jerryskids

But I didn't respond to the one you quoted. So you misrepresented my post. My guess is you made a mistake and picked the wrong one, and now you are acting holier than thou to try to recover. So, more likely dumb than lying, but the more you cover it up, the worse you look.

I'd like to take credit for that, but I was just going for "twig and berries." This makes me wonder though, if "Twiggs" is a pseudonym.

I've often wondered this. Maybe they have drones on their pirate boats!

Berry salad? I think it's short for twig and berry tossed salad.

In this tourney, I've seen the goalie come up and be an attacker for a corner or free kick at the very end of stoppage time. I haven't seen the goalie be pulled though. That would be kinda permanent (what if they score, then they need another sub for a backup goalie, and they are generally out of subs at this point anyway).

Seems like England has had more pressure, but this Messi guy looks pretty good.

Thanks. I've been playing with it as well, and may try it again to set up some DFS teams to throw out at the betting sites. I'm not sure I've included betting odds in my list, but I've meant to. I've also included world rankings and SG metrics. I help run a blog for a learing group for retired people, and I'm thinking of posting a regular column around the topic of AI making mistakes, so that people don't just implicitly trust it, for important things anyway. Every tourney I'm like "wait a minute Claude, why did you [insert mistake]?!" and it says "oops, my bad, you are right..." and corrects itself. And my DFS team finishes out of the money anyway. Maybe I should stick with the mistakes.

I never said no Muslims or Somalians, although given the rampant welfare usage of Somalians in MN, that one might be close. The analogy is "people from Italian crime controlled regions" and "people from Muslim autocratic theocracies." For the mafia, we can use this: Using my logic, we should have been much more restrictive with immigration from these regions. I don't know if we were or not, but I'd have been OK if we were.

Thanks! I'm interested to hear what your prompt is? Do you give it any judgment criteria, or do you just ask it to rank the teams?

Olympic marathon runners?

Yesterday you watched soccer with your work buddies, today this? When do you get your corporate-issued butt plug?

Capone was literally born in the US. You are shotgunning crap here. But I'll help you out. If Capone's parents came from known criminal backgrounds, then they should not have been allowed in. The fact that the system is not perfect does not mean you throw away the system. Anyway, you are intentionally going down a rathole to miss the big picture, which is that we, for the majority of our existence as a country, have disallowed people deemed negative to our country. That is how we've had a mostly successful immigration system. You cannot remove such processes and say "well, immigration has worked in the past, so this new, unfettered immigration must also be successful!" This is poor logic. I mean, you are welcome to believe it just cuz, but you can't base it on past success. Please indicate if you understand the difference.

Hey @thegeneral, how about your AI team breakdown when you get the chance?

Thanks. We can only logically conclude, like you did, that since some people become criminals, we should welcome all criminals in. I lost numerous brain cells typing that. I'm old, I only have so many left.

Oops But to your point... scores got in! Scores! Out of millions! By all means, that shows lack of enforcement. We should just stop doing it.

Sorry Tim, but you picked one of my points and tried to drill holes in it, like I described. I responded to that. Why don't you defend your initial point and describe for us how the US would be if tomorrow you dropped 500 million anathemas into it?

Tim, I posted the info. Here is a different source, with link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882

It's a parable about a man (Jesus) who goes off to be named king. Before he goes he gives money (spiritual gifts) to his servants (apostles) to grow while he is gone. When he returns, those who grow the money (spread the gospel) are rewarded. Those who don't, aren't. Then the last line says something about the king killing his enemies (those who reject the gospel). To scholars, this last line refers to those who will not enter the kingdom of heaven. To Tim, it's a call to intifada on par with the Koran (they're the same! Moral equivalence!).

Alts: Straka, Padraig Harrington (for old time's sake!)

You can take this red herring to a new thread if you'd like. The topic of birthright citizenship should absolutely be altered, for instance in the example of birth tourism. But let's stick on topic.

No I don't, liar. I think the underlying books of the religions have varying degrees of this (it's the same!), but the difference is in the reformation and modern interpretation. Reference: your good guys at Hamas Inc. I'm only saying this on the chance that your post wasn't pure troll -- it's dumb enough, but it's hard to tell with you.

"Immigration is a net positive" is proving my point on extremes. You appear to be taking this statement to mean "since immigration is a net positive, it logically follows that flooding the country with people who are anathema to our way of living is a net positive." That's simply poor logic.

6.06? - Bud Cauley @patweisers44

Except it's wrong. Criminals and deadbeats were specifically disallowed. You need to learn that just because Tim types stuff, doesn't make it correct.

This statement is historically ignorant: The above refers in part to the Immigration Act of 1882. We have not legally allowed freeloaders for 140-ish years. Yet here we are. Anyway, enough of this sidetrack. This is the danger of making a long post like I did -- people will take one part and say "you are wrong because some of these countries weren't the bestest economically!"