I can barely believe this

http://www.pokersourceonline.com/forum/vie...p?p=72549#72549

Sorry, akishore

Hmm, there are a lot of seemingly level-headed people who will attack the less fortunate :cry:

Yes and make sure you read the whole thread. A bunch of FCPer are making asses of themselves over there.

After reading the thread in it's entirety... it looks to me like some heated words were said while a lot of people knew very little about what was going on.

A good lesson to all of us that post frequently and anonymously on websites to think before we speak, and re-read what we just wrote before hitting "submit."

Don't be a jackass. If the site admin had
1) Decency
2) The ability to clearly and accurately describe situations

then this whole thing never would have begun.

Lets not forget if you had the ability to read.

I was able to understand what was going on the first time around.


Don't be so quit to play hero in the future.

Would you like to rebut this.

I wanted to just let it die, but if you really want to be a jackass, here's my rebuttal.

Look at my first post. So far, the following has been said:
"You guys are assholes for the way you treated my dad." Followed by,
1) A sarcastic comment from someone who doesn't know what's going on
2) A FORUM ADMIN saying "So let me get this straight...," suggesting he doesn't know the details of the story. He then goes on to make another unnnecessary sarcastic comment.
3) Someone justifies this by saying "he shouldn't be playing poker anyway, "someone else backs him up. Someone else suggests play money, which again does nothing to resolve the issue at hand.

So I step up and say something. (My second and third posts follows the same line).

The admin then goes on to say he doesn't know the details, then explain that he does. So 1) twice he has failed to know the specific details of the case, and once he has. Sounds like bullshit to me. I didn't believe it. 2) 3 different PM's I got from users who thanked me for "making a stand" (though i didn't really see it that way) pointed out that the admin was, indeed, an arrogant jackass, and that he was probably lying about knowing the details of the case.With both of those pieces of evidence, I didn't believe the admin that he knew the case specifically. Which is why I wrote my posts about how it wasn't right for him to make assumptions that the OP was a scammer, without knowing the truth.

After he gets increasingly emotional and the OP's case seems fishier, I decide to give the admin the benefit of the doubt. Hence my fourth and final post.

But then, a day later, the admin writes: "A phone call to the original poster's home today revealed that our suspicions were almost 100% accurate." Which means that they didn't know that the OP was lying...after all, they were only "suspicions."

So I was completely justified in my original thought. I was correct in saying that without knowing the specific details of the case, the admin should not make the assumption that he did. Though the OP was full of crap, it's obvious by the admin's post that they did not know that until a day later all of this went down. Was I incorrect in believing the OP? Yes, although that wasn't the issue of my posts (which you understand if you have any reading comprehension ability at all). My real error, however, was in giving the admin the benefit of the doubt that he knew the case.

So all my responses were justified

The OP lied about knowing the details of the case. And you accuse me of making an ass out of myself, despite the fact that the admin overreacted, lied, and displayed disgusting behavior for someone with his status on the forum. I've shown that my responses were justified, and that his were not. Remind me again who was making the ass out of himself?

I'm resisting another ad hominem attack right here. I'll just tell you to fuck off instead, and quit wasting your time on something that's simply not debatable.

Then again, if you could read a little better, you would have realized that in the first place.