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.
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.Originally Posted by Sandwich
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.
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:
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...
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.
Me defeating Druff 100 BB heads up - http://youtu.be/LmxTH0rZaLk?t=2h12m35s
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:
Or how about PokerPrince2's English Teacher: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.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:
Or how about PokerPrince2's English Teacher: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?
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.
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.
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 lostEscrow 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.
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 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.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Reply With Quote
