Printable View
For the real, i wish most of my guys dressed that well. The majority of them look way worse! We pay these guys $8/hr in most cases where I live so we arent dealing with the cream of the crop. Thats what happens when you are in a management position though, sometimes you have to dabble with the little guysQuote:
Originally Posted by Serial Fail
I thought he agreed to the 3 judges when he booked the bet, then saw their ruling and decided against it. I asked my english teacher from high school and with the terms both those words he sided with jsearless but said how he could see people siding with vegas. just my two cents
I have removed jsearles' avatar and signature.
He can put up new ones, but I don't want it being anything to taunt vegas1369, as I feel that is inappropriate given the fact that jsearles owes him money and won't pay.
makeup on the zitQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Are you even following along Druff? I am offering to escrow and chose three independant arbitrators per the original agreement and Vegas is refusing to do so. How am I the bad guy here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
And my avatar and signature were both contributions from other members. Some members thought I should get the Scarlet Letter treatment so I put that up. Some members felt it was humorous that Vegas screwed up the language so that was what I chose to use as my signature. The fact is you are out of line here Druff. You are allowing your personal feelings and vendettas to cloud your judgement. Im not some freedom fighter so I wont bitch too much that you are fucking with me here (as you havent really done too much), but I do find it humorous that you are going after these petty trivial things.
If I banned you, about 85% of the forum would applaud me, and the other 15% wouldn't bitch too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22Are you even following along Druff? I am offering to escrow and chose three independant arbitrators per the original agreement and Vegas is refusing to do so. How am I the bad guy here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
And my avatar and signature were both contributions from other members. Some members thought I should get the Scarlet Letter treatment so I put that up. Some members felt it was humorous that Vegas screwed up the language so that was what I chose to use as my signature. The fact is you are out of line here Druff. You are allowing your personal feelings and vendettas to cloud your judgement. Im not some freedom fighter so I wont bitch too much that you are fucking with me here (as you havent really done too much), but I do find it humorous that you are going after these petty trivial things.
I have actually taken a lot of heat by letting you stay here, so obviously I am not biased against you.
What would you consider "independent arbitrators"? For some reason you concluded that I wasn't neutral and unbiased, despite the fact that vegas1369 and I had so many issues a few months ago that he posted on DD that he thought he would be insta-banned on PFA if he signed up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffIf I banned you, about 85% of the forum would applaud me, and the other 15% wouldn't bitch too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
I have actually taken a lot of heat by letting you stay here, so obviously I am not biased against you.
What would you consider "independent arbitrators"? For some reason you concluded that I wasn't neutral and unbiased, despite the fact that vegas1369 and I had so many issues a few months ago that he posted on DD that he thought he would be insta-banned on PFA if he signed up.
What I would consider independent and unbiased arbitrators is someone who has absolutely nothing to do with this forum, who has no back history with any of the participants. What this whole bet really comes down to is grammar. Hutmaster found these grammar hotlines that actually settle disputes about grammar. Sandwich provided a very long list of these that could be used. These are reputtable people that know what they are talking about; i think one lady was a business communications graduate from Harvard with a doctorate in her field. Business communications, essentially what this bet is about, discussing a bet. Now Vegas was originally open to this idea, that is until he realized that he could possibly lose.
and then he switched gears:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas1369
And lastly:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas1369
So now even though I have agreed to escrow and adhere to the whatever ruling that three indendent arbitrators decide and end all of this madness once and for all, now Vegas seemingly doesnt care to do as much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas1369
And LOL at Vegas waffling. Just in these three quotes from above HE FIRST SAYS there was never any talk of arbitors being a final authority and later says that the judges were picked because he nominated them. He cant even get his shit straight!
But your solution is to take away anything that "taunts" this guy. Thats just fucking classic
:facepalmQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
No taunting?? LOL wat?
Druff, Vegas is a grown ass man and doesn't need you to protect him from Searles's avatar and sig.
If you are trying to assist Vegas in some way, then ban Searles's sorry ass and be done with it. Aside from that I really don't understand what you're doing here.
Going for the top shelf stuff, I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe DiddlyGoing for the top shelf stuff, I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
Securitas is one of the few employers who pays enough to afford such quality alcohol.
WTF. Did Druff lift the prohibition on posting of personal information?Quote:
Originally Posted by Serial Fail
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandwichWTF. Did Druff lift the prohibition on posting of personal information?Quote:
Originally Posted by Serial Fail
Here is what Druff said actually. He never really says personal info is allowed, just names and pictures. His actions have dictated that he will allow my personal info on here though as my work info including address and phone numbers have been allowed to remain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dandruff
Securitas pretty much has the entire market for on-site security services.Quote:
Originally Posted by SandwichWTF. Did Druff lift the prohibition on posting of personal information?Quote:
Originally Posted by Serial Fail
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandwichWTF. Did Druff lift the prohibition on posting of personal information?Quote:
Originally Posted by Serial Fail
I thought knowledge of where he worked was common knowledge by this point. He's admitted it and, from the looks of it, he isn't ashamed of his profession.
As long as he is the one that put it out there, i have no problem with it. I guess I haven't been following this enough -- lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serial FailQuote:
Originally Posted by Sandwich
I thought knowledge of where he worked was common knowledge by this point. He's admitted it and, from the looks of it, he isn't ashamed of his profession.
I don't blame you one bit for not following this nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by SandwichAs long as he is the one that put it out there, i have no problem with it. I guess I haven't been following this enough -- lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serial Fail
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandwichAs long as he is the one that put it out there, i have no problem with it. I guess I haven't been following this enough -- lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serial Fail
Just for clarification, I never put it out there where I worked. Douchefather is the one who originally cross posted it from my Facebook. With that being said Im neither going to lie about where i work nor am I ashamed of it. I have a very good job, why would i be ashamed of that? I dont necessarily appreciate any personal information being posted, but if Druff feels he needs to let it happen on his site, then so be it.
Bringing the fail since 2007...Quote:
Originally Posted by Serial FailQuote:
Originally Posted by Sandwich
I thought knowledge of where he worked was common knowledge by this point. He's admitted it and, from the looks of it, he isn't ashamed of his profession.
:solidgoldQuote:
Originally Posted by limitles
:applauseQuote:
Originally Posted by limitles
nice
:applauseQuote:
Originally Posted by limitles
Top effort Les, well done.
:solidgold
:lol2
Quote:
Originally Posted by limitles
I don't know what to say. I just shed a tear. That was fucking beautiful.
LOL! Some of your best work Les :)
Jsearles seems to be taking the approach of ignoring things that he doesn't have an answer for, and instead defers with nonsense... Like that he is now willing to go with "outside arbitrators" because he can't get a fair shake around here. LOL. Yeah, ignore all the people that actually KNOW the situation, and trust someone who doesn't have a clue. Makes a lot of sense, and that's not even mentioning how much of a pain in the ass it would be to find these trustworthy outside arbitrators and agree on that, let alone get them to agree to read the thread. I am only bringing this up now because this guy is going to run around here saying I'm not willing to settle this bet because I won't agree to 3 outside arbitrators. It's not good enough for him that the entire site (including the 3 judges he originally agreed to when booking the bet) all think he lost this bet, one being the owner of this site who, without question, is considered to be one of the most ethical, moral people out there when it comes to all things gambling.
Why do you need outsiders to convince you that you lost? You said it comes down to grammar... That is just your angle shot. You always knew what this bet was about but tried to find some loophole with the wording of it. Everyone, and I mean everyone here knows this, yet you keep on trying to weasel your way out of it.
Do you disagree that Druff is considered to be one of the smartest, honest, most ethical people out there when it comes to gambling?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Do you seriously think that everyone on this site worth a damn is wrong, and that you are in the right?
BTW, good job ignoring this post as well...
http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...ll=1#post26836
I think you should apologize for these false accusations.
VPR and PFA, now partners....Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffIf I banned you, about 85% of the forum would applaud me, and the other 15% wouldn't bitch too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
I have actually taken a lot of heat by letting you stay here, so obviously I am not biased against you.
What would you consider "independent arbitrators"? For some reason you concluded that I wasn't neutral and unbiased, despite the fact that vegas1369 and I had so many issues a few months ago that he posted on DD that he thought he would be insta-banned on PFA if he signed up.
I haven't ignored anything on this site, that much isn't even in question.Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369LOL! Some of your best work Les :)
Jsearles seems to be taking the approach of ignoring things that he doesn't have an answer for, and instead defers with nonsense... Like that he is now willing to go with "outside arbitrators" because he can't get a fair shake around here. LOL. Yeah, ignore all the people that actually KNOW the situation, and trust someone who doesn't have a clue. Makes a lot of sense, and that's not even mentioning how much of a pain in the ass it would be to find these trustworthy outside arbitrators and agree on that, let alone get them to agree to read the thread. I am only bringing this up now because this guy is going to run around here saying I'm not willing to settle this bet because I won't agree to 3 outside arbitrators. It's not good enough for him that the entire site (including the 3 judges he originally agreed to when booking the bet) all think he lost this bet, one being the owner of this site who, without question, is considered to be one of the most ethical, moral people out there when it comes to all things gambling.
Why do you need outsiders to convince you that you lost? You said it comes down to grammar... That is just your angle shot. You always knew what this bet was about but tried to find some loophole with the wording of it. Everyone, and I mean everyone here knows this, yet you keep on trying to weasel your way out of it.
Do you disagree that Druff is considered to be one of the smartest, honest, most ethical people out there when it comes to gambling?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Do you seriously think that everyone on this site worth a damn is wrong, and that you are in the right?
BTW, good job ignoring this post as well...
http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...ll=1#post26836
I think you should apologize for these false accusations.
No one on this site could be considered impartial. Vegas wants to use "judges" who have already rendered a decision in his favor. That's both laughable and idiotic. Vegas originally said he would agree to these grammar police as long as they would read the thread. Someone noted that he could in fact lose and now Vegas is backing off. He doesn't want a fair resolution, he only wants a resolution that he knows is in his favor before he ever agrees. Funny, that's how this bet started; Vegas thought he had a free roll.
Druff is in fact one of the smartest, honest, most ethical people in poker. The problem is, again, that he has already rendered a decision. No one in their right mind would agree to a judge like that.
Quit saying all three of YOUR pre assigned judges agree I lost. Druff says I lost, Steve-O is in the middle, and Tony says it should be voided.
I apologize for falsely accusing you of continuously bringing my wife into this. You retracted and apologized the first and really only time you did so. My mistake.
I nominated those judges BEFORE the bet took place. How is that now that I chose them AFTER they rendered a decision? Please explain that one. I had no idea what any of their decisions would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22I haven't ignored anything on this site, that much isn't even in question.Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
No one on this site could be considered impartial. Vegas wants to use "judges" who have already rendered a decision in his favor. That's both laughable and idiotic. Vegas originally said he would agree to these grammar police as long as they would read the thread. Someone noted that he could in fact lose and now Vegas is backing off. He doesn't want a fair resolution, he only wants a resolution that he knows is in his favor before he ever agrees. Funny, that's how this bet started; Vegas thought he had a free roll.
Druff is in fact one of the smartest, honest, most ethical people in poker. The problem is, again, that he has already rendered a decision. No one in their right mind would agree to a judge like that.
Quit saying all three of YOUR pre assigned judges agree I lost. Druff says I lost, Steve-O is in the middle, and Tony says it should be voided.
I apologize for falsely accusing you of continuously bringing my wife into this. You retracted and apologized the first and really only time you did so. My mistake.
Also, thank you for the apology.
Huh? I said "YOUR pre-assigned judges."Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369I nominated those judges BEFORE the bet took place. How is that now that I chose them AFTER they rendered a decision? Please explain that one. I had no idea what any of their decisions would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
Also, thank you for the apology.
you want me to accept them now that they have rendered a decision and I will not do so. I did not agree to them before or after the bet.
So this thing is dead I guess. Vegas won't agree to 3 impartial judges as was the original term of the bet. I'm willing to escrow and settle, Vegas is not. Anyone smarter than us two see any other possible resolution? I'm frankly growing weary of all of this.
How about payup, logoff, then :nooseQuote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22Huh? I said "YOUR pre-assigned judges."Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
you want me to accept them now that they have rendered a decision and I will not do so. I did not agree to them before or after the bet.
So this thing is dead I guess. Vegas won't agree to 3 impartial judges as was the original term of the bet. I'm willing to escrow and settle, Vegas is not. Anyone smarter than us two see any other possible resolution? I'm frankly growing weary of all of this.
Your wording here... And this was after I used the now infamous quote "those two words", which BTW was something you didn't even agree to. This is your post AFTER that quote was used...Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22Huh? I said "YOUR pre-assigned judges."Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
you want me to accept them now that they have rendered a decision and I will not do so. I did not agree to them before or after the bet.
So this thing is dead I guess. Vegas won't agree to 3 impartial judges as was the original term of the bet. I'm willing to escrow and settle, Vegas is not. Anyone smarter than us two see any other possible resolution? I'm frankly growing weary of all of this.
Just pay up and end this shit already.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
25 incorrect usages for $250 with a panel of 3 impartial judges to rule on the validity of each usage and it's merit. Would you book that bet than?
Did I miss a point here? You don't seem to be saying anything new? I said YOUR judges not THE judges.Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369Your wording here... And this was after I used the now infamous quote "those two words", which BTW was something you didn't even agree to. This is your post AFTER that quote was used...Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
Just pay up and end this shit already.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
25 incorrect usages for $250 with a panel of 3 impartial judges to rule on the validity of each usage and it's merit. Would you book that bet than?
Would be fucking HOF if Vegas and jsearless boxed it out like micon and dirtyB. Loser either pays x amount/ or is banned. Record it and throw it up on youtube.
They both live on Vegas, right?
There are 2 points here that you missed.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22Did I miss a point here? You don't seem to be saying anything new? I said YOUR judges not THE judges.Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
Your wording here... And this was after I used the now infamous quote "those two words", which BTW was something you didn't even agree to. This is your post AFTER that quote was used...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
25 incorrect usages for $250 with a panel of 3 impartial judges to rule on the validity of each usage and it's merit. Would you book that bet than?
pay up and end this shit already.
#1 is that the whole "those two words" quote isn't even relevant. You made the quote about setting the terms of the bet and you clearly said 25 incorrect usages. No where did you ever say I need to find both words in the same post, you just said "25 incorrect usages". Again, this was AFTER I said "those two words", and those terms weren't even agreed to by you as I wanted to bet $1000 and asked "booked?", you came back with "25 incorrect usages" and 3 impartial judges for $250, I countered with 15 for $250 or 25 for $500 and then nominated Druff, Steve and Tony as judges... You then accepted 25 misuses for $500 and said "you have 48 hours", thus booking the bet to those terms, which included those 3 guys as judges. This is indisputable dude.
Point #2 is obviously that you accepted the judges when you booked the bet. You only started questioning that when you tried your angle shot with wording that wasn't even relevant to the actual booked bet.
Again, do the right thing for once and just pay and end this shit. It's beyond obvious that you lost and are just trying every angle to get out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardBrodiesCombover.
16 pages?
*shaking head*
I don't even think the loser of the fight should pay the $500. It would be epic & I think the winner should be given the title of PFA Heavyweight Champ. They should also get to use an actual picture of themselves standing triumphantly over the other as their avatar & have the boxing video posted for all to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardBrodiesCombover.
After a week the loser could then have the option to pay the $500 to an agreed upon charity & have the avatar & title removed forever with the agreement that it never be used again & this would end this debacle forever.
It's a dream but it's the only fair resolution to this that I could see. Plus it would be the funniest shit that could ever happen(at least for us not getting punched in the face)regardless of who won.
No, he lives in Missouri. It would be interesting though, we are both the same height. He outweighs me by a bit, but it is pretty much all fat though. Who knows, while I doubt it, he may pack a punch, Butterbean sure could hit like a mother fucker. Let's be real though, this is no resolution as far as I'm concerned, and I am not going to wait months and months for this guy to come out here to box to settle this. I just want what is rightfully mine, which is the $500 that he owes me for this bet. If he wants to come out here and box me for shits and giggles, I'd be down, but that's a different issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardBrodiesCombover.
Back to the bet...
I don't know why, but I never went back and actually read the timeline of how the bet went down until this morning. Probably would have saved a lot of time and sore eyes for those that have followed this shit, because the now infamous quote that I made about "those two words" was made before Jsearles set the terms for the bet, which he eventually accepted, rendering that quote irrelevant. Allow me to elaborate...
This is going to be long, so if you really don't give a shit about all of this don't go any further, just a fair warning.
This is the first exchange about the bet and the ONLY time I said "those two words"...
At this point Jsearles DOES NOT ACCEPT THIS BET rendering this last quote of mine completely irrelevant. This was THE ONLY TIME I say "those two words"... He then counters with this...Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369Do you not realize how much dumber this is making you look asking me to book a bet about something that you learn in elementary school? Maybe you luckboxed your way into using it correctly ONE fucking time, I could be wrong as I don't read every post you make, but the point is, and you haven't even denied this, YOU ARE CALLING PEOPLE BORDERLINE RETARDED YET YOU DIDN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEN AND THAN UNTIL I JUST POINTED IT OUT.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
I have a better bet for you... How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used those two words incorrectly? I will bet you $1000. Booked?
He didn't say "25 incorrect usages containing both words in the same post", he simply said "25 incorrect usages", which obviously meant all I had to do was find 25 misuses of the word then or than. This is what any reasonable person would take away from that, there is no "looseness" in the definition of "25 incorrect usages".Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
I was gone until the next day... I then made this post...
NOWHERE IN THAT ^ POST IS THE TERM "THOSE TWO WORDS" USED. I am now agreeing to his proposal of 25 INCORRECT USAGES but I want the bet to be for more money. I also nominated the three judges, which he never questioned until AFTER the bet was booked and was looking like he was going to lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
Jsearles' next post is this...
So at this point, according to him, he was supposedly clowning on me... This is important here, the reason being is one of his arguments when he tried to angle shoot was that he felt he was tricking me into a stupid bet, meanwhile the ONLY TIME the term "those two words" was used was in an initial post with terms he didn't agree to... If he felt he was tricking me why did he not jump on the bet right away... Why would he wait all this time, and then on top of it try to get out of it by saying he was clowning on me? Doesn't make any sense at all if in fact he thought he was tricking me into a stupid bet, does it? Fuck no.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
My response...
"Accept the terms of the bet that YOU proposed to begin with."Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
Obviously that is referring to jsearles' initial post AFTER THE "THOSE TWO WORDS" quote, which again was...
Jsearles then responds next with this... Notice again, never any mention whatsoever of two words used together, just 25-30 "misuses"...Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
At this point I like the 25 for $500 and say I should be able to find at least half here and the rest on DD, he says...Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
So in all of that, please show me one instance where Jsearles says anything about having to find both than and then in the same post. It was always about finding 25 incorrect usages, and nothing else.
It's pathetic this shit has gone all this long, this is one of the weakest angle shots in history after looking it over a bit.
Like I said Jsearles, just pay up and end this shit already. Enough of this angle shooting bullshit, you lost fair and square and everyone here, except for you knows it.
If and when Jsearles does pay me, I will pledge $200 of it to Druff for one of his radio tournaments. Maybe even Jsearles could play in it and try to win it back.
:lolinternets
I've realized the exact same thing, it was only when Duddly got involved that Searle's story changed and that is because he knew he was drawing dead.
POS should pay up or shut-up, meaning ban.
you do have to be aware of fat-man strength