Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
Legitimate what in the fuck.

I argued Darkoz is not a crook without really really stretching the argument. I pointed out using someone else's card might be against some rule and thus could make one seemingly a crook, but that this would be a stretch.

I don't recall making any judgement about whether he was a gambler. I did say he was an AP and so I think that means he is a gambler. Can't be a player without being a gambler? Anyway, who cares. These semantic arguments are so stupid.

I said nothing about anything else nor do I talk about stuff like what was mentioned as it does no one who is using these tactics any good.

Darkoz is confused as fuck I believe.
Apologies accountinquestion. You are right.

Mickeycriminal said it but I saw your name above his when you quoted him in the earlier thread.

Less confusied and more like bad eyesight. Again please accept the apolgy

My bad