A Quote by R. Scott Bakker

If the world is a game whose rules are written by the God, and sorcerers are those who cheat and cheat, then who has written the rules of sorcery? — © R. Scott Bakker
If the world is a game whose rules are written by the God, and sorcerers are those who cheat and cheat, then who has written the rules of sorcery?
If you cheat yourself in practice, you'll cheat yourself in a game; and if you cheat in a game, you'll cheat yourself for the rest of your life.
To be labelled a cheat - it's not fair. If I'm a cheat, then prove I'm a cheat or just leave me alone and let me do what I do best.
You can't cheat the game. You can't cheat the grind. You get out what you put in at the end of the day.
When you can't cheat the game, you'd best find a means to cheat the players.
Within the songwriting community, there are these unwritten rules for the way that a song should be written in country music, and I think that those rules are constantly being broken over the years, and the molds change and the process is evolving.
There's so many different ways to cheat. People think infidelity is the way to cheat. I think it's sometimes far worse to emotionally cheat on somebody.
There are definitely some people who cheat, but how come we're only focusing on people who are on welfare who cheat, and not the bank presidents who cheat?
Demons don't play by the rules. They lie and they cheat and they stab in the back.
Most rules that you think are written in stone are just societal. You can change the game and really reach for the stars and make the world a better place.
Although spoken English doesn't obey the rules of written language, a person who doesn't know the rules thoroughly is at a great disadvantage.
You figure they cheat at the ballpark, they'll cheat on the golf course, they'll cheat in business, and anything else in life. Players may laugh about it and say it's funny, but right down in their heart, they don't think it's funny at all, and they have no respect for a person who cheats.
It obviously makes a difference whether we consider ourselves as pawns in a game whose rules we call reality or as players of the game who know that the rules are ‘real’ only to the extent that we have created or accepted them, and that we can change them.
If you can prove a guy did cheat, then I don't believe he belongs. I don't believe that there are any guys that did cheat, in that respect, that are in the Hall of Fame. So I think opening up the doors to guys that admittedly cheated or are proven that they did cheat, it kills the integrity of what the Hall of Fame stands for.
I'm not afraid of taking long walks. A lot of people want to be great, but they want to cheat to get to the greatness. I'm cool with talking the walk around the block to get to where I want to go as opposed to the cheat, because the cheat has flaws.
'The Prince' was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. 'Rules for Radicals' is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.
The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!