I Am The Guy Who Bought Jl

Williebetmore said:
Her friends all reported that she was upset by your behavior, and by your questioning of her honesty.

Here lies the problem. What friends say happened in any scenario such as this one are going to be biased opinions. Both sides in this drama have friends making statements. We would need to hear from two or more persons who are COMPLETELY unbiased before we can even think about who is at fault here. Even then, the actual truth may never be completely known by any one bystander. So, IMO, this whole argument is a moot point. I say we move on and consider this whole affair as a lesson learned for all future calcutta buy-ins.

Maniac
 
Gatz said:
If your a player and you want to buy half yourself in the Calcutta, you do it before you even hit a damn ball.

You don't get someone else to look around for the person that baught you in the calcutta. You don't wait 3 matchs later. You buy half yourself before the tournament starts PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...If you don't tough luck, it's your fault.
I agree totally. Doesn't matter who you are.
 
this is all smoke-filled crap!! JL knows exactly how a calcutta works and she, for whatever reason, stalled on buying half herself. maybe she didnt realize how much was in the calcutta or that she may not win the tournament and come out ahead...who knows. but, she has played in enough events with calcuttas to know that you buy your half before the tournament starts period!! when the buyer refused to let her in for half (which is his option at that point), her ego got hurt a little and she wanted revenge! she should have to pay the buyer $140 or not play in this event again.
 
I haven't been watching this sit much recently, somebody fill me in on what happened here.

From the post I gather that JL was doing well in a tournament, approached the person who bought her in the Calcutta about buying half, and when he refused she quit the tournament.

Do I have it right or did I misinterpret the facts?
 
Life is about control. I am wondering why we have seen two posts concerning this from ONE side. Think about this for a moment. If something happens and I cannot get my point across to control or effect an outcome then I continue until I can. In other words, if JL cared about the money, she would have posted. She did not. Why is posts at all being made. If I dont like an outcome of something then I would try to slander someone, if I was so inclined. So .....when a person cant control another person bad things will be done. People get beat, sued, slandered and even killed.

What is the point of posting, buyer was pissed..and wanted to show JL. I dont see JL being a spoiled brat and just for spite leaving a tournament. I do however, with the up your ass comment see another possible scenario.

Regardless, the fact remains that Mr T wanted something posted, that was with the expressed purpose to make JL look bad in the pool community. I mean, anyone can come on this forum, post something that you did or did not do and opinions would ensue and eventually you would either look good or bad.

The rush to judgement has ensued and none of us was there to witness including the TD (did not hear it all). Private matters should be that and in this case the buyer wants to "get" or "make" look bad in our eyes.

Personally, I dont know what happened and it is their business and I still think JL has done alot more for pool than most on this forum. My two cents worth.

Case closed.
 
Celtic said:
Yeah, that right there is all on Jeanette Lee.

She tried something far beyond reasonable or fair expecting to get her way because of who she is, you stood your ground on what is fair and right, she took it as an afront not to be afforded certain rights beyond the mere common pool player masses and took the most classless way out she could.

It was weak. If this story was posted about Joe Nobody instead of Jeanette Lee, with this many witnesses and stories that all say the same thing, 0% of the people posting would be defending ole Joe.

This hits the nail on the head.

One time she entered a tournament that I helped run. After she went two and out, I went to her and thanked her for entering our tournament. I said it was too bad she hadn't done better, but maybe next time. I felt I was just being friendly. She took it completely the other way. After making a few ego-saving comments she just turned on her heel and stormed away. She never entered another of our tournaments.

I'm sure she told her friends that I had been "rude and disturbing". To her anything that isn't fawning adoration is "offensive and disrespectful".

I vote 100% in favor of the buyer.

Mark
 
This whole thing is a d*mn joke what the hell is the point....

Is it. JL is a stuck up deva, Wow news flash inperfect human, better spend another 5 days bashing her. Im sure everbody on here as way more outstanding character than her...

Is it . Buyer acted like a D*ck.. ( of course he as not admitted to that JL really quit because of the above mentioned, he was a true gentalman ) WOW another news flash, sombody had a better reason than not getting the right yeld at the intersection to get there bobble head going, welcome to 2009, is there a manner left.....
 
Yancey said:
Life is about control. I am wondering why we have seen two posts concerning this from ONE side. Think about this for a moment. If something happens and I cannot get my point across to control or effect an outcome then I continue until I can. In other words, if JL cared about the money, she would have posted. She did not. Why is posts at all being made. If I dont like an outcome of something then I would try to slander someone, if I was so inclined. So .....when a person cant control another person bad things will be done. People get beat, sued, slandered and even killed.

What is the point of posting, buyer was pissed..and wanted to show JL. I dont see JL being a spoiled brat and just for spite leaving a tournament. I do however, with the up your ass comment see another possible scenario.

Regardless, the fact remains that Mr T wanted something posted, that was with the expressed purpose to make JL look bad in the pool community. I mean, anyone can come on this forum, post something that you did or did not do and opinions would ensue and eventually you would either look good or bad.

The rush to judgement has ensued and none of us was there to witness including the TD (did not hear it all). Private matters should be that and in this case the buyer wants to "get" or "make" look bad in our eyes.

Personally, I dont know what happened and it is their business and I still think JL has done alot more for pool than most on this forum. My two cents worth.

Case closed.


I believe this to be a ridiculous assumption. Of coarse it was started to make JL look bad, as it should have. She is the one who made this situation come about and she should have to pay for it. She was offered half of the calcutta before the event started and she REFUSED the opportunity to buy half herself at the appropriate time. All that occurred after this time is immaterial as it should never have taken place. She had no reason to communicate with the buyer from that point on and anything that happened after this moment was at her undertaking. She had no reason to be INSULTED as she shouldn't have been talking to him. I know on some tours that if a player forfeit's a match that he is barred from playing in that tournament again as all he has done is STEAL the calcutta's buyers money in doing so. Of coarse they won't bar her from this tournament as it's advantageous for them to have her occasionally show up but if it was my tournament, she would be barred. Calcutta money is a large draw for tournaments. It makes for much larger payouts. Calcuttas are a bad enough bet as is as your paying more for a smaller return in most cases so when something like this is allowed to occur it's just not right. What the calcutta buyers should do is not bid on anybody in a tournament that she enters. This lets the operators know how you feel about rigged calcutta's. What she did is no different than someone throwing a match to ensure someone else wins the calcutta money. It's dishonest and stealing.

Dick
 
Last edited:
Excellent point! Let this thing die...

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Fuji-whopper said:
This is why they make 31 flavors of ice cream, people are different and like different things. They both said they could have done things to make it better so they both shared blame, why do people need to be definitively 100% right/wrong when the situation calls that it isn't black and white like that?

They both screwed up, they know it and now we know it. What do you expect either of them to do, bow from the ankles? Sheesh.
 
rhncue said:
I believe this to be a ridiculous assumption. Of coarse it was started to make JL look bad, as it should have. She is the one who made this situation come about and she should have to pay for it. She was offered half of the calcutta before the event started and she REFUSED the opportunity to buy half herself at the appropriate time. All that occurred after this time is immaterial as it should never have taken place. She had no reason to communicate with the buyer from that point on and anything that happened after this moment was at her undertaking. She had no reason to be INSULTED as she shouldn't have been talking to him. I know on some tours that if a player forfeit's a match that he is barred from playing in that tournament again as all he has done is STEAL the calcutta's buyers money in doing so. Of coarse they won't bar her from this tournament as it's advantageous for them to have her occasionally show up but if it was my tournament, she would be barred. Calcutta money is a large draw for tournaments. It makes for much larger payouts. What the calcutta buyers should do is not bid on anybody in a tournament that she enters. This lets the operators know how you feel about rigged calcutta's. What she did is no different than someone throwing a match to ensure someone else wins the calcutta money. It's dishonest and stealing.

Dick


Dick is exactly right.

It was an attempt to steal.

Ken
 
This whole thing just sounds like a small misunderstanding unnecessarily compounding itself into a larger one.

Whenever I've met or have been to a tournament that Jeanette Lee is playing in, she constantly has people pulling her in a zillion different directions and I've always been impressed with how well she handles going out of her way for everything from the casual autograph, to the rather odd questions. However when it gets right down to it, no one is perfect.

I had confusion occur like this with one of my own friends I've had in a calcutta, so since then I've always made sure to have a face to face point blank yes or no before the tourney starts.

If there was any doubt between you two after your first encounter, I would have cut her some slack and gone out of my way to follow up with her at least before the first round. I understand being annoyed, and even offended that she didn't make a decision when you first talked to her, but in the swirl of everything that is usually around Jeanette Lee wherever she goes, I would have still sought her out before things got started for that face to face yes or no rather than expect her to find me.

Yes, because she's Jeanette Lee. :D
 
I believe this to be a ridiculous assumption. Of coarse it was started to make JL look bad, as it should have. She is the one who made this situation come about and she should have to pay for it. She was offered half of the calcutta before the event started and she REFUSED the opportunity to buy half herself at the appropriate time. All that occurred after this time is immaterial as it should never have taken place. She had no reason to communicate with the buyer from that point on and anything that happened after this moment was at her undertaking. She had no reason to be INSULTED as she shouldn't have been talking to him. I know on some tours that if a player forfeit's a match that he is barred from playing in that tournament again as all he has done is STEAL the calcutta's buyers money in doing so. Of coarse they won't bar her from this tournament as it's advantageous for them to have her occasionally show up but if it was my tournament, she would be barred. Calcutta money is a large draw for tournaments. It makes for much larger payouts. Calcuttas are a bad enough bet as is as your paying more for a smaller return in most cases so when something like this is allowed to occur it's just not right. What the calcutta buyers should do is not bid on anybody in a tournament that she enters. This lets the operators know how you feel about rigged calcutta's. What she did is no different than someone throwing a match to ensure someone else wins the calcutta money. It's dishonest and stealing.

Look, this is total BS. She said at the first she may want half...sounds like she didnt get it. Buyer comes up and obviously said something she didnt like. Now if it was something similar to the quote in the buyers post and it was said in front of either your significant other, how would you feel Dick? Or you Ken? Personally, if someone said anything remotely like he posted to my wife, he would have less teeth or worse. JL can leave, it is a free world. Now, as for how you feel about the post. I have my opinion and you guys have yours, the fact that it differs is okay, but to say it is ridiculous is your right but it is also mine to say that you are an asshat, Dickie boy.

LOL

The point is...JL FELT HE WAS RUDE TO HER...She can leave period. You two saying she is dishonest doesnt make it so. I mean who are you two to judge anyone. Two board lurkers...hahaha.
 
Last edited:
Look, this is total BS. She said at the first she may want half...sounds like she didnt get it. Buyer comes up and obviously said something she didnt like. Now if it was something similar to the quote in the buyers post and it was said in front of either your significant other, how would you feel Dick? Or you Ken? Personally, if someone said anything remotely like he posted to my wife, he would have less teeth or worse. JL can leave, it is a free world. Now, as for how you feel about the post. I have my opinion and you guys have yours, the fact that it differs is okay, but to say it is ridiculous is your right but it is also mine to say that you are an asshat, Dickie boy.

LOL

The point is...JL FELT HE WAS RUDE TO HER...She can leave period. You two saying she is dishonest doesnt make it so. I mean who are you two to judge anyone. Two board lurkers...hahaha.

Just where have you been lurking? It's very apparent that it's not been in places where they have calcutta's on pool tournaments. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? He asked her if she wanted half of herself. This is a simple yes or no question. There are no maybes or mights or let me get approval from my card reader. You have to commit, one way or another BEFORE THE DRAW. Period. She never so she should never have bothered him again. She's the one who should have apologized to him for even asking him the question "if she had half". Apparently she wasn't ruffled to much as she was still willing to continue playing until the question was asked "So you're not going to sell me half" and he said "no".

Your right, us two saying she's wrong doesn't make it so but her actions certainly did and I stand by every word I said and wanted to use much stronger words for her actions but don't want to be put off of this forum. In some of the calcutta's that I've been to she could leave but chances are good if she were a he it would have been to a hospital. PERIOD!

Dick
 
beating_a_dead_horse.jpg
 
...JL unscrewing her cue and forfeiting out. It screams of being a spoiled pool diva who just quits when things don't go her way.

Another interpretation is that she thought she was being gamed too. From her perspective it could look like he was the one playing both sides of it, using the technicality of the money to justify keeping all her action now that he saw how the tournament was going - not to mention that he wouldn't take her word for the bet.

I can see two sides to this.

pj
chgo
 
T said:
Yes, because she's Jeanette Lee. :D
Which is exactly why she thinks it's ok to do what she did. :wink:

Patrick Johnson said:
Another interpretation is that she thought she was being gamed too. From her perspective it could look like he was the one playing both sides of it, using the technicality of the money to justify keeping all her action now that he saw how the tournament was going - not to mention that he wouldn't take her word for the bet.

I can see two sides to this.
If he hadn't made it a point to seek her out prior to the draw & she had confirmed at that point that she wanted half of herself, I could probably agree with you.

Since she didn't commit at that time, he didn't "have her word for the bet". He only received confirmation (via someone else) 6 hours later, once she was already in the money rounds.

I don't think she was waiting to see how she did in the tourney before committing but I can certainly see how it would appear that way & how he could think that was the case.


Tompnation said:
In mine and Jeanette's initial interaction, she did say she probably will buy 1/2 but she would let me know. There was still probably 30 mins to go in the calcutta so i figured she'd let me know within a reasonable time.

Tompnation said:
when Brian Gregg approached me about letting Jeanette buy half herself, i said something to the effect of "now, Brian?" or "the calcutta ended 6 hrs ago, brian."
 
Yes, i am the guy who bought JL last weekend. Sorry I took so long to finally post but my acct was not activated for like 24 hrs. Plus, i actually have a life outside of posting responses to a subject that i didn't even start on this website to begin with. People wanted to hear my side of the story, and i relayed it to the best of my ability through my friend clolson (thanks btw CO2.) I definitely wanted nothing to do with all the drama that has ensued from these events. Anybody who knows me can tell you that I would not have all this happening if it was not the truth. I was not going to mention names and all of that, especially seeing the new TD thread, but I feel obligated to defend myself. The fact that I feel disrespected by an anonymous Jeanette Lee fanboy, makes me feel, as Williebetmore already pointed out, like a loser.

In my original posting through clolson you may notice I never called Jeanette a single name, not even unprofessional or classless. Williebetmore, however, chooses to take the low road and call me a psychotic stalker with rude disturbing behavior! WOW! The fact that you would say these types of things without knowing any of the facts firsthand is truly disgusting. Waiting by the computer so that you can post a reply everytime someone posts a new comment...i'm surprised you get that good of an internet connection that far up Jeanette's butt. I think its pretty obvious that i havent been trying to run her name in the dirt, but apparently, if one stands up for themselves around Jeanette, her "friends" will. Nice.

Now I would like to clear up a couple of things that people still aren't quite sure of. In mine and Jeanette's initial interaction, she did say she probably will buy 1/2 but she would let me know. There was still probably 30 mins to go in the calcutta so i figured she'd let me know within a reasonable time. When Willie says "it was only a few matches later, not the finals" when she approached me again, there was only 14 players in the A-B bracket total, a few matches later is the end of the tournament. I guess I didn't realize how much time she needed. She also was in no way a lock to win the tourney, maybe if she sees she has to play BG, Everett Snow, or Steve Oaks, she doesn't want half...JMO. Nobody lets Joe Shmoe look at the brackets, figure up the pot, and calculate his odds, then let's him have half right?

Like I said, I didn't want to have to name names, but when Brian Gregg approached me about letting Jeanette buy half herself, i said something to the effect of "now, Brian?" or "the calcutta ended 6 hrs ago, brian." He replied, " It's not like that, she's been looking for you" That was when I walked away without saying yes, or no. The fact that she told Brian that she'd been looking for me was preposterous. She had gotten on the mic a couple times, and never asked to speak to me. John Wayne's is small enough to find me if she wanted to. If i see her walking around looking like she can't find something, i'm gonna say "hey JL, looking for me?" And BTW, I also played in the tournament, so I was also busy.

As far as Jeanette's character goes, I am aware that she does a lot of great things for the sport, which I commend her for. I've talked to several people who have seen her put moves on people in the past. I recently learned of something that happened at the Derby earlier this year where she hit an 8ball first, while attempting to hit the 3 ball, and swore it was a good hit. She was gambling with a gentleman whom i dont recall his name, but they were playing 11,000-13,000 dollar nineball.

I'll say again, that I didn't want to have to post all of this nonsense, but I will not let my character come into question for doing the absolute right thing.

Dear Williebetmore,
I am a nobody on this website or in the pool community itself, but if you really live in Indy, then I know somebody who knows who you are. My name is Matt Thompson and if you have an iota of an ounce of heart, you will put your name on here. I just wanna know the name of the man calling me such ridiculous things. That's all.

Thanks Azbilliards, and i want to apologize for again kicking a dead horse...even though Mr. Ed ain't got sh*t on this horse!

P.S. I wanna say sorry to Jack and Brian for creating a new thread after you guys have already made one, but I felt like I needed to address these things.


I told my wife this story over dinner a few nights ago -- she likes to hear about what's up on the groups I cruise. She knows next to nothing about pool, but has bought me as "Her Horse" :-) in a couple of calcuttas, so she knows the drill.

When I got to the part in the story where JL unscrews, I thought she summed it up nicely when she just blurted out, "What a Beeatch!."

As others have said: no one is entitled to a peek at the draw; it's the player's responsibility, no matter how breathlessly busy "The Star" is signing autographs, to seek out the purchaser; and that late into the tournament, most pool players would have probably have said and done the same thing as Tompnation: just look at at her like she was out of her freakin' gourd.

I commend him for not saying something outrageous, which, at that point in the proceedings, he would have been more than entitled to say, IMO.

Lou Figueroa
sure JL will behave herself next calcutta...
so there is a point to all this :-)
 
Last edited:
good point. Im not gonna go deep into it cause i wasnt there, but i know that nobody is immune to being wrong. it doesnt matter if you're an average guy or a pro player, everyone is wrong sometimes. If thats wat really happened then the buyer has every right to stand up and be right, doesnt matter who he is or isnt. Well said Dick.
P.S. It would be nice to hear from Jamie on this one.
 
Back
Top