Quote from: holydarkness on Today at 10:17:22 AM

OP, Petermario, it seems I have to derail your thread a bit. There is currently someone who apparently got butt-hurt for something that I accidentally did to him in the past, not sure what or where, but I guess he need to vent out a bit so...

Quote from: Rating Place on July 12, 2024, 05:52:05 PM

[...]
Quote from holydarkness

Quote

Now, Fairlay.

To say that we [or I] did not give them a chance to provide evidence is extremely misleading. They came, asking for arbitrator, the overseers suggest a panel of three mediators to maintain fairness, the player nominates two, Fairlay withdraw their request of arbitration for their own reason.

This is my last post in this thread since I've asked you to stop nitpicking my every post. I've also asked to take Fairlay to the Fairlay thread. [...]

Hmm... nitpicking your every post? This is awkward. Let's cross-check the fact here, shall we?

I believe it started here, from page 5, perhaps from half part of page 4 where you actually began to insist on that residency and saying about someone playing as the book's lawyer, but I'll forgo that page as things were become more obvious on page 5.

I literally was not addressing your post, I replied in general upon OP's update, giving him suggestion that might help put things forward, as he asked. Of which you jump to criticize, insisting that I'm taking the book's side, probably without even trying to read and digest what I really suggested. So who exactly nitpick whose post?

And I'll add my personal opinion that it probably happened because at that point, it didn't matter much to you what I said, you're seeing red, all that matter to you at that time was to prove me wrong, as evidenced by how my repetitive attempt to clarify that what I try to do is to help OP disprove his previous statement of residency faced with a statement, "I’m out because no matter what I say, you aren’t changing your mind." and me making things difficult for him.

Prove me wrong that you're not seeing red and actually digest my post carefully, that you didn't made all of those post with sole agenda to paint me bad to the readers. What mind do you exactly wanted me to change? I'm giving OP suggestions to get things moved. You want me to change mind and start prosecuting OP, insisting that he's wrong? Wouldn't that lead to a situation where you'll say "as always, holy, you take side of the casino"?

You insisted that, according to the terms OP is not a resident or something. You claimed that you're familiar with sportsbetting, that it's your field. This whole territory situation should have been a familiar matter to you too, so it's kinda questionable how or why you insist on it. Is it because you're actually not familiar with how sportbooks terms work, or is it simply to enforce your agenda against me, to paint me black, that you're blinded?

And after all those, insisting that I [always] taking the book side and residency situation cleared, without bother to be brave enough to admit your mistake, faced with an undeniable proof through my PM to Razer, that I stay unbiased on this thread and attempting to achieve the best for every side, you once again didn't bother to own your mistake. Instead, you grasp another straw: fairlay. Which, on itself, is another lie inserted between facts in that situation.

As you wished and as I think will be better fit, I'll break things down on that thread, let it out in the public of what actually happened and what your narrative tries to spoon into peope's mind.

I won't mind people calling me names and will gracefully accept critic, input, and people pointing me out that I'm wrong [as evidenced by those "slander" you brushed], but when someone shoves wrong narrative about me? Expect me to strip those words and expose the truth behind it.

I've said my piece, in order to not derail [yet another] thread, I'll address you on PM or other thread you want to create about me if you want to, but I'll focus on OP's case on this thread... actually, I don't think you'll dare enough to address all of those points above, because it's all valid, and addressing it will directly make you admit you're wrong, which I understand that you won't make such statement. And that's fine. But answer me this: will this be what happen from this time forward? You trying to drive a narrative about me and paint me bad, breaching a topic being discussed in a thread instead of focusing on case being presented?

I need to know because if the answer is yes, then it'll be simpler to ignore you altogether, you'll be very detrimental to the development of any cases if you keep going like this, just as evidenced on this thread where you brought a [more than] rather useless points. Otherwise, air those laundry you have, and return to this board with cleared mind.

Oh, by the way, you don't need to shower people with merits to woo them into your side. They're grown ups, they've read and know better about the true nature of what you tried to do.

Just read your post, it’s littered with personal attacks and untrue assumptions that I no longer care to address. It’s not about us.