Quote Originally Posted by jsearles22 View Post
Quote Originally Posted by vegas1369 View Post
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?

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.
I haven't ignored anything on this site, that much isn't even in question.

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.

Also, thank you for the apology.