The plight against horse players contineuces

[Songofthesword]

how do you think you feel after you wagered on life at ten, and you hear all this, and you watch a horse walk in the back of the pack. she was 3 to 1. she took ALOT of money. ALOT

you not only have to worry about the safety of the horse, but the integrity of the betting. they ran a horse that they knew was going to run up the track. this is pathetic

i didn't wager. i have no interest. but that's fvcked up. very.


and vic, you somewhat mocked me about a month ago.. it's situations like this, why i NEVER EVER EVER EVER make a wager, until i can see a detailed post parade. My money is still in my pocket.

[EquineAnne]

how do you think you feel after you wagered on life at ten, and you hear all this, and you watch a horse walk in the back of the pack. she was 3 to 1. she took ALOT of money. ALOT

you not only have to worry about the saftey of the horse, but the intergerty of the betting. they ran a horse that they knew was going to run up the track. this is pathetic

i didn't wager. i have no interest. but that's fvcked up. very.


and vic, you somewhat mocked me about a month ago.. it's situations like this, why i NEVER EVER EVER EVER make a wager, until i can see a detailed post parade. my money is still in my pocket.

What do YOU think should have happened?

[dustino140]

I'm disappointed in Velazquez. He told ESPN she wasn't right, and I think that alone should be good enough for a scratch. Not that he told ESPN, but because he knew she wasn't right. Actually anybody watching the warmup knew she wasn't right.

And I believe contineuces is a new low ;-)

[Songofthesword]

What do YOU think should have happened?
What every logical person thinks should have happened, she should have been scratched.

Duh.

Excuse the spelling in the title, I noticed it after I posted and I can't change it. Lol, I was drunk 3 hours ago. That should tell you where I am about now lol

[I Run For Fun]

That must be a new kind of Crystal Lite you be drinking, Sots. Lol.

[BARNFOUR]

how do you think you feel after you wagered on life at ten, and you hear all this, and you watch a horse walk in the back of the pack. she was 3 to 1. she took ALOT of money. ALOT

you not only have to worry about the safety of the horse, but the integrity of the betting. they ran a horse that they knew was going to run up the track. this is pathetic

i didn't wager. i have no interest. but that's fvcked up. very.


and vic, you somewhat mocked me about a month ago.. it's situations like this, why i NEVER EVER EVER EVER make a wager, until i can see a detailed post parade. My money is still in my pocket.

I agree 100% SoTS.And I too never bet until I see my horses warming up on the track.I had bet Life At Ten with my buddy who works in the press box at Aqueduct and canceled my bet two minutes before post.If I hadn't been able to cancel it I would be really pissed.

This is a real black eye for the sport.If the state Vet didn't attempt to scratch her,Johnny should have insisted they scratch.To me it looked like she was tying up walking back after the race.

[Songofthesword]

That must be a new kind of Crystal Lite you be drinking, Sots. Lol.
A friend surprised me with a bottle of rittenhouse rye. i just had to. Good stuff

[Songofthesword]

I agree 100% SoTS.And I too never bet until I see my horses warming up on the track.I had bet Life At Ten with my buddy who works in the press box at Aqueduct and canceled my bet two minutes before post.If I hadn't been able to cancel it I would be really pissed.

This is a real black eye for the sport.If the state Vet didn't attempt to scratch her,Johnny should have insisted they scratch.To me it looked like she was tying up walking back after the race.
Another reason why I never use a teller even at the rack,

hypothetically even if I did make a wager before seeing her on the track, in xpressbet i can cancel the wager up to post time.

[Horse's Rear]

Actually anybody watching the warmup knew she wasn't right.

I think that that's the key. That's what the vet is supposed to be there for. They pretty clearly wanted to duck what was a no-win decision: they have owners who have done a lot to get to this point and want the filly to race, and they have bettors who have a right to be protected. They ducked when they should have talked to Velazquez coming to the gate, and scratched her.

I can understand JV not trying to get her out of the race, because he has to deal with the connections, but the vet should have intervened; that's what he's there for.

[Skip Away]

It's obviously been one hell of a day and I feel like Charlie Murphy should be narrating it with the ghost of Rick James.

[Slewbopper]

I initially played a $0.10 - 5 horse super ($12) that included LAT. Cancelled it when JV started talking to ESPN. I do agree the folks at the track who had no idea of what was going on got screwed. There is no way in hell you can get to a window to cancel a bet with 50 to 60,000 folks there. Sometimes there are advantages to sitting at home with the PC and TV.

The horse should have been scratched. I don't think JV did anything wrong. Maybe the vet was lax.

Strange day of racing

[Noble]

It is probably why I don't wager the ponies too much anymore. We study and jabber about speed figures for months on end for these big race days, only to get wiped out clean when the time comes. Imagine all this time of discussing and we still end up being at least 65% WRONG with our predictions?

I'll stick to blackjack, online poker, and putting my money on black or red in roulette. Besides, if gambling on horse racing is too generous to me, I will get hooked and just end up losing it all. I don't look to make a fortune and just want to relax and have some fun with it now. I will still follow races like the Ky Derby and BCC because I do love the atmosphere and the horses, but the sport really is a sucker's bet for gamblers as a whole. The great part on gambling horse races is your money can last throughout the afternoon like pai gow. Longer playtime than the one-armed bandit known as slots. But it really is a sucker's game. You can't beat a 1,000+ animal and they can't talk to you if they are feeling good or not. Rather bet on boxing fights where win % is far greater. Only deal with two options. They can fix fights, but it isn't like horse racing doesn't have its share of cheaters as well.

[dustino140]

I think that that's the key. That's what the vet is supposed to be there for. They pretty clearly wanted to duck what was a no-win decision: they have owners who have done a lot to get to this point and want the filly to race, and they have bettors who have a right to be protected. They ducked when they should have talked to Velazquez coming to the gate, and scratched her.

I can understand JV not trying to get her out of the race, because he has to deal with the connections, but the vet should have intervened; that's what he's there for.

It's a tough instance to point blame, and ultimately I think all parties share it equally. Yes, the vets NEEDED to do more. But Velazquez told an entire ESPN audience and it didn't appear that he made an issue of it amongst the vets on track. Dealing with the connections after being a gate scratch is hardly easy (I'd assume), especially in a race of this caliber, but I don't think dealing with them right now is much easier. The owner of this filly would be extremely justified in thinking that the people who are paid good money to take care of her didn't do their job, either.

[Songofthesword]

Oh I don't blame JV at all. Actually tip my hat he did the best he could, given the circumstances.

I've just learned over the years, numbers, figures, pace scenario aside, can all go out the window in seconds when you just see something in the flesh that looks out of wack, like that. which is why I refuse to make a wager until i get a very very good look, if I lose a wager, let it be becuase I suck lol. I need all the help I can get in the first place.


If you were on the track and you wagered on LAT, I agree with slew, you got abused.

[dustino140]

Oh I don't blame JV at all. Actually tip my hat he did the best he could, given the circumstances.

I've just learned over the years, numbers, figures, pace scenario aside, can all go out the window in seconds when you just see something in the flesh that looks out of wack, like that. which is why I refuse to make a wager until i get a very very good look, if I lose a wager, let it be becuase I suck lol. I need all the help I can get in the first place.


If you were on the track and you wagered on LAT, I agree with slew, you got abused.

He sat on the horse before the race and told a national television audience that she wasn't right, but didn't appear to make a deal of it to anybody with the track. I'm not sure how you can condemn that behavior.

[MonmouthGuy]

If Johnny V had been as honest with the Vet as he was with the ESPN audience, I think they would have scratched her.

The rail was extremely dead---unfairly so, which is another way horseplayers got screwed---although I had a good day.

[Songofthesword]

He sat on the horse before the race and told a national television audience that she wasn't right, but didn't appear to make a deal of it to anybody with the track. I'm not sure how you can condemn that behavior. Because I'm being realistic.

pletcher accounts for somewhere between 60 and 75% of all his mounts, his derby horses, his bc horses, his livelihood. I would have done the same thing. let her go and give it less than a half ... effort, and pull up. that's all he can REALISTICALLY do.

we saw with happened with maker and gogo 2 weeks ago.

it's the VET job to not put him in that position to have to do something.

[Slewbopper]

He sat on the horse before the race and told a national television audience that she wasn't right, but didn't appear to make a deal of it to anybody with the track. I'm not sure how you can condemn that behavior.

JV is the lowman on the totem pole. I thought he tried to convey that his horse was not right. The Robot said she was lethargic before the race. He is more to fault than JV. JV was certainly sending out a signal to ESPN that he thought the horse was not right. Somebody was not listening.

[dustino140]

Because I'm being realistic.

pletcher accounts for somewhere between 60 and 75% of all his mounts, his derby horses, his bc horses, his livelihood. I would have done the same thing. let her go and give it less than a half ... effort, and pull up. that's all he can REALISTICALLY do.

we saw with happened with maker and gogo 2 weeks ago.

it's the VET job to not put him in that position to have to do something.

And Pletcher came out and said that she didn't look herself in the paddock, didn't warm up well, and should have been a scratch. And what we saw here was, unfortunately the best case scenario. Just because nothing catastrophic happened, doesn't condemn how it was handled by the rider.

[dustino140]

JV is the lowman on the totem pole. I thought he tried to convey that his horse was not right. The Robot said she was lethargic before the race. He is more to fault than JV. JV was certainly sending out a signal to ESPN that he thought the horse was not right. Somebody was not listening.

I'm not sure the 'rules' of scratching, but what's an easier way to scratch - for Pletcher to essentially call it in from the grandstand/paddock, or for the rider to go to a vet and inform him/her that she's not at all right?

[Songofthesword]

And Pletcher came out and said that she didn't look herself in the paddock, didn't warm up well, and should have been a scratch. And what we saw here was, unfortunately the best case scenario. Just because nothing catastrophic happened, doesn't condemn how it was handled by the rider.
I dont' get your reasoning.

I blame, really the vet. I think enough of pletch to think, he's not going to send out a screwed up horse.

JV is not going to call out his pletcher, or even take the chance of it. it's not worth the risk, even if they are on the same page afterwards.


but that's why we have vets. Pletcher neither JV should be put in that situation anyway, that's the vets job. they dont' do anything but come on TV and tell us why they put horses down. that's all I see vets do.


I think there can be more aftermath to this one than people think. When everyone, the trainer, the jockey, the nation sees a screwed up horse goes in the gate and nothing is done, something isn't right and has to be done.

[dustino140]

I dont' get your reasoning.

I blame, really the vet. I think enough of pletch to think, he's not going to send out a screwed up horse.

JV is not going to call out his pletcher, or even take the chance of it. it's not worth the risk, even if they are on the same page afterwards.


but that's why we have vets. Pletcher neither JV should be put in that situation anyway, that's the vets job. they dont' do anything but come on TV and tell us why they put horses down. that's all I see vets do.


I think there can be more aftermath to this one than people think. When everyone, the trainer, the jockey, the nation sees a screwed up horse goes in the gate and nothing is done, something isn't right and has to be done.

My logic is that Velazquez has sat on this horse on a regular basis. He knows how she feels, how she's supposed to feel, etc. The vets, on the other hand, have never really seen Life At Ten, and while she didn't appear to look a horse that was herself, to them, maybe that's just 'normal' for her. Who knows what they were thinking? But had Velazquez gone to one of them and said that she's not right, I'd assume the horse gets scratched. I'm not saying that the vets didn't screw up, but I'm not sure it's their job to make the decision without the rider's input, either.

I just don't think that a vet should essentially force a scratch without Velazquez's input, just for Velazquez to save face with Pletcher. And like I said, just because nothing "bad" happened, doesn't make it right, per se.

[Songofthesword]

I just assumed, that if he told espn that the horse isn't right, obviously the vet knew it.

My thing is.... if I can see it, and it's not my JOB to look at every horse.. I mean, come on. This is his JOB. If Joe the horse player at home can look at a horse and cancel his wager becuase of what he sees, I would think that the persons job it is to make sure all horses are race fit, at least, take a freaking glance at the horse lol.

in other words, he should nto have to go to the vet. The vet should have noticed. It's his job to notice. Heck I made teh comment in the thread that some horses looked like utter crap, that's mainly who I was talking about. If I can spot it, come on

[Horse's Rear]

It's a tough instance to point blame, and ultimately I think all parties share it equally. Yes, the vets NEEDED to do more. But Velazquez told an entire ESPN audience and it didn't appear that he made an issue of it amongst the vets on track. Dealing with the connections after being a gate scratch is hardly easy (I'd assume), especially in a race of this caliber, but I don't think dealing with them right now is much easier. The owner of this filly would be extremely justified in thinking that the people who are paid good money to take care of her didn't do their job, either.

Clearly, both the jockey and the trainer had serious questions about the horse's fitness before the race, and neither were trying to hide anything.

Both, however, have obligations to the owners first and NO inherent obligation to the bettors.

That's why the vets are out there. They are supposed to have the interests of the bettors in mind with NO inherent obligation to the owners.

The responsibility here goes back to the vets and the racing commission. And there ought to be a LOT of heat on Bramlage, who clearly knew what had been said to the national audience and was not telling the vet at the gate that he needed to talk to the jockey. There is no excuse for that. Pretty clearly, a vet scratch would not have disturbed JV at all (he effectively scratched the horse himself) and it doesn't seem like it would have bothered Pletcher, either.

This is black eye for Kentucky.

[Songofthesword]

Clearly, both the jockey and the trainer had serious questions about the horse's fitness before the race, and neither were trying to hide anything.

Both, however, have obligations to the owners first and NO inherent obligation to the bettors.

That's why the vets are out there. They are supposed to have the interests of the bettors in mind with NO inherent obligation to the owners.

The responsibility here goes back to the vets and the racing commission. And there ought to be a LOT of heat on Bramlage, who clearly knew what had been said to the national audience and was not telling the vet at the gate that he needed to talk to the jockey. There is no excuse for that. Pretty clearly, a vet scratch would not have disturbed JV at all (he effectively scratched the horse himself) and it doesn't seem like it would have bothered Pletcher, either.

This is black eye for Kentucky.
I agree. Although I will say that the jockey owes the bettor his best effort. But given the circumstances I don't have a problem with what happened even if I had money on him, I've lost money in worse situations. But the vet, the vet has to look out for the integrity of the race. that is his job.


I'll bring something else up.

Not too long ago, when Super saver went through his whole ordeal it was Bramlage that gave the he will be back to form quote in the bloodhorse (wrong) for one of pletchers horses. He way of looking after certain interests.

Could be nothing. Probably is something. Could be something.

[Secretariat Forever]

Another reason why I never use a teller even at the rack,

hypothetically even if I did make a wager before seeing her on the track, in xpressbet i can cancel the wager up to post time.



hmmm alcohol lots of alcohol..might be a good choice to calm my nerves tomorrow.


wait, or a good way to completely puke if it doesn't calm my nerves.

[Horsebagger]

Clearly, both the jockey and the trainer had serious questions about the horse's fitness before the race, and neither were trying to hide anything.

Both, however, have obligations to the owners first and NO inherent obligation to the bettors.

That's why the vets are out there. They are supposed to have the interests of the bettors in mind with NO inherent obligation to the owners.

The responsibility here goes back to the vets and the racing commission. And there ought to be a LOT of heat on Bramlage, who clearly knew what had been said to the national audience and was not telling the vet at the gate that he needed to talk to the jockey. There is no excuse for that. Pretty clearly, a vet scratch would not have disturbed JV at all (he effectively scratched the horse himself) and it doesn't seem like it would have bothered Pletcher, either.

This is black eye for Kentucky.


Perfectly said.

[dustino140]

Clearly, both the jockey and the trainer had serious questions about the horse's fitness before the race, and neither were trying to hide anything.

Both, however, have obligations to the owners first and NO inherent obligation to the bettors.

That's why the vets are out there. They are supposed to have the interests of the bettors in mind with NO inherent obligation to the owners.

The responsibility here goes back to the vets and the racing commission. And there ought to be a LOT of heat on Bramlage, who clearly knew what had been said to the national audience and was not telling the vet at the gate that he needed to talk to the jockey. There is no excuse for that. Pretty clearly, a vet scratch would not have disturbed JV at all (he effectively scratched the horse himself) and it doesn't seem like it would have bothered Pletcher, either.

This is black eye for Kentucky.

And yet neither of them pursued it. And if their only obligation is to the owner, wouldn't you say that it was in the owner's best interest to not have their million dollar investment risking itself in a race situation when it clearly wasn't 'right'? Because I don't understand how it's in the horse/owners best interest to enter it in the starting gate when things obviously aren't right with the horse.

And if a jockey has no inherent obligation to a bettor, why is it that riders have been suspended and/or fined for not riding out a mount to the wire? Not saying it's the same instance, but it's not an entirely true statement, either.

And regardless who is to blame, it doesn't matter - she should have never been in this race, and I feel bad for anybody who placed a bet and was unavailable to receive the news that was being reported on television or what we apparent on the track.

[Horse's Rear]

And yet neither of them pursued it.

And if a jockey has no inherent obligation to a bettor, why is it that riders have been suspended and/or fined for not riding out a mount to the wire? Not saying it's the same instance, but it's not an entirely true statement, either.
Because of the aforementioned inherent obligation to the owner--which in the instance you describe, coincides with the bettors' interest--but in this case contradicts it.

The jockey rides for the owner, not the bettor. Many stories revolve around that simple fact.

[dustino140]

Because of the aforementioned inherent obligation to the owner--which in the instance you describe, coincides with the bettors' interest--but in this case contradicts it.

The jockey rides for the owner, not the bettor. Many stories revolve around that simple fact.

Honestly, who gives a damn? We're in agreement in regard to the fact that the filly shouldn't have run in this race. Awesome. Yet you have this inherent hard-on in which you have to be right, and you can't not fight something. Kudos, but it's not worth drawing out a fight about something completely insignificant in the long-run. Neither you, nor I, can go back and change anything, nor do we have any say in whether or not anything happens to anybody who allowed the horse to run.

[The Tin Man]

I do agree the folks at the track who had no idea of what was going on got screwed.

This was ME ... I was at the track and I had NO idea there was anything up with her. :sad:

[Dave in TJMex]

Clearly, both the jockey and the trainer had serious questions about the horse's fitness before the race, and neither were trying to hide anything.

Both, however, have obligations to the owners first and NO inherent obligation to the bettors.

That's why the vets are out there. They are supposed to have the interests of the bettors in mind with NO inherent obligation to the owners.

The responsibility here goes back to the vets and the racing commission. And there ought to be a LOT of heat on Bramlage, who clearly knew what had been said to the national audience and was not telling the vet at the gate that he needed to talk to the jockey. There is no excuse for that. Pretty clearly, a vet scratch would not have disturbed JV at all (he effectively scratched the horse himself) and it doesn't seem like it would have bothered Pletcher, either.

This is black eye for Kentucky.

Nicely stated, HR.

You are right. JV was looking for a way to keep first call on Pletcher's horses without hurting the horse or getting injured or killed if the horse suddenly collapsed or broke down.

Vic in Chicago correctly stated (in a PM exchange with me) that ultimately, JV had a duty to tell the vet on the track what he had told ESPN. Vic in Chicago says that had JV done this, the vet likely would have scratched Life At Ten. At the very least, the vet would have taken a very long look at LAT, maybe had JV jog the horse so he could see how the horse looked.

I agree with Vic in Chicago. JV was wrong to not take it upon himself to alert the on-track vet (if, in fact, he did not do so), and tell him what he was telling a national tv audience.

But I also agree with HR. If Dr. Bramlege had access to tv and heard what JV was telling ESPN, he had a duty to communicate somehow with the on-track vet.

[Happy Endings]

This is from the Bloodhorse article on the race:


“That’s a tough position for Johnny to be in. He asked the vets to look at her. It’s unfortunate because of all the horses we brought over here today none were doing better than her. At the last minute, something went wrong."
Dr. Larry Bramlage, on-call veterinarian for the American Association of Equine Practitioners, said in a statement that the 5-year-old mare was examined prior to entering the starting gate by a team of three vets that "did not observe any physical problems.
"She was examined again after the race and again no physical problems were observed. A more in-depth examination will be conducted this evening and tomorrow," the statment read.


This suggests to me that the trainer and jockey did everything they could. The responsibility seems to lie with the vets.

[Hermes]

Only the vets could scratch her at that point. Not Pletcher or JV. They could have leaned more on the vet or called the stewards. But seems like trainer and jock were clearly concerned if they were chatting away with ESPN about it? Vets blew it. Short of refusing to ride, JV couldn't get her scratched and that would have been just as large a controversy, and blown up tickets, too.

Not that I think she should have raced due to impact on integrity of wagering and the health of the horse.

[terpsichorist]

Only the vets could scratch her at that point. Not Pletcher or JV. They could have leaned more on the vet or called the stewards. But seems like trainer and jock were clearly concerned if they were chatting away with ESPN about it? Vets blew it. Short of refusing to ride, JV couldn't get her scratched and that would have been just as large a controversy, and blown up tickets, too.

Not that I think she should have raced due to impact on integrity of wagering and the health of the horse.

I agree with your post and you are correct about who can make the late scratch.
JV needs to explain though , why when he felt compelled to state his concerns regarding
LAT's well being didn't he get his sorry butt off her and refuse to ride.
Perhaps LAT would then have gotten perhaps a little attention and palpation from the Vet. Not letting the Vet off though , there needs to be some responsibility for the lack
of communication.
I do hope Churchill gets plenty of feedback from the fans regarding this mess .

[Apollo]

Volume and an edge. Neither is any good without the other. If you rely on volume you don't care about scenarios like this.

A friend of mine lost a matchup bet on that debacle. He's 5-3 after one day with something like 20 matchups remaining. That's horse race betting, the only type I recognize as sensible. Tonight on the phone he mentioned the race for perhaps 40 seconds then defaulted to college football and golf matchups.

My only criticism would be 28 matchup bets in 14 races is far too low. I've averaged as many as 8 per race, when matchups were in their Las Vegas racebook heyday.

My golf matchups are going on right now. Nothing like midnight starting times on Golf Channel. :becky:

[Songofthesword]

huh?

[PJMIII]

huh?


:first:
Best post of the day.

[Rick1323]

The Vet's job in this case is to protect the public, not the horse or the connections. He failed in his job on one of racing's biggest stages. Unexcusable.

If the combination of Pletcher and Johnny V couldn't keep her from the gate, what chances do any of us have with the more typical lame/not right horse? This happens every day at every track. But this was one of the more public boat rides ever.

BTW....I have a feeling Bailey knew she wasn't right and that is why that line of questioning happened in the first place.

[second_glance]

The Vet's job in this case is to protect the public, not the horse or the connections. He failed in his job on one of racing's biggest stages. Unexcusable.

If the combination of Pletcher and Johnny V couldn't keep her from the gate, what chances do any of us have with the more typical lame/not right horse? This happens every day at every track. But this was one of the more public boat rides ever.

BTW....I have a feeling Bailey knew she wasn't right and that is why that line of questioning happened in the first place.

Don't know if it was Bailey or someone else on staff -- but they definitely cut to LAT because of what someone spotted in the way she was moving.

[Horse's Rear]

Honestly, who gives a damn? We're in agreement in regard to the fact that the filly shouldn't have run in this race. Awesome. Yet you have this inherent hard-on in which you have to be right, and you can't not fight something. Kudos, but it's not worth drawing out a fight about something completely insignificant in the long-run. Neither you, nor I, can go back and change anything, nor do we have any say in whether or not anything happens to anybody who allowed the horse to run.

You're not just a vicious, mean-spirited, arrogant cheat and liar, you are also stupid.

I made a straightforward, even-tempered post contributing to the conversation, to which you--in your typically petulant way--objected with a specific question directed to me:


And if a jockey has no inherent obligation to a bettor, why is it that riders have been suspended and/or fined for not riding out a mount to the wire?

I gave that question the dignity of a direct reply, which is far more than a scum-sucking irritation like you deserves, as you immediately demonstrated.

Why don't you now accept your public spanking, stop your blubbering, pull your pants up; and cry in your room until you are ready to rejoin adult conversations. Jesus, I wish parents would monitor their children better.

[MonmouthGuy]

The Dead Rail is a DISGRACE today.

[EquineAnne]

And I believe contineuces is a new low ;-)

how'bout it.

[dustino140]

You're not just a vicious, mean-spirited, arrogant cheat and liar, you are also stupid.

I made a straightforward, even-tempered post contributing to the conversation, to which you--in your typically petulant way--objected with a specific question directed to me:



I gave that question the dignity of a direct reply, which is far more than a scum-sucking irritation like you deserves, as you immediately demonstrated.

Why don't you now accept your public spanking, stop your blubbering, pull your pants up; and cry in your room until you are ready to rejoin adult conversations. Jesus, I wish parents would monitor their children better.

And there it is, the reason that HR currently asks if you'd like fries with that :becky:

One of these day's you'll recognize that your opinion can't be right 100% of the time, and that people have better things to do than sit on an internet forum and listen as you condescend for no other reason that you perceive yourself to be more intelligent than everybody else. It comes with maturity, which clearly, you lack. Glad to see you couldn't go more than a day without resorting to your childish insults. At least some things never change.

Thank God Life At Ten is safe.