The War Room Bet Thread v2

Status
Not open for further replies.
You should take the bet.
The only chance of my losing such a bet would be if arbitrator Mr. @Lead were bought off by @Quipling or one of his agents. That's why it's not really interesting. No challenge involved and we all know @Lead to be very careful in his reading of bet terms. He would never allow @Quipling to stretch the meaning of his original text, particularly because @Quipling is said to be a lawyer and should therefore have been very careful with his wording.

Aw shucks, Jack, you've convinced me to take the bet. Your skills of persuasion really are unrivaled. I just have one request: instead of going head-to-head with Quipling on this one, I want to go head to head with the one and only @Jack V Savage .

Jack, are you ready for the $uperbet?
 
The only chance of my losing such a bet would be if arbitrator Mr. @Lead were bought off by @Quipling or one of his agents. That's why it's not really interesting. No challenge involved and we all know @Lead to be very careful in his reading of bet terms. He would never allow @Quipling to stretch the meaning of his original text, particularly because @Quipling is said to be a lawyer and should therefore have been very careful with his wording.

Aw shucks, Jack, you've convinced me to take the bet. Your skills of persuasion really are unrivaled. I just have one request: instead of going head-to-head with Quipling on this one, I want to go head to head with the one and only @Jack V Savage .
Jack, are you ready for the $uperbet?

Quipling did the work here, and I don't want to steal his thunder. If you want to propose a counter bet with me, though, using your own language, I'm very interested.

And side note: Trying to win on a misunderstanding isn't cricket, and hinting that you would isn't good salesmanship.
 
Quipling did the work here, and I don't want to steal his thunder. If you want to propose a counter bet with me, though, using your own language, I'm very interested.

And side note: Trying to win on a misunderstanding isn't cricket, and hinting that you would isn't good salesmanship.
Not a misunderstanding, Jack. Just a failure to think out everything clearly by Mr. Quipling.
 
Quipling did the work here, and I don't want to steal his thunder. If you want to propose a counter bet with me, though, using your own language, I'm very interested.

And side note: Trying to win on a misunderstanding isn't cricket, and hinting that you would isn't good salesmanship.
Also, I bet Mr. @Quipling would be happy to yield to you on this one.
 
He will certainly be happy to transfer his terms over for purposes of our $uperbet. Right, @Quipling ?

Could be, but while I think he's undeniably right on substance, you're hinting that you think there's potential for a cheap win there. So I would say take his bet or propose one with me.
 
Could be, but while I think he's undeniably right on substance, you're hinting that you think there's potential for a cheap win there. So I would say take his bet or propose one with me.
Not cheap. His statements are not going to correspond to reality, and his prediction will fail.
 
Don't be an angle shooter. Angle shooters are scum.
 
Don't be an angle shooter. Angle shooters are scum.
You're better than this, @waiguoren
I have no idea what you are referring to. Jack implied that Quipling's bet strongly favored Quipling. I disagree. But I have less of a history with Quipling, so I proposed that Jack and I have the same bet instead.

Where is the "angle" here, or are you guys just being tribalistic again?
 
I have no idea what you are referring to. Jack implied that Quipling's bet strongly favored Quipling. I disagree. But I have less of a history with Quipling, so I proposed that Jack and I have the same bet instead.

Where is the "angle" here, or are you guys just being tribalistic again?

Quipling listed three things (Papadopoulos met with Russian agents who offered dirt on Clinton that they'd acquired, he cooperated with the gov't in connection with the investigation, and he informed the campaign of what he was up to with the Russian meetings and got their encouragement) that seem pretty clearly spelled out by Papadopoulos. Really, the only question is whether Papadopoulos is telling the truth. But you're implying some kind of cheap avenue to victory that is unrelated to the proposed test (whether the claims that have come to light from the Papadopoulos story are accurate).
 
Quipling listed three things (Papadopoulos met with Russian agents who offered dirt on Clinton that they'd acquired, he cooperated with the gov't in connection with the investigation, and he informed the campaign of what he was up to with the Russian meetings and got their encouragement) that seem pretty clearly spelled out by Papadopoulos. Really, the only question is whether Papadopoulos is telling the truth. But you're implying some kind of cheap avenue to victory that is unrelated to the proposed test (whether the claims that have come to light from the Papadopoulos story are accurate).
Wait...are you saying everything in the bet has already been revealed by today's indictments? So why would Quipling offer a bet at all, and why would you encourage me to take that bet?
 
I have no idea what you are referring to. Jack implied that Quipling's bet strongly favored Quipling. I disagree. But I have less of a history with Quipling, so I proposed that Jack and I have the same bet instead.

Where is the "angle" here, or are you guys just being tribalistic again?
I was just fucking with you lol
 
Wait...are you saying everything in the bet has already been revealed by today's indictments? So why would Quipling offer a bet at all, and why would you encourage me to take that bet?

Look at @oleDirtyBast4rd's tail tucking. Part of the point of offering bets is to provide consequences to wrong information or to demonstrate that people who are making false claims know those claims to be false. I think that a lot of the right-wing infotainment stuff is like pro-wrestling. Fans know that it's false but they play along because they think it's fun. The bet thread is about pushing against that.

Also, there is the matter of whether the claims contained in the reports are accurate, which should be clarified soon.
 
Lol someone told odb he was about to stick his dick in a trap. Or he read the documents he was linked several hours and several dozen posts previously. Seeing that furious backpedaling in my notifications was worth not getting that bet.

I haven't backpedaled at all... not sure why youd suggest that
 
Look at @oleDirtyBast4rd's tail tucking. Part of the point of offering bets is to provide consequences to wrong information or to demonstrate that people who are making false claims know those claims to be false. I think that a lot of the right-wing infotainment stuff is like pro-wrestling. Fans know that it's false but they play along because they think it's fun. The bet thread is about pushing against that.

Also, there is the matter of whether the claims contained in the reports are accurate, which should be clarified soon.
I'm not sure I tail tucked... you're being awfully tribalistic (your favorite word) in this post hack.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top