Ronnie Wiseman responds to the "he stiffed me" thread posted by Shawn Dykes

[miplayerstour]

I spoke to ronnie wiseman today and had to ask about this whole thing because it got so big and ridiculous. He went into detail about what happened and asked if I knew how to post a response on az. I of course said yes I do and he then asked if I would post his response for him. I agreed.

Below you will find his version of events. I know nothing more about the event I wasn't there but am happy to pass along his version since so many of us followed the thread.

First, he wanted me to start by posting the apology that shawn made because he felt it was overlooked, almost buried and didn't get the attention it shouldve so here it is as originally posted on az!

"Would like to let everyone know the situation between me and Ronnie has been mended. He has stayed in contact with me everyday since we played except for maybe a couple. In the beginning Ronnie stood good for the money that was bet on the side between me and Scott while me and Ronnie played.

I posted that i was stiffed for $3900 by Ronnie only because he stood good for it. He had all intentions in sending me the money within a couple of days while he was headed to the Carolina's for another event.
Well somehow or the other Scott stayed in Hattiesburg with a few other guys trying to make a score and take care of the debt which i just found out the whole truth is partially Scotts debt anyways.

Ronnie was told that the debt would be taken care of and not to worry about it. I was impatient about this whole situation and created this post not knowing the whole truth just going off of what Ronnie told me.

As of today me and Ronnie have worked out our situation. I would like to say that I jumped the gun on this deal without knowing all the truth. I only went off what was told to me. But I know exactly what happened now and understand why Ronnie was saying what he did.

I also would like to apologize to Ronnie Wiseman for damaging his image on this forum if anyone even took this thread seriously. I didnt intend for that to be the purpose of this thread anyways.

Again, As of today Ronnie has cleared up his end of the deal and is in the process of making it right on my end. To sum it up he is making sure i get all of my money.
Sorry Ronnie if this thread affected you in anyway.

Sincere Apologies,
Shawn Dykes"

In addition to showing the apology, Ronnie also said that he wanted everyone to know that he has taken care of what he owed to and agreed to pay Shawn.

Ronnie has also helped Shawn in his attempts to collect the side action amount owed to him that Ronnie made very clear he had no part of from the very beginning. Ronnie did state that when the person side betting left the room Shawn was stalling the match and Ronnie said if you want to keep playing break the balls or we're done here. Shawn made a comment about being owed the side action and Ronnie said he would stand good for the person taking the sideaction. Ronnie said he NEVER told Shawn he would pay the bet off for the guy!

Ronnie admits that he made a mistake that night by standing good for this person but only did so after the guy was 2000 loser........ronnie was told the amount was able to be covered and believed the action was covered. He had no reason not to stand good for the man but he did stand good for the man not his bet!!
Ronnie said that looking at what's happened, he shouldve told them to side bet without moving the coin on the table because had it not been for that coin on the table, ronnie wouldn't have been caught up in the side action mess.

Ronnie paid for his games after each one every single time except for the very last game for 500, which has now been made right. Also, holding to his word, Ronnie has been helping Shawn to collect what else is owed.
There was never a time when Ronnie planned on leaving the debt unpaid he told Shawn he would pay and he has.

Ronnie laughed because he thought it was funny that he was accused of stiffing someone on a bet he had nothing to do with but the apology and the fact that he made his debt good as he said he would got no attention at all!

Ronnie also made a comment about leaving hattiesburg the day after this happened.....he said he had a planned trip for the next few weeks and was on a schedule PERIOD! It had nothing to do with leaving town to escape a debt.

I asked Ronnie why he didn't want to just let this quietly fade away and ignore the drama from stirring it up by posting a response. He said that there are always at least two sides to a story and he wanted to tell his side because the first version was wrong and exaggerated to try to get him pressured into getting Shawns money for him!

He's been busy on the road non stop and found this to be one of the few breaks he's had so he wanted to respond. All sides must be known before anyone can really determine the truth. Ronnie said its time for the truth to be told!

He also said that Shawns called him and admitted to jumping the gun and posting the original thread and dragging his name down, Shawn admits he was wrong but knew posting an apology would make him look like an idiot. Ronnie thinks that's why it wasn't posted as a new topic because Shawn didn't want the negative heat from making the story more than what it was as far as Ronnies involvement anyway.

Ronnie ended with saying that he travels the country playing pool and is a man of his word.

There you have it azers with inquiring minds!! I did tell Ronnie that this may stir things up so he should be ready to respond again or ready to ignore the many questions or comments to come.

If he wants to chat again to clear it up, I'll be happy to post that response for him as well!

 

[Poolplaya9]

Well now that we have heard both sides of the story it still doesn't make any sense. On the one hand, both parties have said in a certain way that Ronnie stood good for the entire debt and is liable for it. On the other hand both parties have also said that part of the debt was not Ronnies.

Which one is it? Either Ronnie was responsible, or he wasn't, period. Both parties involved can't even seem to decide for themselves which one it was, and keep flip flopping back and forth.

After all of this drama there are only a couple of things I am sure of. One is that Ronnie stiffed him for $500, and then paid it back later. The other is that with all this confusion, you should probably put it in writing if you gamble with EITHER of these guys.

 

[BigDogatLarge]

I spoke to ronnie wiseman today and had to ask about this whole thing because it got so big and ridiculous. He went into detail about what happened and asked if I knew how to post a response on az. I of course said yes I do and he then asked if I would post his response for him. I agreed.

Below you will find his version of events. I know nothing more about the event I wasn't there but am happy to pass along his version since so many of us followed the thread.

First, he wanted me to start by posting the apology that shawn made because he felt it was overlooked, almost buried and didn't get the attention it shouldve so here it is as originally posted on az!

"Would like to let everyone know the situation between me and Ronnie has been mended. He has stayed in contact with me everyday since we played except for maybe a couple. In the beginning Ronnie stood good for the money that was bet on the side between me and Scott while me and Ronnie played.

I posted that i was stiffed for $3900 by Ronnie only because he stood good for it. He had all intentions in sending me the money within a couple of days while he was headed to the Carolina's for another event.
Well somehow or the other Scott stayed in Hattiesburg with a few other guys trying to make a score and take care of the debt which i just found out the whole truth is partially Scotts debt anyways.

Ronnie was told that the debt would be taken care of and not to worry about it. I was impatient about this whole situation and created this post not knowing the whole truth just going off of what Ronnie told me.

As of today me and Ronnie have worked out our situation. I would like to say that I jumped the gun on this deal without knowing all the truth. I only went off what was told to me. But I know exactly what happened now and understand why Ronnie was saying what he did.

I also would like to apologize to Ronnie Wiseman for damaging his image on this forum if anyone even took this thread seriously. I didnt intend for that to be the purpose of this thread anyways.

Again, As of today Ronnie has cleared up his end of the deal and is in the process of making it right on my end. To sum it up he is making sure i get all of my money.
Sorry Ronnie if this thread affected you in anyway.

Sincere Apologies,
Shawn Dykes"

In addition to showing the apology, Ronnie also said that he wanted everyone to know that he has taken care of what he owed to and agreed to pay Shawn.

Ronnie has also helped Shawn in his attempts to collect the side action amount owed to him that Ronnie made very clear he had no part of from the very beginning. Ronnie did state that when the person side betting left the room Shawn was stalling the match and Ronnie said if you want to keep playing break the balls or we're done here. Shawn made a comment about being owed the side action and Ronnie said he would stand good for the person taking the sideaction. Ronnie said he NEVER told Shawn he would pay the bet off for the guy!

Ronnie admits that he made a mistake that night by standing good for this person but only did so after the guy was 2000 loser........ronnie was told the amount was able to be covered and believed the action was covered. He had no reason not to stand good for the man but he did stand good for the man not his bet!!
Ronnie said that looking at what's happened, he shouldve told them to side bet without moving the coin on the table because had it not been for that coin on the table, ronnie wouldn't have been caught up in the side action mess.

Ronnie paid for his games after each one every single time except for the very last game for 500, which has now been made right. Also, holding to his word, Ronnie has been helping Shawn to collect what else is owed.
There was never a time when Ronnie planned on leaving the debt unpaid he told Shawn he would pay and he has.

Ronnie laughed because he thought it was funny that he was accused of stiffing someone on a bet he had nothing to do with but the apology and the fact that he made his debt good as he said he would got no attention at all!

Ronnie also made a comment about leaving hattiesburg the day after this happened.....he said he had a planned trip for the next few weeks and was on a schedule PERIOD! It had nothing to do with leaving town to escape a debt.

I asked Ronnie why he didn't want to just let this quietly fade away and ignore the drama from stirring it up by posting a response. He said that there are always at least two sides to a story and he wanted to tell his side because the first version was wrong and exaggerated to try to get him pressured into getting Shawns money for him!

He's been busy on the road non stop and found this to be one of the few breaks he's had so he wanted to respond. All sides must be known before anyone can really determine the truth. Ronnie said its time for the truth to be told!

He also said that Shawns called him and admitted to jumping the gun and posting the original thread and dragging his name down, Shawn admits he was wrong but knew posting an apology would make him look like an idiot. Ronnie thinks that's why it wasn't posted as a new topic because Shawn didn't want the negative heat from making the story more than what it was as far as Ronnies involvement anyway.

Ronnie ended with saying that he travels the country playing pool and is a man of his word.

There you have it azers with inquiring minds!! I did tell Ronnie that this may stir things up so he should be ready to respond again or ready to ignore the many questions or comments to come.

If he wants to chat again to clear it up, I'll be happy to post that response for him as well!

It is in dangerous waters you tread as JAM well knows. She as well as you have presented Ronnie's side. I hope the fallout doesn't affect you as it did her. It is a good thing you do to help Mr. Wiseman get this behind him. I think Shawn in Hattiesburg used this forum to get to Mr. Wiseman and the money owed. He made himself look like an idiot, IMO. He was already in contact and still ran the mans name down. You reap what you sow. I would hope that Shawn offers an apology to JAM as well. She was trying to help a friend in need, not take sides. I believe patience is still a virtue.

Dwight

 

[Williebetmore]

After all of this drama there are only a couple of things I am sure of. One is that Ronnie stiffed him for $500, and then paid it back later. The other is that with all this confusion, you should probably put it in writing if you gamble with EITHER of these guys.

PP9,
Well summarized. I'm with you; it's nice that RW decided to pay back the $500 down the road; it's nice that he tried to help with the rest of the money as well; but it's quite disturbing that he would play a game for $500 without any cash in his pocket (are we to suppose that had he won the game he would have been happy to have been paid off "down the road" at some unspecified time??????).

If RW truly wants to be considered a "man of his word", then he is falling at least a bit short if he is not paying off at the time of the match (unless of course that is agreed upon at the start of the match; which is VERY VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO TELL WITH THE FRACTURED ACCOUNTS FROM BOTH PARTIES).

In addition, there is no mention of the unpaid wager on the SVB-RW DCC matchup. A "man of his word" would want that issue cleared up as well if he cares at all what the forum thinks; since most careful AZB readers see a definite pattern of behavior here. I guess I haven't really learned anything new yet from this thread - I occasionally wager very large sums of money on pool games; I do not foresee ever placing any on a match involving RW.

 

[jay helfert]

Sometimes it's best to let sleeping dogs lie. I don't think Ronnie will do himself any good by trying to explain this again. For the most part the people who read this forum are not ignorant to the ways of the pool world. I feel sorry for anyone who underestimates this crowd. Whoever treads these waters does so at their own peril.

 

[wahcheck]

uh huh

Sometimes it's best to let sleeping dogs lie. I don't think Ronnie will do himself any good by trying to explain this again. For the most part the people who read this forum are not ignorant to the ways of the pool world. I feel sorry for anyone who underestimates this crowd. Whoever treads these waters does so at their own peril.

I think you're right, Jay....I had forgotten about this but now it's been dredged up again....it sure wasn't too cool the way the guy wanted to retract the whole story, and kinda bashed the forum posters who were on his side.....you started out losing respect for one guy, and end up losing it for two.......

 

[punter]

In addition to showing the apology, Ronnie also said that he wanted everyone to know that he has taken care of what he owed to and agreed to pay Shawn.

Ronnie has also helped Shawn in his attempts to collect the side action amount owed to him that Ronnie made very clear he had no part of from the very beginning. Ronnie did state that when the person side betting left the room Shawn was stalling the match and Ronnie said if you want to keep playing break the balls or we're done here. Shawn made a comment about being owed the side action and Ronnie said he would stand good for the person taking the sideaction. Ronnie said he NEVER told Shawn he would pay the bet off for the guy!

Ronnie admits that he made a mistake that night by standing good for this person but only did so after the guy was 2000 loser........ronnie was told the amount was able to be covered and believed the action was covered. He had no reason not to stand good for the man but he did stand good for the man not his bet!!
Ronnie said that looking at what's happened, he shouldve told them to side bet without moving the coin on the table because had it not been for that coin on the table, ronnie wouldn't have been caught up in the side action mess.

Ronnie paid for his games after each one every single time except for the very last game for 500, which has now been made right. Also, holding to his word, Ronnie has been helping Shawn to collect what else is owed.
There was never a time when Ronnie planned on leaving the debt unpaid he told Shawn he would pay and he has.

1. What else can 'stand good' mean. It means if the other guy doesn't pay, then you are guaranteeing that you will pay.

2. In the original thread, Shawn said Scott quit when he got ten games down, and gave the money to Ronnie (6 witnesses). Shawn then asked to 'square the penny' and Ronnie refused. This sounds like Scott lost 10 games, gave the money to Ronnie, and instead of paying Shawn, Ronnie used that money to keep on gambling. That would make Ronnie owe the whole enchilada.

So, what part of the above is not correct ?

 

[ribdoner]

1. What else can 'stand good' mean. It means if the other guy doesn't pay, then you are guaranteeing that you will pay.

2. In the original thread, Shawn said Scott quit when he got ten games down, and gave the money to Ronnie (6 witnesses). Shawn then asked to 'square the penny' and Ronnie refused. This sounds like Scott lost 10 games, gave the money to Ronnie, and instead of paying Shawn, Ronnie used that money to keep on gambling. That would make Ronnie owe the whole enchilada.

So, what part of the above is not correct ?

My take also..

 

[Nostroke]

My take also..

Thank you guys. I thought it was somehow turned into some new lingo that i didnt know.


"Oh sure, dont worry about him, I stand good for him, but if he loses, naw, I aint payin. I mean sometimes he has me stand somewhere for him and he says I stand good for him". That's all I'm sayin".

 

[hemicudas]

1. What else can 'stand good' mean. It means if the other guy doesn't pay, then you are guaranteeing that you will pay.

2. In the original thread, Shawn said Scott quit when he got ten games down, and gave the money to Ronnie (6 witnesses). Shawn then asked to 'square the penny' and Ronnie refused. This sounds like Scott lost 10 games, gave the money to Ronnie, and instead of paying Shawn, Ronnie used that money to keep on gambling. That would make Ronnie owe the whole enchilada.

So, what part of the above is not correct ?

Absolutely perfect reading of the situation, Punter.

 

[Nick B]

This sums up the whole ball of Chizt in two quick points.

Nick B

1. What else can 'stand good' mean. It means if the other guy doesn't pay, then you are guaranteeing that you will pay.

2. In the original thread, Shawn said Scott quit when he got ten games down, and gave the money to Ronnie (6 witnesses). Shawn then asked to 'square the penny' and Ronnie refused. This sounds like Scott lost 10 games, gave the money to Ronnie, and instead of paying Shawn, Ronnie used that money to keep on gambling. That would make Ronnie owe the whole enchilada.

So, what part of the above is not correct ?

 

[Poolplaya9]

1. What else can 'stand good' mean. It means if the other guy doesn't pay, then you are guaranteeing that you will pay.

2. In the original thread, Shawn said Scott quit when he got ten games down, and gave the money to Ronnie (6 witnesses). Shawn then asked to 'square the penny' and Ronnie refused. This sounds like Scott lost 10 games, gave the money to Ronnie, and instead of paying Shawn, Ronnie used that money to keep on gambling. That would make Ronnie owe the whole enchilada.

So, what part of the above is not correct ?

That's exactly my take on what happened too, and is pretty much what I was alluding to in the second post.

Part of the problem and confusion is due to Ronnie's failure to take ownership of the fact that he had assumed responsibility for the full debt. He only sort of kind of takes responsibility for it, and only part of the time at that.

The other part of the problem and confusion came when Shawn tried changing his story to help cover for Ronnie once he started making some payments.

Jay Helfert is 100% right. Both parties better come with a lot better BS than all this if they expect to fool the AzBilliards membership.

 

[Black-Balled]

WHatever- like was said before (by SMorg?), Shawn had a move pulled on him. RW got to use whatever $ SF left him to pay games unplayed at the point that SF gave him the $, instead of paying current debt.

HAd RW got back even, SHawn woulda been 'managed'.

 

[!Smorgass Bored]

I'm Intend To Stand Good For This Post.... imo (maybe)

For the most part the people who read this forum are not ignorant to the ways of the pool world.
I feel sorry for anyone who underestimates this crowd. Whoever treads these waters does so at their own peril.

It won't be long before air barrels and 'suitcase games' become a thing of the past.
I can see the day when a player says, "we're playing and paying by AZB rules, so don't MAKE me have to start a thread about you, pal."

Doug
(I think if we're going to act impotent, we should dress impotent.......where'd I put my good socks)

 

[midwest1p]

wonder if he ever paid svb if hes a man of his word

 

[jay helfert]

wonder if he ever paid svb if hes a man of his word

They made a settlement, about fifty cents on the dollar.

 

[miplayerstour]

ronnie answers additional questions posted

Question:
Ronnie someone is saying you stiffed shane vanboening at dcc last year too and if that's correct then you have a history of stiffing so is it true?

Answer:
I played shane in Reno and I had a backer for the set. My backer ended up playin dice and lost everything including the stake money. I ended up losing to Shane but told him I would make it right I just needed time. I didn't have to do that because my backer was responsible for the bet but, it was the right thing to do. I paid shane back at the derby city classic. I didn't stiff him, my backer did but I did payoff the debt.
Questions posted by azers!
1. What else can 'stand good' mean. It means if the other guy doesn't pay, then you are guaranteeing that you will pay.

Answer: I stood good for scott because scott said he was good for the money. He said he had a lot of money on him so I vouched for him to be someone that would pay if he lost. I was honestly only doing it because I wanted shawn to hurry up and play the set with me because it was taking forever dealing with the side action crap.
I did make that mistake!

2. In the original thread, Shawn said Scott quit when he got ten games down, and gave the money to Ronnie (6 witnesses). Shawn then asked to 'square the penny' and Ronnie refused. This sounds like Scott lost 10 games, gave the money to Ronnie, and instead of paying Shawn, Ronnie used that money to keep on gambling. That would make Ronnie owe the whole enchilada.

Answer: First of all, scott lost and owes 3400! I had zero part of that side action. Scott never quit when he was 10 games down that part of the initial story was wrong that's why I'm setting it straight! Scott and shawn will admit that to everyone! He never got off the bet!

There were no witnesses to scott giving me money, there were 6 people that were told he gave me money but no one saw that because it was just me and scott! Scott did give me some money that night BUT he owed me the money from another bet. He was paying me back and that's what I kept betting per game with. It was not intended to square any side action and scott will attest to that!! Shawn had no idea and was assuming a lot of things about that night because he didn't get paid what he won off of the side bet which again, I had no part of!
There were a lot of untruths in that original post and like I said before, shawn only did it to pressure me into helping him get his money!! Yes I did owe him the last 500 I bet but I did tell him I'd pay and I have!! I never had any part of the sideaction and never shouldve let them use a coin on the table to keep score because then I wouldn't be here answering these questions and wouldn't be accused of this!

The only thing I did that night was make a mistake by allowing a coin on the table to track the side action........standing good for a guy because he said he had money and yes, not paying the last 500 I lost but I did tell shawn I'd pay him and I have! I haven't done everything else being thrown at me and its ashame that people are making judegments about that night from reading a post full of untruths from a guy they don't know and when they weren't there. This is the truth now.........believe it or not but I've set the record straight!

Ronnie wanted me to add that he thanks shawn for manning up and posting the apology but wish it had been more detailed so the truth was actually known by all. Ronnie also made mention that he's been told to sue shawn for defamation of character and az for allowing such slnderous things to be posted. He said he had no intentions of suing either. He just wants the truth to be told and to go on with his life!

 

[jay helfert]

Question:
Ronnie someone is saying you stiffed shane vanboening at dcc last year too and if that's correct then you have a history of stiffing so is it true?

Answer:
I played shane in Reno and I had a backer for the set. My backer ended up playin dice and lost everything including the stake money. I ended up losing to Shane but told him I would make it right I just needed time. I didn't have to do that because my backer was responsible for the bet but, it was the right thing to do. I paid shane back at the derby city classic. I didn't stiff him, my backer did but I did payoff the debt.
Questions posted by azers!
1. What else can 'stand good' mean. It means if the other guy doesn't pay, then you are guaranteeing that you will pay.

Answer: I stood good for scott because scott said he was good for the money. He said he had a lot of money on him so I vouched for him to be someone that would pay if he lost. I was honestly only doing it because I wanted shawn to hurry up and play the set with me because it was taking forever dealing with the side action crap.
I did make that mistake!

2. In the original thread, Shawn said Scott quit when he got ten games down, and gave the money to Ronnie (6 witnesses). Shawn then asked to 'square the penny' and Ronnie refused. This sounds like Scott lost 10 games, gave the money to Ronnie, and instead of paying Shawn, Ronnie used that money to keep on gambling. That would make Ronnie owe the whole enchilada.

Answer: First of all, scott lost and owes 3400! I had zero part of that side action. Scott never quit when he was 10 games down that part of the initial story was wrong that's why I'm setting it straight! Scott and shawn will admit that to everyone! He never got off the bet!

There were no witnesses to scott giving me money, there were 6 people that were told he gave me money but no one saw that because it was just me and scott! Scott did give me some money that night BUT he owed me the money from another bet. He was paying me back and that's what I kept betting per game with. It was not intended to square any side action and scott will attest to that!! Shawn had no idea and was assuming a lot of things about that night because he didn't get paid what he won off of the side bet which again, I had no part of!
There were a lot of untruths in that original post and like I said before, shawn only did it to pressure me into helping him get his money!! Yes I did owe him the last 500 I bet but I did tell him I'd pay and I have!! I never had any part of the sideaction and never shouldve let them use a coin on the table to keep score because then I wouldn't be here answering these questions and wouldn't be accused of this!

The only thing I did that night was make a mistake by allowing a coin on the table to track the side action........standing good for a guy because he said he had money and yes, not paying the last 500 I lost but I did tell shawn I'd pay him and I have! I haven't done everything else being thrown at me and its ashame that people are making judegments about that night from reading a post full of untruths from a guy they don't know and when they weren't there. This is the truth now.........believe it or not but I've set the record straight!

Ronnie wanted me to add that he thanks shawn for manning up and posting the apology but wish it had been more detailed so the truth was actually known by all. Ronnie also made mention that he's been told to sue shawn for defamation of character and az for allowing such slnderous things to be posted. He said he had no intentions of suing either. He just wants the truth to be told and to go on with his life!

I like Ronnie and we get along fine, but his memory is a little cloudy when it comes to SVB. You might want to remind Ronnie that Shane stayed with me in Los Angeles last year, and that's where and when the "settlement" was made.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I ended up losing to Shane but told him I would make it right I just needed time. I didn't have to do that because my backer was responsible for the bet but, it was the right thing to do. I paid shane back at the derby city classic. I didn't stiff him, my backer did but I did payoff the debt.

I'd say that all depends on who negotiated and agreed to the game with Shane. Was it your backer that negotiated and agreed to the game, or was it you? If it was your backer, then I can see your point. If it was you though, then there is no doubt that you owe the debt to Shane, and the problem of collecting from the backer would be your problem, not Shane's. Also, did you ever pay Shane in full, or did you pay back less than what was owed? For the record, I was there and watched most of this gambling session, but I did miss hearing the initial negotiations.

I stood good for scott because scott said he was good for the money. He said he had a lot of money on him so I vouched for him to be someone that would pay if he lost. I was honestly only doing it because I wanted shawn to hurry up and play the set with me because it was taking forever dealing with the side action crap. I did make that mistake!

By vouching for Scott in his absense you "cosigned" his bet and assumed responsibility for it. Yes it sucks if Scott stiffed you, but that was the risk that you chose to assume, and collecting from Scott became your problem. I can see an argument being made for Scott being solely responsible for the first ten games, but we would need more information in order to determine that.

First of all, scott lost and owes 3400! I had zero part of that side action. Scott never quit when he was 10 games down that part of the initial story was wrong that's why I'm setting it straight! Scott and shawn will admit that to everyone! He never got off the bet!

I agree, he is still responsible, but so are you. By "standing good for", or "cosigning" the bet, you now owe the money to Shawn as if there was never anybody else involved. Collecting from other parties that owe such as Scott is your problem to deal with at that point.

I never had any part of the sideaction and never shouldve let them use a coin on the table to keep score because then I wouldn't be here answering these questions and wouldn't be accused of this!

You had all of the side action as soon as you stood good for it. Obviously you now realize what a mistake that was. Live and learn.

The only thing I did that night was make a mistake by allowing a coin on the table to track the side action........standing good for a guy because he said he had money and yes, not paying the last 500 I lost but I did tell shawn I'd pay him and I have!

You say that as if it's no big deal to stiff somebody for $500 that you are personally betting, and for the other $3400 debt that you assumed responsibility for and stood good for. Stiffing people for any amount (even if it was just the $500) is a big deal where I come from, regardless of whether you end up paying it back later or not.

Ronnie also made mention that he's been told to sue shawn for defamation of character and az for allowing such slnderous things to be posted. He said he had no intentions of suing either. He just wants the truth to be told and to go on with his life!

I'm about sick of all the worthless, hollow "sue for libel" threats that get thrown around by people that don't have a frickin clue. Thank goodness Ronnie is not one of those.

Federal law, and the various courts, have unanimously established that websites are NOT responsible for third party or user generated content. The person that actually made a statement can be sued for libel, but it is a very very difficult type of case to win, and 99% of the people that threaten libel don't have any kind of decent chance of winning.

 

[memikey]

What a past month this has been.....beginning to wonder if there's a single pool player, tournament promoter or cue maker alive who knows when to stop digging:smile: