I can not believe Druff has not banned him. I would consider jsearless a fraudster.
Printable View
I can not believe Druff has not banned him. I would consider jsearless a fraudster.
I will admit that I have been in the sun drinking Coronas and bbqing all day.
LOL @ extortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Von Strucker
what you are suggesting here is extortion, tread lightly here. I agree with druff trying not to get involved here, you all are using his site as a venue for placing bets and offering druff to escrow the bets, personally i don't care about this, but a unsatisfied customer may and could cause trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
First off, I never asked Druff to escrow.
Second, these sites have been used for all sorts of bets throughout the years, it's part of what goes on around these parts Baron. If one of the rules were not to be making bets then I wouldn't have made the bet, but it's not a rule, and Druff has never had an issue with people betting on any of his sites.
Third, I don't like involving Druff, but he is the only person here capable of helping me, and I think it's fair to say when a person owns a site that wants to rid the gambling world of FRAUD, and the people that commit FRAUD, then when a FRAUD happens on his site it would only be fair to deal with it by helping out the person/people that were cheated to the best of his ability.
Let me also add that regardless of how Druff may feel about me, I like the guy, always have, and I have a lot of respect for him. I don't like putting him in this spot, but what's right is right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BUBBLES
I'm afraid our Mr. Druff is not the man we thought he was............Very willing to come down on others, yet when his own discretions are brought into the light he is oblivious to the logic. I too was fooled by his apparent standards and reasoning, yet when it applies to him he becomes the "Gary Bettman" of poker forums. Read myopic Jew who will lie to others regardless of the evidence.
I will not grace this forum with my excellence unless Mr. Dan recounts and gets a fucking grip on the real world
Dually noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by BUBBLES
Druff , you can thread ban me, a guy who as no real(I'm drunk when I lash out) ill intent, yet you let a creep, a liar, a fraud, a scammer, a welch, like Searles go without so much as a temporary ban??????????....This sheds even more light onto your character and I don't need it...........
As I have said before you are judged by the company you keep.
This site could easily turn into DD 2012 if you get my drift
Quote:
Originally Posted by limitles
How soon will this start or are you just spewing again?Quote:
Originally Posted by limitles
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22Dually noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by BUBBLES
Druff,
I have to tell you, its not sitting well with me that the scammer known as Jsearless is still dominating the forum with posts (many are clearly ambiguous jabs at people that he either owes, or people that he knows dislike him), here at POKERFRAUDALERT.com.
This is a obvious thumbing of his nose at our community, and for me, clearly goes against everything I thought you stood for. I don't give a fuck if he "brings the hits", because he has turned PFA into an amalgamation of people that are seemingly clamouring for his removal.
What could you possibly be on the fence about? His long history of trolling? The fact that he constantly derails threads(something that we can look forward to even more-so now that he is a blackballed miscreant)? The fact that 99% of your members believe that he scammed, owes, and should pay or be banned?
I hate to call you out a bit, and I am no JewDonk fan, but how in the fuck did we trade in a forum-dominating-troll-asshole Jewdonk in for a forum-dominating-troll-asshole-BET-WELCHING-SCAMMER JSearless? In my experience with forum administration, you will never make everyone happy, there will always be unpopular decisions.......but its always best in these types of matters to try and appease the majority: which have spoken loud and clear here.
I know I haven't posted as much recently (my business has been very busy), but I always read PFA, and I have always tried to support you and this forum.......but the past week, I find myself wondering what Vegas' new forum will be like, SANS Jsearless. Please don't make me find another forum home yet again, this place was just getting cozy.
One turd in in the PFA pot of soup, ruins everyones bowl.
PS-STAKEMEBROsheshardtofeed
PPS-FUCKITfreejewdonkthen
Agree 100%. The guy is thumbing his nose at you with every post. He obviously aspires to be the biggest troll on the site. Put him where he belongs. Let him post freely with limitles on DD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky
Here's the problem. It doesn't hurt (or so he thinks) Druff to ban JFags because all Druff sees is a thread with 11000+ views, easily the most popular thread since PFA opened. If it was Druff who was wronged the guy would be out of here 5 days ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky
Druff is the fraud imo. He snap banned Scotty Clark for posting the name of Druff's father yet only erased pictures of JFags family and gave easy warnings. Jewdonk wasn't banned because he made the forum about him. Jewdonk was banned because he constantly trolled Druff. End of story.
Vwls isn't banned because she can help the site. She should never have been allowed here.
Its pathetic.
I understand the calls for him to be banned, and while I don't think he should be banned (as it doesn't solve anything except give his long-list of deserving haters a reason to gloat) it wouldn't bother me one way or the other. We all agree he did something scummy, but this doesn't make him guilty in a court of law, just in public opinion --think OJ. He's like the guy who got caught breaking the law but the police contaminated the evidence and he got off.
The good news is you haved proven him to be somewhere between untrustworthy and an angle-shooter, he's unlikely to find another mark on this site or get away with any future shenanigans.
I would agree with what you were saying if this was just a poker forum with no real objective, but it's kinda designed to shame fraudsters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
I keep wondering to myself what would be the verdict if Druff was in Vegas' shoes, and I have never questioned druffs judgement in the past.
I think that the small list of guys banned here are all guys who did something personal to Todd, and thats fine, its his forum, but really this is something that he should give a real hard re-examination. I don't like any of the guys that are banned here, but I could probably make a strong case for Jsearles being banned before they are. Even limitles got a slap on the wrist for posting, Les may be a miserable pain in the ass drunk but he is no scammer (infact he may be one of the most honest people here), and he has less capability than a confirmed perpetrator of Fraud here.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
I really don't get what the hold up is TBH.
Maybe, but what about future hijinks, tomfoolery, ballyhoo or monkeyshines?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
I vow in front of god (Todd) and this community that I will not ever engage in monkeyshines.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony bagadonutsMaybe, but what about future hijinks, tomfoolery, ballyhoo or monkeyshines?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
Sorry, I only deal with shenanigans and the occasional bouts of childhood mischief!Quote:
Originally Posted by tony bagadonutsMaybe, but what about future hijinks, tomfoolery, ballyhoo or monkeyshines?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
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.Quote:
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.
:thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
Only if said store supposedly was all about rooting out fraud in grocery stores :) My point is that it's a mehhhh analogy. I do appreciate your "support" though Steve!Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
Make it a bank then and it happened outside of a camera viewQuote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
"Grammatically Challenged Scammer"
Nuff said
Seemingly a double entendre given the circumstances?Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardBrodiesCombover.
http://i.imgur.com/kg92R.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22Seemingly a double entendre given the circumstances?Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardBrodiesCombover.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-OSorry, I only deal with shenanigans and the occasional bouts of childhood mischief!Quote:
Originally Posted by tony bagadonuts
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.Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
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.
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e1...oy-praying.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by limitlesI will not grace this forum with my excellence unless Mr. Dan recounts and gets a fucking grip on the real worldQuote:
Originally Posted by BUBBLES
wtf is druff thinking? this is pokerfraudalert.com lolQuote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369The 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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
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?Quote:
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.
wake up druff
I am still thinking about this one.
Some people feel that I am afraid to ban jsearles because he actively posts here. While I admit it would be easier to ban him if he was either an infrequent poster or if all of his posts were terrible, that's not what this is about.
As I said earlier, this site was founded as a place to have a dedicated forum where poker-related scandals and scams could be discussed. It was never billed as a place where all members were going to be held to the highest moral standards, nor did I ever promise to intervene in people's personal disputes regarding bet welching.
With that said, I do understand the arguments as to why jsearles22 should be banned, and I am strongly considering doing so.
:thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Steve-OSorry, I only deal with shenanigans and the occasional bouts of childhood mischief!Quote:
Originally Posted by tony bagadonuts
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.Quote:
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.
I couldn't care less about who "wins" in this situation, but this still makes me laugh. Dude, you were making a bet dealing with his grammar, and usage of words. You can't fuck up your own grammar and then say..."oh, well he knew what I meant".Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
Quote:
Originally Posted by gutI couldn't care less about who "wins" in this situation, but this still makes me laugh. Dude, you were making a bet dealing with his grammar, and usage of words. You can't fuck up your own grammar and then say..."oh, well he knew what I meant".Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
This is seemingly my entire argument......
If I am to be banned it would seemingly be the weakest ban in Druffs history. There are multiple respected members here who will at a minimum acknowledge that there was issues with the wager. Using others words, is a scummy angleshot really ban worthy? People are taking their hatred for me and trying to morph that into a ban where it simply isnt justified.
Oh, and Limitles claims he wont post here until Druff bans me. I could make a very compelling argument that I am a way better post then he is, if need be. No one believes that drunk tilt monkey wont actually continue to post, but he said he wouldnt.
And lastly, Druff, if you ban me you are obligated to ban both 408mike and Vwls at a minimum. Both have very publicly scammed in the past. Dont misread this trolls, im not acknowledging that I am in the wrong here, im simply stating that others have been in my very same position and they freely post.
Can someone please explain to me when 408Mike and Vwls scammed on this forum?
You're putting words in my mouth or misunderstanding my meaning. Druff has CLEARLY said that he didn't scam you, it was a semi-scam/angle-shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369The 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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
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?Quote:
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.
I'll just leave it at this: My feeling is that collecting money from this guy is YOUR problem; if Druff wants to ban him it should be for what he already did not tgo help you get paid. You were trying to get one over on someone you feel is a scumbag and you fell victim to their scumminess. You should have been more careful. It's like picking up a gun someone tells you isn't loaded, you check it and then you check it again.
If you want to shame him about go right ahead, I'm completely on your side that you won the bet; if Druff bans him it should be for actions not as a way to get him to pay. Banning him unless he pays solves nothing you are asking for or questioning Druff about. Even if he pays at this point what he did was still the same level of scummyness, so he should be banned anyway based on your line of thinking that all dishonorable poeple should be banned from PFA because of the name --which would preclude someoned like Travis Makar or Russ Hamilton from posting here, I don't think you would be calling for them to be banned. Like I said earlier, I'm pretty ambivelant when it comes to him getting banned, I'm not defending him or saying "Druff don't ban this kid".
I try to be, which is why I gave my reasonable, semi-informed opinion on that matter, whether you agree with my opinion or not is up to you. Just because you don't like what I posted doesn't make it unintelligent or unreasonable. I would argue that I have been one of the most reasonable people throughout this entire discussion.Quote:
I thought you were pretty reasonable, intelligent guy.
When you deal with untrustworthy individuals you can't leave them any wiggle room, and the better option is to just not deal with them at all.
How I read it, Vegas referred to how things were handled on DD, referencing it to how it should be done here. Searles was relating those times to the here and nowQuote:
Originally Posted by TheTemplar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22Quote:
Originally Posted by gut
This is seemingly my entire argument......
If I am to be banned it would seemingly be the weakest ban in Druffs history. There are multiple respected members here who will at a minimum acknowledge that there was issues with the wager. Using others words, is a scummy angleshot really ban worthy? People are taking their hatred for me and trying to morph that into a ban where it simply isnt justified.
Oh, and Limitles claims he wont post here until Druff bans me. I could make a very compelling argument that I am a way better post then he is, if need be. No one believes that drunk tilt monkey wont actually continue to post, but he said he wouldnt.
And lastly, Druff, if you ban me you are obligated to ban both 408mike and Vwls at a minimum. Both have very publicly scammed in the past. Dont misread this trolls, im not acknowledging that I am in the wrong here, im simply stating that others have been in my very same position and they freely post.
You idiot, I said that while under the influence and to add a bit of drama. For me, the nail in the coffin was your, "help me to decide what to do with this extra money I just won" thread. How pitiful was that? You and everyone here is a better poster than me when I've been drinking. But that's not all day everyday. In fact I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that I am now sober and will soon become ordained as a Minister in the Church of our Lord and Saviour. thank-you
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTemplar
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?
Searles, I'll bet you 500 Bootsy Bucks you cant find 3 grammatical errors in this post.....Bootsy escrow?Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369The 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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
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?Quote:
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.
:lol2Quote:
Originally Posted by limitlesQuote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
You idiot, I said that while under the influence and to add a bit of drama. For me, the nail in the coffin was your, "help me to decide what to do with this extra money I just won" thread. How pitiful was that? You and everyone here is a better poster than me when I've been drinking. But that's not all day everyday. In fact I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that I am now sober and will soon become ordained as a Minister in the Church of our Lord and Saviour. thank-you
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by gutSearles, I'll bet you 500 Bootsy Bucks you cant find 3 grammatical errors in this post.....Bootsy escrow?Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369The 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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
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?Quote:
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.
Does everyone have to use the "reply with quote" feature every time? It's getting so jumbled I don't know who is referring or saying what to anyone.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22I 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by gutSearles, I'll bet you 500 Bootsy Bucks you cant find 3 grammatical errors in this post.....Bootsy escrow?Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369