What's new

14 blocks.....and STILL lose the game by 10!

....we never shook on it?

Look at this! I guess you just can't trust a newbie with only 60 posts or so. I guess if you want someone with integrity you're going to have to find a more well established poster.
 
I will say this there was a play in tonight's game that should have been a foul and they did give it to the team who fouled because they did not touch the ball last. It was a lot more clear cut as to whom touched it last but still. They must have figured in the last game that they could not determine who actually touched it last as Pau did have a finger in there. Dunno.
 
But, to stand up for my homey, CJ, he has a point. You have to formally accept his bet before you search out the answer, and he has to agree with you in particular to make the bet. He was not offering a "reward" to anyone who would do the research to find a particular thing, and he's free to retract his offer to bet at any time before he formally agrees to bet a particular individual.

Aint that right, CJ?
 
But, to stand up for my homey, CJ, he has a point. You have to formally accept his bet before you search out the answer, and he has to agree with you in particular to make the bet. He was not offering a "reward" to anyone who would do the research to find a particular thing, and he's free to retract his offer to bet at any time before he formally agrees to bet a particular individual.

Aint that right, CJ?

This is purely academic given that CJ will never pay but the subject isn't that open and closed.

One could clearly argue that CJ set up a unilateral contract structure through an offer of open wager on a forum of his choosing and that the only means of acceptance of his wager was by proferring a "best guess" to test the veracity of his claim. Offers for reward, performance contracts for services, etc are frequently upheld without a formal bilateral offer/acceptance structure.

The better argument, for both you and CJ, would be that such a form is precluded because there's no way for CJ to win the bet given that he can't bind any individual to a "loss" if no one comes forward with their own winning entry. As a result it's inherently one sided. However, given the freedom of contract in America and that CJ wrote the bet himself and as a result the terms of the offer would be construed against him, I'm not completely certain its a winner.

What's definitely true is that CJ can fairly be described in this instance to be a rat who owes me $100 in the eyes of anyone who fairly reads this thread.
 
What's definitely true is that CJ can fairly be described in this instance to be a rat who owes me $100 in the eyes of anyone who fairly reads this thread.

Heh, you say this after trying to turn the suggestion of a bet into an offer of reward. As noted by CJ, preliminary discussions about the possibility of a bet are traditionaly formally solidified by a handshake or some other method of confirmation which indicates that the "bet" has gone beyond the discussion stage and has been accepted by both betting parties, in advance. Are ya just trollin here, Kicky, because you have some animosity towards CJ, or what?
 
This is purely academic given that CJ will never pay but the subject isn't that open and closed.

One could clearly argue that CJ set up a unilateral contract structure through an offer of open wager on a forum of his choosing and that the only means of acceptance of his wager was by proferring a "best guess" to test the veracity of his claim. Offers for reward, performance contracts for services, etc are frequently upheld without a formal bilateral offer/acceptance structure.

The better argument, for both you and CJ, would be that such a form is precluded because there's no way for CJ to win the bet given that he can't bind any individual to a "loss" if no one comes forward with their own winning entry. As a result it's inherently one sided. However, given the freedom of contract in America and that CJ wrote the bet himself and as a result the terms of the offer would be construed against him, I'm not completely certain its a winner.

What's definitely true is that CJ can fairly be described in this instance to be a rat who owes me $100 in the eyes of anyone who fairly reads this thread.

Wow, you need a life.
 
I have a homey who had his car stolen once. He put up a bulletin offering a $500 reward for it's return, "no questions asked." When a guy brought his car to him, he didn't try to welsh and start axxin questions.

As soon as he got the keys, he just went upside the guy's sorry head with a long-*** chunk of lead pipe.
 
Last edited:
I'll keep that in mind for any future discussions on relativity.

Heh, Eric, ya never made that bet. I'm still willing, but the futility of that thread was already patently obvious. Then I got a little extended vacation, courtesy of County, and I aint never made it back. Ya still wanna bet?
 
But, to stand up for my homey, CJ, he has a point. You have to formally accept his bet before you search out the answer, and he has to agree with you in particular to make the bet. He was not offering a "reward" to anyone who would do the research to find a particular thing, and he's free to retract his offer to bet at any time before he formally agrees to bet a particular individual.

Aint that right, CJ?

....what would I do...without my hopper homie friends! You nailed it dead on!
 
This is purely academic given that CJ will never pay but the subject isn't that open and closed.

One could clearly argue that CJ set up a unilateral contract structure through an offer of open wager on a forum of his choosing and that the only means of acceptance of his wager was by proferring a "best guess" to test the veracity of his claim. Offers for reward, performance contracts for services, etc are frequently upheld without a formal bilateral offer/acceptance structure.

The better argument, for both you and CJ, would be that such a form is precluded because there's no way for CJ to win the bet given that he can't bind any individual to a "loss" if no one comes forward with their own winning entry. As a result it's inherently one sided. However, given the freedom of contract in America and that CJ wrote the bet himself and as a result the terms of the offer would be construed against him, I'm not completely certain its a winner.

What's definitely true is that CJ can fairly be described in this instance to be a rat who owes me $100 in the eyes of anyone who fairly reads this thread.

...well, it's obvious to even the most casual observer, that Sirkickyass is a college kid who majored in philosophy and other semi-worthless courses, because on one hand, what he says makes sense, but then on the other hand gave me the loophole I needed to get out of this mess!!!
 
I have a homey who had his car stolen once. He put up a bulletin offering a $500 reward for it's return, "no questions asked." When a guy brought his car to him, he didn't try to welsh and start axxin questions.

As soon as he got the keys, he just went upside the guy's sorry head with a long-*** chunk of lead pipe.

Just to make it clear that my homeys don't welch, let me add that he then threw 5 hundred dollar bills down on the guy's unconscious carcas. Then, of course, he said: "Just for stealin from me, Imma steal from you," and he picked up them bills and pocketed them. Then he drug the guy out to his back yard, where he may be buried, I dunno.
 
...well, it's obvious to even the most casual observer, that Sirkickyass is a college kid who majored in philosophy and other semi-worthless courses, because on one hand, what he says makes sense, but then on the other hand gave me the loophole I needed to get out of this mess!!!

Right, CJ. After first suggesting that you had a winning argument, but one which he was not "completely certain" was a winner, he goes on, in the next damn breath to claim it is "definitely true" that you owe him $100. Zup wit dat?
 
Heh, Eric, ya never made that bet. I'm still willing, but the futility of that thread was already patently obvious. Then I got a little extended vacation, courtesy of County, and I aint never made it back. Ya still wanna bet?

I agree, we never finalized the terms to the bet, so there was no bet.

I don't make bets unless I intend to pay. I'm not so foolish as to bet with some one who just declared he makes bets without intending to pay.

I also agree there probably isn't much point in continuing the discussion. My last set of posts contained a link with a very clear picture and explanation of a situation in which an object, while moving more slowly than a second object, would nonetheless have more time dilation, and thus experience less time, that the faster-moving object. Still, if you really think the link or my understanding of it is in error, we can that discussion there. Why pollute teh board?
 
Top