I asked, and all I got was an UM.
Why do you suppose somebody rated 1757 would challenge
Sort:
Aug 29, 2010
0
#3
I'm going to publish your question in both psychology journals and philosophy journals. I'm even going to write an essay about your question entitled: "What is not Rational Thought."
Hi that's me, mr. 1757
trysts wrote:
I'm going to publish your question in both psychology journals and philosophy journals. I'm even going to write an essay about your question entitled: "What is not Rational Thought."
Maybe you should just count on being added to my blocked list, instead.
davepacker wrote:
an accident?
Ask him. He's poster #6.
woodshover wrote:
Somebody rated 801? They won't raise their rating by winning, so why?
Maybe he was just trying to help you achieve an even lower rating?
actually, woodshover i read many of ur posts, and i wanted to see how good u were, and if i could help u get better.
MyCowsCanFly wrote:
woodshover wrote:
Somebody rated 801? They won't raise their rating by winning, so why?
Maybe he was just trying to help you achieve an even lower rating?
That's kind of a dumb answer, since I said he would gain no rating points by winning. It should stand to reason that I would lose none by losing.
I favor the "stoned" theory.
Aug 29, 2010
0
#11
Niven42 wrote:
I favor the "stoned" theory.
The "stoned theory" is based on almost magical levels of THC. Therefore, I can't support the "stoned theory"
woodshover wrote:
MyCowsCanFly wrote:
woodshover wrote:
Somebody rated 801? They won't raise their rating by winning, so why?
Maybe he was just trying to help you achieve an even lower rating?
That's kind of a dumb answer, since I said he would gain no rating points by winning. It should stand to reason that I would lose none by losing.
It doesn't stand to reason you would lose no points. It seems to me it would be hard to find even lower rated members to play.
MyCowsCanFly wrote:
woodshover wrote:
MyCowsCanFly wrote:
woodshover wrote:
Somebody rated 801? They won't raise their rating by winning, so why?
Maybe he was just trying to help you achieve an even lower rating?
That's kind of a dumb answer, since I said he would gain no rating points by winning. It should stand to reason that I would lose none by losing.
That was an even dumber answer. It doesn't stand to reason you would lose no points.
Yes it does. Becides, it said I wouldn't.
kid_of_chess wrote:
actually, woodshover i read many of ur posts, and i wanted to see how good u were, and if i could help u get better.
Seems like a nice young man.
=)
kid_of_chess wrote:
actually, woodshover i read many of ur posts, and i wanted to see how good u were, and if i could help u get better.
If you had read my posts, you would know that I know very little about it.
trysts wrote:
Niven42 wrote:
I favor the "stoned" theory.
The "stoned theory" is based on almost magical levels of THC. Therefore, I can't support the "stoned theory"
maybe you have to use the pills?
Somebody rated 801? They won't raise their rating by winning, so why?