jsearles and Chinamaniac debate about the value of his WSOP pieces

[Serial Fail]

This reminds me of the conversation we all had as a little kid.

A: "I'll bet you 50 dollhairs that you are wrong."
B: "Okay, I proved that I am right, now pay up."
A: "LOL! I said doll hairs!!"

[Detroit]

http://grammartips.homestead.com/than.html

[peter mcneil]

This reminds me of the conversation we all had as a little kid.

A: "I'll bet you 50 dollhairs that you are wrong."
B: "Okay, I proved that I am right, now pay up."
A: "LOL! I said doll hairs!!"

haha, perfect! I thought to myself as I read through this thread 'is this guy ACTUALLY trying to pull this lame fucking shit'. The bet is clear as day and it's for $500, why would Vegas possibly take a reduced amount Steve O? He would just be getting free rolled if he agreed to this, there was no certainty he would find 25 errors and he would have shipped the full $500 had he lost. I don't understand how adjusting the bet amount is possibly fair or right. Any judges on any gambling forum will clearly rule in favor of Vegas, there is no ambiguity to the bet at all. If this guy does not pay his debt he needs to be banned from the site and outed as a scammer everywhere else. What a fucking lame, grimy move.

[RealTalk]

when he doesnt pay up we should get this thread to the top of a google search so everyone knows that jsearles is a scamming piece of shit

[Steve-O]

This reminds me of the conversation we all had as a little kid.

A: "I'll bet you 50 dollhairs that you are wrong."
B: "Okay, I proved that I am right, now pay up."
A: "LOL! I said doll hairs!!"

haha, perfect! I thought to myself as I read through this thread 'is this guy ACTUALLY trying to pull this lame fucking shit'. The bet is clear as day and it's for $500, why would Vegas possibly take a reduced amount Steve O? He would just be getting free rolled if he agreed to this, there was no certainty he would find 25 errors and he would have shipped the full $500 had he lost. I don't understand how adjusting the bet amount is possibly fair or right. Any judges on any gambling forum will clearly rule in favor of Vegas, there is no ambiguity to the bet at all. If this guy does not pay his debt he needs to be banned from the site and outed as a scammer everywhere else. What a fucking lame, grimy move.

The intent of the bet seems very clear, but if two people have two different interpretations of a statement (and that ONE particular statement does have some wiggle room) then there is an impass. My feeling is the best way to solve the problem is to bring the matter to arbitration. I didn't say Vegas SHOULD get a reduced amount, just that this is a viable option, especially if Vegas hopes to get anything out of Searles.

How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used those two words incorrectly?

The simple addition of one of the following would have made this point moot:
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used one of those two words incorrectly?"
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?"

I'd gladly listen to both of their stories and what they feel they are entitled to and make a ruling on the matter... if they want me to of course. I've already stated that Searles did not win the bet on his technicality, and that that the bet should not be voided because of it. As to how much he should pay (up to the full $500) would be determined after I hear thier sides

[Sandwich]

This reminds me of the conversation we all had as a little kid.

A: "I'll bet you 50 dollhairs that you are wrong."
B: "Okay, I proved that I am right, now pay up."
A: "LOL! I said doll hairs!!"

I believe PLOL brought us this nugget:

[Sloppy Joe]

Offering up someone who is first and foremost a HUGE name currently in the poker community is in fact name dropping sir. That wasnt a shot at you, it was a fact. The guy doesnt have an account here and 99.9% isnt going to come here and referee this e-beef. You throwing his name out there is a chance for you to simply drop a name on the forum.

Saying im a scared little pussy is internet tough talk 101. "You would never say this to my face" could be the slogan of the Internet tough talk fan club. How do you know I dont call out people in real life? How do you know im not a walking, talking, trash spewing badass that pretty much fucks everyone up who dares stand in my path? Thats clearly hyperbole, im just illustrating a point. You dont know me anymore then I know you. Your whole "you're a pussy" talk is just uneducated spewing (which I am often guilty of myself. Dont run from it, just own it).

Regardless, I still like you Templar. I think you are one of the top 2-3 guys here. You are funny, insightful, and give back to the community through your efforts with the HU tournament, etc. I love your photoshops and I have enjoyed your stories on radio. Your disdain for me doesnt take away that I like you.

I honestly believe you are a different person off the internet. You said it yourself on the radio, you just like to stir the pot. I am not an internet tough guy, the fact is you wouldn't say or do 99% of this stuff in real life. How do I know you don't run around the streets fucking everyone up? I don't know that in certain. What I do know is your intelligent, you have a degree, a family, and a good job. So no, I do not feel you are a psychopath, and late night fight clubs aren't part of your schedule.

Yes me calling you a pussy is def a spew by me, and I stand by it. Yet I will say that almost always all internet tough guys are pussy's.

It makes me feel good that some people enjoy what I contribute to the forum. I am not the most intellectual poster, my spelling and grammar is horrid, but if I can give someone a laugh every now and then, it's all good. It just blows that a good thread, can be hijacked with a little trolling from a poster like you.

We're all sick of the facade your putting up, and the bullshit trolling. I still don't have any ill will towards you. I might get pissed that to get a little excitement, you have to come on here and bust everyone's balls. Yet I still don't have any ill will towards you.

Just come on here, post, and act like you do in real life. Your not an asshole in real life.

Come on, man. If Searles is going to recover from this he has to acknowledge and accept his stupidity. In no way is he intelligent.

[jsearles22]

haha, perfect! I thought to myself as I read through this thread 'is this guy ACTUALLY trying to pull this lame fucking shit'. The bet is clear as day and it's for $500, why would Vegas possibly take a reduced amount Steve O? He would just be getting free rolled if he agreed to this, there was no certainty he would find 25 errors and he would have shipped the full $500 had he lost. I don't understand how adjusting the bet amount is possibly fair or right. Any judges on any gambling forum will clearly rule in favor of Vegas, there is no ambiguity to the bet at all. If this guy does not pay his debt he needs to be banned from the site and outed as a scammer everywhere else. What a fucking lame, grimy move.

The intent of the bet seems very clear, but if two people have two different interpretations of a statement (and that ONE particular statement does have some wiggle room) then there is an impass. My feeling is the best way to solve the problem is to bring the matter to arbitration. I didn't say Vegas SHOULD get a reduced amount, just that this is a viable option, especially if Vegas hopes to get anything out of Searles.

How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used those two words incorrectly?

The simple addition of one of the following would have made this point moot:
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used one of those two words incorrectly?"
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?"

I'd gladly listen to both of their stories and what they feel they are entitled to and make a ruling on the matter... if they want me to of course. I've already stated that Searles did not win the bet on his technicality, and that that the bet should not be voided because of it. As to how much he should pay (up to the full $500) would be determined after I hear thier sides

Clearly we have different interpretations of the bet, I would not have agreed to either version of the alternate phrases that you provided. I merely agreed because I read the phrase and snap interpreted that we were betting he could find posts with BOTH words used incorrectly.

I also will not agree to you being the arbitor after you have already ruled against me!

[jsearles22]

I honestly believe you are a different person off the internet. You said it yourself on the radio, you just like to stir the pot. I am not an internet tough guy, the fact is you wouldn't say or do 99% of this stuff in real life. How do I know you don't run around the streets fucking everyone up? I don't know that in certain. What I do know is your intelligent, you have a degree, a family, and a good job. So no, I do not feel you are a psychopath, and late night fight clubs aren't part of your schedule.

Yes me calling you a pussy is def a spew by me, and I stand by it. Yet I will say that almost always all internet tough guys are pussy's.

It makes me feel good that some people enjoy what I contribute to the forum. I am not the most intellectual poster, my spelling and grammar is horrid, but if I can give someone a laugh every now and then, it's all good. It just blows that a good thread, can be hijacked with a little trolling from a poster like you.

We're all sick of the facade your putting up, and the bullshit trolling. I still don't have any ill will towards you. I might get pissed that to get a little excitement, you have to come on here and bust everyone's balls. Yet I still don't have any ill will towards you.

Just come on here, post, and act like you do in real life. Your not an asshole in real life.

Come on, man. If Searles is going to recover from this he has to acknowledge and accept his stupidity. In no way is he intelligent.

Templar was very well spoken, concise, and accurate. I am actually highly intelligent (flame away trolls, doesnt make it any less true), have a degree, a great job, and wonderful family. This board is used for my amusement. I at least bring the hits. Sloppy Joe literally provides nothing here other then amateurish one liners.

[Sandwich]

The intent of the bet seems very clear, but if two people have two different interpretations of a statement (and that ONE particular statement does have some wiggle room) then there is an impass.

But Steve-O, what if one of the people knows (or should know) that the other's interpretation is different than theirs, does not attempt to clarify, and intends to use this 'ambiguity' to his advantage? Is there an impasse then? Do you subscribe to jsearles22's justification that "Vegas offered a stupid bet, and I accepted"?

[LLL]

The intent of the bet seems very clear, but if two people have two different interpretations of a statement (and that ONE particular statement does have some wiggle room) then there is an impass. My feeling is the best way to solve the problem is to bring the matter to arbitration. I didn't say Vegas SHOULD get a reduced amount, just that this is a viable option, especially if Vegas hopes to get anything out of Searles.

How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used those two words incorrectly?

The simple addition of one of the following would have made this point moot:
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used one of those two words incorrectly?"
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?"

I'd gladly listen to both of their stories and what they feel they are entitled to and make a ruling on the matter... if they want me to of course. I've already stated that Searles did not win the bet on his technicality, and that that the bet should not be voided because of it. As to how much he should pay (up to the full $500) would be determined after I hear thier sides

Clearly we have different interpretations of the bet, I would not have agreed to either version of the alternate phrases that you provided. I merely agreed because I read the phrase and snap interpreted that we were betting he could find posts with BOTH words used incorrectly.

I also will not agree to you being the arbitor after you have already ruled against me!

Do you actually think that Vegas would have taken that bet?
Christ, just ban this dumb ass and let's all move on.

[jsearles22]

The intent of the bet seems very clear, but if two people have two different interpretations of a statement (and that ONE particular statement does have some wiggle room) then there is an impass.

But Steve-O, what if one of the people knows (or should know) that the other's interpretation is different than theirs, does not attempt to clarify, and intends to use this 'ambiguity' to his advantage? Is there an impasse then? Do you subscribe to jsearles22's justification that "Vegas offered a stupid bet, and I accepted"?

Not to intercede, but isnt that how the majority of bets work? Someone says something stupid, an argument ensues, and ultimately there is a bet made regarding certain things?

[jsearles22]

The intent of the bet seems very clear, but if two people have two different interpretations of a statement (and that ONE particular statement does have some wiggle room) then there is an impass. My feeling is the best way to solve the problem is to bring the matter to arbitration. I didn't say Vegas SHOULD get a reduced amount, just that this is a viable option, especially if Vegas hopes to get anything out of Searles.


The simple addition of one of the following would have made this point moot:
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used one of those two words incorrectly?"
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?"

I'd gladly listen to both of their stories and what they feel they are entitled to and make a ruling on the matter... if they want me to of course. I've already stated that Searles did not win the bet on his technicality, and that that the bet should not be voided because of it. As to how much he should pay (up to the full $500) would be determined after I hear thier sides

Clearly we have different interpretations of the bet, I would not have agreed to either version of the alternate phrases that you provided. I merely agreed because I read the phrase and snap interpreted that we were betting he could find posts with BOTH words used incorrectly.

I also will not agree to you being the arbitor after you have already ruled against me!

Do you actually think that Vegas would have taken that bet?
Christ, just ban this dumb ass and let's all move on.

Yes, I actually thought Vegas WAS TAKING that bet.

[Steve-O]

The intent of the bet seems very clear, but if two people have two different interpretations of a statement (and that ONE particular statement does have some wiggle room) then there is an impass. My feeling is the best way to solve the problem is to bring the matter to arbitration. I didn't say Vegas SHOULD get a reduced amount, just that this is a viable option, especially if Vegas hopes to get anything out of Searles.

How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used those two words incorrectly?

The simple addition of one of the following would have made this point moot:
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used one of those two words incorrectly?"
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?"

I'd gladly listen to both of their stories and what they feel they are entitled to and make a ruling on the matter... if they want me to of course. I've already stated that Searles did not win the bet on his technicality, and that that the bet should not be voided because of it. As to how much he should pay (up to the full $500) would be determined after I hear thier sides

Clearly we have different interpretations of the bet, I would not have agreed to either version of the alternate phrases that you provided. I merely agreed because I read the phrase and snap interpreted that we were betting he could find posts with BOTH words used incorrectly.

I also will not agree to you being the arbitor after you have already ruled against me!

Yes, I ruled against you, but I'm also willing to possibly lighten your burden (although it would probably come with non-monetary stipulations agreed to by Vegas). In all honesty that is probably the best you could ever hope for here.

Your options seem to be:

1) Have someone mediate an agreement between you and Vegas
2) Have your name and reputation smeared and "Santorumed" by Google
3) Pay the full amount

[RealTalk]

The intent of the bet seems very clear, but if two people have two different interpretations of a statement (and that ONE particular statement does have some wiggle room) then there is an impass. My feeling is the best way to solve the problem is to bring the matter to arbitration. I didn't say Vegas SHOULD get a reduced amount, just that this is a viable option, especially if Vegas hopes to get anything out of Searles.

How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used those two words incorrectly?

The simple addition of one of the following would have made this point moot:
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used one of those two words incorrectly?"
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?"

I'd gladly listen to both of their stories and what they feel they are entitled to and make a ruling on the matter... if they want me to of course. I've already stated that Searles did not win the bet on his technicality, and that that the bet should not be voided because of it. As to how much he should pay (up to the full $500) would be determined after I hear thier sides

Clearly we have different interpretations of the bet, I would not have agreed to either version of the alternate phrases that you provided. I merely agreed because I read the phrase and snap interpreted that we were betting he could find posts with BOTH words used incorrectly.

I also will not agree to you being the arbitor after you have already ruled against me!

Pretty sure Templar offered to call in deeb as arbitrator, dont think you could find a more qualified gambler/prop bettor...

but lets be real, you dont want any arbitration because you know you are wrong but you just cant stand to not be the center of attention. you'll keep up the charade making clearly flawed arguments like the attention whore that you are until you get banned for being a piece of shit scammer.

[jsearles22]

The intent of the bet seems very clear, but if two people have two different interpretations of a statement (and that ONE particular statement does have some wiggle room) then there is an impass. My feeling is the best way to solve the problem is to bring the matter to arbitration. I didn't say Vegas SHOULD get a reduced amount, just that this is a viable option, especially if Vegas hopes to get anything out of Searles.


The simple addition of one of the following would have made this point moot:
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used one of those two words incorrectly?"
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?"

I'd gladly listen to both of their stories and what they feel they are entitled to and make a ruling on the matter... if they want me to of course. I've already stated that Searles did not win the bet on his technicality, and that that the bet should not be voided because of it. As to how much he should pay (up to the full $500) would be determined after I hear thier sides

Clearly we have different interpretations of the bet, I would not have agreed to either version of the alternate phrases that you provided. I merely agreed because I read the phrase and snap interpreted that we were betting he could find posts with BOTH words used incorrectly.

I also will not agree to you being the arbitor after you have already ruled against me!

Yes, I ruled against you, but I'm also willing to possibly lighten your burden (although it would probably come with non-monetary stipulations agreed to by Vegas). In all honesty that is probably the best you could ever hope for here.

Your options seem to be:

1) Have someone mediate an agreement between you and Vegas
2) Have your name and reputation smeared and "Santorumed" by Google
3) Pay the full amount

or 4) have a fair and impartial arbitor rule in my favor

[Sloppy Joe]

Come on, man. If Searles is going to recover from this he has to acknowledge and accept his stupidity. In no way is he intelligent.

Templar was very well spoken, concise, and accurate. I am actually highly intelligent (flame away trolls, doesnt make it any less true), have a degree, a great job, and wonderful family. This board is used for my amusement. I at least bring the hits. Sloppy Joe literally provides nothing here other then amateurish one liners.

We can't all be attention starved retards. It's pretty hard to get an entire message board to hate you, only few have ever done it. Nothing you have ever written conveys any semblance of intelligence. Your LOL diet blog was actually fairly well composed, it was the content that was retarded. I'll piece together the highlights when I have the time.

Let me know how I can better amuse you. Keep playin' great, bro, but stop dodging. You got some payin' to do.

[Jasep]

Clearly we have different interpretations of the bet, I would not have agreed to either version of the alternate phrases that you provided. I merely agreed because I read the phrase and snap interpreted that we were betting he could find posts with BOTH words used incorrectly.

I also will not agree to you being the arbitor after you have already ruled against me!

Yes, I ruled against you, but I'm also willing to possibly lighten your burden (although it would probably come with non-monetary stipulations agreed to by Vegas). In all honesty that is probably the best you could ever hope for here.

Your options seem to be:

1) Have someone mediate an agreement between you and Vegas
2) Have your name and reputation smeared and "Santorumed" by Google
3) Pay the full amount

or 4) have a fair and impartial arbitor rule in my favor

! Will you agree to have Steve o locate that arbitrator with the promise of not.swaying his opinion in advance and then comply with whatever the ruling would be?

[FPS_Russia]

Lol you can't be posting I'll bet this or that around Vegas, he will call you on that shit.

One of the posters here spotted what appeared to be a 8 ball of coke or a balled up napkin in one of the photos from Whitney Houston's hotel where she died.

Dude said I'll bet $50 that's coke, a napkin doesn't ball up like that, next thing you know Vegas is posting a video of him balling up a napkin exactly like in the photo, not sure if he collected, I doubt it. Pretty funny tho.

I think it was Vegas anyhow.

[Steve-O]

The intent of the bet seems very clear, but if two people have two different interpretations of a statement (and that ONE particular statement does have some wiggle room) then there is an impass.

But Steve-O, what if one of the people knows (or should know) that the other's interpretation is different than theirs, does not attempt to clarify, and intends to use this 'ambiguity' to his advantage? Is there an impasse then? Do you subscribe to jsearles22's justification that "Vegas offered a stupid bet, and I accepted"?

No, because the clear consensus is that the bet was intended as Vegas interpreted it; Searles is in the minority (of one???) on that point. I don't think anyoned could argue that Searles version is the correct one. That said, the fact that Vegas was willing to settle for $450 after learning of Searles interpretation shows that the technicality is there --but it's still a technicality and not enough to cancel the bet in my opinion.

Since Searles wants the bet cancelled, and will never allow me to arbitrate, I was leaning towards him owing $250 (the original bet amount for 15 posts) and possibly some posting restrictions like creating threads or responding to threads involving China, Vegas, et al. And possibly an admission that he lost the bet (if this was important to Vegas)