I didn't win the megamillions lottery. Just thought y'all would like
to know.

That's OK. Every ticket I bought was a winner. All zero of them.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
I didn't win the megamillions lottery. Just thought y'all would like
to know.

rangerssuck wrote:
I didn't win the megamillions lottery. Just thought y'all would like
to know.

We had an equal chance of winning.

Did you buy a ticket? I didn't.



--Winston

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:24:39 -0700, Winston
wrote:

rangerssuck wrote:
I didn't win the megamillions lottery. Just thought y'all would like
to know.

We had an equal chance of winning.

Did you buy a ticket? I didn't.

That's why you didn't win. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress (bought two tickets for my wife, who promised not to leave
me if she won)





--Winston

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:24:39 -0700,
wrote:

rangerssuck wrote:
I didn't win the megamillions lottery. Just thought y'all would like
to know.

We had an equal chance of winning.

Did you buy a ticket? I didn't.

That's why you didn't win. d8-)

Odds of winning Megamillions: 1 in 175,711,536
Odds of dying from contact with hot tap water: 1 in 5,005,564



--Winston

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:48:52 -0700, Winston
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:24:39 -0700,
wrote:

rangerssuck wrote:
I didn't win the megamillions lottery. Just thought y'all would like
to know.

We had an equal chance of winning.

Did you buy a ticket? I didn't.

That's why you didn't win. d8-)

Odds of winning Megamillions: 1 in 175,711,536
Odds of dying from contact with hot tap water: 1 in 5,005,564

g I know. Somebody said it was slightly worse than being killed by a
shark. I don't know about that, but it sounds reasonable.

It's not the odds, Winnies. It's the dreams....

And, of course, it's a tax that our legislators don't have to pass.
What could be better than people standing in line to pay a tax that
they don't have to?

--
Ed Huntress






--Winston

Ed Huntress wrote:
)

Odds of winning Megamillions: 1 in 175,711,536
Odds of dying from contact with hot tap water: 1 in 5,005,564

g I know. Somebody said it was slightly worse than being killed by a
shark. I don't know about that, but it sounds reasonable.

It's not the odds, Winnies. It's the dreams....
Which is why I occasionally buy a ticket, and why I rarely check them
in a timely fashion. I figure if I haven't collapsed the wave
function.... I am still in play



And, of course, it's a tax that our legislators don't have to pass.
What could be better than people standing in line to pay a tax that
they don't have to?
jk

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:48:52 -0700,
wrote:

(...)

Odds of winning Megamillions: 1 in 175,711,536
Odds of dying from contact with hot tap water: 1 in 5,005,564

g I know. Somebody said it was slightly worse than being killed by a
shark. I don't know about that, but it sounds reasonable.

It's not the odds, Winnies. It's the dreams....

Yup.

And, of course, it's a tax that our legislators don't have to pass.
What could be better than people standing in line to pay a tax that
they don't have to?

Remind me again why Bernie Madoff is in jail?
He sold dreams at a high price too.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/0330/Who-ll-win-the-Mega-Millions-lottery-The-states

"Mega Millions jackpot is the world's largest. But the chances
of winning the Mega Millions are so slim that the only sure
winners are the states, which get a little over a third of the take."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0330/Note-to-Mega-Millions-lottery-winner-Beware!-video

"Since Tuesday, Mr. Hoover estimates, people have spent about
$600 million on tickets – and perhaps as much as $1.2 billion
since the last winner on Jan. 24. In Massachusetts, tickets
were selling at the rate of 14,000 per minute on Friday, says
Beth Bresnahan, a spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Lottery."


Looking under my clothes dryer has paid me nicely.

http://www.pfadvice.com/2007/01/24/1...-when-walking/




--Winston

jk wrote:
Ed wrote:
)

Odds of winning Megamillions: 1 in 175,711,536
Odds of dying from contact with hot tap water: 1 in 5,005,564

g I know. Somebody said it was slightly worse than being killed by a
shark. I don't know about that, but it sounds reasonable.

It's not the odds, Winnies. It's the dreams....
Which is why I occasionally buy a ticket, and why I rarely check them
in a timely fashion. I figure if I haven't collapsed the wave
function.... I am still in play

Then you are CATegorically a believer in Schrodinger.

--Winston-- Uncertain, principally.

Winston wrote:

jk wrote:
Ed wrote:
)

Odds of winning Megamillions: 1 in 175,711,536
Odds of dying from contact with hot tap water: 1 in 5,005,564

g I know. Somebody said it was slightly worse than being killed by a
shark. I don't know about that, but it sounds reasonable.

It's not the odds, Winnies. It's the dreams....
Which is why I occasionally buy a ticket, and why I rarely check them
in a timely fashion. I figure if I haven't collapsed the wave
function.... I am still in play

Then you are CATegorically a believer in Schrodinger.
But I do NOT believe in even the existence of his cat until the box is
opened.
jk

Winston wrote:

It's not the odds, Winnies. It's the dreams....

Yup.

And, of course, it's a tax that our legislators don't have to pass.
What could be better than people standing in line to pay a tax that
they don't have to?

Remind me again why Bernie Madoff is in jail?

If he had said, "I might rip you off, I might not, but in any event
the chances of getting your money back are 1 in 1000000000000, he
probably wouldn't be.


He sold dreams at a high price too.
But the state is selling High Priced dreams at a low cost.
[And governments don't like competition]
jk

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:15:17 -0700, Winston
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:48:52 -0700,
wrote:

(...)

Odds of winning Megamillions: 1 in 175,711,536
Odds of dying from contact with hot tap water: 1 in 5,005,564

g I know. Somebody said it was slightly worse than being killed by a
shark. I don't know about that, but it sounds reasonable.

It's not the odds, Winnies. It's the dreams....

Yup.

And, of course, it's a tax that our legislators don't have to pass.
What could be better than people standing in line to pay a tax that
they don't have to?

Remind me again why Bernie Madoff is in jail?
He sold dreams at a high price too.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/0330/Who-ll-win-the-Mega-Millions-lottery-The-states

"Mega Millions jackpot is the world's largest. But the chances
of winning the Mega Millions are so slim that the only sure
winners are the states, which get a little over a third of the take."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0330/Note-to-Mega-Millions-lottery-winner-Beware!-video

"Since Tuesday, Mr. Hoover estimates, people have spent about
$600 million on tickets – and perhaps as much as $1.2 billion
since the last winner on Jan. 24. In Massachusetts, tickets
were selling at the rate of 14,000 per minute on Friday, says
Beth Bresnahan, a spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Lottery."


Looking under my clothes dryer has paid me nicely.

http://www.pfadvice.com/2007/01/24/1...-when-walking/




--Winston

Well, shoooore.... Good sense has nothing to do with the lottery.

It used to be a great private business in New Jersey, until it was
nationalized and socialized. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On 4/2/2012 5:03 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
That's OK. Every ticket I bought was a winner. All zero of them.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

wrote in message
...
I didn't win the megamillions lottery. Just thought y'all would like
to know.



You can't lose if you don't play....

On Apr 2, 7:44*pm, jk wrote:
Winston wrote:
It's not the odds, Winnies. It's the dreams....
Yup.

And, of course, it's a tax that our legislators don't have to pass.
What could be better than people standing in line to pay a tax that
they don't have to?

Remind me again why Bernie Madoff is in jail?

If he had said, "I might rip you off, I might not, *but in any event
the chances of getting your money back are 1 in 1000000000000, he
probably wouldn't be.

He sold dreams at a high price too.

But the state is selling High Priced dreams at a low cost.
[And governments don't like competition]
jk

The government fully publishes the odds. Madoff did not.

BTW, I did win seven bucks on five bucks worth of tickets. 40% profit
in a day and a half is nothing to sneeze at.

rangerssuck wrote:

(...)

The government fully publishes the odds. Madoff did not.

"Fully publish" would be to carefully explain what the numbers
mean using media and writing skill geared to the customer, no?

There is a qualitative difference between grudgingly allowing
the odds to be published and "full disclosure".

BTW, I did win seven bucks on five bucks worth of tickets. 40% profit
in a day and a half is nothing to sneeze at.

If we widen the data gathering time +- six months from your win,
we would have a terminal head cold, yes?

--Winston

On Apr 4, 5:01*pm, Winston wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:

(...)

The government fully publishes the odds. Madoff did not.

"Fully publish" would be to carefully explain what the numbers
* mean using media and writing skill geared to the customer, no?

* There is a qualitative difference between grudgingly allowing
* the odds to be published and "full disclosure". *


Oh, I don't know. If you go to http://www.state.nj.us/lottery/games...millions.shtml
and click on the tab, "Odds and Prizes" it's pretty clear, and that is
(I think) the only place on the NJ lottery site where you can figure
out how much you won.

BTW, I did win seven bucks on five bucks worth of tickets. 40% profit
in a day and a half is nothing to sneeze at.

If we widen the data gathering time +- six months from your win,
we would have a terminal head cold, yes? *

--Winston

No, this was the first time I ever put a nickel of my money into such
a thing. I did it on a whim, and will probably not do it again, though
I'm not ruling out the possibility.

rangerssuck wrote:
On Apr 4, 5:01 pm, wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:

(...)

The government fully publishes the odds. Madoff did not.

"Fully publish" would be to carefully explain what the numbers
mean using media and writing skill geared to the customer, no?

There is a qualitative difference between grudgingly allowing
the odds to be published and "full disclosure".


Oh, I don't know. If you go to http://www.state.nj.us/lottery/games...millions.shtml

Then click on 'Mega millions" under the "Numbers Draw Games" heading secreted in
the lower left corner (dark gray text on slightly lighter gray background)
Then locate the 'Odds and Prizes' tab (text and background both in very well
matched shades of gray). And Howdy! There is the info.


and click on the tab, "Odds and Prizes" it's pretty clear, and that is
(I think) the only place on the NJ lottery site where you can figure
out how much you won.

Five levels deep, hidden in psychologically manipulative gray?
I Don't Think So, Will!

Just for fun now, I emulated a moderately curious player who wanted to
know what her odds were for that game:

Browser Google

(1)Search term Mega millions
first hit: http://www.megamillions.com
(2) Click on that site and on: FAQs
FAQ titles:
What is Mega Millions?
Where can I get results for Mega Millions?
How was Mega Millions created?
When and where are the drawings held?
Where can I play Mega Millions?
How does Mega Millions take care of business?
How long do I have to collect a Mega Millions prize?
Can a group of people share a Mega Millions prize?
What happens to Mega Millions payments if the winner dies before collecting?
Are prizes taxable?
What are the payout options?
What happens if I lose a ticket?
What happens to a Mega Millions jackpot prize if it is not claimed?
Can a Mega Millions jackpot winner claim the prize anonymously?
What is the Megaplier?
Why do Mega Millions and Powerball show different Cash Option amounts for similar-sized jackpots?

Notice not *one* mention of the possibility of losing a buck.

I particularly like:
"How long do I have to collect a Mega Millions prize?"
"Can a group of people share a Mega Millions prize?"
"Can a Mega Millions jackpot winner claim the prize anonymously?"

I'm surprised that I didn't see:
"How happy will I be when I win a Mega Millions prize?"
"Is it OK to bathe in $100 bills when I win a Mega Millions prize?"
"Will the Cadillac dealer accept cash from my Mega Millions prize?"

(3) Back to top level menu
(4) Click on: "About Us"
No mention of odds on that screen

BORED! Cancel browser and buy ticket anyway.



BTW, I did win seven bucks on five bucks worth of tickets. 40% profit
in a day and a half is nothing to sneeze at.

If we widen the data gathering time +- six months from your win,
we would have a terminal head cold, yes?

--Winston

No, this was the first time I ever put a nickel of my money into such
a thing. I did it on a whim, and will probably not do it again, though
I'm not ruling out the possibility.

Best of luck.

"Come here little boy! The first one's FREE!"

--Winston

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 14:01:04 -0700, Winston
wrote:

rangerssuck wrote:

(...)

The government fully publishes the odds. Madoff did not.

"Fully publish" would be to carefully explain what the numbers
mean using media and writing skill geared to the customer, no?

There is a qualitative difference between grudgingly allowing
the odds to be published and "full disclosure".


A disclosure comparable to the warning on cigarette packs seems
reasonable to me.

--
Ned Simmons

Ned Simmons wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 14:01:04 -0700,
wrote:

rangerssuck wrote:

(...)

The government fully publishes the odds. Madoff did not.

"Fully publish" would be to carefully explain what the numbers
mean using media and writing skill geared to the customer, no?

There is a qualitative difference between grudgingly allowing
the odds to be published and "full disclosure".


A disclosure comparable to the warning on cigarette packs seems
reasonable to me.

More than reasonable.

http://www.examiner.com/business-news-in-minneapolis/mega-millions-are-low-income-earners-spending-wisely

"A statistic released by PBS in 2008 shows that on average those
who earn an income of around $13,000 a year spend nearly 9% of
their income on lottery tickets."

Nine Percent!? ~$820 for *Lottery Tickets* instead of
food, rent, clothing, power? Whoa!

--Winston

On 4/5/2012 8:59 AM, Winston wrote:
....

"A statistic released by PBS in 2008 shows that on average those
who earn an income of around $13,000 a year spend nearly 9% of
their income on lottery tickets."

Nine Percent!? ~$820 for *Lottery Tickets* instead of
food, rent, clothing, power? Whoa!

Nonsense. Just because PBS "released a statistic" doesn't make it so;
it merely means they managed to find a sample of one (or more likely,
"made it up" out of massaging some other set of statistics appropriately
that were carefully culled in the sampling bias.

BTW, if it's supposed to be 9% of 13k, that would be almost 1200, not 800.

I'm not much for gov't sponsored lotteries as a general practice (nor
particularly in favor of state-supported casino-gambling, either, for
that matter) but certainly there's no reason to think anyone should have
any expectation of winning w/ any certitude whereas a deliberate con
"investment" advisor is certainly deliberate fraud so there is no
comparison to be drawn. That some are excessively hopeful and deal
themselves into being prime targets for a con is a different
problem/symptom of human behavior/personality akin to that of lottery
purchasers but the expectations are not the same going in (nor are the
representations).

--

dpb wrote:
On 4/5/2012 8:59 AM, Winston wrote:
...

"A statistic released by PBS in 2008 shows that on average those
who earn an income of around $13,000 a year spend nearly 9% of
their income on lottery tickets."

Nine Percent!? ~$820 for *Lottery Tickets* instead of
food, rent, clothing, power? Whoa!

Nonsense. Just because PBS "released a statistic" doesn't make it so; it merely means they managed to find a sample of
one (or more likely, "made it up" out of massaging some other set of statistics appropriately that were carefully culled
in the sampling bias.

BTW, if it's supposed to be 9% of 13k, that would be almost 1200, not 800.

I assume they were purchasing tickets with 'after tax' money.
Was that not the case?

I'm not much for gov't sponsored lotteries as a general practice (nor particularly in favor of state-supported
casino-gambling, either, for that matter) but certainly there's no reason to think anyone should have any expectation of
winning w/ any certitude whereas a deliberate con "investment" advisor is certainly deliberate fraud so there is no
comparison to be drawn. That some are excessively hopeful and deal themselves into being prime targets for a con is a
different problem/symptom of human behavior/personality akin to that of lottery purchasers but the expectations are not
the same going in (nor are the representations).

A distinction without a difference IMHO.
In both cases we engineer the expectations of the vic... customer for maximum yield.

--Winston

On 4/5/2012 12:34 PM, Winston wrote:
dpb wrote:
....

BTW, if it's supposed to be 9% of 13k, that would be almost 1200, not
800.

I assume they were purchasing tickets with 'after tax' money.
Was that not the case?

Hell, at that level they're eligible for EITC and _getting_ more, not
paying (federal, anyway).

....

A distinction without a difference IMHO.
In both cases we engineer the expectations of the vic... customer for
maximum yield.

No victim in a lottery; willing customer. I'm not one to excuse
somebody for making a poor choice in accepting the consequences of the
action taken on own volition. (And, as noted below, goes to a certain
extent even to the fraud victim; how much there is dependent on just how
blatant the level of falsification is as compared to the promise.)

Definitely a victim (aka "mark") in an active scam/Ponzi. _MAJOR_
difference. Only mitigating factor afaiac in the scam on the side of
the perpetrator/lack of sympathy for the mark is that often "what's too
good to be true likely isn't" evidence is available if look for it and
are not swayed by hope for a bounty beyond that reasonably expected.

--

On 4/5/2012 1:34 PM, dpb wrote:
On 4/5/2012 12:34 PM, Winston wrote:
dpb wrote:
...

BTW, if it's supposed to be 9% of 13k, that would be almost 1200, not
800.

I assume they were purchasing tickets with 'after tax' money.
Was that not the case?

Hell, at that level they're eligible for EITC and _getting_ more, not
paying (federal, anyway).

...

A distinction without a difference IMHO.
In both cases we engineer the expectations of the vic... customer for
maximum yield.

No victim in a lottery; willing customer. I'm not one to excuse somebody
for making a poor choice in accepting the consequences of the action
taken on own volition. (And, as noted below, goes to a certain extent
even to the fraud victim; how much there is dependent on just how
blatant the level of falsification is as compared to the promise.)

Definitely a victim (aka "mark") in an active scam/Ponzi. _MAJOR_
difference. Only mitigating factor afaiac in the scam on the side of the
perpetrator/lack of sympathy for the mark is that often "what's too good
to be true likely isn't" evidence is available if look for it and are
not swayed by hope for a bounty beyond that reasonably expected.

--



Lotteries are a tax on poverty.

dpb wrote:

(...)

No victim in a lottery; willing customer. I'm not one to excuse somebody for making a poor choice in accepting the
consequences of the action taken on own volition. (And, as noted below, goes to a certain extent even to the fraud
victim; how much there is dependent on just how blatant the level of falsification is as compared to the promise.)

Definitely a victim (aka "mark") in an active scam/Ponzi. _MAJOR_ difference.

In the amount lost, yes. Our 13K customer is out ~$820 annually.
Some losers in other schemes lost millions each.

Fraud is fraud, though.

I find it a little scary that the folks who claim to be helping
pay for education, profit most when their customers are uneducated.
There isn't a conflict of interest here, but.....

Hey! Wait a Minute!

Only mitigating factor afaiac in the scam
on the side of the perpetrator/lack of sympathy for the mark is that often "what's too good to be true likely isn't"
evidence is available if look for it and are not swayed by hope for a bounty beyond that reasonably expected.

Sure! Madoff probably did no advertising himself at all.
The early customers did that for him and profited
handsomely, if they got out in time.

There is no escape for our $13K customer.
We addict him and her at an early age.

Remind you of cigarettes at all?
They were completely 'harmless' and 'non-addictive'
too.

--Winston-- Nothing wrong with dreaming of course.

dpb wrote:
On 4/5/2012 12:34 PM, Winston wrote:
dpb wrote:
...

BTW, if it's supposed to be 9% of 13k, that would be almost 1200, not
800.

I assume they were purchasing tickets with 'after tax' money.
Was that not the case?

Hell, at that level they're eligible for EITC and _getting_ more, not paying (federal, anyway).

Does EITC pay the Self-employment tax?

--Winston

On 4/5/2012 4:20 PM, Richard wrote:
....

Lotteries are a tax on poverty.

Only if they so choose.

Again, no sympathy here for self-inflicted consequences.

--

On 4/5/2012 4:50 PM, Winston wrote:
....

Fraud is fraud, though.

Where is the fraud, however, in the lottery? It's named "the lottery"
for a reason, after all.

....

Sure! Madoff probably did no advertising himself at all.
The early customers did that for him and profited
handsomely, if they got out in time.

Well, don't think that's so, either. He had everything required to make
it appear he was running an up-and-up trading firm including a full back
room that did nothing but generate false statements, prospectuses
(prospecti? ) for potential clients and and bogus filings for the
SEC. That's hardly inaction waiting for a dupe to hand over money with
full disclosure.

OTOH, the odds are out there on lotteries including on the national news
broadcast after broadcast when they're large and comparisons of the
likelihood of winning as compared to lightning strikes, etc., etc.,
etc., ... No fraud there. Not a good investment, but not fraudulent.

There is no escape for our $13K customer.

Utter nonsense.

We addict him and her at an early age.

No, it's all selected at will. All the rest is simply the mindset of
avoidance of personal responsibility and the creation of a victim-class
by do-gooders who think it's their responsibility to run the world.

Remind you of cigarettes at all?
They were completely 'harmless' and 'non-addictive'
too.
....

Nicotine is indeed, physically addicting and certainly a harmful product
often. However, it has a long history and like all knowledge what we
know now is far different than in Walter Raleigh's day. That there were
calculated attempts to hide some of these effects is certainly true and
that was highly unethical and some culpability is owed again there was
also a great deal of personal responsibility on the side of the smoker
that is not to be ignored. It certainly would have taken a complete
isolation from all medical news beginning even as early as the post
WW-II years to not have significant knowledge that tobacco had
deleterious effects. So, it's somewhat like Bernie's case--I have far
more sympathy for his "clients" than for the lottery ticket buyer
(absolutely none) but cannot hold them blameless for going ahead despite
the obvious attractions.

I am also now retiring from the thread having said all there is I have
to say.

--

dpb wrote:
On 4/5/2012 4:50 PM, Winston wrote:

(...)

Sure! Madoff probably did no advertising himself at all.
The early customers did that for him and profited
handsomely, if they got out in time.

Well, don't think that's so, either.

Here's one. Took me a couple minutes to locate though.

The Picowers, according to attorneys investigating Madoff's phony financial
empire, were part of the scheme for more than 20 years. They and their daughter,
Gabrielle, made more than $5 billion in fictitious profits, according to a
complaint that was filed as part of federal efforts to recover money for the
victims of Madoff's scheme

Five Billion Dollar profit for just one of Madoff's early investors.

Holey Underwear.

http://www.businessweek.com/election..._benefici.html

Search on 'Madoff beneficiaries' if you want more of the gory story.


He had everything required to make it appear he was running an up-and-up trading
firm including a full back room that did nothing but generate false statements, prospectuses (prospecti? ) for
potential clients and and bogus filings for the SEC. That's hardly inaction waiting for a dupe to hand over money with
full disclosure.

OTOH, the odds are out there on lotteries including on the national news broadcast after broadcast when they're large
and comparisons of the likelihood of winning as compared to lightning strikes, etc., etc., etc., ... No fraud there. Not
a good investment, but not fraudulent.

There is no escape for our $13K customer.

Utter nonsense.

Utter sense.

We addict him and her at an early age.

No, it's all selected at will. All the rest is simply the mindset of avoidance of personal responsibility and the
creation of a victim-class by do-gooders who think it's their responsibility to run the world.

?


(...)

I am also now retiring from the thread having said all there is I have to say.

As do I.

--Winston

On 4/5/2012 6:13 PM, Winston wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 4/5/2012 4:50 PM, Winston wrote:

(...)

Sure! Madoff probably did no advertising himself at all.
The early customers did that for him and profited
handsomely, if they got out in time.

Well, don't think that's so, either.

Here's one. Took me a couple minutes to locate though.

The Picowers, according to attorneys investigating Madoff's phony financial
empire, were part of the scheme for more than 20 years. They and their
daughter,...
....
Search on 'Madoff beneficiaries' if you want more of the gory story.

A correction--you misunderstood my comment--I didn't say some of the
early birds didn't get the worm nor that there weren't any "investors"
who clearly were more than that; I disagreed the Madoff didn't produce
the equivalent of advertising as demonstrated by the fact of the
operation of the office, etc., etc., etc., ...

....

--

dpb wrote:

On 4/5/2012 4:50 PM, Winston wrote:

Remind you of cigarettes at all?
They were completely 'harmless' and 'non-addictive'
too.
...

Nicotine is indeed, physically addicting and certainly a harmful product
often. However, it has a long history and like all knowledge what we
know now is far different than in Walter Raleigh's day. That there were
calculated attempts to hide some of these effects is certainly true and
that was highly unethical and some culpability is owed again there was
also a great deal of personal responsibility on the side of the smoker
that is not to be ignored. It certainly would have taken a complete
isolation from all medical news beginning even as early as the post
WW-II years to not have significant knowledge that tobacco had
deleterious effects.
I don't think anyone in recent history really thought smoking was good
for them. Not if they ever were near a regular smoker attempting to
clear his lungs in the morning.
So, it's somewhat like Bernie's case--I have far
more sympathy for his "clients" than for the lottery ticket buyer
(absolutely none) but cannot hold them blameless for going ahead despite
the obvious attractions.
???????
The went ahead BECAUSE of the obvious attractions didn't they.


jk

dpb wrote:
On 4/5/2012 6:13 PM, Winston wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 4/5/2012 4:50 PM, Winston wrote:

(...)

Sure! Madoff probably did no advertising himself at all.
The early customers did that for him and profited
handsomely, if they got out in time.

Well, don't think that's so, either.

Here's one. Took me a couple minutes to locate though.

The Picowers, according to attorneys investigating Madoff's phony financial
empire, were part of the scheme for more than 20 years. They and their
daughter,...
...
Search on 'Madoff beneficiaries' if you want more of the gory story.

A correction--you misunderstood my comment--

Me Sure! Madoff probably did no advertising himself at all.
Me The early customers did that for him and profited
Me handsomely, if they got out in time.

You Well, don't think that's so, either.

I didn't say some of the early birds didn't get the worm nor that there
weren't any "investors" who clearly were more than that;

You disagreed with both points. I accept that you
now indicate that you intended to disagree with the
first point but not the second. For future reference then:

"I disagree that Madoff did no advertising himself.
This link for example is a scan of an invitation he sent
me back in 1994. However, I do agree that his earliest
investors made serious cash if they got out in time."

We're both retired, remember?

--Winston

On 4/5/2012 5:14 PM, dpb wrote:
On 4/5/2012 4:20 PM, Richard wrote:
...

Lotteries are a tax on poverty.

Only if they so choose.

Again, no sympathy here for self-inflicted consequences.

--



When I see them buying lottery tickets I usually offer them a better deal.

Give me $5. I'll give you a dollar back.

Richard wrote:

(...)

When I see them buying lottery tickets I usually offer them a better deal.

Give me $5. I'll give you a dollar back.

It has better potential than "Friendly Winston's
Gently Used Lottery Tickets"!

--Winston