Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Arising_uk wrote: Yeah, the level of not being played at all.

I did play it once in my mind, and proved that the auditory hallucination saying the ability to double and redouble the score would allow the game to be played at a much higher level was absolutely correct.

So who is actually playing the game, other than you playing with yourself?

Since you probably couldn't figure out how to play the easiest game in the world in the normal way, much less in your head, I can fully understand your confusion on the subject.

bobevenson wrote:I did play it once in my mind, and proved that the auditory hallucination saying the ability to double and redouble the score would allow the game to be played at a much higher level was absolutely correct.

LMFAO! Loooooon!!!!!
p.s.
And I don't mean the hallucination.

bobevenson wrote:That's why liar's poker has always been a gambling game played in bars and taverns to give it a disreputable image.

Unlike Ouzo which is being marketed as a gambling game to be played in bars by Bob the Satanist.

FlashDangerpants wrote:

bobevenson wrote:That's why liar's poker has always been a gambling game played in bars and taverns to give it a disreputable image.

Unlike Ouzo which is being marketed as a gambling game to be played in bars by Bob the Satanist.

You seem to forget that my middle name is Merlin, magician, seer, prophet. Am I a prophet, or a magician? Am I divinely inspired, or an illusionist? I offer my prophetic credentials to answer that question.

bobevenson wrote:... Am I a prophet, or a magician? Am I divinely inspired, or an illusionist? I offer my prophetic credentials to answer that question.

And they all point to you being a delusional loon!!

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:... Am I a prophet, or a magician? Am I divinely inspired, or an illusionist? I offer my prophetic credentials to answer that question.

And they all point to you being a delusional loon!!

May I assume you are incapable of offering a philosophical argument against the sum total of mystical events submitted as prophetic credentials?

Again your assumptions are wrong boob and you have the selective memory and the retentive capability of a goldfish, as I have put forward innumerable philosophical critiques of your 'mystical events' times and all of which you have singularly failed to address but then that would involve you having to address your insanity which you are very fearful of in case you lose it and are just left with yourself. I'd have sympathy for your plight if it wasn't that you are also an arse and a disgrace to this philosophy forum.

bobevenson wrote:Typical non-response from Kim (claims no relationship to Novak besides genitalia).

Typical non-response from a looney tunes who can't tell the difference between a man and a woman (Jerry Springer is looking for you).

PhilX

bobevenson wrote:Typical non-response from Kim (claims no relationship to Novak besides genitalia).

Time to leave the 50's misogyny behind boob.

What was unclear? I've posted umpteen questions and philosophical objections and possible reasons why your claims could be due to other causes but your mental illness makes you incapable of addressing them as your insanity is your last safety blanket. All you can ever do is attempt to divert by just repeating ad nauseam the same old phrases which you've apparently been doing for decades now and six or seven years here. You are a waste of space upon this philosophy forum but since you've been banned from every forum you've inhabited I guess we're stuck with you until the mods get fed up with your incessant trolling and follow suit.

Toodles.

bobevenson wrote:So speaks the biggest troll in the forum who never starts a thread, but hurls insult after insult on other people's threads.

And so speaks the biggest spammer on this forum.

PhilX

bobevenson wrote:So speaks the biggest troll in the forum who never starts a thread, ...

You think your threads worthwhile? Philosophically that is.

but hurls insult after insult on other people's threads.

That's not what a troll is bob, as I mean mine and those who are on the receiving end, in general, have earned the right. You for instance.

Arising_uk wrote:That's not what a troll is bob.

Look it up in the dictionary, idiot. Oh, I forgot, you're too smart to use a dictionary, but too dumb not to use smilies.