SIRBET -- very SERIOUS question for you about your INTEGRITY and not returning phone calls concerning PAYOUT requests

[dogball]

Actually Ken, It is you diverting attention from the real issue here, you are saying that I have put Hammy up to this posting when we all know full well that hammy conducts himself in a unique and effusive style. That we partially share the same opinion about sirbet does not mean that I am responsible for ham's posts. I think the rest of the board would agree with that. YOu are also intentionally guilty of misrepresenting many material facts.
I am glad Pat is involved and that he was consulted by each of us. You are always accusing people of being disingenuous because at the end of the day, that is what it takes for you to balance the scales of injustice here.

The rx is a great site, the leader in the industry, but as peep often said, they are not a true watchdog. From my pov, that is fine, but I will not allow you to intentionally and recklessly say that I have ever denied responsibility for my actions, when you know full well how we left the conversation last night .

 

[THE SHRINK]

Dogball,

You are very aware of what Hammy is like and you chose to confide in Hammy about what on between you and Sirbet...

Rather than resort to name calling as you are doing because I take it you are upset, I will not stoop to that level...

Now, lets get to what I do have a problem with...

Where have I EVER SAID that you INTENTIONALLY and RECKLESSLY denied responsibility for your actions?

Please don't throw words out there that were NEVER said by me!

I do not appreciate that!!!

This is about you and Sirbet, period....

Don't turn it into you against me, ok?

THE SHRINK

 

[hamneggs]

SHRINK

How does my posting hurt dogball?

I think that you meant it hurts your advertising dollar.

Ken, look at how you avoid all of the issues. What difference does it make if dog had the phone # and the name of the person with whom he spoke? If he wanted to fabricate the story then he would just state the name of someone at Sirbet--that is obvious. You present the fact (that dog neither provided name or #) as though it evidences that he did not make any calls to request a payout-- which is basically saying that you believe your advertising dollars and not dogball.

You then go onto state that had he requested the payout (implicitly denying that dog ever even requested a payout) then he would have received it.

This shop did not react when dogball sought a payout. I don't know what your $14K - $10K math is all about..Corby said earlier in this thread: "SirBet prides itself on prompt payouts without fail and will at anytime payout a customer’s entire balance if requested (including now). "

When that balance gets requested, then pay it. Don't tell the guy that you will call him back tomorrow and then fail to return the call. Of course, you have completely avoided this scenario. You totally ignore dogball's side of the story, Ken, instead you align yourself with that advertising dollar. Your moderators do the exact same thing, Angelle because it is a personal friend of a friend of hers at Sirbet. You guys are worse than lawyers with no brains.

I can only imagine that you fired our friend Uncle Butternutts over money as well. You fired him because he walked out on a LATE NIGHT meeting? After you build a friendship with a man for years and he DONATES probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of hours to YOUR website, and then you turn around and fire him one night because he walked out on a late night meeting.

It is no wonder, Ken, that you pretend that you do not see the "Regarding Uncle B" thread on the front page. The professional thing to do would have been to keep your trap shut about the man's employment and the basis for your decision. Instead, you provide some completely assanine reason for firing him then refuse to field any questions in response to your post.

I must say that when I last read Pat's post about how strongly influenced you are by that advertising dollar, I really disagreed with him. I then thought about how you touted Wager's Paradise, then watched them stiff...and you would have taken on PTS had they sent their money. It is pretty sickening how you tout books and then they go under.

Lastly, it is noted above that you, Ken, did not even give a sh*t about Sirbet's agent who was making threats on dogball's family. You had to be asked again and again about it before you even acknnowledged it. LOL, all to protect your advertising dollar..who cares about a guy's family right Kenny?

Who cares about a man's employment right Kenny? Who cares that he donated years of his time to benefit Kenny...that is all in the past right Kenny? You got what you needed so that is good enough. It is no wonder that he will not return your phone calls after you fired him in favor of your "yes yes" man. You then thought that you could fool this Forum in stating that he bashed and encouraged bashing. It was not in keeping with your 'strict anti bashing policy,' yet when I stuck THIS THREAD in front of your face on various occasions, you just pretended like you did not even see it.

I do not know how you look yourself in the mirror after what you did to Uncle Butternutts.

 

[BlueveinThrobber]

Just cant let it go can you Hounds & Begs??? Let me guess, did you guys play together on this credit account and now you are looking for a reason to weasel out of not paying? It is obvious that you are reaching with your continious changing of the subject. First it is Sirbet and then it is Uncle B.....what gives??? You just have to bitch about something don't you???????

YOU ARE A JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for the laughs.

 

[dogball]

Intentionally and Recklessly refers to the manner of your conduct, not the way in which you framed my actions.

 

[hamneggs]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You are very aware of what Hammy is like and you chose to confide in Hammy about what on between you and Sirbet... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, Ken, I have the ability to look at a situation objectively without the influence of the advertising dollar.

You still have not told us how this thread hurts dogball, although you said that this thread does hurt dogball.

What is your reasoning for that? My god now I understand what Fred Norris means when he says that you IGNORE questions that reveal your agenda.

Now don't ignore the Butternutts issue, Ken.

 

[hamneggs]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bluevein Throbber:
Just cant let it go can you Hounds & Begs??? Let me guess, did you guys play together on this credit account and now you are looking for a reason to weasel out of not paying? It is obvious that you are reaching with your continious changing of the subject. First it is Sirbet and then it is Uncle B.....what gives??? You just have to bitch about something don't you???????

YOU ARE A JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for the laughs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry about it

It is only 2500 views and SIRBET is paying good $$$money$$$ for this.

 

[BlueveinThrobber]

It is comments like your last one that will allow everyone to see your true intentions. This is purely agenda driven.

Best of luck A S S MUNCH!!!!!

 

[TheGeneral+]

Dogball,

We talked about this on the phone yesterday and i suggested that there was no reason i could see that you should not Pay.

If Sirbet did not reply to a payout request, then you should have stopped playing and settled the issue then. I know they would have paid you. That is again a burden for anyone to prove otherwise. No matter what happened there, you chose to continue & play until you were in the RED. You were undecided on whether the debt was due or not.

This is so easy to see Dog.

Hamneggs, SHRINK has stated that he will not discuss the incident with Uncle any further.

Why do you feel like he owes you ANY explanation?

What happens between me and Joey is our business & I apologized earlier for you.

[This message was edited by The General on May 24, 2003 at 01:01 PM.]

 

[Halifax]

"As far as a "case" goes, it is an illegal and unenforceable debt. There is no "case" unless you are speaking about the racketeering committed by Sirbet and their collection agent in Texas. Is that what you are referring to?"

"There is no "case" unless you are speaking about the racketeering committed by Sirbet and their collection agent in Texas."
--------------------------------------------

hamneggs:

When someone starts talking like this, using the word "racketeering, they very quickly become blackballed in the betting forums and the industry itself.

Son, if you have any desire to try to mend your severely tarnished reputation, you'd best wise up.

 

[hamneggs]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> We talked about this on the phone yesterday and i suggested that there was no reason i could see that you should not Pay.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No offense, General, but so what? Who cares?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If Sirbet did not reply to a payout request, then you should have stopped playing and settled the issue then. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I know they would have paid you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And how do you know that General?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> That is again a burden for anyone to prove otherwise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They did not return the phone call, GP, that creates the presumption that they did not want to pay. The burden of proof now shifts to Sirbet.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> No matter what happened there, you chose to continue & play until you were in the RED.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what? CORBY@SIIRBET was in the red but IGNORED PAYOUT REQUESTS

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Then you decided to try and find reason not to pay. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you even know that? You are wrong, it was other people like ME that gave dogball the idea that he truly does not owe these guys a cent.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This is so easy to see Dog. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because they are an advertiser book. If it were some other non advertiser, you would just say "It's your call, dogball."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Hamneggs, SHRINK has stated that he will not discuss the incident with Uncle any further. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder why not? Maybe because the reasons for firing him are complete BS. I don't see where SHRINK said this at any rate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Why do you feel like he owes you ANY explanation? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SHRINK voluntarily provided the Forum w/an explanation, so I assume that SHRINK wants to provide an explanation. The only question is whether he will leave it as a half as*ed explanation as it stands now.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> What happens between me and Joey is our business & I apologized earlier for you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you should edit your post, GP. That kind of bashing is strictly prohibited here as you know, and you should be leading by EXAMPLE don't you think?

 

[dogball]

General,
Please do not fabricate facts about our conversation, I have it all on tape to confirm any dispute we have about these facts.

"Then you decided to try and find reason not to pay."

Can you please provide one example of me doing this. I specifically told you yesterday my intent. That intent was in direct contradiction to your above comment. It is sad that you told me on the phone you would be very upset with the treatment by Sirbet and act in a similiar manner as I was.

it is further sad that Ken has recruited you to respond in this manner

 

[hamneggs]

dogball, the problem is blind loyalty. The Mods know that Sirbet is an advertiser and that money for them is good to push for on the site where they advertise. These guys have not thought through the situation to argue it sensibly. They know the side that they are on and the conclusion that they want to reach and that's it.

 

[TheGeneral+]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I wonder why not? Maybe because the reasons for firing him are complete BS. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ken consulted every moderator & as a group we agreed to the decision. Ken owns this site. He can choose to do as he pleases & employee who he wishes without any reason given.

Does that make sense to you?

As for Joey, Do you want me to edit Hammy? If that will make you happy, then I am willing to help you.

Correct Dogball, You never told me that you would not pay. Your post is correct. It was my interpretation from posts today, that you may be leaning to not pay the debt. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[THE SHRINK]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dogball:
it is further sad that Ken has recruited you to respond in this manner<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dogball,

To borrow a phrase from you...

It is also futher sad that you recruited Hamneggs...

In case it is not obvious...

jj=HamnEggs...

morris= customer service rep from Sirbet

 

[hamneggs]

General, you are a Moderator and you cannot make a decision for yourself as to the right thing to do?

You are asking hamneggs what you should do?

So you are saying that Kenny is never going to provide us with a SINGLE example of ANY of the posts that Ken claims caused Uncle's termination? A few well respected posters were interested in seeing such posts..just cuz Uncle B is our bud (I know you hate his guts) and we think that it is a complete crock of sh*t.

 

[TheGeneral+]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> They know the side that they are on and the conclusion that they want to reach and that's it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's about time you realized this Hammy. I think most everyone else has already realized this as fact. Guess you are just a bit behind.

I do not hate anyone Hammy. No one in this world.

 

[dogball]

General, thanks for the clarification, can you please reiterate that and edit your original remarks.

Ken-
We are proud of you for providing that scintillating evidence, I am sorry but I dont think I have anything to do with that conversation. If i should be responsible for Hams actions, I suppose you should be vicariously responsible for the actions of all your friends and employees here as well. You would have a lot to account for ken.

 

[hamneggs]

Ken

Two questions:

1) You said that you had some "seriously threatening" internet conversations. Where are those?

2) Who is "jj" and why do you equate him to me?

 

[cecil+]

Will someone please return there hamnspam to the rubber room...

Its starting to spoil...