If you guys are looking for some entertainment?

[banyon]

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...7&page=2&pp=15

Originally Posted by Bob

It has nothing to do with me knowing anything. It's common sense.

Originally Posted by beer me

You mean like Croyle winning the starting job a few days into camp. That kind of common sense?

Originally Posted by Bob

I'm not sure who said Croyle won the starting job in camp. It sure wasn't me.

Originally Posted by beer me

Uh.............. yes it was.

Originally Posted by Bob

Find one shred of proof. I never said anything close to what you are accusing me of saying. I said he looked good and he looked better than Huard. He did. I did NOT say he won the job.

Originally Posted by beer me

How soon they forget.

Originally Posted by Bob

I welcome your investigation, beer me. Find one shred of proof and I'll leave the forum for a month.

Originally Posted by beer me

Hey GoChiefs,


http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/show...347#post4111347


I'm sure you'll find a way to weasel out of it but you said "Croyle has already beaten Huard" and that you were "100% convinced" he wouldn't choke and would be the starter.

See you in a month.

[new thread]

Originally Posted by beer me

The sports writer and I had an exchange in the "MESSAGE TO TRENT GREEN" thread where I asked him about his declaration during training camp that Croyle had won the starting QB job. He denied making that statement. He also volunteered to leave for a month if I could find a "shred of evidence" that he had actually said that.

Gochiefs... here's your shred. You never know... we might even miss you. Do the right thing.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/show...347#post4111347

btw... there's more "evidence" on page two of that thread.

Unfortunately, you may get more posts now on this site. Unless...you guys can trick him into betting as well.

[DomCasual]

Good luck getting him to live up to that.

Clayton is a lot of things. A person of integrity isn't one of them.

[banyon]

Originally Posted by DomCasual

Good luck getting him to live up to that.

Clayton is a lot of things. A person of integrity isn't one of them.

Score one for you. He lasted about four hours without posting.

[DomCasual]

Originally Posted by banyon

Score one for you. He lasted about four hours without posting.

Unfortunately, that one wasn't very hard to predict.

[Bob's your Information Minister]

Originally Posted by DomCasual

Good luck getting him to live up to that.

Clayton is a lot of things. A person of integrity isn't one of them.

Words on the internet mean ****. Why don't you ask the Bronco fan on this very forum who sent me a check in the mail if I've got integrity. He got his goods. That's what counts.

[loborugger]

Originally Posted by Bob's your Information Minister

Words on the internet mean ****. Why don't you ask the Bronco fan on this very forum who sent me a check in the mail if I've got integrity. He got his goods. That's what counts.

Me thinks the lady protests a bit much.

Everyone who was here for your "I wont post for year" bet knows you have all the integrity of a condom that has 1000 pin holes poked in it.



You do know what a condom is, right?

[Popps]

And Man-boob goes missing.

[SoDak Bronco]

bob will you not post for a year if denver sweeps this years series between KC and the broncos?

[Bob's your Information Minister]

Originally Posted by SoDak Bronco

bob will you not post for a year if denver sweeps this years series between KC and the broncos?

That depends. What do I get if the Chiefs sweep Denver?

[loborugger]

Originally Posted by Bob's your Information Minister

That depends. What do I get if the Chiefs sweep Denver?

A swift kick in the rear. Who cares what you promise now before the games are played. Everyone knows you - the odds of you keeping your word are about the same as KC winning the SB this year.

[SoCalBronco]

Originally Posted by SoDak Bronco

bob will you not post for a year if denver sweeps this years series between KC and the broncos?

With one exception, you should not engage in any type of bet with Bob, because you are assuming all the risk.

[DomCasual]

Nice justification, Clayton. Why would words on the Internet mean any more or less than words out of your mouth? Is it because on the Internet, the person you're lying to is less likely to find you and kick your ass?

If it's just a question of integrity, then you are either a person of your word, or you're not. It doesn't matter where you've said them.

But, you don't get that, because you are a dishonest coward with a completely ass-backwards concept of honor.

[Bob's your Information Minister]

Originally Posted by DomCasual

Nice justification, Clayton. Why would words on the Internet mean any more or less than words out of your mouth? Is it because on the Internet, the person you're lying to is less likely to find you and kick your ass?

If it's just a question of integrity, then you are either a person of your word, or you're not. It doesn't matter where you've said them.

But, you don't get that, because you are a dishonest coward with a completely ass-backwards concept of honor.

Whatever. You don't know me. But if you sent me money, I'd send you goods. I'm not a dick.

[Florida_Bronco]

Let's recap here.

Bob makes idiotic statement...

Bob forgets making idiotic statement and claims it never happened...

Bob gets proven wrong...

Bob welchs on bet...

...in other breaking news, the sky is blue and water is wet!

Seriously ask yourself people, do you know anyone who is a bigger waste of a human life than Bob? I mean the guy doesn't have a real job, girlfriend, talent, smarts, future...etc. His only redeeming quality is parading out a constant line of lunacy that serves as the butt of jokes from football fans across multiple forums.

What a sad, pathetic life. I'd hate to be him when he is 60-70 years old and he looks back and wonders what he really accomplished in life.

[Florida_Bronco]

Also I'd just like to say in Bob's defense, he has 71,514 posts of pure crap between CP and the Mane. That's alot of garbage to try and keep track of, so I can understand why that particular turd slipped his mind.

[DomCasual]

I know you enough. Your word may be gold in real life. That would only tell me that you have a completely backwards set of standards.

Seriously, do you have this stuff written down somewhere?

Section 7 - Clayton Wendler's Ethical Guidelines

7.1 - If a promise, guaranty, or verbal contract is made in person, said promise, guaranty, or verbal contract should be honored.

7.2 - If a promise, guaranty, or verbal contract is spoken via telephone (including spoken communication using Internet Technologies, such as VoIP), said promise, guaranty, or verbal contract should be honored if A) the real distance between the conversing parties is 500 miles, or less; B) there is a clear expectation of face-to-face interaction between the conversing parties within 6 (SIX) months; or C) the conversing parties are related by blood.

7.3 - If a promise, guaranty, or verbal contract is communicated in written form, directly from one party to another, said promise, guaranty, or verbal contract should only be honored when convenient. This includes letters, notes, journal entries, emails, instant messages, and any other communication specifically intended for 3 (THREE) or less recipients.

7.4 - If a promise, guaranty, or verbal contract is communicated to groups larger than 3 (THREE), said promise, guaranty, or verbal contract is null and void.

Which of these best describes you, Clayton?

narcissist
1. inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity.
2. Psychoanalysis. erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.

sociopath
a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

I'm going with answer C): Both. It'd be interesting to get your impression, though. Like you said, I don't really know you.

[Bob's your Information Minister]

Originally Posted by DomCasual

I know you enough. Your word may be gold in real life. That would only tell me that you have a completely backwards set of standards.

Uh, why? You're saying you'd value a person who was completely honest on the internet but a complete scumbag in real life more? Whatever.

And I think we all check ourselves out in the mirror from time to time.

[DomCasual]

Clearly, what I am saying is that integrity isn't bound by how it's communicated. A liar who is hiding behind the curtain of anonymity that is the Internet is still a liar.

How's this for a parallel? Let's say you come across an email list of people 75-years-old and older. You create an elaborate scheme to solicit access to these individual's bank accounts via email. Once they naively give you access, you rid them of their life savings. You do all of this without ever actually speaking to them.

Are you a better person than the guy that takes them out for coffee, sweet talks them about "fool-proof investments," then disappears with their life savings in the form of their personal check?

It seems to me that we're talking about semantics.

[Bob's your Information Minister]

Originally Posted by DomCasual

A liar who is hiding behind the curtain of anonymity that is the Internet is still a liar.

Except....that I'm not. And judging me over retarded internet bets just shows how petty you are.

And I've never ripped anyone off online. If I was such a man of low moral fiber as you claim, my Ebay reputation would be horrible.

http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAP...tems=25&page=2

[Sassy]

What's your excuse for welching on that bet then

[DomCasual]

Except...the vast majority of those who know you online would say that you are.

This goes back to my question about which term describes you better - narcissist or sociopath. The narcissist part needs no explanation. But look at the definition of a sociopath: a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

I'll admit - on the surface, it appears you're not quite there. You clearly have a strangely-defined sense of right and wrong - it's just not based on a set of standards that is consistent with most in our society. Your right and wrong seems to be based upon what you can get away with. A negative eBay reputation would prevent you from buying and selling on eBay, so you raise your standards of right and wrong. A lie or broken promise to someone with whom you personally interact could create uncomfortable personal confrontation; so, again, you raise your standards of right and wrong.

On the other hand, acting like a spoiled little child in a forum like this gets you, at worst, negative attention. There is no repercussion that harms you enough to deter you from doing it. People loathe you, but you never have to actually see them. Moderators ban you, and thirty seconds later, you're posting using a proxy and a deliberately-weakly disguised moniker. With no checks and balances that you perceive as threatening, you are able to dramatically lower your standards of right and wrong.

So, by definition, you don't have a true standard of right and wrong. In place of a conscience, you have a fear of repercussion. And isn't that, almost to the word, the definition of a sociopath?

[Bob's your Information Minister]

Originally Posted by DomCasual

A negative eBay reputation would prevent you from buying and selling on eBay, so you raise your standards of right and wrong.

How do you explain the transaction I conducted with the user on this forum, then? I could have just ripped him off. I didn't.

Just admit that you're judging me on nothing. Internet bets over signatures? What a goddamn waste of time. Why don't you judge 24champbailey and that prick TheReverend. They both welched on their bets with me. GUESS THEY MUST BE SOCIOPATHS!

You take the internet far too seriously. Just like the ***** on this forum that have threatened me with BODILY HARM over the words on their computer screen. THERE is your sociopath.

BTW, I haven't been banned and used a proxy in years.

[tsiguy96]

Originally Posted by Bob's your Information Minister

How do you explain the transaction I conducted with the user on this forum, then? I could have just ripped him off. I didn't.

Just admit that you're judging me on nothing. Internet bets over signatures? What a goddamn waste of time. Why don't you judge 24champbailey and that prick TheReverend. They both welched on their bets with me. GUESS THEY MUST BE SOCIOPATHS!

You take the internet far too seriously. Just like the ***** on this forum that have threatened me with BODILY HARM over the words on their computer screen. THERE is your sociopath.

BTW, I haven't been banned and used a proxy in years.

eat **** and die.

[Blueflame]

What kind of person is proud* of being an honorless, bet-welching biotch?

*puts up a tagline that reads "welcher and proud of it"...

[Bob's your Information Minister]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

What kind of person is proud* of being an honorless, bet-welching biotch?

*puts up a tagline that reads "welcher and proud of it"...

Can't take a joke, Blue? Some of you need to learn to roll with the punches.