be reading what you will write... :)

> You'd probably want a few hundred or even thousand or even million

How about making it a billion so we all feel better...?? :))


az-willie wrote in news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Douglas Zare said on 11/26/2003 2:34 PM:
 
>> You need to be careful with this. Bla bla bullshit...
>> You need to weight the short matches less.

Why, Mr. Mathemagician...??

When I play and/or analyse a 47-point match against and/or using
gnudung, doesn't realize that it's a 47-point match and analyse
it as, ummm, what, 17-point match...? 27-point match...? 37...???

Why would any earthlings (other than you:) attempt to adjust the
extra-terrestrial scum's computations/estimations...???

Actually, this is a double-whammy :) since the same question is
valid about the "shit-pit" also... :))

> I think that since I am using the luck rate per roll instead of
> the overall luck rate per game that it is already weighted...

Who da hell are you to try to explain yourself to and argue against
our resident clown...?

Kiss his ass and shut up, will you...??


Jim Fouch wrote news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Truly random events only occur in nature but computer random number
> generators serve for science so they should suffice for a game.

5-6 years ago I had argued that the *new* 32-bit "jelly-shit" dice
roller was pretentious and that a 16-bit one would me more than good
enough for backgammon purposes...

Subsequently, "a dice bug" was fixed by "Mr. Dahl" by reverting the
"Jelly-shit" dice roller to a 16-bit one from a 32-bit one... :((

Since those days, we have come a long way to "Mercene Twister" dice
roller of the "gnudung"... :)) Har har... :)))

What "donut-head" morons never even started to question is bullshit
like analysing "distribution" of dice rolls in order to prove that
they are random... :(

There is only one measure of "non-randomness" or "cheating" and that
is the "predictability" of the future rolls (based on the current
position). If anyone is interested, we can pursue this argument...

In the meantime, I have been playing "cubeless" 5-point matches
against the "gnudung grandmaster" and I am 13-2 ahead so far...

Try playing some *cubeless* matches against (at least supposedly
strong) opponents. You may just like it...

And as an unrelated remark to all this, thanks to the father-fucking
sick bastards for entertaining me... :)))))

MK