Jump to content

John Juanda on DN

pokerloser

By pokerloser,
in General Poker Forum

 Share Followers 0

Recommended Posts

BilliardsBoy

BilliardsBoy 0

Posted
Posted

BTW:This is not to say that I feel the dislike is validated.It is indeed a very trivial thing to dislike someone for.DN and Chris have a difference of opinion on many issues, least of which, I think, is the nickname.I would hardly dislike the guy for his nickname or his views, and saying that I would still say that it does seem a like a bit of a dig. If I had his views and wanted to poke at religion, I would do it. So whos to say Chris wouldn't.No one knows but Chris. It should probably be left at that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Johnny Lately

Johnny Lately 0

Posted
Posted
(Or as still others believe, like myself, a potentially real historical figure but more likely an amalgamation of several historical figures.) LOL, sucker.
I fell foul of Bartender 101 - Never discuss Politics, Religion or what you did with the guys wife last night.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Gallo

Gallo 1

Posted
Posted

Wow, I guess no one knows when someone's joking, maybe someone should tell Juanda that next he should put an "(sw)" after his statements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Blonde

Mr. Blonde 0

Posted
Posted
(Or as still others believe, like myself, a potentially real historical figure but more likely an amalgamation of several historical figures.) LOL, sucker.
I fell foul of Bartender 101 - Never discuss Politics, Religion or what you did with the guys wife last night.
LOL, how is this a religious arguement? I haven't been to church in 5 years.Jesus existed, goofball, whether you think he was the son of God or not.
Link to post
Share on other sites
elkang

elkang 0

Posted
Posted
John comenting on FTP about DN today. With the Brodie comments and now John, looks like FTP is making an all out play on DN. What'd he do to tick them off?
I sense a wager was made regarding this thread. I'd bet money on it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
doublemeup

doublemeup 0

Posted
Posted
John comenting on FTP about DN today. With the Brodie comments and now John, looks like FTP is making an all out play on DN. What'd he do to tick them off?Heated Heavy (Observer): hey JJ when is dan negraneu comin to FTP?Dealer: John Juanda has 15 seconds left to actDealer: thehammer9 has 15 seconds left to actDealer: gbush2004 shows [Qs Qd] (a pair of Queens)Dealer: gbush2004 wins the pot ($25)Dealer: Hand #282046935sleepychief (Observer): hey john why limit hold emDealer: thehammer9 has 15 seconds left to actDealer: sauce87 wins the pot ($25)Dealer: Hand #282047806John Juanda: one day when he becomes better player, we ll invite him to joinDealer: John Juanda has 15 seconds left to actDealer: John Juanda shows two pair, Aces and JacksDealer: John Juanda wins the pot ($117) with two pair, Aces and Jacks
Its a joke buddy because him and DN are good friends.
Link to post
Share on other sites
BigDMcGee

BigDMcGee 3,352

Posted
Posted
Not to mention..."gamble AB"I never heard he had beef with fergesuon...he talked to him about using "Jesus" and signing autographs with it, things of that nature. It was in his blog i think...either way, it sounded like an adult discussion, and no one was angry at one another.
I wish I knew the thread it's in, it wasn't on the blog, and DN said some things about it saying he would never trust Ferg's word, since he promised DN to stop signing his name jesus, and he didn't. He also has said on another thread that he'd never join full tilt. I'd be happy to wager on him not joining Full tilt, if aanyone wants some action.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnny Lately

Johnny Lately 0

Posted
Posted
(Or as still others believe, like myself, a potentially real historical figure but more likely an amalgamation of several historical figures.) LOL, sucker.
I fell foul of Bartender 101 - Never discuss Politics, Religion or what you did with the guys wife last night.
LOL, how is this a religious arguement? I haven't been to church in 5 years.Jesus existed, goofball, whether you think he was the son of God or not.
I said he either existed or was an amalgamation of one than one person. So I miss your point. Unless you were there in 1A.D. and can confirm with eyewitness reports?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Blonde

Mr. Blonde 0

Posted
Posted
(Or as still others believe, like myself, a potentially real historical figure but more likely an amalgamation of several historical figures.) LOL, sucker.
I fell foul of Bartender 101 - Never discuss Politics, Religion or what you did with the guys wife last night.
LOL, how is this a religious arguement? I haven't been to church in 5 years.Jesus existed, goofball, whether you think he was the son of God or not.
I said he either existed or was an amalgamation of one than one person. So I miss your point. Unless you were there in 1A.D. and can confirm with eyewitness reports?
You're right.Alexander the Great didn't exist either.
Link to post
Share on other sites
lucky_charmz

lucky_charmz 0

Posted
Posted
(Or as still others believe, like myself, a potentially real historical figure but more likely an amalgamation of several historical figures.) LOL, sucker.
I fell foul of Bartender 101 - Never discuss Politics, Religion or what you did with the guys wife last night.
LOL, how is this a religious arguement? I haven't been to church in 5 years.Jesus existed, goofball, whether you think he was the son of God or not.
I said he either existed or was an amalgamation of one than one person. So I miss your point. Unless you were there in 1A.D. and can confirm with eyewitness reports?
This is a horrible argument against the existence of Jesus. I can confirm that the American Revolution took place, that their were two World Wars, and all kinds of other events in history that I was not physically there to be a part of. This does imply that we can question the details of the things we are taught, but to say you don't believe something because you weren't there to see it is ridiculous.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnny Lately

Johnny Lately 0

Posted
Posted

That wasn't my argument and it is entirely my fault for presenting it that way - I blurred the lines between Jesus Christ and the representations of his beliefs.However, there are no Primary Source records of his existence as there are for the American revolution and WWII.Also can we please stop this now - I refer you to my Bartender 101 post earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke

LongLiveYorke 38

Posted
Posted
I can confirm that the American Revolution took place, that their were two World Wars, and all kinds of other events in history that I was not physically there to be a part of. This does imply that we can question the details of the things we are taught, but to say you don't believe something because you weren't there to see it is ridiculous.
There is overwhelmingly more evidence for World War II than there is for the existance of Christ. It's a matter of evidence, you see.
Link to post
Share on other sites
DaBruins

DaBruins 0

Posted
Posted

yes Jesus has been a long-used name now in many cultures. But Ferguson assumed that nickname and moniker because of his resemblance (the hair and mellow demeanor on the felt) to Christ. Although i'm not offended by it, i could see how others would be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dereeekho

dereeekho 0

Posted
Posted

1. Juanda is definately joking.2. Doesn't DN condemn the discussion of religion on the forum?3. Juanda may also reveal that DN definatley won't join Full Tilt Poker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Followers 0
Go to topic listing

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...