AZ Bob's 2-15-02 Post Re: ACES GOLD is A++!

[Centre Ice]

Thanks YYZ, and your right about the freeloaders.
I guess just one point for CrackRat and AZBob


The MOST anyone should have lost is $200.00 if YOU decide to put in more, that's YOUR decision, no one elses, YOU should have looked into it more..

They had been an excellent book with an excellent reputation, seeing the "books" does no good at all as Enron and numerous other companies prove everyday.

They advertise here and you know that the number one concern for Jack is the people that come here, no way could he have known. You try and pin it all on him, then in the next sentence say "I'm not blaming you".

 

[yyz]

I thought this fire had died out?

By the way, Jack stated in the rules for that contest that it was his idea for people to pony up $200 in an account. He made it clear that this was not Ace's idea.

That is not the point........I have no problem putting up some cash to be in a contest. I think they should all be like this. There are too many freeloaders, whom will play these contests and never give the book the time of day.

 

[azbob]

I haven't posted a word about this issue since the fire went out over a week ago. I posted a reply to Crack here since he used my name/post in the thread.

Why everyone else with too much time on their hands feel the need to cough up their already stale views is beyond me.

Kosar...you might add that there were plenty of posters at BW who expressed the same thought only to be shot down by the people who run the site. (sounds familar)

For those who can read past three paragraphs, the issue is not personal...it's simply a question regarding the relationship between the books and people who run these forums (be it here or elsewhere).

When you read the editorial page in the newspaper, do you ever consider how advertisers might impact the views stated there?

Do you question if your local mayor/senator's views are shaped by those responsible for financing their campaigns?

Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes no...but, the question is a valid one in those situations and the one I have alluded to.

 

[dogface]

Wow...

Wow...

What do you guys have to offer?

Talk about stale views!

Worst case scenario...you got burned, you blame Jack, so take your tail put it between your legs and leave.

That makes sense, doesn't it!

PS: I dare you to call me a lemming, a follower etc., or find a post that represents that idea. I'm not even close to being a follower, however I do recognize between right and wrong. Both of you are wrong!


Caveat Emptor, what part of that do you not understand!

dogface

 

[fletcher]

:moon:bob hi :thefinger i'm a lemming and damn proud of it:kiss:
:director: tell us what to do for you are the choosen one and we will follow:fingerc:

have a great day sam sharp:toast:

 

[Crack Rat]

More Food for Thought!

More Food for Thought!

To the automatons here that have chosen to sling barbs my way (you know who you are,) I must commend you! Say one thing even remotely negative about the regal ringmaster Jack, and you're here to summarily flame away! BRAVO!

When are you clowns (and you know who you are) going to wipe the crusted crap from your peepers and READ what I've written?

I understand it was MY decision to pony up the $200 "entry fee" (e.g., open an Aces Gold account) to enter the $5000 Aces Gold NFL Handicapping Challenge!

That's NOT what I'm discussing! My only question is whether there was NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION involved with the $5000 Aces Gold NFL handicapping contest!

??????????

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION?ELEMENTS

A negligent misrepresentation occurs when, during the course of a transaction in which a person has a financial interest, that person negligently supplies false information for the guidance of others. To establish negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff must show:

1. The defendant supplied false information to [the plaintiff.][a group of persons of which the plaintiff was a member];

2. The defendant supplied such information in the course of a transaction in which the defendant had a financial interest;?

3. The defendant was negligent in obtaining or communicating the information;?

4. The defendant supplied the information intending or knowing that [the plaintiff] [persons similarly situated to the plaintiff] would rely on the information; and?

5. The plaintiff acted reasonably in relying on the information, to plaintiffs detriment.?

??????????

Now, gang, remember the above is NOT the Tort of INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTAION! That's a completely DIFFERENT concept! Yet, I'll bet some bafoon will respond to this post by injecting the "INTENTIONAL" element! Never fails! LOL!

Can you say "CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT?" Can each contestant recover the $200 "entry fee" they put up to enter that Aces Gold handicapping contest? Wouldn't that be a "knee slapper?" LMFAO!

Actually, I could care less about the $200 I lost at Aces Gold! That's the average amount of loot I put on a play, so no biggie!

I just like to convey my opinions! THAT'S ALL! Unlike most of the peeps here, I refuse to be a Mr. Magoo or an ostrich hiding his head in the sand! I won't cower when confronted by an unpopular view! :nono:

Glad to see this thread get so much activity!

Looking forward to getting a few more laughs checking out what the usual druids and dullards (you know who you are) will post after this installment!

Tootles, gang!

 

[Kevin]

LOL

LOL

:thefinger

 

[Crack Rat]

Bwahahahahahaha!

Bwahahahahahaha!

:thefinger

LMFAO!

Good to see one peep (Kevin) put all of this into it's proper perspective!

My reply to you, sir, is in kind! :fingerc:

 

[Red Raider]

You sound like so typical....... Everyone owes you! Someone ELSE is always to blame for your problems, your the type of person that sues McDonalds because the coffee scolded you. Your the same type that clogs our court systems with frivoulous lawsuits because your think your owed a hand out.

"I'm (insert problem here) because my mom yelled at me when I was a kid....."

Your idea of getting ahead, is being lucky enough to slip on an banana peal, so you can sue the grocery store.

Start taking reponsibility for YOUR actions and quit blaming. Your standing proud because your "brave" enough to post an unpopular view. Sometimes the "masses" aren't lemmings, sometimes they're right!!!

The whole world is crazy, I'm the only sane one", Right???

What your insinuating is that Jack knew aces was going to fold, and tried to convince us to go there just to make a buck....

Your laughable, and while I don't normally get involved in these pissing contests, your "putting on a bagde of Honer", because your brave enough to post an unpopular view is LAUGHABLE.

Do us all a favor, and think, if only for a moment, that its possible your wrong, besides even if you do decide you were wrong, you can always blame someone else!!



Rip Away

 

[fletcher]

stole from a friend at another site. but this is my pal bob.

you take a great mug shot robert

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

I always wondered who got their degrees from Sally Struther?s school and now I know. Looks like you forgot a big one (in bold below) but that would have made your argument void and that wouldn?t do any good.

The approved jury instruction for negligent misrepresentation is more helpful than the statutory definition:
1. The defendant must have made a representation as to a past or existing material fact;
2. The representation must have been untrue;
3. Regardless of his actual belief the defendant must have made the representation without any reasonable ground for believing it to be true;
4. The representation must have been made with the intent to induce plaintiff to rely upon it;
5. The plaintiff muse been unaware of the falsity of the representation; must have acted in reliance upon the truth of the representation and must have been justified in relying upon the representation;
6. And, finally, as a result of the reliance upon the truth of the representation, the plaintiff must have sustained damage.

Hope Mike from Microbrothers never paid you for your ?opinions? on the free pick page at the other place as I think you?re the one that could be sued. As if you still had any money in a sportsbook.

 

[EMJ32]

Crack Rat + AzBob = Crack Head Bob?????????

 

[wondo]

CrackRat,

Not sure your true motive behind all these posts. The topic seemed to have been more than covered prior to this post, and arguably completely worn out. Maybe you're just looking to get a rise out of people. Who knows.

But in repsponse to your reposting of azbob's post, you mentionned that he stated exactly the way that you feel, or something along those lines.

I think you may have read azbob's post too quickly, because you infact contradict your prior opinions when agreeing with his. In his final paragraph, he says "but, I think it's time for some players to take the blinders off and enjoy the site but also realize that it's every man for himself where dollars are concerned [...]" This is the opposite view that you took earlier.

Azbob actually is in the majority who feel that each person needs to accept responsibility for their own actions, money management, investments, etc. However, you got into arguments that it should be a site moderators responsibility. So this is virtually the complete opposite school of thought.

My question is this, if you are looking for a particular "feature" in a website/forum, don't you think it would be more appropriate to ask the moderator for that addition? When the moderator replies quite graciously that it won't be added, I would venture to say that it leaves you with two choices. One, is to go about the status quo and drop the issue rather than bringing it up continuously. Or two, if you are so unhappy with the people and ideas shared in that forum in its present state, it probably makes sense to leave and find another place more suited to your needs.

I feel as if you are walking into McDonalds and asking for a Big Mac with Dom Perignon. When they reply that they don't serve it, you raise a fit and threaten, in essence, to sue. Is that reasonable? In my opinion, it's not even remotely reasonable. If Dom is what you want, find a place that will serve it.

You have plenty of choices, buts again it should be your perrogative to find what's best for you. I think you place demands that are way too high for someone who provides you with something for free.

It's hard at times to understand the tone of people's writings when posted quickly on the internet, so do not take this as an attack on your character, only a questionning of your actions. Perhaps if you are truly concerned about this issue, it is better discussed with Jack himself, in private, as he is ultimately the only person who can help you.

Good luck, and I hope we can all learn from these events as to protect ourselves from any future foreseeable tumultuous events.

wondo

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Anyone need an incompetent lawyer?

Eddie

 

[Crack Rat]

Red Raider, YOU'RE the Prize Boob!

Red Raider, YOU'RE the Prize Boob!

Red Raider:

Apparently, you absolutely NOTHING about the law! LMFAO@U!

As I stated in my post, I knew some bafoon would interject the element of INTENT into this discussion!

I was NOT talking about INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION, clownboy! I was talking about NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION!

Do you know the difference?

In order to prevail in an INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION cause of action, the plaintiff must prove the defendent had SCIENTER! That is, the defendant made the misrepresentation to the plaintiff KNOWING it was FALSE! SCIENTOR IS ESSENTIAL FOR DECEIT!

In order to prevail in a NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION cause of action, the plaintiff must prove that defendant is under the duty to use REASONABLE CARE TO DISCOVER the truth or the falsity of the misrepresentation made! This particular tort often arises where there's a special business relationship to SUPPLY INFORMATION FOR OTHERS!

REREAD THE ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION! You can read, can't you? Show me where the word INTENT is any of those elements! What a jitbag!

Fletcher:

That is an AWESOME post and picture! Bwahahahahahahaha! Props on the creativity! A++++!

 

[Crack Rat]

BobbyCowChip, What Jurisdiction?

BobbyCowChip, What Jurisdiction?

LMFAO@U!

Depends what jurisdiction you're in, jitbag!

WAKE UP!

That jury instruction you posted is NOT used in ALL 50 states!

In some states, the elements I've outlined are ACCEPTABLE and have been used as a jury instruction!

Do you even research before you post?

BobbyCowChip, you're a CLASSIC! Thanks for the LAUGH, clown!

Wondo:

Thanks for your reply! While we may not agree on certain points, at least you conveed your points in a civil manner! Unlike the rest of these jitbags!

 

[nhl8810]

Jack

Jack

Just lock it up and boot this bafoon. He obviosly wants to do nothin but start problems. I say good riddons :moon:

 

[yyz]

In order to prevail in a NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION cause of action, the plaintiff must prove that defendant is under the duty to use REASONABLE CARE TO DISCOVER the truth or the falsity of the misrepresentation made! This particular tort often arises where there's a special business relationship to SUPPLY INFORMATION FOR OTHERS!

How would one define REASONABLE CARE, in a courtroom?

If a book has years of solid business reputation, including cash payouts to clients, would it not be reasonable to assume that practice would continue?

I don't know the legal aspects of such matters, and don't claim to, but I would think a person in a reasonable state of mind can see that Jack is not to blame here.

 

[Crack Rat]

YYZ:

I'm NOT blaming Jack for what happened! I was merely bringing up a topic for discussion! Never said such a lawsuit would prevail!

Just want to get a meaningful discussion on this theory, that's all!

Like Wondo, I appreciate the fact that you can convey your ideas and opinions in a CIVIL manner!

NHL8810:

Bwahahahahahahaha! Guys like you really make me laugh! THANKS!

BTW ----> :fingerc:

P.S. Use spellcheck next time! "Riddons?" Are you making up words again?

 

[Centre Ice]

I wonder if you'd throw all this crap around to Jack or Fletcher in person, I'd think not.

You should be able to handle losing $200. But I guess you get more fun out of trying to attack a guy who has done so much for people who come to this forum, given everything for free and has asked for nothing in return.

You post reasons only someone like you can understand.

We read it as someone with no class who just needs attention.