Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: LVA Fedomalley Sympathizers Rapid-Fire The Excuses!

  1. #1
    Although Fedo hasn't replied to any of my caving-in to his terms on the bet he challenged me with, he HAS been posting--and therefore, reading--the LVA forum where BAGIANT posted my acceptance. One can only assume he's running scared. What? A self-proclaimed AP who never has a losing year, escaping a bet that HE proposed? C'mon Dan, man up and make all those AP's who "lurk on the streets of Las Vegas" proud of you. Better yet, along with all the sympathy you're getting comes the AP let-down. Deep down inside, you just KNOW your own crowd is gonna think of you as afraid to take on the mighty Singer by welching on a challenge.

    Of course, the constant in all this is arci--who monitors the forum from the edge of his seat--as he awaits the next zinger to his twisted view so he can fire out a veiled apology for the guy. He's trying so hard to cover up for Dan, but even a parking lot attendant like Frankie Rizzo is showing how he can see right thru what he's doing.

    Bottom line: Dan wanted a $30k escrow and I wanted $300k. When it looked like Dan was running I compromised to $75k, then $30k, then $10k to get him back in the game. The only difference was that either of us could and should stop the bet once the escrow limit amount of the bet was reached since there was no way either could be trusted to pay on a promise after that. That's why I wanted a higher escrow so I could play longer. In fact, the longer the better....30 hours, 300 hours or even 3000 hours. I told Dan to name the timeframe, and as long as we had the proper escrow then play would go on. But he just doesn't seem to want anything to do with it now. What a shame. Could it be that he realizes what a mistake he made, and how the more sessions I play the closer to my 85% session-win expectation I'll get?

    For some reason he just doesn't seem to believe in arci's continuous lie of how I'll have many small winning sessions and a few large losers that'll wipe out all the small winners and more--never explaining why he leaves out those far more frequent large winners--like Royals and Aces and K's/Q's/J's or 2's/3's/4's or SF's on SDBP. I know, it's not something a critic wants to deal with.....But guess what? It's for certain Dan is not ignoring them.

    Funny, now Fedo's sympathizers are banding together knowing he's hiding, saying "it's a bad bet" and "MoneyLA is in on the bet with RS"! It's like they're now practically admitting they know I'll win, and they know I'll win more the longer I play. And all the while arci's playing the fiddle for the guy. Did I say FUNNY? How about SAD!
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 06-23-2011 at 10:42 AM.

  2. #2
    (First paragraph deleted by the Editor.)

    If this guy really wanted to move forward with this he'd simply accept that there has to be a stop point when the escrow limit is met. It's his own fault for not wanting or being able to post a higher one. (Edited, section removed by Editor.)

    He seems to be on-track to claiming the "15,000 hand escape" on this bet. (Edited, section removed by Editor.)

    (Edited, section removed by Editor.) Why not try to put a feather in your cap and face off against the mighty Singer?? (Edited, section removed by Editor.)
    Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 06-23-2011 at 08:25 PM. Reason: You've been warned.

  3. #3
    From the outset, and on other threads, I made it clear that this Forum is not going to tolerate rude comments or insults. Again, this Forum was created because rude comments and insults destroyed the TV Spy Forum for the Television industry and I am determined not to let that happen here. We welcome discussions but there is no room for insults, foul language, flame wars, or anything else that does not clearly address questions and issues. We will not hesitate to edit offensive posts, or to totally remove them.

  4. #4
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    From the outset, and on other threads, I made it clear that this Forum is not going to tolerate rude comments or insults. Again, this Forum was created because rude comments and insults destroyed the TV Spy Forum for the Television industry and I am determined not to let that happen here. We welcome discussions but there is no room for insults, foul language, flame wars, or anything else that does not clearly address questions and issues. We will not hesitate to edit offensive posts, or to totally remove them.
    Or totally removing the repeat offender works great in other forums. Try it here too.

  5. #5
    I don't believe in censorship. I would rather that the information be presented for all to consider. What we will block are links to commercial sites which we have no knowledge of and cannot verify their business practices or quality or legality. We will edit words and phrases and personal attacks to maintain order. We will remove comments that violate law. Thank you for posting, Vegas Vic.

  6. #6
    I would think you have better things to do than be forced to edit multiple posts multiple times if individuals are breaking the terms of the forum. You say you don't believe in censorship.... one could argue than editing IS a form of censorship. Most forums (and I participate in maybe a dozen) will banish you for repeated violations. It's not a free speech issue when it's a private forum. You can set the rules and make them stick, so don't be afraid. It's good business.

  7. #7
    Thanks, Vegas Vic. I will agree that editing is a form of censorship. And if the violations continue I will consider appropriate steps. I am just hoping that mature discussion will be the norm here. I originally asked Dan and Rob to negotiate their arrangement in private, but Dan asked that the negotiation continue here, on this forum, in public. As a courtesy to them, I will let that continue. But I hope it will be an honest negotiation free of bad-mouthing and a rehash of non-issues and past misbehavior on other forums.

    To be honest, I've been walking a fine line here with this forum. It is an expense that returns no revenue, it could cause a lot of bad feelings towards me for even allowing the discussion on this website. I've already been bashed enough just for putting Rob's video explanations of his system on this site. I don't want this to turn into a "public relations nightmare" for me and it's already caused a lot of grief.

  8. #8
    I frankly think we've beaten this to death. I've outlined my position and offered to post up $30K which is the most I'm willing to risk. If that's not good enough than this obviously isn't going to happen. I've outlined my thoughts and rationale on another thread here so it's going to either happen under these terms or not. No sense wasting any more time on this....$30K is sufficient stakes for 30 hours worth of work. If Singer doesn't believe so than I think people will see through this and believe that it was never his intention for this to ever take place. I'm not in for any more rhetoric on this...it shouldn't be this difficult.

    Dan

  9. #9
    Dan...at the risk of being categorized by Mr. Singer, you have my vote and support from afar.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •