Originally Posted by gut
well if you were a popular member here than yes. but you're not, so you're a scamming pos and i'm not paying you.I would take that bet, but I must admit to you that i read through the post and already know the outcome ahead. Thats is allowed right?Searles, I'll bet you 500 Bootsy Bucks you cant find 3 grammatical errors in this post.....Bootsy escrow?
It's hilarious that we as a society think everyone can be a dr, a lawyer, an engineer. Some people are just fucking stupid. Why can't we just accept that?
Searles, I'll bet you 500 Bootsy Bucks you cant find 3 grammatical errors in this post.....Bootsy escrow?The bet was flawed and that can't be over looked? Even Druff said it was flawed? Please show me that quote, cause either you are just making shit up now, or I missed something Druff said. This is what I remember Druff saying, and unlike our asshole welching friend here, this is not taken out of context...
Wow dude... You read Jsearles' bullshit enough over 30 pages and you start to believe it. Unbelievable. I thought you were pretty reasonable, intelligent guy. Do you really believe the shit you just typed?jsearles clearly made a bet with vegas1369 about his misuse of then/than. Since it became clear that he was going to lose, he changed his stance and found a reason in the semantics of his challenge to where it actually meant something different.
I read this with an open and neutral mind, and I got the same impression that vegas1369 (and nearly everyone else did): The bet was whether or not vegas1369 could come up with 25 examples of jsearles' misuse of then/than. This was what any reasonable person would take away from that challenge. To make such a challenge and then change its meaning based upon a semantic technicality is really scummy.
Make no mistake, this asshole knew exactly what the bet was, but then tried to find some bullshit technicality in the wording to get out of it. I seriously can't believe you are buying into that crap now.
Also, you don't see how this has anything to do with Druff or Searles place on PFA? Are you fucking kidding me? The site is called pokerFRAUDalert for Christs sake, and it's a forum based on gambling. If you can't see how this has EVERYTHING to do with Searles place on PFA, we really don't have anything left to discuss.
Steve-O, during my time as a mod at DD I have dealt with this type of situation many times, and the protocol has ALWAYS been to ban unless the guilty party pays up, and Druff ALWAYS backed me on those decisions. This is one of the main reasons why I am pretty surprised no action has been taken.
At any rate, I've said all I can say about this, I am done talking about it, at least till Druff decides to finally chime in, if he ever does. Seems to me I have an extremely large majority agreeing with me here, something eventually will get done, or not, we'll see.
For the record, I found at least 3 grammatical errors
hey
i done thinked it funny that 1369 is such a pussy
i is laffingreel hard at you 1369
slim t
I'm enjoying that JSearles is being so aggressive in mocking Vegas after welching and seemingly "getting away" with it.
Not that's it's right, of course. I have no beef with Vegas (or anyone) but it must suck to log in and see this fat piece of shit running rampant like he got away with murder.
DON'T ban JSearles, I find genuine stupidity to be mildly entertaining.
Whatever happens, Druff has lost a lot of credibility over this. Given the premise of this forum he should have taken a much harder line but opted for an unfunny avatar and a 'funny' custom title.
I disagree -- I too think that it would be a mistake to ban jsearles, but disagree that Druff's actions (or inaction) here have any negative bearing on his credibility. Why can't this site be a place where so-called scammers (and accused scammers, welchers, etc.) come to defend or explain themselves? It's called poker fraud ALERT -- let everyone have a voice and let the chips fall where they may. It is not Druff's responsibility (nor should it be) to police and intervene in private disputes between two posters.
To use a more extreme example, shouldn't Druff allow Peter DC, if/when he gets out of jail, to register a PFA account, come on here and explain himself, debate, argue, etc.? Why the f not?
Shouldn't this be a forum where Annie Duke or Joe Sebok or anyone on Steve-O's "cheater" list can come here and attempt to clear their name?
The more jsearles is allowed to post, the more he is showing his true colors and the more people can read his posts and judge for themselves whether or not they want to do business with him, associate with him, stake him, taunt him, or whatever.
I disagree -- I too think that it would be a mistake to ban jsearles, but disagree that Druff's actions (or inaction) here have any negative bearing on his credibility. Why can't this site be a place where so-called scammers (and accused scammers, welchers, etc.) come to defend or explain themselves? It's called poker fraud ALERT -- let everyone have a voice and let the chips fall where they may. It is not Druff's responsibility (nor should it be) to police and intervene in private disputes between two posters.
To use a more extreme example, shouldn't Druff allow Peter DC, if/when he gets out of jail, to register a PFA account, come on here and explain himself, debate, argue, etc.? Why the f not?
Shouldn't this be a forum where Annie Duke or Joe Sebok or anyone on Steve-O's "cheater" list can come here and attempt to clear their name?
The more jsearles is allowed to post, the more he is showing his true colors and the more people can read his posts and judge for themselves whether or not they want to do business with him, associate with him, stake him, taunt him, or whatever.
Searles looks like a baiting scumbag posting those "oh hey look I got $500" threads, but hey its entertaining and he isn't a scammer anyway.
Well said.I disagree -- I too think that it would be a mistake to ban jsearles, but disagree that Druff's actions (or inaction) here have any negative bearing on his credibility. Why can't this site be a place where so-called scammers (and accused scammers, welchers, etc.) come to defend or explain themselves? It's called poker fraud ALERT -- let everyone have a voice and let the chips fall where they may. It is not Druff's responsibility (nor should it be) to police and intervene in private disputes between two posters.
To use a more extreme example, shouldn't Druff allow Peter DC, if/when he gets out of jail, to register a PFA account, come on here and explain himself, debate, argue, etc.? Why the f not?
Shouldn't this be a forum where Annie Duke or Joe Sebok or anyone on Steve-O's "cheater" list can come here and attempt to clear their name?
The more jsearles is allowed to post, the more he is showing his true colors and the more people can read his posts and judge for themselves whether or not they want to do business with him, associate with him, stake him, taunt him, or whatever.
Also, the people who have been banned were not over scams, angle-shots, or anything like that. They were both banned for personal reasons by Druff, not because they owe him money
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
FTR, I changed the avatar myself. I found it humorous given the situation. I will probably be changing it soon
It's hilarious that we as a society think everyone can be a dr, a lawyer, an engineer. Some people are just fucking stupid. Why can't we just accept that?
God, stfu you whiny bitch. Just ignore him if you want him banned so bad. You've posted to ban him like thirty fucking times. Get a life
Once a scammer not always a scammer. You seem like a miserable fuck who will never/has never changed a thing in his life.
Sad mentality
what you are suggesting here is extortion, tread lightly here.
lol wat
Sorry, I only deal with shenanigans and the occasional bouts of childhood mischief!
No I understand precisely what you want, and I think you did in fact win the bet. The fact that the bet was flawed cannot be overlooked though. A number of reasonable people all see it (even Druff has said as much). Being scummy is not being a scammer anymore than a person seeing you drop a $100 bill and pocketing it after you walk off is a theif. They are both scumbags, but you have to protect yourself from these scumbags too, not cry foul when you fall victim to their scumminess.Dude, I don't think you are getting this. Do you not see that all I am asking for is for Druff to give him the ultimatum of either paying me, or being banned? It's not about him being punished, it's about Druff doing what he can do to help me get paid. There is no doubt that he owes me $500, so I would think this would be PFA's move, and nothing else.
I really don't get what the hold up is TBH.
All along (before the bet took place) you have said this kid is a scumbag, yet you entered into a bet with him??? with no preconditions and without being absolutely clear regarding the terms. If I were you i would keep griping about not being paid and demanding he pay, but I don't see how this has anything to do with Druff or Searles place on PFA. To keep with my analogy it would be like going back to the store where you dropped the $100 and demanding they ban the guy who pocketed your dropped bill from shopping there.
What if the store you dropped the 100$ bill was called HonestPEOPLEonlySHOPPING
uhhhh, when were scammers ever banned from DD for scamming? Besides StevedaPimp I can't think of a SINGLE oneThe bet was flawed and that can't be over looked? Even Druff said it was flawed? Please show me that quote, cause either you are just making shit up now, or I missed something Druff said. This is what I remember Druff saying, and unlike our asshole welching friend here, this is not taken out of context...
Wow dude... You read Jsearles' bullshit enough over 30 pages and you start to believe it. Unbelievable. I thought you were pretty reasonable, intelligent guy. Do you really believe the shit you just typed?jsearles clearly made a bet with vegas1369 about his misuse of then/than. Since it became clear that he was going to lose, he changed his stance and found a reason in the semantics of his challenge to where it actually meant something different.
I read this with an open and neutral mind, and I got the same impression that vegas1369 (and nearly everyone else did): The bet was whether or not vegas1369 could come up with 25 examples of jsearles' misuse of then/than. This was what any reasonable person would take away from that challenge. To make such a challenge and then change its meaning based upon a semantic technicality is really scummy.
Make no mistake, this asshole knew exactly what the bet was, but then tried to find some bullshit technicality in the wording to get out of it. I seriously can't believe you are buying into that crap now.
Also, you don't see how this has anything to do with Druff or Searles place on PFA? Are you fucking kidding me? The site is called pokerFRAUDalert for Christs sake, and it's a forum based on gambling. If you can't see how this has EVERYTHING to do with Searles place on PFA, we really don't have anything left to discuss.
Steve-O, during my time as a mod at DD I have dealt with this type of situation many times, and the protocol has ALWAYS been to ban unless the guilty party pays up, and Druff ALWAYS backed me on those decisions. This is one of the main reasons why I am pretty surprised no action has been taken.
At any rate, I've said all I can say about this, I am done talking about it, at least till Druff decides to finally chime in, if he ever does. Seems to me I have an extremely large majority agreeing with me here, something eventually will get done, or not, we'll see.
Mike scammed Vegas on this forum. It was over the napkin/cocaine bet when Vegas posted the HOF video. Vwls has a long history in the past of taking money from a guy and never paying it back. Vwls and Vegas are friends and Vegas even threatened to leave DD because people were being mean to his friend. Vegas also has never publicly called for Mike to be banned here even though both parties acknowledge that Vegas won the bet and Mike never paid.
So why are you sitting up on your high horse Vegas? Your own inaction regarding the 408mike situation here just makes you look scummy. You never publically admonished him or called for him to be banned? Which is it, are all scammers banned or just the ones you dont like?
You're a really unlikeable fucking idiot. I'd love to see you in person
I have already acknowledged the deer and gambling posts that I made. I made them because I think its funny to tilt Vegas over all of this. He is sitting in his Ivory tower looking down upon us and just cant fathom that he doesnt have any e-rep over here. The tilt monkey cant wait to get his own forum open where he can do whatever he wants. Its all the dude has going on in his life.
Says the faggot that spends all day everyday on a forum he has zero invested in.
tightlife
Yeah, you're right. It should be made more obvious that Searles is a scumbag. A self-appointed avatar and custom title are insufficient; motherfucker needs to get scarlet-lettered so everyone can take the proper precautions when dealing with him. Probably unlikely that he ever will have real money to escrow/wager but still.I disagree -- I too think that it would be a mistake to ban jsearles, but disagree that Druff's actions (or inaction) here have any negative bearing on his credibility. Why can't this site be a place where so-called scammers (and accused scammers, welchers, etc.) come to defend or explain themselves? It's called poker fraud ALERT -- let everyone have a voice and let the chips fall where they may. It is not Druff's responsibility (nor should it be) to police and intervene in private disputes between two posters.
To use a more extreme example, shouldn't Druff allow Peter DC, if/when he gets out of jail, to register a PFA account, come on here and explain himself, debate, argue, etc.? Why the f not?
Shouldn't this be a forum where Annie Duke or Joe Sebok or anyone on Steve-O's "cheater" list can come here and attempt to clear their name?
The more jsearles is allowed to post, the more he is showing his true colors and the more people can read his posts and judge for themselves whether or not they want to do business with him, associate with him, stake him, taunt him, or whatever.
hmmm curious to how often you banned weissman and heeb?The bet was flawed and that can't be over looked? Even Druff said it was flawed? Please show me that quote, cause either you are just making shit up now, or I missed something Druff said. This is what I remember Druff saying, and unlike our asshole welching friend here, this is not taken out of context...
Wow dude... You read Jsearles' bullshit enough over 30 pages and you start to believe it. Unbelievable. I thought you were pretty reasonable, intelligent guy. Do you really believe the shit you just typed?jsearles clearly made a bet with vegas1369 about his misuse of then/than. Since it became clear that he was going to lose, he changed his stance and found a reason in the semantics of his challenge to where it actually meant something different.
I read this with an open and neutral mind, and I got the same impression that vegas1369 (and nearly everyone else did): The bet was whether or not vegas1369 could come up with 25 examples of jsearles' misuse of then/than. This was what any reasonable person would take away from that challenge. To make such a challenge and then change its meaning based upon a semantic technicality is really scummy.
Make no mistake, this asshole knew exactly what the bet was, but then tried to find some bullshit technicality in the wording to get out of it. I seriously can't believe you are buying into that crap now.
Also, you don't see how this has anything to do with Druff or Searles place on PFA? Are you fucking kidding me? The site is called pokerFRAUDalert for Christs sake, and it's a forum based on gambling. If you can't see how this has EVERYTHING to do with Searles place on PFA, we really don't have anything left to discuss.
Steve-O, during my time as a mod at DD I have dealt with this type of situation many times, and the protocol has ALWAYS been to ban unless the guilty party pays up, and Druff ALWAYS backed me on those decisions. This is one of the main reasons why I am pretty surprised no action has been taken.
At any rate, I've said all I can say about this, I am done talking about it, at least till Druff decides to finally chime in, if he ever does. Seems to me I have an extremely large majority agreeing with me here, something eventually will get done, or not, we'll see.
very true. vegas has done stuff in his own self serving interests, and also does what he told to do.hmmm curious to how often you banned weissman and heeb?The bet was flawed and that can't be over looked? Even Druff said it was flawed? Please show me that quote, cause either you are just making shit up now, or I missed something Druff said. This is what I remember Druff saying, and unlike our asshole welching friend here, this is not taken out of context...
Wow dude... You read Jsearles' bullshit enough over 30 pages and you start to believe it. Unbelievable. I thought you were pretty reasonable, intelligent guy. Do you really believe the shit you just typed?jsearles clearly made a bet with vegas1369 about his misuse of then/than. Since it became clear that he was going to lose, he changed his stance and found a reason in the semantics of his challenge to where it actually meant something different.
I read this with an open and neutral mind, and I got the same impression that vegas1369 (and nearly everyone else did): The bet was whether or not vegas1369 could come up with 25 examples of jsearles' misuse of then/than. This was what any reasonable person would take away from that challenge. To make such a challenge and then change its meaning based upon a semantic technicality is really scummy.
Make no mistake, this asshole knew exactly what the bet was, but then tried to find some bullshit technicality in the wording to get out of it. I seriously can't believe you are buying into that crap now.
Also, you don't see how this has anything to do with Druff or Searles place on PFA? Are you fucking kidding me? The site is called pokerFRAUDalert for Christs sake, and it's a forum based on gambling. If you can't see how this has EVERYTHING to do with Searles place on PFA, we really don't have anything left to discuss.
Steve-O, during my time as a mod at DD I have dealt with this type of situation many times, and the protocol has ALWAYS been to ban unless the guilty party pays up, and Druff ALWAYS backed me on those decisions. This is one of the main reasons why I am pretty surprised no action has been taken.
At any rate, I've said all I can say about this, I am done talking about it, at least till Druff decides to finally chime in, if he ever does. Seems to me I have an extremely large majority agreeing with me here, something eventually will get done, or not, we'll see.
in the end, he's just a nigga.
FYPvery true. vegas has done stuff in his own self serving interests, and also does what he told to do.hmmm curious to how often you banned weissman and heeb?
in the end, he's just a n-word.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
