Home Forums Gear Free Classifieds 700BDL .30-06 (1983? vintage)

I see now, you are a poser not a poster! You mean you don't want to show CAT up to his "followers", or is it quite probable that you can't. That in reality all you can do is run your mouth (via keyboard)!

C'mon Danny me lad show him and us up, DOUBLE DUTCH DARE YA, NYA, NYA, NYA!
PFFFTTTTTT!


There, I even sank to your level to get the message across.

Muley,



I already addressed to issue of losing $1000, and someone of Charlie's means using that as an excuse no to even look at the details of the bet--if it would even cost $1000 just to receive the papers--is a weak excuse.



Quote:



"Show me any of the "evidence" that you have that DFC did any of the things you say he did."



The evidence we have is DFC sent documents to a lawyer Charlie has used before. Charlie himself has confirmed this. Charlie's confirmation is indeed evidence Dan did what he said he'd do--at least about sending the papers.



At this point, it appears Dan has backed up what he said he'd do but Charlie has not. If Charlie were at least to look at the documents and then post why the bet isn't acceptable, then it wouldn't appear like Dan has called Charlie's bluff.



Quote:



"You're taking DFC's word over IIFID's?"



Nope. I am only looking through all the BS and ego and seeing what has really happened. Like I posted earlier, it doesn't matter what I or anyone else believes, it matters what can be proved. So far, the only proof offered is the papers both agree were sent to the lawyer. I'd like to see more proof to find out who I can really believe. Both men have talked the talk, but so far only one appears to have made the attempt to walk the walk. However, in Charlie's defense, I am not sure posting such proof here is a good idea. I wish he'd just accept the stupid papers and tell us why the bet is a no go.



To be honest, it doesn't make sense to me that Charlie would make a claim he couldn't back up. Also, given the high amount of credibility he seems to place on backing up words with money in the form of a bet, it just doesn't make any sense he'd back out if he could back up what he was saying.



The bottom line is I will take the word of the man that can back up what he says. I assumed this would be Charlie until a couple days ago, and now I am unsure.



Quote:



"I understand that you don't like IIFID's views on Bush, etc. I don't either, but you are bringing emotion into your arguments against him -- not logic. Those views of his opinions serve absolutely no purpose here other than to show that you're still bitter over that other thread. "



I have hardly brought emotion into this thread. If anything, I have been a voice of reason, suggesting these two gentlemen should acknowledge they let their respective ego's take them too far and mutually stand down. I am not "bitter" about the WMD thread. Disappointed in Charlie's views, perhaps. However, the whole point of my bringing it up was to show that Charlie had a standard for detemining if a person is lying, and that standard is based on having proof to back up one's word's. I was asking Charlie to apply his own standard to his gold coin sale, as opposed to asking us all just to "believe" him at his word, when what little evidence we have seen indicates otherwise.



You could easily turn that around, and accuse me of not sticking to my standard, where I take GW at his word but not Charlie or Dan unless I see evidence.....................



Blaine

I thought DFC was to send papers and money, weres the money?

I wouldnt travel for 3 peices of paper either. Were's the money, show us the money!

Maybe the lawyer , or DFC can fax them to me , and I can post them .

Well, I was going to stay out of this now, but I guess I'll post one more time. Whenever there is a situation where It comes down to one person's word aginst another, and there is no hard proof either way, to help decide who to trust. Other factors must come into play, such as character, and reputation. IIFID decided to back out of this little circus, because it would require him to pay some amount of cash to proceed. He sees his chances of getting his money back, let alone the $100k, as little to none. The Danster has declared victory.

The way I see it, you have on the one hand, IIFID who has been around these pages for years, who is known personaly by several posters, who, in short, has a reputation for honesty. On the other hand, you have Superdan, who has spewed venom, veiled threats, and filthy language, all over these pages for days. I'm sure all the nazis in hell are clapping with glee over his performance. Who do YOU trust? As for me, I believe IIFID"s story about the coin, I understand why he dropped out, and I don't believe a word DFC says. As I said a long time ago, Danny lost this thing the minute he started. Nobody won, but Dan surely lost. As I said, he has shown a little of his personality with each post. He has tarnished his reputation, and lost potential friends, and it got worse, every time he touched the keyboard.

Somebody said, he should be banned from the board, but I'm aginst that. Next time, I may be the one holding the unpopular view. I hope I can hold my head a little higher than Dan has.

Ask yourself this question?


Would you buy a rifle, sight unseen, over the Internet from either of these gents? If so, which one?

yes, from IFID's I would in a heartbeat. tom

That was easy, CAT, as he has bought from me.

I have another $500 to put towards legal fees, if I can get a small % of what DFC pays. Can I see the contract? I have done business with Charlie and he is top shelf. As for Dan, I wouldn't bet my booger collection on anything he says. Okay, we have $1,000 to cover legal fees. Lets RoLL Charlie! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Flinch

OK big mouth put it up!!

This is part of the agreement, the only part that would make any difference to you. Charley knows every word of the whole agreement. NOTE #3.

"Proposed conditions of wager will be as follows.

1) Proof that Mr. "XXXXXXXX" has $100,000.00 in cash to wager.

2) Assurance that the wager is not illegal in The State of Texas or the county of Bowie or the City of De Kalb, Texas

3) That the money will be placed in a trust not accessible by either party until settlement of the wager.

4) Mr. XXXXXXX will pay his attorney fee and I will pay mine.

5) Because this wager is based on written statements made by Mr. XXXXXXXX, the burden of proof will be with him on those statements."


Dan

Here's the deal guys, it all boils down to what is in those 3 little pages. My bet is that it is so convoluted that there is little chance IIFID could win it.

It is telling to me, that IIFID is willing to have the "bet" posted but Dan the man keeps insisting that this one little "technicality" be the only thing that is private between he and IIFID.

Who was that wise man that said you can bullsh:t the fans but not the players? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> -- sharp guy <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />!

Yep, CAT! I would take his description at face value.

You can send your money to Mr. Davis at the following address, what about the real money that needs to be put up?

Jerry Davis
625 Sam Houston St.
New Boston, Texas
75570




Dan

You are so friggin stupid it must hurt. The agreement has private information in it. I could be sued for posting it the way it was sent. Grow the f**k up.


Dan

Geesh, it's back. As I said initially, I'm not paying a lawyer to handle this and then have Dumbazz give me the horse laugh when it comes to the nut cutting, that is when the money is to be put up. Plus, didn't he quit a while ago? But, if he didn't post the rest of it. Let's roll. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> The NRA can use the money. One qualification, I'll quadruple the money spent on legal fees up to the amount of the winnings, I'm not coming out of my pocket for this, except for putting up the 100 grand if it gets that far, which is unlikely.

I repeat, I haven't seen nor read any of this agreement, so other than the above 5 terms I don't know what it says. I don't know for sure of the legality in Texas or Bowie County, DeKalb has nothing to do with it. More great research on his part. A lot would depend on what he means by settlement of the wager. But, as far as putting the money in an escrow (I doubt you can set up trusts for bets, which tells me immediately that he didn't use a lawyer to draw this up) account, inaccessible by either party, assuming that all I have to do is prove the coin sale, that is no problem. Dumbazz seems to think that I am low on funds or that having a 100 grand tied up for a while is a big deal. Try buying ranches and see how long you tie money up for.

Well,that is a little short of 3 pages.....go ahead and post the rest of it, dumbazz.

But I'll rest well tonight knowing that as friggin stupid as I am, there is at least one person friggin stupider (sic).

Oh, Dan? That would be you! LMAO

Which makes me think: If I really do laugh my azz off, will you STILL be watching it? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Amen, pass the beans.


Dan

Flinch,

I have sent you a PM. The $500 from my end is ready to go.

DFC,

One of the most fatal flaws is underestimating people.

Sh:t, I screwed up. Its, Amen, Charley passing the offering plate.


Dan

On page 13 in post number 182872 DFC said:





On page 14 in post number 182900 DFC said:



Also, on page 14 in post number 182979 DFC said:



On page 15 in post number 182983 DFC said:




Basically, Flinch and I are sending the money to IIFID's attorney to analyze and coordinate the bet with DFC's attorney.

A couple of the more interesting things that DFC wrote is that he sent his attorney a cashier's check. Most attorneys will accept a retainer from their clients in the form of a personal check. Unless, of course, they don't trust their client. The other was that the final payoff wouldn't be settled for years in a courthouse. Why? It is a bet. The loser pays immediately unless he is a sore loser and contests the facts.

In fairness, Danny said he sent "the" cashiers check along with a personal check.

Now, has anyone seen anything here that would lead them to believe Dan would be anything but a sore looser.

I think Dan's new signature line reflects on his personality once again.