Quote Originally Posted by Charham View Post
Quote Originally Posted by vegas1369 View Post
Quote made by LLL when all of this originally went down back in May....



Spot on from the very beginning.


As far as Druff ruling on this, that's already been done...
So jsearles is in effect asking for an appellate court to review Dan's decision.... not sure where that would come from .... or he is creating never ending process to get out of the bet. I like the earlier idea of a radio version of a trial. Perhaps Dan invites 2-3 people to be on a panel to hear oral arguments and decide.
Have you ever actually read the threads? If you get bored, you might want to do so. This thread is the 2nd of the long winded threads. It pretty much contains all of the arguments made:
http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...searles/page16

At this point the arguments are just being regurgitated. I have to just copy and paste now:
Quote Originally Posted by jsearles22
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.