NO Match for Harriman/Schmidt

NYC cue dude said:
What are you challenging me to present?
The vulgar language in this thread?
The subtle innuendos that str8shots has scammed the public?
The outright statements of fact that they ARE scamming the public?
Are you disputing that Ken4fun's thread relaying his personal experience with John Showman was deleted?
Are you representing that Jennifer13's post was legitimate? And when the question of sock-puppetry was raised in that thread and others, did you in fact investigate the IP address?

I'm just trying to understand what you mean when you state I have "no clue"
Click to expand...

All of the above. Have at it!

You're on tilt and attempting to safe face...or something, but you are clueless about what I did or didn't do and apparently dead wrong on many points.

So, as I said...present your facts. Show all of us what you really know.
 
NYC cue dude said:
.......And when the question of sock-puppetry was raised in that thread and others, did you in fact investigate the IP address?
Click to expand...

I wish I would have thought of "sock-puppetry." I think I had a similar post where I merely said sticking a hand in Kermit's azz or something and I was accused of testicle dangling....which I have been known to do on occasion....but... that's like a TOTALLY different thread.
 
Mr. Wilson

Based on your response I can only assume the rules you wrote are arbitrary and you get decide when and if they are applied. I did not ask you to change anything nor was I Monday morning quarterbacking. I asked a question so I could educate myself as to how this process works. I thank you for taking the time to answer.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
I wish I would have thought of "sock-puppetry." I think I had a similar post where I merely said sticking a hand in Kermit's azz or something and I was accused of testicle dangling....which I have been known to do on occasion....but... that's like a TOTALLY different thread.
Click to expand...

bullshit, kermit says your hands were on his shoulders
 
Str8 Shots said:
Mr. Wilson

Based on your response I can only assume the rules you wrote are arbitrary and you get decide when and if they are applied. I did not ask you to change anything nor was I Monday morning quarterbacking. I asked a question so I could educate myself as to how this process works. I thank you for taking the time to answer.
Click to expand...

As I said, did you ( or any of your friends even ) report the posts in question?

This isn't a rhetorical question, as the answer is NO.

You have Randy in your corner swinging for the fences though and doing a fantastic job of making sure I'm in a great mood to entertain your questions though :)

Unless you report a specific post, do not expect me to swoop in and "fix" everything. I'm not going to read every post and hope you ( or anyone ) doesn't take them the wrong way.
 
Mr. Wilson,

Str8 Shots sponsored this event but I am sure you could reach out to the promoter to directly respond to your statement. “My thought here is that these youth were given a choice of whether they could or not "donate". The way it was stated made it sound mandatory that in order to play..they MUST pay ( donate ) to be eligible to participate.

Now, I'm not a lawyer..but I think there are some questions here.”

My thoughts are that just like with every other event out there people had a choice as to whether or not they wished to participate. They were informed by the promoter as to how they could participate in the event and if they chose too they did so of their own free will. The payouts in scholarships (that are used to help them pay for college) were $500.00. All of them were aware the payout was in scholarships to be used to help the youth pay for their education.

I hope you are not implying that because it is mandatory for a youth to pay a fee or donation to be eligible to play in a tournament where they receive a scholarship as their prize, that it is a problem or can have legal ramifications for the promoter.
 
Str8 Shots said:
Mr. Wilson,

Str8 Shots sponsored this event but I am sure you could reach out to the promoter to directly respond to your statement. “My thought here is that these youth were given a choice of whether they could or not "donate". The way it was stated made it sound mandatory that in order to play..they MUST pay ( donate ) to be eligible to participate.

Now, I'm not a lawyer..but I think there are some questions here.”

My thoughts are that just like with every other event out there people had a choice as to whether or not they wished to participate. They were informed by the promoter as to how they could participate in the event and if they chose too they did so of their own free will. The payouts in scholarships (that are used to help them pay for college) were $500.00. All of them were aware the payout was in scholarships to be used to help the youth pay for their education.

I hope you are not implying that because it is mandatory for a youth to pay a fee or donation to be eligible to play in a tournament where they receive a scholarship as their prize, that it is a problem or can have legal ramifications for the promoter.
Click to expand...



Really, I couldn't care less one way or another.
I'm merely pointing out something that has me raising an eyebrow.
 
Str8 Shots said:
Mr. Wilson,

Str8 Shots sponsored this event but I am sure you could reach out to the promoter to directly respond to your statement. “My thought here is that these youth were given a choice of whether they could or not "donate". The way it was stated made it sound mandatory that in order to play..they MUST pay ( donate ) to be eligible to participate.

Now, I'm not a lawyer..but I think there are some questions here.”

My thoughts are that just like with every other event out there people had a choice as to whether or not they wished to participate. They were informed by the promoter as to how they could participate in the event and if they chose too they did so of their own free will. The payouts in scholarships (that are used to help them pay for college) were $500.00. All of them were aware the payout was in scholarships to be used to help the youth pay for their education.

I hope you are not implying that because it is mandatory for a youth to pay a fee or donation to be eligible to play in a tournament where they receive a scholarship as their prize, that it is a problem or can have legal ramifications for the promoter.
Click to expand...

It may, or may not be, dependent, in part, on the ages of the "youth". Also the term "scholarship", which it may not actually be since it is not being donated by or attached to an actual learning institution, appears to be inappropriate reference, at the very least.

J
 
Str8 Shots said:
Mr. Wilson,

Str8 Shots sponsored this event but I am sure you could reach out to the promoter to directly respond to your statement. “My thought here is that these youth were given a choice of whether they could or not "donate". The way it was stated made it sound mandatory that in order to play..they MUST pay ( donate ) to be eligible to participate.

Now, I'm not a lawyer..but I think there are some questions here.”

My thoughts are that just like with every other event out there people had a choice as to whether or not they wished to participate. They were informed by the promoter as to how they could participate in the event and if they chose too they did so of their own free will. The payouts in scholarships (that are used to help them pay for college) were $500.00. All of them were aware the payout was in scholarships to be used to help the youth pay for their education.

I hope you are not implying that because it is mandatory for a youth to pay a fee or donation to be eligible to play in a tournament where they receive a scholarship as their prize, that it is a problem or can have legal ramifications for the promoter.
Click to expand...
Seems like a good business person would know what the promoter of an event was doing before sponsoring it.

I would think that requiring an entry fee for the kids to compete for money valued prizes would be a little too much like gambling for your tastes?
 
Mr. Wilson

I am not sure if you read what I said or just decided to respond with emotion. I at no time asked anyone to speak on my behalf. Not Randy or anyone else. You seem to be overreacting to a simple question about how the rules are applied in these forums.

You pointed out that the rules I mentioned in my first post were not the ones that you use and gave me a new set of rules to check out. I asked you directly about those rules and how they are applied.

You response deflected from my direct questions and you brought up about what people who are friendly to me should or should not have done. I did not ask about what other people were supposed to do. I asked how you, a moderator who wrote the rules, determines what is and is not considered a violation of said rules and I gave an example.

Simple answer: it is arbitrary. If you interpret something not to be negative it will remain.

No need to get upset and for your information, I asked because I am unfamiliar with the process. And again you were not asked to do anything. In fact I stated that I did not want the thread removed as I would address the posts as I have time.
 
Str8 Shots said:
Mr. Wilson

I am not sure if you read what I said or just decided to respond with emotion. I at no time asked anyone to speak on my behalf. Not Randy or anyone else. You seem to be overreacting to a simple question about how the rules are applied in these forums.

You pointed out that the rules I mentioned in my first post were not the ones that you use and gave me a new set of rules to check out. I asked you directly about those rules and how they are applied.

You response deflected from my direct questions and you brought up about what people who are friendly to me should or should not have done. I did not ask about what other people were supposed to do. I asked how you, a moderator who wrote the rules, determines what is and is not considered a violation of said rules and I gave an example.

Simple answer: it is arbitrary. If you interpret something not to be negative it will remain.

No need to get upset and for your information, I asked because I am unfamiliar with the process. And again you were not asked to do anything. In fact I stated that I did not want the thread removed as I would address the posts as I have time.
Click to expand...

I should stay above the fray with NYC Cuedude, but I gotta say, for a person new to the forum, you come on pretty strong.
 
Last edited:
PoolSharkAllen said:
You too, Spidey. We're all wondering why the line above your avatar says "Banned" when in fact, you're not?
Click to expand...

When deep questions like this come up, it could mean a deep conspiracy involving Ancient Aliens ... or.... maybe I just changed my profile title to say such.

Sent from my Galaxy S4
 
I actually sat here and worked for the past 3-4 hours, come back, and theres 5 more pages? This better be good....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top