https://www.liquidpoker.net/


LP international Poland    Contact            Users: 286 Active, 1 Logged in - Time: 02:39

Spiritual Awakening

New to LiquidPoker? Register here for free!
Forum Index > Poker Blogs
  First 
  < 
  4 
  5 
  6 
  7 
  8 
 9 
  All 
k2o4   United States. Dec 08 2018 20:25. Posts 4803


  On December 08 2018 18:14 Loco wrote:
There is no evidence for it, it's not even testable, that's why Sheldrake is no longer a scientist. You just posit it out there because you haven't developed ways to think about how mental phenomena can have arisen from unconscious elements and processes. I should know because I have made the same claim on this site about a decade ago when I was a dual aspect theorist and I was shown to be wrong (not by anyone here but by further study).

You haven't begun to study these issues seriously. Complexity science and emergentism are rich territories that you have left unexplored. You're too busy taking (and selling) your presuppositions as truths because you have "proven them to yourself" through subjective experience and no one can argue with that. You lazily pigeonhole people into the category of skeptics and assume to be beyond them, unable to notice you dismiss things as much if not more than the staunch reductionist.

You rally behind people who have ideas, not theories. A theory is "a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that scientific tests should be able to provide empirical support for, or empirically contradict ("falsify'') it." It's not a matter of agreeing to disagree about some contentious matter, you're plainly wrong about this.



You dismiss sheldrake despite him having a theory and running experiments which can prove or disprove it. You dismiss real scientists doing real work cause of your bias. Here's some evidence for anyone who's interested, which I'm assuming will not be you or Baal or anyone else caught up in Skeptic Dogma.



You also continuously make inaccurate assumptions about my studies. During my psychology degree I did a very deep dive into these topics, while surrounded by fantastic scientists who I could go to for questions and discussion. None of them agreed with the theory I'm presenting today, so it wasn't some sorta circle jerk, it was them putting forth all of the arguments you're giving me today. The senior seminar I took on consciousness used a text book written by Susan Blackmore, where the only time stuff I'm talking about was brought up was in order to dismiss it. We covered Dennet, Chalmers, Ramachandran, Hume, Koch, Dawkins, Turing, Mezinger, Varela, and more. I've had a much more rigorous teaching of these concepts than you recognize, and you're not teaching me anything I haven't already learned from smarter people than you. Yes Loco, you are very intelligent, but I'm honestly not impressed as you just regurgitate dogmatic skeptic talking points while wearing your obvious bias on your sleeve without any self awareness of it.

About studying this seriously... I asked earlier what you meant by that, and you neglected to answer. Are you a research scientist working in a lab daily? Or a grad student getting a degree in a field related to our conversation? Or just an avid internet researcher? What did you study at university? What degrees do you hold? I'd love for you to clarify what your education is and why you qualify as someone who studies this seriously?

InnovativeYogis.comLast edit: 09/12/2018 01:24

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. Dec 09 2018 01:42. Posts 9634

Tbh I don't understand how it matters what his "qualification" in the study is. As if you need an academic environment to self-educate... He could've just built up his own social network and contacted different people throughout the course of his learning process, which as it seems is still ongoing. How does any of this matter? Asking that question, to begin with, means you are aiming to make an assumption based on a factor that has zero value...

I haven't seen the video u posted but i can see the thumbnail says stuff about near death experience.... Has the scientific field agreed upon those things actually existing? It would seem doubtfully feasible to make a good case on NDE... As a matter of fact proving that, would almost certainly prove the afterlife due to death experiences. I've been told stories of people losing their old parents to natural causes, except on their death bed they were claiming to see someone who has already passed, holding them by the hand and telling them that they should say goodbye and that its time to go now... Hollywood didn't make that shit up, they simply used stories from people. The means which modern science uses to verify their arguments could never verify such a case.


Btw, most of my posts in "deep truth" threads here are oriented towards finding ways to prepare for things we're unaware and unprepared for, thus shattering any paradigms (yeah Black Swan had an effect one me, guy wrote a good book, showed a problem, showed you how to avoid yourself of limiting your sight to the problem, never gave a solution to it ... understandably). I doubt I will find an "answer" to my search but the gathering of knowledge along the way is pretty worth. It does, however, start looking to me like we're all just "clicking numbers" in life and use the paradigms that work, until they crash and burn and everyone following them, along with them.

P.S. lmao Baal :D

 Last edit: 09/12/2018 02:04

Loco   Canada. Dec 09 2018 02:33. Posts 20963

He's not asking me those questions because they matter or in good faith, he's looking for an angle to try to gain more credibility and influence the people who are "consuming" the exchange. If people are not educated and don't have the ability to judge who is and who is not, they're more likely to pay attention to the messenger than the message. Like in any debate, it's not the one with pertinent knowledge who will most likely convince the crowd, it's the most charming and convincing person who will. In other words, it's a poorly disguised replacement for an appeal to authority, just like his nurse and doctor analogy that was made previously in the thread, where I'm the nurse and he's the doctor. Also, he figures that if I had significant credentials, I would have already used them "against him", so he loses nothing by doing it. (Though it's a wrong assumption.) It's also payback for the narcissistic wound he was inflicted (notice the very mature "you're not teaching me anything I don't already know'') because I told him he is basically way out of his depth. If he establishes himself as having more experience in academia, then it's "payback".

Appeals to authority are always all over the place from the people defending quacks. It's the irony of it all when they spend so much time pushing an anti-mainstream conspiracy theory. Only when it's convenient do they bring up that such and such has a degree, despite the fact that they aren't doing shit with it. Rupert Sheldrake hasn't published peer-reviewed research since the mid 1980s, but his fans will sooner or later tell you "He has a PhD from Cambridge, and what do YOU have???" and link to his garbage non-peer reviewed research from pseudoscientific journals. You have to do all the work for them to explain to them what is good science and what isn't, and they sure as hell won't be thankful once you do, they'll just move on to the next distraction.

Yes, I am an autodidact. My mentor is an autodidact, despite the fact that he holds 27 degrees (most of which are honoris causa). Personally, I sure as fuck am glad to not have spent thousands of dollars on a worthless degree, especially the kind where I would study consciousness from non-experts like Susan Blackmore (a crank parapsychologist turned "memetics expert''). She's not a well-respected scientist or philosopher of mind. To answer the last question, I qualify as someone who "studies this seriously" because I only study people who do (or have done) serious work, unlike you. I also am able to devote most of my time to it because I'm single, am not raising a child or running a business teaching yoga, so that helps.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 09/12/2018 03:04

k2o4   United States. Dec 09 2018 03:07. Posts 4803


  On December 09 2018 00:42 Spitfiree wrote:
Tbh I don't understand how it matters what his "qualification" in the study is. As if you need an academic environment to self-educate... He could've just built up his own social network and contacted different people throughout the course of his learning process, which as it seems is still ongoing. How does any of this matter? Asking that question, to begin with, means you are aiming to make an assumption based on a factor that has zero value...



He's saying he's the only one truly studying it seriously, so I'm curious why he thinks he qualifies as such. I know what I've done to qualify as someone seriously studying this topic and I've shared that info. If he's right and I'm not serious, it would be nice to know what I need to do to reach his level. EDIT - I see now that he says he's an autodidact, and while I do think self educating is respectable and can develop someone who is just as qualified as any credentialed individual (my stepfather is also an autodidact and I've seen him teaching PHD's lots of stuff), I don't believe his posts demonstrate that he deserves that status in this situation. I find his lectures on real science to be patronizing, and it's amusing to me that the person who has no scientific training feels qualified to lecture the one who has some. I look to the scientists who trained me to tell me whether I understand science, not Loco the self appointed expert who claims that in order to seriously study this topic, one must only study people who Loco deems to be serious. I'll pass on taking that path.

And Loco you're right, I'm not ok with the arrogant dismissals of dogmatic skeptics who claim to be protecting science, but are really just serving as religious zealots of scientific materialism.

Real skeptics are a joy to converse with and collaborate with. Dogmatic skeptics like Baal and Loco block advancement through prejudice and bias. Real skeptics work with people like Rupert Sheldrake and do research together. Dogmatic skeptics dismiss Rupert without bothering to examine his work, because their logic tells them that it's just another Bigfoot sighting so it's not worth the time. Dogmatic skeptics fail to realize that their logic all springs from a faulty premise, the premise of materialism. I'm all for skepticism, I think an open but skeptical mind is the best approach. I personally believe all sorts of "magical" shit is possible, but I examine each example skeptically cause I know it can be faked too. If you don't have the open mind, if you fall into the dogma, then no evidence will ever be enough because you'll never be able to see it, your bias will make you blind. Our resident know-it-alls, Baal and Loco, are great examples of this phenomenon.


  I haven't seen the video u posted but i can see the thumbnail says stuff about near death experience.... Has the scientific field agreed upon those things actually existing? It would seem doubtfully feasible to make a good case on NDE... As a matter of fact proving that, would almost certainly prove the afterlife due to death experiences. I've been told stories of people losing their old parents to natural causes, except on their death bed they were claiming to see someone who has already passed, holding them by the hand and telling them that they should say goodbye and that its time to go now... Hollywood didn't make that shit up, they simply used stories from people. The means which modern science uses to verify their arguments could never verify such a case.



Watch the video, it's got lots of info. He's one of the people who's done the most research on the topic at the University of Virginia. There's other researchers as well, but it all gets dismissed by the dogmatic skeptics out of hand. It's worth looking into near death experiences, out of body experiences, psychedelic experiences, and meditative experiences, if you want to get the full picture of this consciousness mystery.

And if you'd rather something shorter, here's another researcher:




  I doubt I will find an "answer" to my search but the gathering of knowledge along the way is pretty worth.



That's a nice attitude to have about the journey I wish you good luck on that search.

InnovativeYogis.comLast edit: 09/12/2018 03:31

Loco   Canada. Dec 09 2018 03:38. Posts 20963

"I look to the scientists who trained me to tell me whether I understand science"

You sure do. That's why you said that "none of them agreed with the theory I'm presenting today". Clearly they must have thought very highly of you as a student. You're using your opinion of me and the opinion of your previous professors of psychology (a field that typically has nothing to say about consciousness and paranormal research) to distract from the fact that you have little to no respect for the peer review process and testable hypotheses. I'm not sure I'm the one regurgitating things; you've repeated yourself over and over again about this anti-materialist narrative, "skeptics" and "dogma". Okay, I am very very naughty skeptic who is too closed-minded to pay attention to the overwhelming evidence in favor of supernaturalism (despite the fact that I score higher on the openness scale than everyone who participated in that "Big 5" thread we had a while ago ). We get it already.


  Real skeptics are a joy to converse with and collaborate with



Is that so? Seems like a weak no true Scotsman. Or maybe you think have a superpower that allows you to absolutely know who is biased and who isn't and prevents you from being biased? You wouldn't happen to have a conversation you've had with one of these people you could share with us? Maybe I could learn from it. If you don't have one, maybe you could find one between a well-respected scientist and skeptic and Rupert Sheldrake?


  Watch the video, it's got lots of info. He's one of the people who's done the most research on the topic at the University of Virginia.



It's worth noting that UoV is a State university, yet the State doesn't put money in this department, it's funded by donations. In other words, they haven't managed to come up with enough data to justify using tax payers' money for this. Considering how it would obviously revolutionize the world if the claims made by the spiritists are true, they shouldn't need that much in the way of interesting data in order to get the State to contribute (the massive payoff being worth the investment). So that should tell you something right away.

I've known about these guys for a while and I wouldn't say people should dismiss the data that they do have, of course, but after listening to some of their lectures a while back it became quite clear to me that there isn't much there and, to say the least, there are more pressing things to read about and do with one's finite life than be invested in their highly contentious work.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 09/12/2018 05:35

k2o4   United States. Dec 09 2018 05:21. Posts 4803


  On December 09 2018 02:38 Loco wrote:
"I look to the scientists who trained me to tell me whether I understand science"

You sure do. That's why you said that "none of them agreed with the theory I'm presenting today". Clearly they must have thought very highly of you as a student.



You're right, they did. That's why they gave me the most prestigious scholarship in the department, and asked me to be an officer of the psychology honors society. I'm still friends with many of them, and we chat about all sorts of science, from stuff we agree on to stuff we have different theories about. While they didn't agree with my theory when I presented it to them on campus, they didn't respond like you. They discussed it like scientists, with an open mind. They were capable of agreeing to disagree on points, and we both understood each others theory.



  You're using your opinion of me and the opinion of your previous professors of psychology (a field that typically has nothing to say about consciousness and paranormal research)



Your arrogance doesn't disguise your ignorance, especially when you keep dropping inaccurate statements like this. If you really think that psychology has nothing to say about consciousness, then your mentor has done an even poorer job of educating you than I originally thought. I don't see much reason to continue on when you're so far off.


 
Show nested quote +



You wouldn't happen to have a conversation you've had with one of these people you could share with us? Maybe I could learn from it. If you don't have one, maybe you could find one between a well-respected scientist and skeptic and Rupert Sheldrake?.


They all have happened in person, not online, so sorry, can't help ya. As for Sheldrake, he has collaborated with Chris French.

InnovativeYogis.com 

Loco   Canada. Dec 09 2018 05:54. Posts 20963

I qualified my statement with 'typically', it's a broad field. What I should have said is that it doesn't give us "big picture" knowledge on its own, it certainly doesn't have the tools to deal with the questions we have been concerned with here, like what consciousness is and how it emerges, it concerns itself mainly with "how" it is and it's compartmentalized with very narrow and specific areas of study. My brother is finishing his BA right now, studying autism, my mother has a Master's where she studied child development, and they both admit they don't know anything about these consciousness topics (outside of "how consciousness is like" for the child or the autistic person).

Sounds like you really killed it in school, like someone who published well-reviewed work. Can you make that work public by any chance? I'm surprised to find out that it's possible to get such a scholarship and yet still don't know the difference between a theory and an hypothesis or conjecture, among other rather basic things.

"Your arrogance doesn't disguise your ignorance"

Hey, I'm not the one with the view that most of the world's scientists are dogmatic and closed-minded and that can be the only explanation as to why they are throwing out "overwhelming evidence" that homunculi are real and we can speak to the dead and read people's thoughts. I can be arrogant but I don't think there's anything I can say that would ever match that level of self-important arrogance.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 09/12/2018 06:19

k2o4   United States. Dec 09 2018 06:41. Posts 4803

I think I see your arrogance so clearly cause I share the same fault. And when my arrogance bumps up against someone else's, we tend to keep escalating till things turn uncivil. My apologies for the role I played in that.

Our perspectives have both been presented, and our opinions of each other have been aired. I'm still grateful for your engagement, I've definitely learned from it. Good luck on your continued serious study.

InnovativeYogis.comLast edit: 09/12/2018 06:58

Loco   Canada. Dec 09 2018 08:26. Posts 20963

I find that I'm more stubborn than arrogant. Arrogance is difficult because I've been shown to have made errors and to have deceived myself too many times in the past, and I have read enough about other human beings' errors and illusions that I've had to learn to be very careful with what I believe and to constantly re-evaluate myself. There's no simple line between lucidity and megalomania we can be conscious of, it's easy to go from one to the other. I open myself to be critiqued as much as possible to guard against it, the issue there is I tend to stubbornly keep myself in such a position even though the criticism is poor and I don't learn anything new. That can get frustrating. If there's one thing I want more than anything else it is to not be deceived or manipulated; and I don't enjoy seeing people deceiving themselves or others and my attitude reflects that.

I've not said much about my views (it wouldn't have rewarding enough to do so), I mostly briefly wrote about my perspective of your perspective or the way the discussions are framed in a problematic way from the beginning in the material you shared (which I think is the main reason that the good parts of your concerns, which I share, are done a disservice to). Grand narratives that neatly explain the world and its conflicts and that point towards grand outcomes if they are acknowledged are all too easy to fall into and I wish people saw it more often. It's a big problem because it's Manichean in nature, it creates an "us versus them" mentality, even though it cloaks itself into something other-concerning. But yes, that's enough of all that.

I guess to close up, let me state that I'm certainly not the closed person you think I am. My mentor Edgar Morin has a saying: "to reject nothing but rejection" (which bears resemblance to the concept of the "spirit of the valley" in Taoism). Openness-- like the way the valley is open to different streams to sustain itself-- is central to my life and syncretism, as much when it comes to science and philosophy as when it comes to art. I study everything that can better inform me and I don't specialize in anything in particular, which is the big reason why I'm not in academia, because compartmentalization and specialization is a prison I don't want to be in (and this situation exists in the name of profit, not human flourishing).

I did watch some talks on NDEs/past lives research in the past and I added "Irreducible Mind" to my to-read list earlier this year. The type of skeptic you are railing against and which you lump me in with would have had zero interest in them. I'm saying this to you not to attempt to prove that I am this way to you, but as a warning to you against generalizing and labeling people that you don't know well because it's convenient to do so.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 09/12/2018 08:55

k2o4   United States. Dec 09 2018 08:56. Posts 4803


  On December 09 2018 07:26 Loco wrote:
If there's one thing I want more than anything else it is to not be deceived or manipulated; and I don't enjoy seeing people deceiving themselves or others and my attitude reflects that.



I see that in you, and I do find it to be an honorable motivation to help others by clearing away deceptions. At one point in my life I felt very strongly that I had to guard against being deceived or manipulated, so I think I have some idea of where you're coming from, though I don't claim to understand your experience. For me, the walls I'd put up to to protect me ended up trapping me. I feel a lot better after addressing that fear and bringing the walls down. Turns out that surrender is a huge, scary part of the journey. At least it is for me.


  My mentor Edgar Morin has a saying: "to reject nothing but rejection" (which bears resemblance to the concept of the "spirit of the valley" in Taoism). Openness-- like the way the valley is open to different streams to sustain itself-- is central to my life and syncretism, as much when it comes to science and philosophy as when it comes to art. I study everything that can better inform me and I don't specialize in anything in particular, which is the big reason why I'm not in academia, because compartmentalization and specialization is a prison I don't want to be in (and this situation exists in the name of profit, not human flourishing).



Lovely closing, some good wisdom, aspirations, and insights which I agree with. It's nice to see another on point Loco post, you occasionally do hit it out of the park. I truly meant it when I said good luck on the serious studies, cause I agree that's what you're doing.


  I'm saying this to you not to attempt to prove that I am this way to you, but as a warning to you against generalizing and labeling people that you don't know well because it's convenient to do so.



A lesson we should both keep in our minds

Fare well for now and blessings on your path, I'm sure you'll be of service to many people as you walk it.

InnovativeYogis.comLast edit: 09/12/2018 09:28

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. Dec 09 2018 19:54. Posts 9634


Loco   Canada. Dec 09 2018 22:31. Posts 20963


  On December 09 2018 07:56 k2o4 wrote:


I see that in you, and I do find it to be an honorable motivation to help others by clearing away deceptions. At one point in my life I felt very strongly that I had to guard against being deceived or manipulated, so I think I have some idea of where you're coming from, though I don't claim to understand your experience. For me, the walls I'd put up to to protect me ended up trapping me. I feel a lot better after addressing that fear and bringing the walls down. Turns out that surrender is a huge, scary part of the journey. At least it is for me.



That reminds me of a Woody Allen video:

+ Show Spoiler +



Yeah, my ex best friend basically told me the same thing you just did. My ex best friend also spent all of his poker earnings on alternative medicine devices and treatments and supplements and wasn't left better for it. I realized quickly once I had begun on that road a decade ago that not having one's guard up is not a recipe for success in this world. But hey, you might have another look on it (or a bigger wallet so that it doesn't affect you).


  On December 05 2018 04:42 k2o4 wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 02 2018 14:06 napalm wrote:
or there is this cool down to earth Indian girl who has her "3rd eye" opened since birth and she perceives subtler things, you can totally tell that to her its not a big deal, its normal to her and she sees some cool stuff that others don't see



I mean it doesn't require too much intuition and common sense to see that these things are real and there is no deception involved here




  I'm curious to hear the explanation, and I say that as a magician who has performed in many venues and knows how to fake this stuff. I'd still like to get her in a lab and control all the variables to completely prove she's not a fake, but from what I can gather online I can't explain it without bringing in some sorta high tech equipment you'd see on Agents of SHIELD.



This to me is an example of your openness easily allowing for deception. You assumed she was not wearing an ear piece even though we never see both of her ears. What we do see on the other hand is that she appears to be replacing an earphone at 6:50 when they quickly cut the video. Put it at 0.25 speed and at 6:48 and you can clearly see that she is raising her index finger which suggests she is about to push on something small, like you'd expect if an earphone had moved in her ear canal and could fall off.

We also don't see her actually draw the tree, she hides herself drawing with her hand until the very end. We don't actually directly see a single line being drawn, yet this is supposed to be "obvious evidence". Half the time is spent on the guy's impressed face while we get to assume she is drawing. None of this is happening in real time with a camera that is filming non-stop which allows the most basic tricks to be possible. It would be hard to stage something less convincing than this.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 09/12/2018 23:02

Spitfiree   Bulgaria. Dec 10 2018 00:01. Posts 9634

the cool thing about the internet is that we all get to communicate with each other
the second cool thing about it is that most people on the internet are skeptical assholes and are not shy to voice their opinion

===> he could've just read the comments and been given about 7 different examples of how she would cheat this

 Last edit: 10/12/2018 00:02

Loco   Canada. Dec 10 2018 02:32. Posts 20963

We get to write words directed to each other, but not always communicate. Communication implies reciprocity and the ability to understand the other person, which we seldom do for many reasons.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 10/12/2018 02:33

lebowski   Greece. Dec 10 2018 12:22. Posts 9205

sweet thread, got some book recommendations

new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man... 

k2o4   United States. Dec 10 2018 23:09. Posts 4803

For anyone interested in examining for themselves, these are the better videos capturing this phenomenon of seeing without your eyes. Unfortunately the video creator still hasn't presented a fully unedited properly shot sequence to address all possible skeptical objections, and I've reached out to him to encourage him to do so (and offered help to do it). But he has progressively gotten better, and is learning to address many of the concerns like earpieces, whether the blindfolds are legit, etc. He wasn't educated on how to apply the skeptics lens while filming when he first started. Now he's getting better at it.





Oh and Loco, letting the walls come down is not the same thing as dropping your discernment. It's possible to have both at the same time, discernment without the walls of fear. It sounds like your friend dropped his discernment.

InnovativeYogis.comLast edit: 10/12/2018 23:17

Mortensen8   Chad. Dec 11 2018 14:06. Posts 1841


  On December 05 2018 20:57 Baalim wrote:
I never thought stupidity ran this deep in this forum, holy shit.

About the video with the girl, you are presented with two choices:

A) Everything we know about science is wrong, magic is real and this girl posseses super powers

B) The host is lying and the girl has been told beforehand what the paper says (or other ways to cheat this)

And you fucking chose A... no further investigation, magic is real.


You absolute morons, there are no kinder words to describe what is going on





Shut up Baal it's just that they are doing cuck magic. Soon you will actually be a dissident on things I'm telling you the world is getting weirder everyday and you are clinging on to 19th century ideals much like the christians muslims jews there will come a paradigm shift going out of the piscean age that will shock everyone probably but prepare for 100 years of conflict while we are in transition. *not talking about video didn't watch.

Rear naked wokeLast edit: 11/12/2018 14:18

tutz   Brasil. Dec 11 2018 20:21. Posts 2140


  On December 11 2018 13:06 Mortensen8 wrote:
Show nested quote +





Shut up Baal it's just that they are doing cuck magic. Soon you will actually be a dissident on things I'm telling you the world is getting weirder everyday and you are clinging on to 19th century ideals much like the christians muslims jews there will come a paradigm shift going out of the piscean age that will shock everyone probably but prepare for 100 years of conflict while we are in transition. *not talking about video didn't watch.


LOL

I'm not gonna lie this is hilarious, specially the pic


PoorUser    United States. Dec 15 2018 09:11. Posts 7471


  On December 06 2018 05:52 Stroggoz wrote:
Show nested quote +



what area of science? im also trying to break into science.


clinical psych though ive spent most of my last two years working in experimental cognitive psych labs.

Gambler Emeritus 

hiems   United States. Dec 17 2018 13:33. Posts 2979

I beat Loco!!! [img]https://i.imgur.com/wkwWj2d.png[/img]Last edit: 17/12/2018 13:35

 
  First 
  < 
  4 
  5 
  6 
  7 
  8 
 9 
  All 



Poker Streams

















Copyright © 2024. LiquidPoker.net All Rights Reserved
Contact Advertise Sitemap