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

[Hopper]

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.

 

[GVC]

but then on the other hand gave me the loophole I needed to get out of this mess!!!

You're a rat?

 

[Hopper]

...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?

 

[One Brow]

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?

 

[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?