It wasn't necessary for Shackleford or anyone interested in checking out my shuffle machine accusation to interview me. I posted where they where right down to the exact tables. Shackleford did show an interest in looking into it, but was a bit slow. I think he might have been out of town (judging from his lack of posts at the time) and by the time he posted that he was going to head to the casino in question to take a look, the machines had been removed.
That situation unfolded pretty quickly after I made my posts and they were picked up by a second and third forum. It was less than two weeks from the time I stated what these machines were doing, and what I had done to prove it (tracking hundreds of shuffles), before the two machines in questions were removed. I think if there would have been some benefit to interview me, and I had requested it, Mike would have done so.
Things like this as well as Rob's claim are bigger than any feud or personal bad feelings. In the interview and article that Mike did do with Rob, Mike looked at all Rob's claims at the time, listed them and concluded that he didn't find Rob's claim (regarding his progressive wagering system) credible, but would look into it again, if anything new came up. Well, this was something new. Mike would have revisited it I believe.
First I was never offered a ceasefire from Rob. But had I been nothing would have changed. I already try not to attack Rob on a personal level. Occasionally I retaliate to his bullying and say something personal, but I really try not to....and it is hard, because he is a bully and troll. He wants people to respond. He wants THAT kind of attention.
My comments about Rob are specific to his claims, and for the last few months specific to his progressive wagering system claim which remains near impossible. I have let the double up thing go because there is no sense in discussing that anymore. Rob made the claim, but has offered no proof or anything collaborating to back it up. So it is just his word and everyone is free to decide for themselves. I do find it very strange and convenient that Rob says he knew no one would believe him, but offered no supporting documentation.
So if I had been offered a ceasefire, I wouldn't have done a 180 about everything. impossible claims are still impossible claims, whether I am feuding with the person or not. Because some bully offers to stop attacking me as he has done for years isn't going to make me say, Hell yeah, the grass is purple and the earth flat.
Originally Posted by
mickeycrimm
And it's just sad, KJ, that you and some others can't let old animosities go by the wayside and move on in life.
Mickey it is not that I don't find Rob credible and you all of the sudden do (after your ceasefire). It is that 95% of people in the AP community don't find him credible and you do. And that is your right but don't try to make it about me not liking Rob. If I find someone credible I find them credible whether I like them or not and the same the other way.
Case in point, I don't like you all that much anymore, based on your behavior on this forum. Seems all you do is cuss at people who don't agree with you and try to turn discussions of about gambling into politics. Discussion that have zero to do with politics. As soon as someone has a different opinion than you, you attack them with homophobic remarks and call them a liberal. You are doing just what Rob had done for years....demonizing people that disagree with you or have a different opinion.
But despite this sudden change that I don't like, I still find your AP related claims very credible. You have proven yourself to be credible in that regard. Do you see the difference? Rob's claims aren't credible whether a person likes him or not or whether there is some cease fire agreement in place or not.
Reply With Quote