Sweet, glorious, good news!

[spaz102]

I no longer have to decide which school in Canada I'm going to, should I run into problems getting to England! Now I just need to decide which offer of acceptance from Waterloo I want to go go; honors math, or honors computational math

Comments

Re: Sorrry.

[spaz102]

"Sorrry"? You wouldn't happen to be a good-hearted person trapped in a spam factory, would you? Otherwise, it is almost disgustingly simple to disprove your statements in any of several ways. First, you make the assumption that I care about the lottery. Second, you capitalize almost everything while referencing some form of secret to the lottery, which can and has been solved by you, yet is still brought by good luck. As for the body of the statement, why would anybody care about "unofficial" winning numbers? Not only would a list of these numbers be as random as the
official" list, but there would be no mathematically provable correlation between them that wouldn't already be found and heavily publicized. Maybe I'm just a bit inexperienced in the world of lotteries, but since when was lottery play ever hard? You just pick a few random numbers, and then throw away the price of the ticket. The other main statement is that you can somehow surpass this lack of reason by using all capitals again, and using science to create a chaos profile of me to decide my lucky numbers. Ok, where do I start with this one? Well, for one thing, "chaos" is just that. You can't profile someone with it any more that you can knit with fire. It is good, however, to note that you use science in this technology of yours. You've given it hundreds of tests, and have won the lottery more that the average person, per ticket, within a calculable margin of error. To get any sort of reliable calculations on the improved odds of winning under your system, you would have to have won the lottery several hundred times. I congratulate you on your extremely recent wealth, as no news of it has hit the media yet.
Ok, so maybe you don't like being torn apart with a bit of common sense, or maybe my view on logic is horribly skewed. Let's try a different method. So, you would have me believe that you can win the lottery with startling accuracy, and can make me do the same. What is your motivation for sending this to other people then? If everybody that bought a ticket used your system, we'd all win equal shares of the prize pool, and not a single person would would win back the price of their tickets. This would also cut off -your- earnings.
Therefore, the the skeptic point of view of common sense, math, economics, psychology, marketing, and grammar, I find your argument wanting. Sorry, but I am not interested in your product. Next time try basing it on religion instead of science, that group is a lot more tolerable of lies.