Questions For Dan....

Printable View

11-28-2020, 06:29 PM
Tasha

Questions For Dan....

Wynnpleasure told multiple potentially life ruining things. HE said DISGUSTING and DISTURBING lies about me and my Family. He claimed I had sex for money(I'm a VIRGIN). He implied I was a drug addict.

Had I been in a Teacher or something, those nasty LIES could have gotten me FIRED..

He falsely claimed in very creepy detail that two married and Straight men had a Threesome with him, therefore cheating on their Wives with him and each other. One of these men even has KIDS. If either of their wives had actually BELIEVED Wynnpleasure's Threesome Story LIE, that could have resulted in Divorce and Custody Battles over a damn lie.

Wynnpleasure even made Homosexual jokes about Mickey, who is actually STRAIGHT.

WHY did NONE of these things get Wynnpleasure BANNED despite MULTIPLE proof he deserved to be BANNED? WHY did he not at LEAST have a Post Limit like I do? I said WAY less damaging things than Wynnpleasure did and I have an ongoing Post limit(Sad thing is, when I was posting a lot, MANY of my posts were attempting to HELP someone who ended up cussing me out, implying I was a THIEF, and rallying for my permanent banning).

He has called me the C-Word MULTIPLE times. He has harrassed many Posters on this board.

WHY did it take the Anti Semitism "Joke," thread to be BANNED(Wynnpleasure ONLY Backpedaled when he was told that YOU yourself are Jewish, as he realized he just made a HUGE mistake with that offensive "Anti Semitism "Joke," thread and claimed he wasn't ACTUALLY Anti Semetic and LOVED Jews. He was FINE with the offensive things he was saying until he learned you are Jewish yourself..He should have been BANNED pong before that tasteless and offensive "Joke," thread...
11-29-2020, 02:25 PM
Pitboss1

I highly doubt life decisions would be based upon an anonymous member internet forum where the members spar and act like drunken Friday night protesters for the most part.
11-29-2020, 03:30 PM
Darkoz

Dan is making a point.

The forum members want to act like ugly children that's fine, no one is forcing you to even participate.

But leave anything offensive to him or his religion out of it. It's his forum, aside from shutting it down, he does have to be here, and he intends not to tolerate anyone who makes him feel uncomfortable
11-29-2020, 03:51 PM
mcap

Now Tasha, Dan told you he didn’t want you to put your junk threads in the Las Vegas sub forum.
11-29-2020, 05:24 PM
Tasha

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcap

Now Tasha, Dan told you he didn’t want you to put your junk threads in the Las Vegas sub forum.

Loophole. It's about the Las Vegas Subsection itself! ;)

Slso, this is NOT a junk thread. It's a very serious one.
11-30-2020, 07:44 PM
Tasha

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitboss1

I highly doubt life decisions would be based upon an anonymous member internet forum where the members spar and act like drunken Friday night protesters for the most part.

You'd be surprised what a lie on the internet can do in real life. Two people got into an argument online about a video game. They ended up wanting to kick each other's asses in real life over some argument on the damn internet. One of the guys claimed he lived at a REAL address. So, the other guy called SWAT and claimed that an armed Terrorist lived there. SWAT took it SERIOUSLY, and went to the REAL address and banged on the door hard. The owner of the house merely opened the door to see what the noise was about and got shot to death. The Owner of the house was INNOCENT in this whole mess and didn't even know about the arguments between the two guys. The guy that picked a random house to claim he lived did an Off Camera Interview at a Starbucks and claimed he didn't know the guy he lied to would send SWAT to the address.

He claimed that the guy who sent SWAT to the address was at fault for the innocent man's death. The Interviewer asked something like"Don't you think YOU are also at fault for giving a random address to someone you were arguing with? The guy admitted he was also at fault for giving a random address but felt that since he was doing an AUDIO interview and not an ON Camera interview, there would be no way he could be held legally responsible for the innocent man's death. He was arrested like the very next day.

Listeners of the Interview thought it was weird that the guy would do an interview like this in a Starbucks and not lay low after the Innocent Man's death. The listeners also thought SWAT was also at fault for shooting the first person to open up the door and mentioned that the person who opened the door could have been an innocent Hostage/Victim who opened the door because they saw SWAT and were trying to be helped. They felt SWAT was highly irresponsible in this tragedy.

Here is at least one Youtube Video on the false Swatting lie thing... For some reason, the actual Interview seems to have been deleted.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qJFHPgxYpAQ

Deep edit. I had done this post by Memory. After watching the video I posted, it turns out one of the arguers claimed HE himself was the Armed Terrorist who had shot/terrorized his Family Members and was planning to set the house on fire and already had gasoline. He sent a random address and that's when Andrew Finch, innocent owner of house was shot by SWAT after he merely opened the door to see what was going on.

The Hoax Caller who claimed he was an armed Terrorist is the one who did the Interview that soon led to his arrest.
11-30-2020, 07:53 PM
The Boz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tasha

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitboss1

I highly doubt life decisions would be based upon an anonymous member internet forum where the members spar and act like drunken Friday night protesters for the most part.

You'd be surprised what a lie on the internet can do in real life. Two people got into an argument online about a video game. They ended up wanting to kick each other's asses in real life over some argument on the damn internet. One of the guys claimed he lived at a REAL address. So, the other guy called SWAT and claimed that an armed Terrorist lived there. SWAT took it SERIOUSLY, and went to the REAL address and banged on the door hard. The owner of the house merely opened the door to see what the noise was about and got shot to death. The Owner of the house was INNOCENT in this whole mess and didn't even know about the arguments between the two guys. The guy that picked a random house to claim he lived did an Off Camera?Interview at a Starbucks and claimed he didn't know the guy he lied to would send SWAT to the address.

He claimed that the guy who sent SWAT to the address was at fault for the innocent man's death. The Interviewer asked sonething like"Don't you think YOU are also at fault for giving a random address to someone you were arguing with? The guy admitted he was also at fault for giving a random address but felt that since he was doing an AUDIO interview and not an ON Camera interview, there would be no way he could be held legally responsible for the innocent man's death. He was arrested like the very next day.

Listeners of the Interview thought SWAT was also at fault for shooting the first person to open up the door and mentioned that the person who opened the door could have been an innocent Hostage who opened the door because they saw SWAT and were trying to be helped. They felt SWAT was highly irresponsible in this tragedy.

Another nonsense post that shows why you are on a post limit. Unfortunately a post limit of 1 per week is still too high.

How about a link to this story to help your credibility?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZBd82i18LM
12-01-2020, 03:34 AM
The Boz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tasha

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitboss1

I highly doubt life decisions would be based upon an anonymous member internet forum where the members spar and act like drunken Friday night protesters for the most part.

You'd be surprised what a lie on the internet can do in real life. Two people got into an argument online about a video game. They ended up wanting to kick each other's asses in real life over some argument on the damn internet. One of the guys claimed he lived at a REAL address. So, the other guy called SWAT and claimed that an armed Terrorist lived there. SWAT took it SERIOUSLY, and went to the REAL address and banged on the door hard. The owner of the house merely opened the door to see what the noise was about and got shot to death. The Owner of the house was INNOCENT in this whole mess and didn't even know about the arguments between the two guys. The guy that picked a random house to claim he lived did an Off Camera Interview at a Starbucks and claimed he didn't know the guy he lied to would send SWAT to the address.

He claimed that the guy who sent SWAT to the address was at fault for the innocent man's death. The Interviewer asked something like"Don't you think YOU are also at fault for giving a random address to someone you were arguing with? The guy admitted he was also at fault for giving a random address but felt that since he was doing an AUDIO interview and not an ON Camera interview, there would be no way he could be held legally responsible for the innocent man's death. He was arrested like the very next day.

Listeners of the Interview thought it was weird that the guy would do an interview like this in a Starbucks and not lay low after the Innocent Man's death. The listeners also thought SWAT was also at fault for shooting the first person to open up the door and mentioned that the person who opened the door could have been an innocent Hostage/Victim who opened the door because they saw SWAT and were trying to be helped. They felt SWAT was highly irresponsible in this tragedy.

Here is at least one Youtube Video on the false Swatting lie thing... For some reason, the actual Interview seems to have been deleted.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qJFHPgxYpAQ

Deep edit. I had done this post by Memory. After watching the video I posted, it turns out one of the arguers claimed HE himself was the Armed Terrorist who had shot/terrorized his Family Members and was planning to set the house on fire and already had gasoline. He sent a random address and that's when Andrew Finch, innocent owner of house was shot by SWAT after he merely opened the door to see what was going on.

The Hoax Caller who claimed he was an armed Terrorist is the one who did the Interview that soon led to his arrest.

In other words, as always you posted some Urban Legend you had no fucking clue of the actual facts. And as always, the story wasn’t like you thought and had nothing to do with this issue at hand.

Thanks for proving my point again. Think before you post babble trying to be relevant.
12-04-2020, 05:43 AM
Tasha

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Boz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tasha

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitboss1

I highly doubt life decisions would be based upon an anonymous member internet forum where the members spar and act like drunken Friday night protesters for the most part.

You'd be surprised what a lie on the internet can do in real life. Two people got into an argument online about a video game. They ended up wanting to kick each other's asses in real life over some argument on the damn internet. One of the guys claimed he lived at a REAL address. So, the other guy called SWAT and claimed that an armed Terrorist lived there. SWAT took it SERIOUSLY, and went to the REAL address and banged on the door hard. The owner of the house merely opened the door to see what the noise was about and got shot to death. The Owner of the house was INNOCENT in this whole mess and didn't even know about the arguments between the two guys. The guy that picked a random house to claim he lived did an Off Camera Interview at a Starbucks and claimed he didn't know the guy he lied to would send SWAT to the address.

He claimed that the guy who sent SWAT to the address was at fault for the innocent man's death. The Interviewer asked something like"Don't you think YOU are also at fault for giving a random address to someone you were arguing with? The guy admitted he was also at fault for giving a random address but felt that since he was doing an AUDIO interview and not an ON Camera interview, there would be no way he could be held legally responsible for the innocent man's death. He was arrested like the very next day.

Listeners of the Interview thought it was weird that the guy would do an interview like this in a Starbucks and not lay low after the Innocent Man's death. The listeners also thought SWAT was also at fault for shooting the first person to open up the door and mentioned that the person who opened the door could have been an innocent Hostage/Victim who opened the door because they saw SWAT and were trying to be helped. They felt SWAT was highly irresponsible in this tragedy.

Here is at least one Youtube Video on the false Swatting lie thing... For some reason, the actual Interview seems to have been deleted.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qJFHPgxYpAQ

Deep edit. I had done this post by Memory. After watching the video I posted, it turns out one of the arguers claimed HE himself was the Armed Terrorist who had shot/terrorized his Family Members and was planning to set the house on fire and already had gasoline. He sent a random address and that's when Andrew Finch, innocent owner of house was shot by SWAT after he merely opened the door to see what was going on.

The Hoax Caller who claimed he was an armed Terrorist is the one who did the Interview that soon led to his arrest.

In other words, as always you posted some Urban Legend you had no fucking clue of the actual facts. And as always, the story wasn’t like you thought and had nothing to do with this issue at hand.

Thanks for proving my point again. Think before you post babble trying to be relevant.

I admitted I did this by memory..... I did get the SWAT part killing an innocent man by mistake completely correct though.. Also, the infamous Interview seemed to have been deleted from YouTube. It gave a very in-depth insight of what went down...
12-05-2020, 06:07 PM
Tasha

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Boz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tasha

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitboss1

I highly doubt life decisions would be based upon an anonymous member internet forum where the members spar and act like drunken Friday night protesters for the most part.

You'd be surprised what a lie on the internet can do in real life. Two people got into an argument online about a video game. They ended up wanting to kick each other's asses in real life over some argument on the damn internet. One of the guys claimed he lived at a REAL address. So, the other guy called SWAT and claimed that an armed Terrorist lived there. SWAT took it SERIOUSLY, and went to the REAL address and banged on the door hard. The owner of the house merely opened the door to see what the noise was about and got shot to death. The Owner of the house was INNOCENT in this whole mess and didn't even know about the arguments between the two guys. The guy that picked a random house to claim he lived did an Off Camera Interview at a Starbucks and claimed he didn't know the guy he lied to would send SWAT to the address.

He claimed that the guy who sent SWAT to the address was at fault for the innocent man's death. The Interviewer asked something like"Don't you think YOU are also at fault for giving a random address to someone you were arguing with? The guy admitted he was also at fault for giving a random address but felt that since he was doing an AUDIO interview and not an ON Camera interview, there would be no way he could be held legally responsible for the innocent man's death. He was arrested like the very next day.

Listeners of the Interview thought it was weird that the guy would do an interview like this in a Starbucks and not lay low after the Innocent Man's death. The listeners also thought SWAT was also at fault for shooting the first person to open up the door and mentioned that the person who opened the door could have been an innocent Hostage/Victim who opened the door because they saw SWAT and were trying to be helped. They felt SWAT was highly irresponsible in this tragedy.

Here is at least one Youtube Video on the false Swatting lie thing... For some reason, the actual Interview seems to have been deleted.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qJFHPgxYpAQ

Deep edit. I had done this post by Memory. After watching the video I posted, it turns out one of the arguers claimed HE himself was the Armed Terrorist who had shot/terrorized his Family Members and was planning to set the house on fire and already had gasoline. He sent a random address and that's when Andrew Finch, innocent owner of house was shot by SWAT after he merely opened the door to see what was going on.

The Hoax Caller who claimed he was an armed Terrorist is the one who did the Interview that soon led to his arrest.

In other words, as always you posted some Urban Legend you had no fucking clue of the actual facts. And as always, the story wasn’t like you thought and had nothing to do with this issue at hand.

Thanks for proving my point again. Think before you post babble trying to be relevant.

Actually, my recallation that the guy gave a FAKE address to his online Enemy makes a LOT more sense than what ACTUALLY happened. There was NO good reason for the guy to have an online Enemy and then make a hoax pretending to be a Terrorist and an Arsonist of some random address. A guy claiming to live at a random address and his Enemy claiming a Terrorist lives there makes sense on both sides. Let's say,"COD Fanatic falsely claims to COD God that he lives on 18 pine Street, ;). COD God goes to 18 Pine Street looking for COD Fanatic. COD God gets his ass kicked by the real owner after showing up randomly looking for a fight. COD Fanatic gets the last laugh as COD God not only got his ass kicked, the owner pressed charges.

The other side is this. COD God calls SWAT and claims there is a Terrorist at 18 pine Street. ;) He hopes that SWAT Team will blast Cod Fanatic... Both of these scenarios I thought happened made way more sense than what REALLY happened...
12-06-2020, 05:09 AM
monet

How much longer must we endure the irritation of dandruff in our scalps?
Head and Shoulders is a Lie.
It does not work.
Unlock the poorly titled thread "40k VP hit for me" so that it can die the death it deserves.
12-06-2020, 11:03 AM
tableplay

Quote:

Originally Posted by monet

How much longer must we endure the irritation of dandruff in our scalps?
Head and Shoulders is a Lie.
It does not work.
Unlock the poorly titled thread "40k VP hit for me" so that it can die the death it deserves.

Monet, since the "40k VP hot for me" thread is closed I will respond to Dan's question

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan-Druff

No idea why these messages were part of the Albertson's Monopoly 2020 Thread.

in this thread. Dan, the reason they were part of the 2020 Monopoly game piece thread is because you haven't yet created the 20201 Monopoly game piece thread yet.
12-06-2020, 02:55 PM
monet

Quote:

Originally Posted by tableplay

Quote:

Originally Posted by monet

How much longer must we endure the irritation of dandruff in our scalps?
Head and Shoulders is a Lie.
It does not work.
Unlock the poorly titled thread "40k VP hit for me" so that it can die the death it deserves.

Monet, since the "40k VP hot for me" thread is closed I will respond to Dan's question

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan-Druff

No idea why these messages were part of the Albertson's Monopoly 2020 Thread.

in this thread. Dan, the reason they were part of the 2020 Monopoly game piece thread is because you haven't yet created the 20201 Monopoly game piece thread yet.

I was on a roll in that thread, foaming out the mouth every 20 minutes or so.
Monopoly Thread Closed.
Everyone Wins!
12-08-2020, 03:30 PM
Dan Druff

The $40k thread was closed accidentally.

I still don't understand why people were posting casino stuff in the Monopoly thread. I don't like when my threads here get disrupted with unrelated crap. This time it didn't matter much, because the 2020 Monopoly game ended in May. However, if I see things like that, I'll either delete the messages or move them to a separate thread.

There will be a 2021 Monopoly thread there when the game starts in February. I run another site called raregamepiece.com, and this forum provides the trading thread, because there's no forum on that site.
12-09-2020, 10:42 AM
Tasha

Dan, please answer these important questions.... WHY do I STILL have a post limit? It's been an ENTIRE YEAR now. In fact, I was never even WARNED that I was ever in danger of having a post limit. It just happened suddenly! WHY did Wynnpleasure NOT get at LEAST a Post limit? His DISGUSTING and blatant lie posts about me and my family were way worse than I have EVER written! At least many of my posts before the unexpected post limit were actually trying to HELP somebody out who ended up rallying for my permanent banning, implied I was a thief, and cussed me out! MOST of Wynnpleasure's posts were NOT trying to help out ANYONE and we're instead Antagonistic, Trolling, Harassing, and insulting. The disgusting threesome Story LIE he wrote about him, and two straight and married men was really disgusting and defaming. Thank GOD none of their Wives divorced them over a blatant LIE! Tell me why Wynnpleasure was able to post more than me in the first place?
12-29-2020, 05:18 AM
Tasha

I am completely over the I'll thought out decision to make a Truce with Wynnpleasure. In fact, I begun to regret the Truce like the next day... Dan, you STILL haven't answered WHY Wynnpleasure was allowed to say those awful and disgusting lies about me and my family. He also made a Homosexual threesome lie about him and two straight and married men and harassed multiple people on here. I asked for his Permanant banning multiple times and my cries for his Permanant banning went unheeded. He should have been permanantly banned for those nasty lies he was telling about people. WHY did he not at LEAST have a Post Limit? You have never answered any of these tough questions I have asked before.
12-29-2020, 06:28 AM
Garnabby

Tasha. I think that life is also about moving forward. As far as I know, Wynn as whichever username here, was banned for life. Beyond this, the "tough questions", obviously about other things, are answered in a court of law. Even a court of law doesn't always answer or take the tough questions seriously. But, we must continue to move forward whether we were in the right. Life - at least this one on its own merits - isn't fair, can't be fair, and, shouldn't be fair.

I listened to some ABBA songs, last evening, and, then, to one of many documentaries about the group, about how musically accomplished each was, long before they even came together to realize that they should form the group. They made themselves and their music appear so simple. Only the Beatles drew such big crowds at airports, upon their arrival.

One song in particular was very very difficult for me because it brought up some very very bad memories for me. Then it hit me that the words, I think, were the words from someone so very very far away from me now. Perhaps, what the person would be saying to me if the person only could. Maybe, in a way, a very very deep way, the person can. And, perhaps, the very very extreme position that the person would be, must be, in. Look, when you are older, after having lived your life to the fullest, after many many tough choices, then things aren't the same anymore. Not so once simple as even a Christmas song. But, you know what, you still have to move forward. We all, and each of us, make mistakes? No, beyond this, each of us must strive and continue to do the best that one can, so that "nothing is diminished" - so that, in the darkest of times, well, there is such light.

Look at some of Dan's posts, especially in his threads. One of the very few posts I read at the Poker Fraud forum, when I went for fun to check out Crimm's posts, about politics, was a reply to a question about how to handle one's errant information on line. I was floored at the exquisite detail our Dan went into. It takes a lot of time to think out, and write up, such stuff on line, especially for no other gain. I think that, by any standard, and at whichever activity he pursues, Dan is a serious professional. He leads by example. Does he spend seemingly endless words to directly, or indirectly, talk about himself? Does he write of ideas, and events, or people? Does he sincerely try to figure things out? Does he make the hard decisions?

When the "chips are (really and actually) down", in death, there can be no moving forward. Then, each is left to fend for themselves. Then, things (really and actually) are made fair, said and done. But, however, to cling to things in the world diminishes what was, is and will rightly be done. In such a light, what can it mean to be banned, however, from, say, an internet forum that you seem, to me, to regard so lightly?
12-29-2020, 06:55 PM
BoSox

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tasha

Dan, you STILL haven't answered WHY Wynnpleasure was allowed to say those awful and disgusting lies about me and my family. He also made a Homosexual threesome lie about him and two straight and married men and harassed multiple people on here. I asked for his Permanant banning multiple times and my cries for his Permanant banning went unheeded. He should have been permanantly banned for those nasty lies he was telling about people. WHY did he not at LEAST have a Post Limit? You have never answered any of these tough questions I have asked before.

Tasha, you have a legitimate question but what you should realize is that the site is the wild wild west where anything goes. The last thing you should think about is that you are a victim of the slander only directed at you. You are not the exception that is the rule here most everyone gets shit thrown at them. For the most part, if you frequently make plenty of posts here you will have a long rope and plenty of leeways. Since the site has no advertising you would not think that the amount of traffic would not be such a priority, which obviously is very important solely based on the MDawg thread alone. It is without a doubt Dan could care less one way or the other if MDawg is telling the truth or not, frankly I think it never even crossed his mind.

Under Dan's posted rules:

4) You may not to threaten or harass other members of the system. You are allowed to engage in spirited debate or discussion, but targeted harassment of members is prohibited.

10) You may not post messages which contain language which is derogatory to any race, sexual preference, or religion.

For the most part, as you already know members prefer zero-intervention, where you either accept it or go somewhere else. The hypocrisy comes when you join the site and the first thing you see is the posted rules. Why are they even there? The real joke on the second part of the rules is this part :

The owners of Vegas Casino Talk forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any content item for any reason.

Why is that a joke is because the editing part is handled like the moderator is intruded upon "don't bother me" and does a lousy job in solving the problem. How is the editing job done lousy? Simple the edit is done only to the original post where the slander took place completely ignoring all the quoting of the same post that happened before the editing of the post happened. Sorry, but it is the truth and the bottom line is laziness and a careless attitude. Why does the site post rules and have a triangle alert warning at the bottom of every post, if it means nothing? Every new member who joins the site must go through initiation and is called every conceivable bullshit slang to see if they fit in the wild wild west.
12-29-2020, 08:35 PM
Garnabby

Since Dan took over, I think, almost every one was able to and did rise to their individual levels. Finally found such enlightenment, satisfaction and closure, or, a new beginning.

A lot of ground was covered that, frankly, couldn't have been at any other internet forum. Not for the faint of heart, newcomers, or, those who try to find fault in every little thing because they have nothing of value to add to the melange. "A difficult climb that is not for the faint of heart." Intro/retrospection, and, everything else.

Rejoice.

P.S. All I can say is that it feels Goddamn good - several posters making a thing of ignoring me, or, leaving over stuff I wrote. A bit of actual peace and quiet, this time for me, especially as, I guess, I head into posting up my theory of everything - here if possible.