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

[Hopper]

You're a rat?

Well, yeah, Commie, that too, I spoze.

 

[sirkickyass]

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?

We're drawing a distinction, aint, between CJ's legal argument and the impression of anyone who would read the thread. Legally we could argue the one-way ratchet nature of the wager makes it unenforceable. To anyone who reads the thread in context, it's more than obvious that CJ is just trying to get out of his grandiose guarantee of $100.

And yes, I'm billing this time.

 

[Hopper]

We're drawing a distinction, aint, between CJ's legal argument and the impression of anyone who would read the thread.

Kay, I see now, eh, Kicky? Resort to the ever-popular argumentum ad populum fallacy, eh? I shoulda knowwed, ya sophist, ya.

P.S.: If any of yawl don't know what a "sophist" is, just think "bottom-feeder," eh?