psychoceramics: Usenet exposed

["Bruce Baugh" <bruce-b--@s--.net>]

I gather that Doug Reiman has been a long-time pain in
rec.gambling.blackjack, and is more or less single-handedly responsible
for rousing interest in creating r.g.b.moderated. His objections to the
vote on that group (in which something like a hundred ballots he faked,
poorly, were invalidated) started off as typical alt.usenet.kooks
fodder. But he's been scaling increasingly interesting heights lately.

=-=-=-=-=

From: "DOUGLAS REIMAN" <d--@w--.att.net>
Subject: RGBM Vote - Did Usenet "rig" the vote?
Date: 5 Dec 1997 20:03:15 GMT
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.gambling.blackjack

RGBM Vote-Fourth Official Protest

There is no doubt in my mind, based upon how unfairly Usenet invalidated
votes in the RGBM vote, that Usenet is an autocratic society bent upon
the
self-serving interest of preserving newsgroups at any cost.   Despite
whether the newsgroup they want to preserve is, in a very large part, a
collection of fraud merchants bent upon hiding the truth from their
suckers
with the censorship opportunities a moderated group provides.
Usenet seems to openly embrace newsgroup fraud provided the fraud
merchants
can muster enough interested suckers to their forum!  I base that
opinion
based upon the manner in which Usenet representatives invalidated
legitimate votes after the vote-taker acknowledged them, and then
refused
to even review irrefutable proof those votes were legitimate, and
further
libeled the innocent people that voted honestly and correctly!  Such
inexcusable actions can have no other rational explanation.
As far as all the smoke and mirrors go in respect to a "phantom group"
Usenet claim - well, you will be surprised how fast the smoke disappears
from this self-acclaimed “will -o-wisp” social group when specific
individuals that are really running this autocratic society start to get
sued for libel.  Regardless of their self-appointed autocratic
positions,
any such individuals must also still comply with the laws of the land.
Just
like the law requires the rest of us “civilians”  to do.   The autocrats
that operate under the guise of “open and honest vote taking” are still
responsible to a higher authority.    Libel is a civil offense according
to
the US statutes and code.  I doubt if even the Usenet autocrats will be
so
arrogant to claim they are above that code.  Yet from what I have read,
they are busy attempting to avoid as much culpability as they can for
libel
violations with their “will-o-wisp” phantom group claims.
  But thankfully, Ms. McQuitty did send us email specifically stating
the
names of the individuals she relied upon to help her rig the vote in the
RGBM vote invalidation debacle.  So I suppose the “now you see me now
you
don’t” typical defense of those involved in Usenet will not sit well
with
the courts since real names have been used.  And further,  these “real
people”  are allowed to do and say and post whatever they wish without
any
semblance of control by the rest of the “now you see me now you don’t”
Usenet society.

So then if I correctly understand the ever changing rules of the
phantom,
will-o-wisp, “now you see me now you don’t” autocratic Usenet group,  it
is
not the autocratic members  of Usenet that are to blame for the libel
and
the vote rigging, but the individual perpetrators of libel and their
fellow
conspirators?

Moreover, Usenet clearly has their own agenda.  And their “burlesque” of
supposedly offering open and ethical voting by all interested parties
has
been exposed for what it really is.  I wonder how McQuitty could
arbitrarily invalidate 115 votes without any real evidence, and then
refuse
to even review real evidence that will irrefutably prove the votes she
invalidated were legitimate, and then further libel those individuals
that
offered her such evidence by calling them "apparent frauds" and expect
people to actually accept her apparent vote rigging as honest and just?
Apparently,  not only are the Usenet autocrats failing to follow their
own
rules and regulations, but they are virtually forcing people to question
the honesty and integrity of those that call themselves members of the
Usenet community.
When we enter a newsgroup or the Internet in general, we do not enter a
private little world of rigged votes, lying vote-takers, and
libel-at-will,
and other self-serving tactics designed to preserve all newsgroups at
the
cost of integrity and general honesty.  Nor are we controlled by some
new
autocratic, will-o-wisp, “now you see me now you don’t” society that has
unlimited power to libel and rig votes and censor free speech.

 Usenet is an interesting entity.  It claims autocratic power over
newsgroups while simultaneously claiming it really  does not exist!
Sure,
OK, yup, I believe that.  Sure I do.
If an action is taken, a event that chain reacts into another event as a
result of the first action, and people are harmed, such is called
“consequential harm or damages.”  Real people are held responsible for
their actions.  And real people compose Usenet, not phantoms.

Look around gang.  We already have a system.  We have a system where
people
can appeal unjust and self-serving decisions, fraud, and libel.  The
only
reason it is not in complete control on the Internet and in newsgroups
is
because these issues have not yet been brought to court.  Nevertheless,
this time they will.  Especially with the libel issue insuring that
those
that perpetrated the libel will pay our legal fees.
Why did Usenet Rig the Vote?

In my opinion I  believe that this Usenet farce is directly related to
the
opportunities provided the fraud merchants to sell their worthless
wares.
Usenet apparently rigged the votes to allow them to sell worthless and
fraudulent investment scams unchallenged.   Why else would Usenet
invalidate perfectly legitimate votes and refuse the owners of those
votes
the opportunity to prove their votes and accounts were legitimate?  This
“railroad” vote taking and rigged results must have some ulterior
motive?
What other reason would Usenet  invalidate at least 76 votes that were
perfectly legitimate after they acknowledged receiving them?
 Moreover, it does appear that the  Usenet participants in this debacle
will be held as culpable as the fraud merchants themselves for the
damage
investment scams produce in the future.  I would imagine that each time
a
person or unknowing family purchases one of the fraud merchants
worthless
systems as a result of an unchallenged RGBM promotion , and consequently
loses their life savings to the casino coffers,  the spectrum of
culpability question would certainly arise with each lawyer involved.
And
when the fraud merchant is sued the Usenet representative should also be
sued for “rigging” the votes in such a manner as to allow the fraud
merchants to advertise his snake oil unfettered.  At least,  if in the
future, any such suits are filed, I certainly will make it my business
to
remind each lawyer involved as to “how votes were rigged by Usenet
participants  to allow the fraud merchants the opportunity to sell their
worthless and dangerous scams in the first place.”  And moreover,
furnish
all the individual names involved in the Usenet vote rigging.

It might have been different if they counted the votes honestly.  Yet
collusion between Usenet and the fraud merchants seems apparent since
the
vote-taker invalidated votes after she sent an acknowledgment, and now
outrageously refuses to even *review* irrefutable proof that the votes
she
arbitrarily invalidated were legitimate!

Moreover, I doubt seriously if the Usenet participants realize the size
of
the monster they are creating for themselves by rigging votes to allow
fraud merchants to sell worthless systems to an unsuspecting public.  I
know how dangerous these worthless systems are to our elderly, and poor
families especially.
In the past my schools taught more than 60,000 individuals card counting
when card counting systems still could beat real world casinos.  I am
the
foremost expert on the subject, and I voluntarily closed down my schools
about seven years ago when the casino industry started frequently using
countermeasures that clearly eliminate any advantage card counting
systems
might achieve.  I acknowledged the truth of the matter, and told my past
students the truth.  And yes my students and teams did win a lot of
money,
but that was then and before the casinos implemented the frequent use of
devastating countermeasures designed specifically to eliminate card
counting system advantages.  Moreover, after 60,000 students, you can be
sure I understand the nature and mind-set of people that want to gamble
in
a casino.    The lures of get rich quick systems like the fraud
merchants
sell on RGB appeal mostly to those without hope.  Or those that are so
lonely and full of despair they are willing to try anything simply to
bring
some fun and light into their lives.
As a direct result of the fraud merchants fraudulent system claims,
these
people will lose their life savings, and all they can borrow, and their
social security checks, and their welfare checks, and their old age
pensions, and money meant to help them and their families have a better
life. You must understand that when a person purchases a losing system
the
nature of the system requires the user to wager much, much more than
normal
as a condition of the system. *Even one single use of these incredibly
dangerous systems can completely destroy the entire life savings of an
unsuspecting person!* (And no Mr. Allberry, your instincts were correct
the
first time you posted that card counting systems would lose.
Availability
of  single or double deck games  is meaningless as the aforementioned
casino countermeasures are used more frequently in those games than any
others.  Apparently, Mr. DeGennaro attempted to deceive you into
believing
the typical con man line that casinos never use countermeasures against
card counters or that card counters can avoid such countermeasures.
Such a
claim is an outright lie, and has been confirmed as a lie by all the
statisticians and mathematicians hired to review such issues, including
the
casinos themselves, and more recently, the United States Securities
Exchange Commission).
 Is this what Usenet wants?  To watch our elderly and poor contribute to
the casino coffers as a direct result of the fraud merchants worthless
claims and a rigged vote to allow them to advertise their illicit and
dangerous investment scams?
  Do the Usenet volunteers wish to help the fraud merchants in their
illicit sales by rigging votes so they can  allow the fraud merchants to
sell their worthless wares unchallenged?  Are the Usenet participants
that
participated in the rigged vote tally ready to accept equal
responsibility
and culpability as the fraud merchants for the incredible damage that is
about to be imposed on an unsuspecting public?  Is Usenet ready to
accept
the responsibility for accrediting ( through a rigged vote) a moderated
group dedicated to fraud and misery created from casino gambling and
fraudulent casino investment scams?

 Soon, I will be openly inviting all that have purchased worthless
systems
not only to sue the fraud merchants themselves, but also the
publications,
distributors, and the advertisers and proponents of the sale of
worthless
systems.  Does Usenet really want to become involved in the receiving
end
of  this nationwide movement to halt the evil effects of fraudulent
casino
investment scams?

Think about it.  Think about it really hard.

Doug Grant (Tm)