The War Room Bet Thread v2

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 still don't understand, but maybe that's because I didn't follow the back and forth between those two.
 
I'm not sure I tail tucked... you're being awfully tribalistic (your favorite word) in this post hack.

Not sure how pointing out your tribalism equates to my own, and I am sure that you will not be able to explain.

Your tail tucking is still visible for everyone to see. For the record, though, are you willing to acknowledge that Papadopoulos was meeting with Russian agents with the knowledge and approval of the Trump campaign to get illegally acquired "dirt" on Clinton (the hacked emails)?
 
are you willing to acknowledge that Papadopoulos was meeting with Russian agents with the knowledge and approval of the Trump campaign to get illegally acquired "dirt" on Clinton (the hacked emails)?

Sig bet that this is not accurate.
 
Not sure how pointing out your tribalism equates to my own, and I am sure that you will not be able to explain.

Your tail tucking is still visible for everyone to see. For the record, though, are you willing to acknowledge that Papadopoulos was meeting with Russian agents with the knowledge and approval of the Trump campaign to get illegally acquired "dirt" on Clinton (the hacked emails)?

Proof the dirt was illegally acquired? I literally chuckle every time I see "tribalism". I swear it's in every other post from you
 
Sig bet that this is not accurate.

Is "get" what you object to? Maybe "coordinate the release of"? Or "decide what to do about the emails?" But subject to some tightening of the language, the substance of what I said is accurate and I'll stand behind it.

Proof the dirt was illegally acquired? I literally chuckle every time I see "tribalism". I swear it's in every other post from you

It came from you in that one. As usual, you offer nothing at all to back it up, and it comes as a result of me pointing out your tail tucking when Quipling offered you a bet (thus demonstrating that you didn't really believe the GOP propaganda you were spouting).

Oh, and we're referring to the hacked emails.
 
Is "get" what you object to? Maybe "coordinate the release of"? Or "decide what to do about the emails?" But subject to some tightening of the language, the substance of what I said is accurate and I'll stand behind it.

Cool, so we have a bet?
 
What's the exact wording we're settling on? Important since you've already declared your intent to try to win on a disingenuous reading.
What a disingenuous thing to write. I never declared such an intent. I simply said that @Lead can be trusted to read the terms carefully and judge fairly. Your hyper-sensitivity to that statement is causing fear, I see.

Why should you be scared? You are the one who gets to write the statement. If it is proven true after six months, you win. If it is not proven true, I win.
 
What a disingenuous thing to write. I never declared such an intent. I simply said that @Lead can be trusted to read the terms carefully and judge fairly. Your hyper-sensitivity to that statement is causing fear, I see.

Not fear. I stand by the claim. But when you post like that, you're clearly signalling an intent to win in a dishonorable way.

Why should you be scared? You are the one who gets to write the statement. If it is proven true after six months, you win. If it is not proven true, I win.

What I'm wondering about is the nub of the disagreement. Seems absurd to make a bet based on a disagreement that you will not even clarify before the bet term, doesn't it? The whole point of the this is that I say something, you say something different, and we find out who is right. To change it to "you (or Quipling) says something, and I think there's a secret, subtle bit that might be slightly off but I refuse to say what it is," makes me think that it's a waste of time and that you're trying to get a weasel win. Wouldn't anyone think that given your behavior?
 
Is "get" what you object to? Maybe "coordinate the release of"? Or "decide what to do about the emails?" But subject to some tightening of the language, the substance of what I said is accurate and I'll stand behind it.



It came from you in that one. As usual, you offer nothing at all to back it up, and it comes as a result of me pointing out your tail tucking when Quipling offered you a bet (thus demonstrating that you didn't really believe the GOP propaganda you were spouting).

Oh, and we're referring to the hacked emails.

You are always one to tell others why they do things. I find that hilarious as well.

What GOP propaganda was I spouting?

I'll bet you nobody is charged with charges related to actual Russian collusion
 
Not fear. I stand by the claim. But when you post like that, you're clearly signalling an intent to win in a dishonorable way.



What I'm wondering about is the nub of the disagreement. Seems absurd to make a bet based on a disagreement that you will not even clarify before the bet term, doesn't it? The whole point of the this is that I say something, you say something different, and we find out who is right. To change it to "you (or Quipling) says something, and I think there's a secret, subtle bit that might be slightly off but I refuse to say what it is," makes me think that it's a waste of time and that you're trying to get a weasel win. Wouldn't anyone think that given your behavior?

In other words, you are not willing to stand behind this simple sentence that you yourself wrote:

Papadopoulos was meeting with Russian agents with the knowledge and approval of the Trump campaign to get illegally acquired "dirt" on Clinton (the hacked emails)?

You will only take a bet on this statement's veracity if I tell you in advance which part of it I think is likely to fail.
 
I still don't understand, but maybe that's because I didn't follow the back and forth between those two.

I didn't tuck tail at all. Hack says crazy shit all the time when he politically disagrees with somebody
 
In other words, you are not willing to stand behind this simple sentence that you yourself wrote:

Papadopoulos was meeting with Russian agents with the knowledge and approval of the Trump campaign to get illegally acquired "dirt" on Clinton (the hacked emails)?

You will only take a bet on this statement's veracity if I tell you in advance which part of it I think is likely to fail.

You've communicated clearly that you do not intend to take the bet in good faith so I'd like to know what you disagree with before betting you that you're wrong.

What crime was committed other then lying?

Show me some sign that you actually read it if you want to discuss it. If you're just in "OMG, someone said something that Trump doesn't want to be true, must deny" mode, forget it.
 
Dodge noted

No dodge. I linked you to a piece where the guy spells out the details of his collusion, and you come back acting like it's a complete mystery. If you want to play with the big kids, you gotta step up your game. He pleaded guilty to lying as a lesser offense so he could make a deal.
 
No dodge. I linked you to a piece where the guy spells out the details of his collusion, and you come back acting like it's a complete mystery. If you want to play with the big kids, you gotta step up your game. He pleaded guilty to lying as a lesser offense so he could make a deal.

I'll try again. I'll bet no "Russia collusion" type charges will drop on Trump, or any other "high level" guys from the campaign
 
Another good day in the bet thread. I want to note that some of the recent proposals concern me about how much judgement is required on my part to declare the winner. We have already in the op a method of adding additional mods for appeals (which needs updated since we have 7 current mods instead of 3) but I almost may consider calling for a situation where if the bet is like these, more than one mod is involved to decide who won.

Beyond that though, I ask you @waiguoren and @Jack V Savage, do you really want the highly anticipated super bet come down to a judges decision on events past? That just seems very anticlimactic and one of you will be left feeling cheated by the interpretation.
 
Another good day in the bet thread. I want to note that some of the recent proposals concern me about how much judgement is required on my part to declare the winner. We have already in the op a method of adding additional mods for appeals (which needs updated since we have 7 current mods instead of 3) but I almost may consider calling for a situation where if the bet is like these, more than one mod is involved to decide who won.

Beyond that though, I ask you @waiguoren and @Jack V Savage, do you really want the highly anticipated super bet come down to a judges decision on events past? That just seems very anticlimactic and one of you will be left feeling cheated by the interpretation.
Especially considering that bet seems to revolve around some sort of yet-to-be-revealed wording issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top