Druff, please ban jsearles...

Well done, Vegas. When you actually lay out the facts and arguments in a coherent, cohesive manner (as you just did, above), it is far more persuasive than tiltingly calling people "faggot" and other such ad hominem that has littered these threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandwich

Well done, Vegas. When you actually lay out the facts and arguments in a coherent, cohesive manner (as you just did, above), it is far more persuasive than tiltingly calling people "faggot" and other such ad hominem that has littered these threads.

---

he also quite clearly displays that the bet was just 25 errors, searles has done a good job distracting people with that one quote but that isnt even where the bet was accepted. Pay up fatty.

Searles had one single, solitary, chance of voiding this bet but the timeline that Vegas just laid out shot that to hell.

There is, literally, no excuse that Searles can come with at this point other than "I lost the bet but I'm not going to pay up."

Im not going to quote Vegas' tilt because frankly it is too long, even for me. If you want to know what I am talking about then go back and read his post. I will try to stay in chronological order, top to bottom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas1369

If he wants to come out here and box me for shits and giggles, I'd be down, but that's a different issue.

---

I would gladly box you if you wanted to come out here too.

Your entire argument is now that when I said 25 USAGES that I clearly meant only one or the other because I didnt go as far as clarifying:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas1369

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".

---

I have one simple question for you. How else would I have phrased it had I meant both in the same post? When you initially offered the bet you did not say "I will find 25 posts with either word" nor did you say "I will find 25 posts with then OR than", you simply said "those two words." So for you to now argue that me saying "25 usages" implies that I meant singular usages as opposed to dual usages is LOL. I readily admit that NEITHER ONE of us clarified the bet terms. You didnt, and neither did I. So for you to now think you have found a hidden nugget is hilarious to me. Like I said before and I will say again, if you had simply stated "either word" or stated "then or than" ONE FUCKING TIME in all of your posts then this wouldnt even be an issue. For one the bet never would have been booked, and had it been I would obviously had lost and be inclined to pay. The fact of the matter is you never once said "either" or "or". All of the language used is a plural form and I can just as easily argue that the plural format shows BOTH words should be used just as easily as you can argue that pluralization was used simply to denote multiple (as in 25). Do you see what Im saying? I doubt it. I read your post with an open mind, but the fact of the matter is at the end of the day neither one of use clearly stated the terms of the bet which is on both of us.

So now we are at an impasse. All of this discussion cracks me up for one reason. Do you guys really think you are going to come on here and post all of this shit and one day out of the blue im going to be like "ohh shit, I did misphrase that. I better log into paypal and insta ship" ? I mean seriously? The only way this is getting resolved, which im open to and Vegas is not, is for us to escrow and use three impartial judges. The rest is simply rhetoric and is moving us no closer to the finish line.

Jason Searles keeps trying, but failing miserably. Shut it down man. You have a wife and kid...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JUSTIFIEDhomicide

Jason Searles keeps trying, but failing miserably. Shut it down man. You have a wife and kid...

---

What is this supposed to mean exactly?

I've never understood how this 'impartial judge' thing would even work. Somebody (who?) is going to contact English teachers/professors not affiliated with these boards and ask for their input regarding the exact wordings of multiple posts and for them to come to a decision as to whether Searles owes or not?

First, even if this was feasible, Searles would obviously lose. Anyone with an education would quickly determine that.

Even when they would rule against Searles, he still wouldn't pay. All of this is pointless. He doesn't deserve to lean on this 'impartial jury' angle any longer; it will never happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe

I've never understood how this 'impartial judge' thing would even work. Somebody (who?) is going to contact English teachers/professors not affiliated with these boards and ask for their input regarding the exact wordings of multiple posts and for them to come to a decision as to whether Searles owes or not?

First, even if this was feasible, Searles would obviously lose. Anyone with an education would quickly determine that.

Even when they would rule against Searles, he still wouldn't pay. All of this is pointless. He doesn't deserve to lean on this 'impartial jury' angle any longer; it will never happen.

---

http://youtu.be/vH8jAjtvc10

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe

I've never understood how this 'impartial judge' thing would even work. Somebody (who?) is going to contact English teachers/professors not affiliated with these boards and ask for their input regarding the exact wordings of multiple posts and for them to come to a decision as to whether Searles owes or not?

First, even if this was feasible, Searles would obviously lose. Anyone with an education would quickly determine that.

Even when they would rule against Searles, he still wouldn't pay. All of this is pointless. He doesn't deserve to lean on this 'impartial jury' angle any longer; it will never happen.

---

First of all Sloppy Joe, I have offered and will escrow if we can find 3 impartial judges. Therefore your "wont pay" theory goes completely out the window.

Secondly, you say "anyone with an education" would quickly determine that I would lose. Well what about Susan B. Kline, a Business Communications expert with a BA and MA from Harvard. Ms. Kline also runs a "Grammar Hotline" via e-mail. Here is her response:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harvard Grad Susan Kline

No matter what the intent of the bet, the wording was indeed loose. The loser (Searles) is correct: You had to find 25 posts in which both “then” and “than” (“those two words”) were used incorrectly.

---

Or how about PokerPrince2's English Teacher:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PP2

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.

---

LOL, thats obviously a joke

The whole point is that I am not "leaning on" anything as you say. Im perfectly open and willing to get this thing settled once and for all. If I lose then I lose. If I win then we all win as I would put most of it back into PFA and the rest would be to buy shares in Druff. The $500 doesnt really matter to me that much. Sure $500 is $500 and nothing to scoff at, but it isnt changing my life in one way or the other. The incredible amount of spewage over these two threads is in simple terms amazing. How many hundreds of hours have been wasted by 50's of peoples? If everyone donated a penny for every minute they spent reading and responding herein, we would have come up with $500 a long time ago.

Nonetheless, just to be clear, Im willing to resolve this matter and Vegas is not. Vegas is willing to repeatedly say he will no longer discuss it but then continue to discuss it, so maybe there is still hope?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

First of all Sloppy Joe, I have offered and will escrow if we can find 3 impartial judges. Therefore your "wont pay" theory goes completely out the window.

Secondly, you say "anyone with an education" would quickly determine that I would lose. Well what about Susan B. Kline, a Business Communications expert with a BA and MA from Harvard. Ms. Kline also runs a "Grammar Hotline" via e-mail. Here is her response:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harvard Grad Susan Kline

No matter what the intent of the bet, the wording was indeed loose. The loser (Searles) is correct: You had to find 25 posts in which both “then” and “than” (“those two words”) were used incorrectly.

---

Or how about PokerPrince2's English Teacher:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PP2

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.

---

LOL, thats obviously a joke

The whole point is that I am not "leaning on" anything as you say. Im perfectly open and willing to get this thing settled once and for all. If I lose then I lose. If I win then we all win as I would put most of it back into PFA and the rest would be to buy shares in Druff. The $500 doesnt really matter to me that much. Sure $500 is $500 and nothing to scoff at, but it isnt changing my life in one way or the other. The incredible amount of spewage over these two threads is in simple terms amazing. How many hundreds of hours have been wasted by 50's of peoples? If everyone donated a penny for every minute they spent reading and responding herein, we would have come up with $500 a long time ago.

Nonetheless, just to be clear, Im willing to resolve this matter and Vegas is not. Vegas is willing to repeatedly say he will no longer discuss it but then continue to discuss it, so maybe there is still hope?

---

This is the single worst post in the history of the internet.

I'd be curious if Hut gave the entire timeline of posts, acceptance, sequence, etc.

I wonder what "Harvard Grad Susan Kline" would think once she was informed that the wording of the bet that searles is using to duck his way out of paying wasn't part of the agreed upon terms of the bet.

Face it Searles, your one and only "out" in this situation was completely blown to hell and back by Vegas laying out the order of how things went down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCR

I'd be curious if Hut gave the entire timeline of posts, acceptance, sequence, etc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hutmaster

I explained the bet and provided them the exact wording as proposed by Vegas.

---

In her reply, Ms. Kline notes "no matter the intent of the bet,....." which means that regardless of what Vegas intended to wager, he actually erroniously offered a different bet. This is very similar to what Druff bitched about in a different thread about poker. If you throw out a certain amount of chips, then thats your bet, regardless of your stated intent. Im actually fairly surprised Druff took that hard line in another thread but then ruled in another manner on this topic. You cant have it both ways!

Cut the baby in half, imo.

My point was (and is) that the '3 person impartial judge' angle is a fallacy. How to determine if all three judges are impartial? Who chooses them? You already have determined that the entirety of PFA is against you so how could an impartial 'panel' of judges be found? By people that you cherry pick out of cyberspace? LOL

We both know that no 'council' of 3 judges will ever be assembled. Anybody with a modicum of intelligence knows that you lost. I don't see why you're so aggressive in insisting otherwise. It's not like this has tarnished your name or anything; everybody already hated you and thought you were scummy.

The owner of this site is being curiously passive with this story; it's a cut and dry angle shoot. I don't see why nothing is happening with this. I get that it's just LOLinternet stuff but things like this are usually taken seriously.

its pretty obvious that jsearles22 is just a troll. you can tell since he brags about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

First of all Sloppy Joe, I have offered and will escrow if we can find 3 impartial judges. Therefore your "wont pay" theory goes completely out the window.

---

Escrow now, searles. That's the only way any theory goes out the window.

Obv. Vegas escrows as well.

The impartial judges can be worked on while the money is held by Druff. When the decision is rendered, payment is made to the winner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuntmissioner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

First of all Sloppy Joe, I have offered and will escrow if we can find 3 impartial judges. Therefore your "wont pay" theory goes completely out the window.

---

Escrow now, searles. That's the only way any theory goes out the window.

Obv. Vegas escrows as well.

The impartial judges can be worked on while the money is held by Druff. When the decision is rendered, payment is made to the winner.

---

he would cry conspiracy if he lost

The entire grammar expert thing is a joke, I'm assuming Searles is sending that single post and asking them what it means? Nobody would dispute the answer of that, Vegas has clearly outlined what the bet was, the intention of the bet is crystal clear to everyone reading the thread, 100% Searles loses this bet if the entire thread is sent to any impartial judge, not sure why he would even bother wasting anyones time. It's a lousy $500 man, give $200 to druff for the radio show free roll like Vegas said and ship him the $300.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peter mcneil

The entire grammar expert thing is a joke, I'm assuming Searles is sending that single post and asking them what it means? Nobody would dispute the answer of that, Vegas has clearly outlined what the bet was, the intention of the bet is crystal clear to everyone reading the thread, 100% Searles loses this bet if the entire thread is sent to any impartial judge, not sure why he would even bother wasting anyones time. It's a lousy $500 man, give $200 to druff for the radio show free roll like Vegas said and ship him the $300.

---

:this

This outside arbitration bullshit is just another angle shooting stall tactic. The lengths this guy will go not to pay me would make Bernie Madoff proud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vegas1369

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peter mcneil

The entire grammar expert thing is a joke, I'm assuming Searles is sending that single post and asking them what it means? Nobody would dispute the answer of that, Vegas has clearly outlined what the bet was, the intention of the bet is crystal clear to everyone reading the thread, 100% Searles loses this bet if the entire thread is sent to any impartial judge, not sure why he would even bother wasting anyones time. It's a lousy $500 man, give $200 to druff for the radio show free roll like Vegas said and ship him the $300.

---

:this

This outside arbitration bullshit is just another angle shooting stall tactic. The lengths this guy will go not to pay me would make Bernie Madoff proud.

---

The bet included a clause for three impartial arbitrators. I am merely exercising my rights per the bet. The bet did not include escrow, but I'm still willing to do that, assuming the bet clause pertaining to three impartial judges is met. I'm abiding by the terms of the bet, Vegas is not. The ONLY reason he is not is because he fears losing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vegas1369

:this

This outside arbitration bullshit is just another angle shooting stall tactic. The lengths this guy will go not to pay me would make Bernie Madoff proud.

---

The bet included a clause for three impartial arbitrators. I am merely exercising my rights per the bet. The bet did not include escrow, but I'm still willing to do that, assuming the bet clause pertaining to three impartial judges is met. I'm abiding by the terms of the bet, Vegas is not. The ONLY reason he is not is because he fears losing.

---

You know, I haven't brought this up yet, but you are using this whole impartial arbitrator angle now, and when you initially booked the bet this is what you said...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

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?

---

You didn't ask for 3 judges to rule on the validity of the wording of the bet, you asked for them to "to rule on the validity of each usage and it's merit." Meaning, the only thing the judges were supposed to be used for was to judge whether or not the misuses I found were in fact missuses of the word then or than! YOU ARE USING THIS WHOLE OUTSIDE ARBITRATOR BULLSHIT AS A REASON TO NOT PAY, WHEN IN FACT YOU YOURSELF DID NOT ASK FOR THEM FOR SUCH A REASON TO BEGIN WITH! Infuckingsane.

Pay me!

BTW, back to something you said...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

I would gladly box you if you wanted to come out here too.

---

BAHAHAHA!!!! I live in Vegas, you live in bum fuck Missouri. People actually take vacations here, the only reason people go where you live is because they know someone there. You know damn well I will never be going to Missouri, this was just a way for you to save face cause you know your fat, out of shape, weak ass does not want to go anywhere near a boxing ring. That's fine, but just admit it next time instead of saying some asinine bullshit just to not look like a pussy on the internet. You're already known as a giant angle shooting, welching asshole, no big deal if you add pussy in there as well.

Pay up scammer. You don't just owe me now, you owe $200 to PFR.

The bet included a clause for three impartial arbitrators. I am merely exercising my rights per the bet. The bet did not include escrow, but I'm still willing to do that, assuming the bet clause pertaining to three impartial judges is met. I'm abiding by the terms of the bet, Vegas is not. The ONLY reason he is not is because he fears losing.

Was it an angle shot or a scam in your opinion? It can't really be both can it? "Angle shooting- A poker player who uses various underhanded, unfair methods to take advantage of inexperienced opponents. The difference between an angle shooter and a cheat is only a matter of degree. What a cheat or thief does is patently against the rules; what an angle shooter does may be marginally legal, but it's neither ethical nor gentlemanly. Nor is it in the spirit of the game. Unfortunately, poker is not a gentleman's game"

And Vegas, you assuming I will come there to beat your old ass is no more asinine then me assuming you will come here. The City of Fountains, the Arch, and Branson are just three of the myriad reasons people come to Missouri. The world doesn't actually revolve around degenerate gamblers and whores. I would rather ride my 4 wheeler to go fishing any day over living in that rat race.

Druff is an asshole.....he won't even shut the fucking on air sign off for the third straight day....wtf is wrong with this miscreant......I 'm finished

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Druff is an asshole.....I 'm finished

---

Read that post last week.

:fraud

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Druff is an asshole.....I 'm finished

---

Read that post last week.

:fraud

---

ban Deal, Hockeyguy, LLL and a host of others for blatant faggotry and limpwristedness

Blatant faggotry is the best thing going at this site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vwls

Blatant faggotry is the best thing going at this site.

---

I do what I can.

18 pages of the same shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PLOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vwls

Blatant faggotry is the best thing going at this site.

---

I do what I can.

---

And it is appreciated.

http://i.imgur.com/IvjNF.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nunbeater

http://i.imgur.com/IvjNF.jpg

---

http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/att...2&d=1336509651

Druff is not a man of the people....anything but.......I think he thinks he's above the crowd.....and in some ways it may be true....however there are many aspects to life and gut feelings or instincts are every bit as powerful as logic and reasoning.....so I think the smartest of the smart take it all into account.

I don't put Druff into this category otherwise we wouldn't see these epic fruitless battles against sandwich shop managers and the like.

Oh well we can't have it all can we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muck Ficon

18 pages of the same shit.

---

:cosby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

The bet included a clause for three impartial arbitrators. I am merely exercising my rights per the bet. The bet did not include escrow, but I'm still willing to do that, assuming the bet clause pertaining to three impartial judges is met. I'm abiding by the terms of the bet, Vegas is not. The ONLY reason he is not is because he fears losing.

Was it an angle shot or a scam in your opinion? It can't really be both can it? "Angle shooting- A poker player who uses various underhanded, unfair methods to take advantage of inexperienced opponents. The difference between an angle shooter and a cheat is only a matter of degree. What a cheat or thief does is patently against the rules; what an angle shooter does may be marginally legal, but it's neither ethical nor gentlemanly. Nor is it in the spirit of the game. Unfortunately, poker is not a gentleman's game"

And Vegas, you assuming I will come there to beat your old ass is no more asinine then me assuming you will come here. The City of Fountains, the Arch, and Branson are just three of the myriad reasons people come to Missouri. The world doesn't actually revolve around degenerate gamblers and whores. I would rather ride my 4 wheeler to go fishing any day over living in that rat race.

---

JSearles didn't get enough attention today from this so he started that anti-Limitles thread to 'generate more hits' for himself.

Pretty fucking sad that a guy with a wife and child spends his evenings attention whoring on some forum where everyone hates him.

EVERYONE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

The bet included a clause for three impartial arbitrators. I am merely exercising my rights per the bet. The bet did not include escrow, but I'm still willing to do that, assuming the bet clause pertaining to three impartial judges is met. I'm abiding by the terms of the bet, Vegas is not. The ONLY reason he is not is because he fears losing.

Was it an angle shot or a scam in your opinion? It can't really be both can it? "Angle shooting- A poker player who uses various underhanded, unfair methods to take advantage of inexperienced opponents. The difference between an angle shooter and a cheat is only a matter of degree. What a cheat or thief does is patently against the rules; what an angle shooter does may be marginally legal, but it's neither ethical nor gentlemanly. Nor is it in the spirit of the game. Unfortunately, poker is not a gentleman's game"

And Vegas, you assuming I will come there to beat your old ass is no more asinine then me assuming you will come here. The City of Fountains, the Arch, and Branson are just three of the myriad reasons people come to Missouri. The world doesn't actually revolve around degenerate gamblers and whores. I would rather ride my 4 wheeler to go fishing any day over living in that rat race.

---

This is fucking gold!

So wait a second... The guy that has been using wording that had nothing to do with the booked bet as his defense to say he didn't lose is now ignoring WHAT HE SAID ABOUT THE ARBITRATORS!!! You can't make this shit up. You can't have it both ways Jsearles, you can't argue for 40+ pages about some semantics in irrelevant wording then go ahead AND IGNORE COMPLETELY RELEVANT WORDS THAT YOU WROTE. Let me put that quote up for you again...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

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?

---

I LOVE how you have been ignoring that bolded, enlarged part of your quote for the 40+ pages between this thread and the bet thread, and now continue to do so... Yes, the bet included 3 impartial arbitrators...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

to rule on the validity of each usage and it's merit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

to rule on the validity of each usage and it's merit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

to rule on the validity of each usage and it's merit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

to rule on the validity of each usage and it's merit.

---

Get it??? This is the ONLY thing the judges were nominated for, not to judge the wording of the terms of the bet, just

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

to rule on the validity of each usage and it's merit.

---

THESE ARE YOUR WORDS MAN!!!

You have been arguing over some bullshit wording, that had nothing to do with the actual bet, that had nothing to do with THE TERMS THAT YOU YOURSELF SET, and now you are IGNORING WHAT YOU WROTE as to what the judges were to be used for. Your bullshit and shamefulness knows no bounds dude.


Let me say this one more time... The judges were to be used for one thing and one thing only...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

to rule on the validity of each usage and it's merit.

---

Look man, you have exhausted every angle possible to try and weasel your way out of this, it's not going to work anymore. EVERYONE SEES THROUGH YOUR BULLSHIT!

Just pay me and end this shit and save whatever shred of dignity you have left.



As far as the boxing, I have been to your state on two occasions, I won't be going back, there is nothing there that interests me at this point. I'm not putting down where you live, I'm sure it's fantastic in many ways, I'm just saying there are a lot of other places I haven't been that I want to go to in the future, and Missouri is not one of them. You on the other hand like poker, and Vegas, and eventually might make your way back here. If you do PLEASE let me know ahead of time and I will gladly set up a boxing match for us. I'm sure all your "fans" here would enjoy it.

Now, pay the money and stop any further nonsense.

http://nursinghomenegligencemalpract...ages/gavel.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vegas1369

This is fucking gold!

So wait a second... The guy that has been using wording that had nothing to do with the booked bet as his defense to say he didn't lose is now ignoring WHAT HE SAID ABOUT THE ARBITRATORS!!! You can't make this shit up. You can't have it both ways Jsearles, you can't argue for 40+ pages about some semantics in irrelevant wording then go ahead AND IGNORE COMPLETELY RELEVANT WORDS THAT YOU WROTE. Let me put that quote up for you again...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

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?

---

I LOVE how you have been ignoring that bolded, enlarged part of your quote for the 40+ pages between this thread and the bet thread, and now continue to do so... Yes, the bet included 3 impartial arbitrators...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

to rule on the validity of each usage and it's merit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

to rule on the validity of each usage and it's merit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

to rule on the validity of each usage and it's merit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

to rule on the validity of each usage and it's merit.

---

Get it??? This is the ONLY thing the judges were nominated for, not to judge the wording of the terms of the bet, just

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

to rule on the validity of each usage and it's merit.

---

THESE ARE YOUR WORDS MAN!!!

You have been arguing over some bullshit wording, that had nothing to do with the actual bet, that had nothing to do with THE TERMS THAT YOU YOURSELF SET, and now you are IGNORING WHAT YOU WROTE as to what the judges were to be used for. Your bullshit and shamefulness knows no bounds dude.


Let me say this one more time... The judges were to be used for one thing and one thing only...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

to rule on the validity of each usage and it's merit.

---

Look man, you have exhausted every angle possible to try and weasel your way out of this, it's not going to work anymore. EVERYONE SEES THROUGH YOUR BULLSHIT!

Just pay me and end this shit and save whatever shred of dignity you have left.



As far as the boxing, I have been to your state on two occasions, I won't be going back, there is nothing there that interests me at this point. I'm not putting down where you live, I'm sure it's fantastic in many ways, I'm just saying there are a lot of other places I haven't been that I want to go to in the future, and Missouri is not one of them. You on the other hand like poker, and Vegas, and eventually might make your way back here. If you do PLEASE let me know ahead of time and I will gladly set up a boxing match for us. I'm sure all your "fans" here would enjoy it.

Now, pay the money and stop any further nonsense.

---

The "I've run out of arguments so I'm just going to post GIFs and then nap out the thread." move is pure Jewdonk style shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serial Fail

The "I've run out of arguments so I'm just going to post GIFs and then nap out the thread." move is pure Jewdonk style shit.

---

I have run out of arguments. We have rehashed this thing 9000 fucking times. What would you like to hear me continuously say? My stance is that I would like this to go to arbitration with 3 impartial judges, to include escrow beforehand, and Vegas is not willing. Ive said it until Im blue in the face and Vegas just wants to ignore that and argue semantics. Vegas doesnt want to escrow and solve this because he might lose.