You said in the first post in this thread
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It was a pleasure to see Marty Monroe, another familiar face who I have known for several years, at dinner. He was one of the reasons that ROYAL sports book had been so successful in the past.
Marty arrived in Panama months ago to assist in the set up of BetPanAm.com He understands the offshore industry well and is one of the people I respect the most because of his experience and successful track record.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And now you say in this thread here :
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> F U C K YOU!
He is not my buddy...
He is a business acquaintence....
I have spoken to him on about 3 occasions each year that he was responsible for marketing at ROYAL...
Now I spoke to him because he is with BetPamAM and trying to get back money owed to him from ROYAL!
Hardly qualifies as a buddy!
And I didnt even know that was his real name..
I only know him as Marty! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which is true? Is Marty "a very familar face who (you) have known for several years" or is he a man that you "have spoken to him on about 3 occasions each year"?
How can you not know his real name?
How is it that you only take the time to talk to the marketing director at one of your advertisers a mere three times a year? Wouldn't you as the owner of a sportsbook watchdog site want to keep in touch with your advertisers for the protection of the readers?
And now "Marty Monroe" is going to run or help run a new sportsbook in Panama --- the first non credit shop in that country --- and you are wholeheartedly endorsing it without even knowing the man's real name?
Many thousands of people must read this forum every month. A lot of them are going to put their trust in what you recommend. They may culmulatively post up millions of dollars at a sportsbook because you put your seal of approval on it. Shouldn't you be exercising a bit more due care when making such an endorsement and shouldn't the things you say be based more on fact than speculation? Shouldn't your agenda be to protect your readers?
Am I missing something here?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It was a pleasure to see Marty Monroe, another familiar face who I have known for several years, at dinner. He was one of the reasons that ROYAL sports book had been so successful in the past.
Marty arrived in Panama months ago to assist in the set up of BetPanAm.com He understands the offshore industry well and is one of the people I respect the most because of his experience and successful track record.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And now you say in this thread here :
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> F U C K YOU!
He is not my buddy...
He is a business acquaintence....
I have spoken to him on about 3 occasions each year that he was responsible for marketing at ROYAL...
Now I spoke to him because he is with BetPamAM and trying to get back money owed to him from ROYAL!
Hardly qualifies as a buddy!
And I didnt even know that was his real name..
I only know him as Marty! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which is true? Is Marty "a very familar face who (you) have known for several years" or is he a man that you "have spoken to him on about 3 occasions each year"?
How can you not know his real name?
How is it that you only take the time to talk to the marketing director at one of your advertisers a mere three times a year? Wouldn't you as the owner of a sportsbook watchdog site want to keep in touch with your advertisers for the protection of the readers?
And now "Marty Monroe" is going to run or help run a new sportsbook in Panama --- the first non credit shop in that country --- and you are wholeheartedly endorsing it without even knowing the man's real name?
Many thousands of people must read this forum every month. A lot of them are going to put their trust in what you recommend. They may culmulatively post up millions of dollars at a sportsbook because you put your seal of approval on it. Shouldn't you be exercising a bit more due care when making such an endorsement and shouldn't the things you say be based more on fact than speculation? Shouldn't your agenda be to protect your readers?
Am I missing something here?