You have posted many times that the player must prove his innocence. This is the same as saying he starts off guilty. I’ll let this thread run its course a little more, then come back later to answer your questions. The current case comes down to jurisdiction but I’ll wait some in case there are more opinions on the case at hand.
Point it out to me? The ones where I say player must prove his innocence, thus saying he starts off guilty? I believe what I inquire is mostly proof to back up their claim and more context, and then I'll reach the representative of the casino and inquire their side. Please, point it out to me?
And why wait? My questions to you has no relation at all to the development of the case. The opinion and the course of this case has no relation to what I inquire from you. In fact, the sooner you provide your answers and clarify the issue, the sooner this discussion [which started when you made a post which benefits I questioned and yet to be answered] can be over, and perhaps you can start focusing yourself on your attempt to reach a resolution.
@holydarkness and @Rating Place
You Both please stop this d##k fight for goodness's sake. Every scam accusation topic is becoming your d##k fighting arena which is making it too hard to follow the original case.
Sorry, but it has to be done and cleared, this discussion of ours started from
a statement that can heavily misled people. That's the purpose of my inquiries toward him, to straighten that thing out. I am more than happy to drop them the instance peeps give his answer to the initially simple query, which later become an ever growing list of question as he keeps adding statement instead of give a direct answer.
If it's any consolation, I multitask by addressing OP whenever he replied and still have the best interest on my mind to get this case resolved, not to mention that this case is rather moot. It ended almost the instance it started, so the derailing happened from my discussion with peeps --I believe-- is somewhat minimal.