jsearles and Chinamaniac debate about the value of his WSOP pieces

[gut]

Whether or not you buy his idiotic argument about the wording of this bet, imo it is completely irrelevant. It is the intent if the bet that matters here, which was to prove jsearles is a fucking idiot who doesn't know the difference between then and than. This can not be disputed. The bet was to find 25 misuses and that is what was done. All this other shit is simply an angle shoot on his part and nothing more.

I am surprised noone has mentioned this post, especially Searles. So Vegas admits that maybe his wording is off, but we all can infer an intent. So Vegas posts the 25 posts, but Searles can also say that it was his intent to use the words the way he did, thus he's not wrong.

anyway, this whole thing is still lulz and really should just be a wash in overall stupidity.

[chinamaniac]

Whether or not you buy his idiotic argument about the wording of this bet, imo it is completely irrelevant. It is the intent if the bet that matters here, which was to prove jsearles is a fucking idiot who doesn't know the difference between then and than. This can not be disputed. The bet was to find 25 misuses and that is what was done. All this other shit is simply an angle shoot on his part and nothing more.

I am surprised noone has mentioned this post, especially Searles. So Vegas admits that maybe his wording is off, but we all can infer an intent. So Vegas posts the 25 posts, but Searles can also say that it was his intent to use the words the way he did, thus he's not wrong.

anyway, this whole thing is still lulz and really should just be a wash in overall stupidity.

which makes him an angle shooter
pay or banned

[gut]

I am surprised noone has mentioned this post, especially Searles. So Vegas admits that maybe his wording is off, but we all can infer an intent. So Vegas posts the 25 posts, but Searles can also say that it was his intent to use the words the way he did, thus he's not wrong.

anyway, this whole thing is still lulz and really should just be a wash in overall stupidity.

which makes him an angle shooter
pay or banned

actually makes them both angle shooters, but thanks for completely missing the point.

[lewfather]

which makes him an angle shooter
pay or banned

actually makes them both angle shooters, but thanks for completely missing the point.

You're calling Vegas1369 an angle shooter?

[gut]

actually makes them both angle shooters, but thanks for completely missing the point.

You're calling Vegas1369 an angle shooter?

good god...for those slow on the uptake the point I was making is the bet itself was so idiotic and full of holes either way that really it should just be forgotten.

[lewfather]

Careful with that mouth is all I was trying to assert

[gut]

Careful with that mouth is all I was trying to assert

[lewfather]

Go back to trashing Vegas1369 then

[gut]

Go back to trashing Vegas1369 then

whatever dude. I have no problem with Vegas. If the bet itself is not "ruled" a wash, then the next likely outcome is he wins.

[lewfather]

Go back to trashing Vegas1369 then

whatever dude. I have no problem with Vegas. If the bet itself is not "ruled" a wash, then the next likely outcome is he wins.

The matter has already been ruled on, regardless of how you feel.

[jsearles22]

You're calling Vegas1369 an angle shooter?

good god...for those slow on the uptake the point I was making is the bet itself was so idiotic and full of holes either way that really it should just be forgotten.

Ive said it once and I will say it again. I respect Druff as the owner of this site. That however does not make him the sole arbiter of this bet. When the bet was originally offered it was agreed upon that there would be 3 impartial arbiters. What is in dispute is who those three people are. Vegas originally threw out T-bags, Steve-O, and Druff. Some were arguing profusely that these were the agreed upon arbiters, well that is until the first two ruled to void. Now everyone wants to act like Druff is the sole arbiter, and that couldnt be further from the truth. We have two different solutions to this situation IMO. One is that I am forced to take the "agreed" upon arbiters. The reason for three people is that you get a majority decision. The three in question have ruled and the decision would ultimately be to void the bet. The second option is to find three independent arbiters who have yet to render a decision. I think it would be fair for Steve-O to scout someone out, Vegas to get one, and myself to get one. Im fine with whatever alternative is chosen.

[LLL]

good god...for those slow on the uptake the point I was making is the bet itself was so idiotic and full of holes either way that really it should just be forgotten.

Ive said it once and I will say it again. I respect Druff as the owner of this site. That however does not make him the sole arbiter of this bet. When the bet was originally offered it was agreed upon that there would be 3 impartial arbiters. What is in dispute is who those three people are. Vegas originally threw out T-bags, Steve-O, and Druff. Some were arguing profusely that these were the agreed upon arbiters, well that is until the first two ruled to void. Now everyone wants to act like Druff is the sole arbiter, and that couldnt be further from the truth. We have two different solutions to this situation IMO. One is that I am forced to take the "agreed" upon arbiters. The reason for three people is that you get a majority decision. The three in question have ruled and the decision would ultimately be to void the bet. The second option is to find three independent arbiters who have yet to render a decision. I think it would be fair for Steve-O to scout someone out, Vegas to get one, and myself to get one. Im fine with whatever alternative is chosen.

Or Druff can just ban your dumb ass and everyone is happy except maybe Vegas (who can't really believe that he is ever getting paid).

[jsearles22]

For now I will leave jsearles on the forum, but that might change soon, as well.

I agree that this was a scummy angle-shoot on his part, and vegas1369 was unfairly and unethically freerolled.

I will not be censoring his name and/or pic until the debt is paid.

However, please DO NOT post pics or info about:

- His wife

- His grandma

- Any other family members of his

Also do not post links leading to this stuff.

I will ban anyone who continues posting this stuff.

Thanks Druff, I appreciate that.

Lewfather, whats your deal bro? My Grandma and kid man? Seriously? Do you feel like a tough e-champion now? Did you go to bed thinking "fuck Im a bad ass, Jason Searles' 76 year old Grandma that doesnt even know what the internet is will now be pounded with no remorse! Oh shit, lets not forget his 18 month year old precious son who is so young and unwitting, im gonna fuck that kid up! Fuck im awesome!"

Michael, seriously, dont think you are anonymous or the only one who knows how to use the internet.

[Deal]

blah blah blah.

You're an ass clown. You are fagging up a perfectly good forum. You have been exposed. There is no turning back.

Pay up and fuck off.

[peter mcneil]

good god...for those slow on the uptake the point I was making is the bet itself was so idiotic and full of holes either way that really it should just be forgotten.

Ive said it once and I will say it again. I respect Druff as the owner of this site. That however does not make him the sole arbiter of this bet. When the bet was originally offered it was agreed upon that there would be 3 impartial arbiters. What is in dispute is who those three people are. Vegas originally threw out T-bags, Steve-O, and Druff. Some were arguing profusely that these were the agreed upon arbiters, well that is until the first two ruled to void. Now everyone wants to act like Druff is the sole arbiter, and that couldnt be further from the truth. We have two different solutions to this situation IMO. One is that I am forced to take the "agreed" upon arbiters. The reason for three people is that you get a majority decision. The three in question have ruled and the decision would ultimately be to void the bet. The second option is to find three independent arbiters who have yet to render a decision. I think it would be fair for Steve-O to scout someone out, Vegas to get one, and myself to get one. Im fine with whatever alternative is chosen.

dude, stop with this shit. Tony felt voiding the bet was the best option, Druff stated you angle shot and definitely owe the full $500 and Steve O has said he can see why you're arguing to void the bet but he feels it more appropriate that you pay, that Vegas did win the bet and that the spirit and intent of bet was clear and he was most in favor of you paying a reduced amount. You stating over and over that if you go by the 3 judges the bet is voided is just making you look more scummy than you already look. pay your debt, fatso.

[FPS_Russia]

I'm telling you guys, Vegas probably scrolled through Jsearles posts to count these errors before proposing a $500 wager. I bet "not money, figure of speech btw " there's between 25-28 errors total, gave himself a lil margin of error. He's a slimy Vegas prop bet hustler ffs. All you lil bitches keep tossing Vegas1369's salad all you want, but hey Vegas, you didn't fool everyone, and your golf swing is still whack.

Jsearles gl, shouldn't of been betting with a Vegas hustler, Vegas probably got's all his friends and family and their gimmick accounts ready to give you the Justin Smith treatment even tho you only accepted the bet because the tricky wording made it seem like you were a sure winner. Tbh it may be wise to pay the $500 just to avoid damage to your rep.

Moral of the story: Escrow your bets.

Vegas1369 i got a new nick name for you, "The Falcon"
because you remind me of Peter Falcone.
Fuck you Vegas1369 for prowling the forums looking for your next hustle, look at the damage caused. Vegas should of demanded to escrow to avoid putting everyone in this predicament.

[Steve-O]

good god...for those slow on the uptake the point I was making is the bet itself was so idiotic and full of holes either way that really it should just be forgotten.

Ive said it once and I will say it again. I respect Druff as the owner of this site. That however does not make him the sole arbiter of this bet. When the bet was originally offered it was agreed upon that there would be 3 impartial arbiters. What is in dispute is who those three people are. Vegas originally threw out T-bags, Steve-O, and Druff. Some were arguing profusely that these were the agreed upon arbiters, well that is until the first two ruled to void. Now everyone wants to act like Druff is the sole arbiter, and that couldnt be further from the truth. We have two different solutions to this situation IMO. One is that I am forced to take the "agreed" upon arbiters. The reason for three people is that you get a majority decision. The three in question have ruled and the decision would ultimately be to void the bet. The second option is to find three independent arbiters who have yet to render a decision. I think it would be fair for Steve-O to scout someone out, Vegas to get one, and myself to get one. Im fine with whatever alternative is chosen.

Please stop saying I said the bet should be voided. This is not what I said, not once. I said there is an arguement to be made for the bet being voided, not that it should be voided.

-Tony ruled to void
-Based on everything I've read and heard my original compromise stands, which was Searles owes $250 (the original bet for 15 misuses)
-Druff ruled you owe $500

Even averaging the amount owed, which is $250, isn't going to work since Searles is adamant that he wants the bet voided and will pay nothing, and Vegas is adamant he wants the Full $500. So unless we get three arbiters (which is really only the one I find, because Vegas' brother and Searles' wife will likely not rule against them) we are going to be at an impasse. If both Vegas and Searles are in agreement I will find an arbiter to read over the thread and make a ruling. But I will only do this if the money is escrowed --I have no problem wasting my time on this, but wouldn't want to waste someone else's time.

[chinamaniac]

$17,036

My stake still a bad investment Searles?

Yours is the much better deal right

[Jasep]

The ignore feature is greatly flawed on this forum.

[jsearles22]

$17,036

My stake still a bad investment Searles?

Yours is the much better deal right

Where were you for the 10 weeks when you were getting your face pounded off? Typical, talk shit when you are up.

Guess what China, I still fell like my offer was better. In 30 days, on a $50 investment I returned $4.32. In 90 days on a $50 investment you currently will return $10.55. Over the course of a year or whatever time frame you want to use, which gives you a higher return? I know you are numbers challanged and may not understand.