RE: Poker 101- rules of the game

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

Uh oh, Dave, now we need to learn poker:
A)
>A couple things in reference to your recent threads to date come up in that
>very "white paper" Dave.  [snip] Look really hard at the "assumptions" in
>the section "Vehicle Behavior when Accelerating in a Turn."  Then reread
>that section with the "assumptions" in mind.  Any revelations come about?  I
>find it amazing that you would pick a "white" paper to make your stand, that
>describes exactly the spider bite phenomenon.  Great show Dave.
-----
B)
>Clarification... I make the claim about a torsen bite without referencing
>your 80q v 80q paper.  I don't have the paper, but I do have my notes on it.
>Given you quized me for a synopsis of that paper without reference, it's
>yours, bro.  I don't need it, I would also argue, neither do you.  But,
>happy to discuss when you are ready...  You attempted a blindside and lost,
>post up man.  OR, drop it.  I call.==========================

>>have you *ever* won at poker scott?dave

It's your paper, bubb, I've made the above claims for a couple years without 
the 80q paper (my ante - B).  You lamely placed a "bet" that I wouldn't be 
able to answer questions about a unreferenced source (so confident were you 
in your hand, that you asked nothing specific, you looked for regurgitation). 
 I first took a pass on the lame ante (re: I ignored such a silly bet).  Then 
when it was thrown down again, I anted to your bluff (A), that's a call.  
Show your cards, or fold.  The former VC diff lock 'poker game' (DE - tm) 
kinda went the same way.

The rules of poker are easy, IME.   I'd sure like this part out of the way.  
As before, we are hung up in the mud without any form of quattro advantage.

HTH

Scott J