jsearles and Chinamaniac debate about the value of his WSOP pieces

Congrats to Vegas on the win. Druff has stated elsewhere that anyone rolling another member here will be banned. Hopefully jsearles pays up to avoid this unpleasant occurrence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JUSTIFIEDhomicide

Sounds good. Good luck on the forums...

I have nothing against you, and you seem very articulate. Let me toss you a piece of advice. If you don't like the aggression, I'd stay away from conflict all together. Because even if you say the right thing, their are fifty trolls waiting to pile on you just to fuck with you.

And another thing. You can figure everything out. That's great, but in the end Druff will read every word in this thread and make his own decision. You can call in three million arbitrators and their word will mean nothing once Druff makes a ruling.

---

Does anyone else find it odd that Todd, who cant miss shit, hasnt commented on the thread that has doubled the next longest thread in PFA history?

---

He has now; God has spoken. Pay your debts fatty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I've only read about half of this thread.

So here is what I have to say about the first half:

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.

That's not the same as a smart prop bet. A smart prop bet is getting someone to bet you where you already know you have an edge (or a certainty) to win. For example, if I trained for running a 6-minute mile, told no one about it, and then offered a prop bet to someone at my poker table that I could run a mile in six minutes, that wouldn't be angle shooting. It would be a smart bet because people would assume that from my age and weight, I wouldn't be able to do it, when in reality I actually could. But the bet would still be clear. I would be betting that I could run a mile in six minutes, and my opponent would be betting that I couldn't. The bet would be straightforward and legitimate, even if I knew that my opponent was doing it based upon a false assumption about me.

But this is different.

If you trick someone into betting something different than they think they are (or if you change it midway because of a fear of losing), you are being dishonest.

Therefore, my opinion is that jsearles definitely owes vegas1369 $500, since jsearles lost the bet.

Regarding bias, I don't have any here.

Did I have a few minor arguments with jsearles here? Yes. But vegas1369 and I aren't exactly best friends. He did some things I didn't like or appreciate around the time I left DD, and while I have gotten over them, we definitely had some unpleasant moments over the past 8 months. If anything, it would be vegas1369 who would have more of a claim that I could be biased against him.

vegas1369 is definitely in the right here, and jsearles should pay up.

---

I ONLY accepted the bet because how I read it meant I would absolutely win. I would not have accepted had Vegas phrased it "either" word. That's the bet I accepted and I refuse to pay another bet simply because that's what Vegas thought the bet was. If anything he pays me and I pay him; it's a wash.

Steve-O, Tony bags, and recently Sandwich all agree that my interpretation is a huge point of contention. This is Druffs site and if he bans me then so be it. Ownership of this site does not make him a final arbiter regarding the bet.

Quote:

---

If anything he pays me and I pay him; it's a wash.

---

:cosby

He isn't going to pay; time to unleash the hounds on this piece of shit.

Pics, scammatars, info all should be put into play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

I ONLY accepted the bet because how I read it meant I would absolutely win. I would not have accepted had Vegas phrased it "either" word. That's the bet I accepted and I refuse to pay another bet simply because that's what Vegas thought the bet was. If anything he pays me and I pay him; it's a wash.

Steve-O, Tony bags, and recently Sandwich all agree that my interpretation is a huge point of contention. This is Druffs site and if he bans me then so be it. Ownership of this site does not make him a final arbiter regarding the bet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheTemplar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I've only read about half of this thread.

So here is what I have to say about the first half:

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.

That's not the same as a smart prop bet. A smart prop bet is getting someone to bet you where you already know you have an edge (or a certainty) to win. For example, if I trained for running a 6-minute mile, told no one about it, and then offered a prop bet to someone at my poker table that I could run a mile in six minutes, that wouldn't be angle shooting. It would be a smart bet because people would assume that from my age and weight, I wouldn't be able to do it, when in reality I actually could. But the bet would still be clear. I would be betting that I could run a mile in six minutes, and my opponent would be betting that I couldn't. The bet would be straightforward and legitimate, even if I knew that my opponent was doing it based upon a false assumption about me.

But this is different.

If you trick someone into betting something different than they think they are (or if you change it midway because of a fear of losing), you are being dishonest.

Therefore, my opinion is that jsearles definitely owes vegas1369 $500, since jsearles lost the bet.

Regarding bias, I don't have any here.

Did I have a few minor arguments with jsearles here? Yes. But vegas1369 and I aren't exactly best friends. He did some things I didn't like or appreciate around the time I left DD, and while I have gotten over them, we definitely had some unpleasant moments over the past 8 months. If anything, it would be vegas1369 who would have more of a claim that I could be biased against him.

vegas1369 is definitely in the right here, and jsearles should pay up.

---

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg196...if&res=landing

---

Beyond HOF!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I've only read about half of this thread.

So here is what I have to say about the first half:

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.

That's not the same as a smart prop bet. A smart prop bet is getting someone to bet you where you already know you have an edge (or a certainty) to win. For example, if I trained for running a 6-minute mile, told no one about it, and then offered a prop bet to someone at my poker table that I could run a mile in six minutes, that wouldn't be angle shooting. It would be a smart bet because people would assume that from my age and weight, I wouldn't be able to do it, when in reality I actually could. But the bet would still be clear. I would be betting that I could run a mile in six minutes, and my opponent would be betting that I couldn't. The bet would be straightforward and legitimate, even if I knew that my opponent was doing it based upon a false assumption about me.

But this is different.

If you trick someone into betting something different than they think they are (or if you change it midway because of a fear of losing), you are being dishonest.

Therefore, my opinion is that jsearles definitely owes vegas1369 $500, since jsearles lost the bet.

Regarding bias, I don't have any here.

Did I have a few minor arguments with jsearles here? Yes. But vegas1369 and I aren't exactly best friends. He did some things I didn't like or appreciate around the time I left DD, and while I have gotten over them, we definitely had some unpleasant moments over the past 8 months. If anything, it would be vegas1369 who would have more of a claim that I could be biased against him.

vegas1369 is definitely in the right here, and jsearles should pay up.

---

I ONLY accepted the bet because how I read it meant I would absolutely win. I would not have accepted had Vegas phrased it "either" word. That's the bet I accepted and I refuse to pay another bet simply because that's what Vegas thought the bet was. If anything he pays me and I pay him; it's a wash.

Steve-O, Tony bags, and recently Sandwich all agree that my interpretation is a huge point of contention. This is Druffs site and if he bans me then so be it. Ownership of this site does not make him a final arbiter regarding the bet.

---

So it's Vegas fault that you're a fucking idiot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I've only read about half of this thread.
So here is what I have to say about the first half:
jsearles clearly made a bet with vegas1369 about his misuse of then/than. , and jsearles should pay up.

---

Didn't read.
But seriously, is it true that the misuse of then/than debate needed 13 pages to sort?

Every time I try to read a jsearles post I think of the "Stake Me Bro" picture, laugh, and then skip over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muck Ficon

Every time I try to read a jsearles post I think of the "Stake Me Bro" picture, laugh, and then skip over it.

---

Never saw it....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheTemplar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muck Ficon

Every time I try to read a jsearles post I think of the "Stake Me Bro" picture, laugh, and then skip over it.

---

Never saw it....

---

Me neither... which is a subtle hint for someone to post it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I've only read about half of this thread.

So here is what I have to say about the first half:

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.

That's not the same as a smart prop bet. A smart prop bet is getting someone to bet you where you already know you have an edge (or a certainty) to win. For example, if I trained for running a 6-minute mile, told no one about it, and then offered a prop bet to someone at my poker table that I could run a mile in six minutes, that wouldn't be angle shooting. It would be a smart bet because people would assume that from my age and weight, I wouldn't be able to do it, when in reality I actually could. But the bet would still be clear. I would be betting that I could run a mile in six minutes, and my opponent would be betting that I couldn't. The bet would be straightforward and legitimate, even if I knew that my opponent was doing it based upon a false assumption about me.

But this is different.

If you trick someone into betting something different than they think they are (or if you change it midway because of a fear of losing), you are being dishonest.

Therefore, my opinion is that jsearles definitely owes vegas1369 $500, since jsearles lost the bet.

Regarding bias, I don't have any here.

Did I have a few minor arguments with jsearles here? Yes. But vegas1369 and I aren't exactly best friends. He did some things I didn't like or appreciate around the time I left DD, and while I have gotten over them, we definitely had some unpleasant moments over the past 8 months. If anything, it would be vegas1369 who would have more of a claim that I could be biased against him.

vegas1369 is definitely in the right here, and jsearles should pay up.

---

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8...dorrogers1.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve-O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheTemplar

Never saw it....

---

Me neither... which is a subtle hint for someone to post it

---

or the pizza face one at least

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I've only read about half of this thread.

So here is what I have to say about the first half:

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.

That's not the same as a smart prop bet. A smart prop bet is getting someone to bet you where you already know you have an edge (or a certainty) to win. For example, if I trained for running a 6-minute mile, told no one about it, and then offered a prop bet to someone at my poker table that I could run a mile in six minutes, that wouldn't be angle shooting. It would be a smart bet because people would assume that from my age and weight, I wouldn't be able to do it, when in reality I actually could. But the bet would still be clear. I would be betting that I could run a mile in six minutes, and my opponent would be betting that I couldn't. The bet would be straightforward and legitimate, even if I knew that my opponent was doing it based upon a false assumption about me.

But this is different.

If you trick someone into betting something different than they think they are (or if you change it midway because of a fear of losing), you are being dishonest.

Therefore, my opinion is that jsearles definitely owes vegas1369 $500, since jsearles lost the bet.

Regarding bias, I don't have any here.

Did I have a few minor arguments with jsearles here? Yes. But vegas1369 and I aren't exactly best friends. He did some things I didn't like or appreciate around the time I left DD, and while I have gotten over them, we definitely had some unpleasant moments over the past 8 months. If anything, it would be vegas1369 who would have more of a claim that I could be biased against him.

vegas1369 is definitely in the right here, and jsearles should pay up.

---

I ONLY accepted the bet because how I read it meant I would absolutely win. I would not have accepted had Vegas phrased it "either" word. That's the bet I accepted and I refuse to pay another bet simply because that's what Vegas thought the bet was. If anything he pays me and I pay him; it's a wash.

Steve-O, Tony bags, and recently Sandwich all agree that my interpretation is a huge point of contention. This is Druffs site and if he bans me then so be it. Ownership of this site does not make him a final arbiter regarding the bet.

---

This is the type of stuff I don't want to see here.

I don't want people tricking others into making bets to where the terms are intentionally misleading, only to hit them with a "lol gotcha" after they accept and think they won.

That's the type of thing I classify as a "semi-scam", and I definitely don't want happening between the users here. I don't see why you think this is ethical behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe

Pics, scammatars, info all should be put into play.

---

I mean if Druff says fire, I can fire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

I ONLY accepted the bet because how I read it meant I would absolutely win. I would not have accepted had Vegas phrased it "either" word. That's the bet I accepted and I refuse to pay another bet simply because that's what Vegas thought the bet was. If anything he pays me and I pay him; it's a wash.

Steve-O, Tony bags, and recently Sandwich all agree that my interpretation is a huge point of contention. This is Druffs site and if he bans me then so be it. Ownership of this site does not make him a final arbiter regarding the bet.

---

This is the type of stuff I don't want to see here.

I don't want people tricking others into making bets to where the terms are intentionally misleading, only to hit them with a "lol gotcha" after they accept and think they won.

That's the type of thing I classify as a "semi-scam", and I definitely don't want happening between the users here. I don't see why you think this is ethical behavior.

---

He offered the bet, I didn't trick him. I accepted the terms as they were offered. When asked for clarification shortly thereafter by someone else wanting to bet, I gladly did so.

Also refer to my signature. Vegas bullied me regarding my grammar only to mis-state the bet terms. How stupid can he be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe

Pics, scammatars, info all should be put into play.

---

I mean if Druff says fire, I can fire

---

What are the odds he tries to fag up your forum once it opens?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

This is the type of stuff I don't want to see here.

I don't want people tricking others into making bets to where the terms are intentionally misleading, only to hit them with a "lol gotcha" after they accept and think they won.

That's the type of thing I classify as a "semi-scam", and I definitely don't want happening between the users here. I don't see why you think this is ethical behavior.

---

He offered the bet, I didn't trick him. I accepted the terms as they were offered. When asked for clarification shortly thereafter by someone else wanting to bet, I gladly did so.

Also refer to my signature. Vegas bullied me regarding my grammar only to mis-state the bet terms. How stupid can he be?

---

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...jpg?1260647699

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasep

I mean if Druff says fire, I can fire

---

What are the odds he tries to fag up your forum once it opens?

---

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs3/2017054_o.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deal

What are the odds he tries to fag up your forum once it opens?

---

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs3/2017054_o.gif

---

At this rate JSearles22 will be banned on more forums than Scotty Clark.

Their's no way I saw this coming Searles. Your here, your they're your everywhere.

The community has spoken......their seems to be a clear majority....

i still dont see where the controversy is stemming from. He never said those two words in the same post.

Druff it is my belief Jsearles is the victim of a Angle shoot. I think Vegas counted these errors before he proposed a wager or at the very least checked to see if jsearles made these errors frequently, but stated he did not check. Guess he's quite the psychic.

He also used a combination of high pressure sales tactics, peer pressure ie insults to jsearles intelligence in a public form and tricky wording to get Jsearles to accept a large wager in which he's drawing dead, Peter Falcone would be proud, let's put it that way.


Also you and Vegas have a very long history on DD, Vegas1369 even had his very own mini forum on DD called "ask Vegas1369", correct?
You had a very bitter break up with long time business partner Micon and the fact Vegas1369 followed you to your new forum ie showed great loyalty to you. Being a fair and impartial judge for you may not be possible given your years of good times with Vegas1369 at dd and your history of flame wars and bitter disputes with jsearles.

I propose this wager a wash with no damage to either persons credibility or reputation since there's no way to know if Vegas read Jsearls posts before the bet and the tricky wording or Vegas1369 owes Jsearles $500 and maybe a couple hundred extra since it's clear Jsearls reputation has suffered tremendous damage
from a angle shooter. Maybe the bettors can agree on something along these lines.

How come this wager was not escrow'd? Was Vegas1369 going to pay in the event he lost?

Sincerely
Johnny Cochran of this forum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Their's no way I saw this coming Searles. Your here, your they're your everywhere.

The community has spoken......their seems to be a clear majority....

---

oh and searles

http://gifsoup.com/view2/1844559/sho...he-money-o.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FPS_Russia

Druff it is my belief Jsearles is the victim of a Angle shoot. I think Vegas counted these errors before he proposed a wager or at the very least checked to see if jsearles made these errors frequently, but stated he did not check. Guess he's quite the psychic.

He also used a combination of high pressure sales tactics, peer pressure ie insults to jsearles intelligence in a public form and tricky wording to get Jsearles to accept a large wager in which he's drawing dead, Peter Falcone would be proud, let's put it that way.


Also you and Vegas have a very long history on DD, Vegas1369 even had his very own mini forum on DD called "ask Vegas1369", correct?
You had a very bitter break up with long time business partner Micon and the fact Vegas1369 followed you to your new forum ie showed great loyalty to you. Being a fair and impartial judge for you may not be possible given your years of good times with Vegas1369 at dd and your history of flame wars and bitter disputes with jsearles.

I propose this wager a wash with no damage to either persons credibility or reputation since there's no way to know if Vegas read Jsearls posts before the bet and the tricky wording or Vegas1369 owes Jsearles $500 and maybe a couple hundred extra since it's clear Jsearls reputation has suffered tremendous damage
from a angle shooter. Maybe the bettors can agree on something along these lines.

How come this wager was not escrow'd? Was Vegas1369 going to pay in the event he lost?

Sincerely
Johnny Cochran of this forum

---

First off, Johnny Cockring was a complete scumbag who kept a murdering asshole from going to jail for life. Figures you would associate yourself with him since your post is as douchey as it gets. And nice going completely ignoring my last response to you.

I don't know who you are and don't care, but it always cracks me up when jackoffs like yourself say shit like they know what's up, when in reality they don't have a clue. Your half witted summary of how you think things went down, and my history with Druff, is the ramblings of a retard that should just shut the fuck up and realize he is new to this place and his perception of how things might have been couldn't be further from the truth.

I have been a part of these forums and a trusted mod for over 5 years now. I have entered into numerous bets and transactions with numerous members and have never once welched, angle shot, scammed, or been questioned in any way whatsoever about my integrity. Notice that not one member here has questioned that... Jsearles on the other hand... well, we all see him for what he is now. Maybe you should realize there is a reason for this, asshole.

Now, kindly go fuck yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vegas1369

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FPS_Russia

Druff it is my belief Jsearles is the victim of a Angle shoot. I think Vegas counted these errors before he proposed a wager or at the very least checked to see if jsearles made these errors frequently, but stated he did not check. Guess he's quite the psychic.

He also used a combination of high pressure sales tactics, peer pressure ie insults to jsearles intelligence in a public form and tricky wording to get Jsearles to accept a large wager in which he's drawing dead, Peter Falcone would be proud, let's put it that way.


Also you and Vegas have a very long history on DD, Vegas1369 even had his very own mini forum on DD called "ask Vegas1369", correct?
You had a very bitter break up with long time business partner Micon and the fact Vegas1369 followed you to your new forum ie showed great loyalty to you. Being a fair and impartial judge for you may not be possible given your years of good times with Vegas1369 at dd and your history of flame wars and bitter disputes with jsearles.

I propose this wager a wash with no damage to either persons credibility or reputation since there's no way to know if Vegas read Jsearls posts before the bet and the tricky wording or Vegas1369 owes Jsearles $500 and maybe a couple hundred extra since it's clear Jsearls reputation has suffered tremendous damage
from a angle shooter. Maybe the bettors can agree on something along these lines.

How come this wager was not escrow'd? Was Vegas1369 going to pay in the event he lost?

Sincerely
Johnny Cochran of this forum

---

First off, Johnny Cockring was a complete scumbag who kept a murdering asshole from going to jail for life. Figures you would associate yourself with him since your post is as douchey as it gets. And nice going completely ignoring my last response to you.

I don't know who you are and don't care, but it always cracks me up when jackoffs like yourself say shit like they know what's up, when in reality they don't have a clue. Your half witted summary of how you think things went down, and my history with Druff, is the ramblings of a retard that should just shut the fuck up and realize he is new to this place and his perception of how things might have been couldn't be further from the truth.

I have been a part of these forums and a trusted mod for over 5 years now. I have entered into numerous bets and transactions with numerous members and have never once welched, angle shot, scammed, or been questioned in any way whatsoever about my integrity. Notice that not one member here has questioned that... Jsearles on the other hand... well, we all see him for what he is now. Maybe you should realize there is a reason for this, asshole.

Now, kindly go fuck yourself.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FPS_Russia

Druff it is my belief Jsearles is the victim of a Angle shoot. I think Vegas counted these errors before he proposed a wager or at the very least checked to see if jsearles made these errors frequently, but stated he did not check. Guess he's quite the psychic.

He also used a combination of high pressure sales tactics, peer pressure ie insults to jsearles intelligence in a public form and tricky wording to get Jsearles to accept a large wager in which he's drawing dead, Peter Falcone would be proud, let's put it that way.


Also you and Vegas have a very long history on DD, Vegas1369 even had his very own mini forum on DD called "ask Vegas1369", correct?
You had a very bitter break up with long time business partner Micon and the fact Vegas1369 followed you to your new forum ie showed great loyalty to you. Being a fair and impartial judge for you may not be possible given your years of good times with Vegas1369 at dd and your history of flame wars and bitter disputes with jsearles.

I propose this wager a wash with no damage to either persons credibility or reputation since there's no way to know if Vegas read Jsearls posts before the bet and the tricky wording or Vegas1369 owes Jsearles $500 and maybe a couple hundred extra since it's clear Jsearls reputation has suffered tremendous damage
from a angle shooter. Maybe the bettors can agree on something along these lines.

How come this wager was not escrow'd? Was Vegas1369 going to pay in the event he lost?

Sincerely
Johnny Cochran of this forum

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vegas1369

First off, Johnny Cockring was a complete scumbag who kept a murdering asshole from going to jail for life. Figures you would associate yourself with him since your post is as douchey as it gets. And nice going completely ignoring my last response to you.

I don't know who you are and don't care, but it always cracks me up when jackoffs like yourself say shit like they know what's up, when in reality they don't have a clue. Your half witted summary of how you think things went down, and my history with Druff, is the ramblings of a retard that should just shut the fuck up and realize he is new to this place and his perception of how things might have been couldn't be further from the truth.

I have been a part of these forums and a trusted mod for over 5 years now. I have entered into numerous bets and transactions with numerous members and have never once welched, angle shot, scammed, or been questioned in any way whatsoever about my integrity. Notice that not one member here has questioned that... Jsearles on the other hand... well, we all see him for what he is now. Maybe you should realize there is a reason for this, asshole.

Now, kindly go fuck yourself.

---

---

Good one scammer.

Seriously, you are the biggest piece of shit to ever come around here, and that is saying a lot. It's disgusting how you relish this attention, even when it's 99% negative towards you. You really have some serious mental issues which I am sure you are too stubborn and stupid to acknowledge. Regardless, you owe me $500 and I will accept nothing less.

Pay up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vegas1369

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

---

Good one scammer.

Seriously, you are the biggest piece of shit to ever come around here, and that is saying a lot. It's disgusting how you relish this attention, even when it's 99% negative towards you. You really have some serious mental issues which I am sure you are too stubborn and stupid to acknowledge. Regardless, you owe me $500 and I will accept nothing less.

Pay up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve-O

Personally, I think he is doing alright, and actually has a valid arguement for the cancellation of the bet, or a reduction in the amount of it... like I said 200 posts ago

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tony bagadonuts

This will not be a popular decision, but I believe that both Vegas and Searles agreed to different bets, therefore the bet should be voided and cancelled.

---

So of the thre guys you originally mentioned, 2 have chimed in and neither feel I owe you $500. Do they both need their heads examined?

---

Bullshit searles, I gave you multiple chances to accept me as an arbiter/mediator and you refused on two different occasions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lewfather

So basically he's saying when he determines if you're a scammer/welcher all bets are off until he gets paid.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tony bagadonuts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tony bagadonuts

This will not be a popular decision, but I believe that both Vegas and Searles agreed to different bets, therefore the bet should be voided and cancelled.

---

So of the thre guys you originally mentioned, 2 have chimed in and neither feel I owe you $500. Do they both need their heads examined?

---

Bullshit searles, I gave you multiple chances to accept me as an arbiter/mediator and you refused on two different occasions.

---

leave yourself out of this dude....you ain't a judge ok?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Therefore, my opinion is that jsearles definitely owes vegas1369 $500, since jsearles lost the bet.

Regarding bias, I don't have any here.

.

---

looks like vegas has the highest roi in this thread, I would like to invest in his prop bets in the future

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tony bagadonuts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tony bagadonuts

This will not be a popular decision, but I believe that both Vegas and Searles agreed to different bets, therefore the bet should be voided and cancelled.

---

So of the thre guys you originally mentioned, 2 have chimed in and neither feel I owe you $500. Do they both need their heads examined?

---

Bullshit searles, I gave you multiple chances to accept me as an arbiter/mediator and you refused on two different occasions.

---

This had nothing to do with you being an official arbitrator. Vegas said simply anyone who comes to the decision that you did needs their head examined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chinamaniac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Therefore, my opinion is that jsearles definitely owes vegas1369 $500, since jsearles lost the bet.

Regarding bias, I don't have any here.

.

---

looks like vegas has the highest roi in this thread, I would like to invest in his prop bets in the future

---

Zero %?

Oh, and he already has a line of credit with Jasep *giggles*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vegas1369

Good one scammer.

Seriously, you are the biggest piece of shit to ever come around here, and that is saying a lot. It's disgusting how you relish this attention, even when it's 99% negative towards you. You really have some serious mental issues which I am sure you are too stubborn and stupid to acknowledge. Regardless, you owe me $500 and I will accept nothing less.

Pay up.

---

---

JSearles22 I believe this was true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bootsy Collins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

---

JSearles22 I believe this was true.

---

I hit a doe, with a Malibu, in Missouri, nowhere near an older McDonald's, in the dark. Otherwise that's a great picture.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chinamaniac

looks like vegas has the highest roi in this thread, I would like to invest in his prop bets in the future

---

Zero %?

Oh, and he already has a line of credit with Jasep *giggles*

---

So, after all that has been said, after 20+ pages of people telling you that you definitely are in the wrong here and definitely owe me $500, including THE OWNER OF THIS SITE who is basically God when it comes to matters like this... Are you saying you are 100% still not going to pay?