jsearles and Chinamaniac debate about the value of his WSOP pieces

[limitles]

Seriously? The offending post has been widely quoted in this thread. This came very early in the process:

I have a better bet for you... How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used those two words incorrectly? I will bet you $1000. Booked?

It doesn't say "both of". "Where you have used those two words incorrectly" could mean in the same post or it could mean singularly. Considering there are 15 posts pointing to the latter interpretation leading up to this one it's quite clear what his meaning was.

Again, I've been friendly towards you in all of our dealings on here, and don't knows Vegas from a hole in the wall. So the idea that I'm partial to one party is ludicrous; if anything I'm partial to you!

That's right. No one, until Crowe came along, said BOTH words in the same post. Mixing up then or than is what bothered Vegas. It doesn't make it better or worse that it's in the same post. That's irrelevant. It's the mis-use that the bet was about imo.

[Steve-O]

Any solution that does not result in searles being banned here will be a disappointment.

It's unnecassary if they can come to an agreement. It's just as easy to warn any potential bettor with Searles to be very careful.

In fact I would argue that no bets made on the forum should be binding unless the money is escrowed or a third-party clarifies the terms being presented in the future. This is obviously a problem (at least the second occurence in a month or so), and this would eliminate that issue altogether.

[jsearles22]

Seriously? The offending post has been widely quoted in this thread. This came very early in the process:

I have a better bet for you... How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used those two words incorrectly? I will bet you $1000. Booked?

It doesn't say "both of". "Where you have used those two words incorrectly" could mean in the same post or it could mean singularly. Considering there are 15 posts pointing to the latter interpretation leading up to this one it's quite clear what his meaning was.

Again, I've been friendly towards you in all of our dealings on here, and don't knows Vegas from a hole in the wall. So the idea that I'm partial to one party is ludicrous; if anything I'm partial to you!

Again I must cordially disagree with you. Say you offered me $100 to get you 5 pictures of Actor A and Actor B having sex. If I come back to you with 5 pictures of these guys having sex, but not together then you will feel like you were tricked. Your offer was meant to catch BOTH in the act together. This may be a poor analogy but its the best I can come up with.

[jsearles22]

Any solution that does not result in searles being banned here will be a disappointment.

It's unnecassary if they can come to an agreement. It's just as easy to warn any potential bettor with Searles to be very careful.

In fact I would argue that no bets made on the forum should be binding unless the money is escrowed or a third-party clarifies the terms being presented in the future. This is obviously a problem (at least the second occurence in a month or so), and this would eliminate that issue altogether.

Both involving Vegas. Coincidence?

[Steve-O]

Searles, I understand and appreciate your concerns, but you overstate my criticism of you. It's possible that I described you as a raging doucher a couple of days ago, but I don't think I did. That isn't typically how I conduct my business on the boards.

I've been critical of your trolling of China, and also found your decision to go after guys like China and Vegas somewhat curious, but it's not like I've been ripping you a new one in every thread.

Since you have clearly refused to accept me as an arbiter or mediator, I will stop waiting and go ahead and give my take.

This will not be a popular decision, but I believe that both Vegas and Searles agreed to different bets, therefore the bet should be voided and cancelled. Vegas had him with this exchange:

Book the bet, yes or no? I'm not reading my thousands of posts searching for the words then and than unless you book the bet. Since we obviously aren't making a bet for millions, I will bet you $500?

and then the ambiguity arises:

I have a better bet for you... How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used those two words incorrectly? I will bet you $1000. Booked?

Vegas clearly proved his point that Searles doesn't know the difference between then and than, and I do see this as a weak angle shoot attempt by J.

TommyT had the line of the thread when he mentioned that jsearles angle shot himself in the foot, and he nearly did.

What jsearles clearly did do was not accept my ability to be impartial. Too bad, I think this is as close as you're going to get.

This was my initial line of thinking (and since we can't prove what either thought the bet was we can't speculate on their motives). But the more I read of their exchanges in the leadup to that one ambiguous post it is crystal clear what the bet was for, and Searles is using an added word (or lack of a clarifying one like "one of" or "either of") to try to win the bet on a technicality.

I've already explained why this is impossible and the best he can hope for is a voided bet (because the same technicality he is purporting can be claimed by Vegas as well; that they had different interpreations of the bet). I'm still of the opinion that the two should comed to a decision about the dollar amount Searles should pay --I don't feel the full amountg is: A) going to happen and B) the best end to this mess-- as he most certainly lost the bet. The fact that he, out of the dozens of people who followed the thread, interpreted it this way doesn't make it so. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that this was his interpretation (and not an angle-shot from the get go) but it still is only a technicality and not enough to void the bet imo.

Since there is some ambiguity in the language it comes down to what the spirit of the bet was, and whether or not this was clear to both parties. The fact that Searles is saying his interpretation of the bet was why he made it (to screw over Vegas based on a technicality and offer him a "bad bet") CLEARLY SHOWS Searles understood both interpretations and therefore lost the bet he was making with Vegas.

Since this isn't a contract (where the wording must be followed) intent does come into play

Vegas offered a bet proclaiming that he could find 25 offending posts where I used both words incorrectly. I pounced on this knowing he could in fact not do so. If anyone tried to later change the parameters of the offered bet it was him.

I have said this before and I will say it again, if Vegas had said "I have a better bet for you... How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?" then I would never have taken the bet. He did however say "where you have used those two words incorrectly."

Steve-O, you keep implying that I entered into this thing hoping to get it voided from the outset. That couldnt be further from the truth. I entered into a bet hoping to win it! And that bet was that Vegas could not find 25 posts with multiple errors.

I'm starting to understand the problem, your reading comprehension is terri-bad. I said the "best you can hope for is the bet is voided", I assumed at one point in the thread that is what you wanted when you actually wanted more (to win) which I didn't think you would even attempt to try because it's one of the biggest leaps of faith I have ever seen.

There is no usage of the word "BOTH" in the post by Vegas you keep linking to, that was a separate post by someone else.

[Steve-O]

Seriously? The offending post has been widely quoted in this thread. This came very early in the process:

It doesn't say "both of". "Where you have used those two words incorrectly" could mean in the same post or it could mean singularly. Considering there are 15 posts pointing to the latter interpretation leading up to this one it's quite clear what his meaning was.

Again, I've been friendly towards you in all of our dealings on here, and don't knows Vegas from a hole in the wall. So the idea that I'm partial to one party is ludicrous; if anything I'm partial to you!

Again I must cordially disagree with you. Say you offered me $100 to get you 5 pictures of Actor A and Actor B having sex. If I come back to you with 5 pictures of these guys having sex, but not together then you will feel like you were tricked. Your offer was meant to catch BOTH in the act together. This may be a poor analogy but its the best I can come up with.

Not if there were 15 exchanges before this detailing the bet is to get the pictures of them together...

[jsearles22]

Searles, I understand and appreciate your concerns, but you overstate my criticism of you. It's possible that I described you as a raging doucher a couple of days ago, but I don't think I did. That isn't typically how I conduct my business on the boards.

I've been critical of your trolling of China, and also found your decision to go after guys like China and Vegas somewhat curious, but it's not like I've been ripping you a new one in every thread.

Since you have clearly refused to accept me as an arbiter or mediator, I will stop waiting and go ahead and give my take.

This will not be a popular decision, but I believe that both Vegas and Searles agreed to different bets, therefore the bet should be voided and cancelled. Vegas had him with this exchange:



and then the ambiguity arises:

I have a better bet for you... How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used those two words incorrectly? I will bet you $1000. Booked?

Vegas clearly proved his point that Searles doesn't know the difference between then and than, and I do see this as a weak angle shoot attempt by J.

TommyT had the line of the thread when he mentioned that jsearles angle shot himself in the foot, and he nearly did.

What jsearles clearly did do was not accept my ability to be impartial. Too bad, I think this is as close as you're going to get.

This was my initial line of thinking (and since we can't prove what either thought the bet was we can't speculate on their motives). But the more I read of their exchanges in the leadup to that one ambiguous post it is crystal clear what the bet was for, and Searles is using an added word (or lack of a clarifying one like "one of" or "either of") to try to win the bet on a technicality.

I've already explained why this is impossible and the best he can hope for is a voided bet (because the same technicality he is purporting can be claimed by Vegas as well; that they had different interpreations of the bet). I'm still of the opinion that the two should comed to a decision about the dollar amount Searles should pay --I don't feel the full amountg is: A) going to happen and B) the best end to this mess-- as he most certainly lost the bet. The fact that he, out of the dozens of people who followed the thread, interpreted it this way doesn't make it so. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that this was his interpretation (and not an angle-shot from the get go) but it still is only a technicality and not enough to void the bet imo.

Since there is some ambiguity in the language it comes down to what the spirit of the bet was, and whether or not this was clear to both parties. The fact that Searles is saying his interpretation of the bet was why he made it (to screw over Vegas based on a technicality and offer him a "bad bet") CLEARLY SHOWS Searles understood both interpretations and therefore lost the bet he was making with Vegas.

Since this isn't a contract (where the wording must be followed) intent does come into play

Vegas offered a bet proclaiming that he could find 25 offending posts where I used both words incorrectly. I pounced on this knowing he could in fact not do so. If anyone tried to later change the parameters of the offered bet it was him.

I have said this before and I will say it again, if Vegas had said "I have a better bet for you... How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?" then I would never have taken the bet. He did however say "where you have used those two words incorrectly."

Steve-O, you keep implying that I entered into this thing hoping to get it voided from the outset. That couldnt be further from the truth. I entered into a bet hoping to win it! And that bet was that Vegas could not find 25 posts with multiple errors.

I'm starting to understand the problem, your reading comprehension is terri-bad. I said the "best you can hope for is the bet is voided", I assumed at one point in the thread that is what you wanted when you actually wanted more (to win) which I didn't think you would even attempt to try because it's one of the biggest leaps of faith I have ever seen.

There is no usage of the word "BOTH" in the post by Vegas you keep linking to, that was a separate post by someone else.

"used those two" is a lot closer to an interpretation of both then it is to either

[Steve-O]

Searles, I understand and appreciate your concerns, but you overstate my criticism of you. It's possible that I described you as a raging doucher a couple of days ago, but I don't think I did. That isn't typically how I conduct my business on the boards.

I've been critical of your trolling of China, and also found your decision to go after guys like China and Vegas somewhat curious, but it's not like I've been ripping you a new one in every thread.

Since you have clearly refused to accept me as an arbiter or mediator, I will stop waiting and go ahead and give my take.

This will not be a popular decision, but I believe that both Vegas and Searles agreed to different bets, therefore the bet should be voided and cancelled. Vegas had him with this exchange:



and then the ambiguity arises:



Vegas clearly proved his point that Searles doesn't know the difference between then and than, and I do see this as a weak angle shoot attempt by J.

TommyT had the line of the thread when he mentioned that jsearles angle shot himself in the foot, and he nearly did.

What jsearles clearly did do was not accept my ability to be impartial. Too bad, I think this is as close as you're going to get.

This was my initial line of thinking (and since we can't prove what either thought the bet was we can't speculate on their motives). But the more I read of their exchanges in the leadup to that one ambiguous post it is crystal clear what the bet was for, and Searles is using an added word (or lack of a clarifying one like "one of" or "either of") to try to win the bet on a technicality.

I've already explained why this is impossible and the best he can hope for is a voided bet (because the same technicality he is purporting can be claimed by Vegas as well; that they had different interpreations of the bet). I'm still of the opinion that the two should comed to a decision about the dollar amount Searles should pay --I don't feel the full amountg is: A) going to happen and B) the best end to this mess-- as he most certainly lost the bet. The fact that he, out of the dozens of people who followed the thread, interpreted it this way doesn't make it so. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that this was his interpretation (and not an angle-shot from the get go) but it still is only a technicality and not enough to void the bet imo.

Since there is some ambiguity in the language it comes down to what the spirit of the bet was, and whether or not this was clear to both parties. The fact that Searles is saying his interpretation of the bet was why he made it (to screw over Vegas based on a technicality and offer him a "bad bet") CLEARLY SHOWS Searles understood both interpretations and therefore lost the bet he was making with Vegas.

Since this isn't a contract (where the wording must be followed) intent does come into play

Vegas offered a bet proclaiming that he could find 25 offending posts where I used both words incorrectly. I pounced on this knowing he could in fact not do so. If anyone tried to later change the parameters of the offered bet it was him.

I have said this before and I will say it again, if Vegas had said "I have a better bet for you... How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?" then I would never have taken the bet. He did however say "where you have used those two words incorrectly."

Steve-O, you keep implying that I entered into this thing hoping to get it voided from the outset. That couldnt be further from the truth. I entered into a bet hoping to win it! And that bet was that Vegas could not find 25 posts with multiple errors.

I'm starting to understand the problem, your reading comprehension is terri-bad. I said the "best you can hope for is the bet is voided", I assumed at one point in the thread that is what you wanted when you actually wanted more (to win) which I didn't think you would even attempt to try because it's one of the biggest leaps of faith I have ever seen.

There is no usage of the word "BOTH" in the post by Vegas you keep linking to, that was a separate post by someone else.

"used those two" is a lot closer to an interpretation of both then it is to either

Not when you consider all of the other posts; you can't use that single sentence and throw away everything before and after it. This isn't a signed contract so intent is very important. When viewed as a whole it's crystal clear what the bet was for. What your trying to say is more like someone agreeing to sell a car and the next day they come to your house and take it, saying, "well I said you could buy my car for $10,000, but we never agreed on how long this is for. It was only for a day."

[tony bagadonuts]

Argument Clinic

[jsearles22]

This was my initial line of thinking (and since we can't prove what either thought the bet was we can't speculate on their motives). But the more I read of their exchanges in the leadup to that one ambiguous post it is crystal clear what the bet was for, and Searles is using an added word (or lack of a clarifying one like "one of" or "either of") to try to win the bet on a technicality.

I've already explained why this is impossible and the best he can hope for is a voided bet (because the same technicality he is purporting can be claimed by Vegas as well; that they had different interpreations of the bet). I'm still of the opinion that the two should comed to a decision about the dollar amount Searles should pay --I don't feel the full amountg is: A) going to happen and B) the best end to this mess-- as he most certainly lost the bet. The fact that he, out of the dozens of people who followed the thread, interpreted it this way doesn't make it so. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that this was his interpretation (and not an angle-shot from the get go) but it still is only a technicality and not enough to void the bet imo.

Since there is some ambiguity in the language it comes down to what the spirit of the bet was, and whether or not this was clear to both parties. The fact that Searles is saying his interpretation of the bet was why he made it (to screw over Vegas based on a technicality and offer him a "bad bet") CLEARLY SHOWS Searles understood both interpretations and therefore lost the bet he was making with Vegas.

Since this isn't a contract (where the wording must be followed) intent does come into play

Vegas offered a bet proclaiming that he could find 25 offending posts where I used both words incorrectly. I pounced on this knowing he could in fact not do so. If anyone tried to later change the parameters of the offered bet it was him.

I have said this before and I will say it again, if Vegas had said "I have a better bet for you... How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?" then I would never have taken the bet. He did however say "where you have used those two words incorrectly."

Steve-O, you keep implying that I entered into this thing hoping to get it voided from the outset. That couldnt be further from the truth. I entered into a bet hoping to win it! And that bet was that Vegas could not find 25 posts with multiple errors.

I'm starting to understand the problem, your reading comprehension is terri-bad. I said the "best you can hope for is the bet is voided", I assumed at one point in the thread that is what you wanted when you actually wanted more (to win) which I didn't think you would even attempt to try because it's one of the biggest leaps of faith I have ever seen.

There is no usage of the word "BOTH" in the post by Vegas you keep linking to, that was a separate post by someone else.

"used those two" is a lot closer to an interpretation of both then it is to either

Not when you consider all of the other posts; you can't use that single sentence and throw away everything before and after it. This isn't a signed contract so intent is very important. When viewed as a whole it's crystal clear what the bet was for. What your trying to say is more like someone agreeing to sell a car and the next day they come to your house and take it, saying, "well I said you could buy my car for $10,000, but we never agreed on how long this is for. It was only for a day."

Congratulations folks, you are now reading the most replied to thread in PFA history!

Steve, I agree that intent is of the utmost importance. I intend/ed to win a bet regarding if Vegas could find posts containing misuses of "those two words."

You analogy is again poor. Please respond to my analogy. If you offered me $100 and told me to get a picture of "those two having sex" isnt it implied that you mean together? When you use a phrase such as that you cant then later seperate the two.

[Steve-O]

Vegas offered a bet proclaiming that he could find 25 offending posts where I used both words incorrectly. I pounced on this knowing he could in fact not do so. If anyone tried to later change the parameters of the offered bet it was him.

I have said this before and I will say it again, if Vegas had said "I have a better bet for you... How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?" then I would never have taken the bet. He did however say "where you have used those two words incorrectly."

Steve-O, you keep implying that I entered into this thing hoping to get it voided from the outset. That couldnt be further from the truth. I entered into a bet hoping to win it! And that bet was that Vegas could not find 25 posts with multiple errors.

I'm starting to understand the problem, your reading comprehension is terri-bad. I said the "best you can hope for is the bet is voided", I assumed at one point in the thread that is what you wanted when you actually wanted more (to win) which I didn't think you would even attempt to try because it's one of the biggest leaps of faith I have ever seen.

There is no usage of the word "BOTH" in the post by Vegas you keep linking to, that was a separate post by someone else.

"used those two" is a lot closer to an interpretation of both then it is to either

Not when you consider all of the other posts; you can't use that single sentence and throw away everything before and after it. This isn't a signed contract so intent is very important. When viewed as a whole it's crystal clear what the bet was for. What your trying to say is more like someone agreeing to sell a car and the next day they come to your house and take it, saying, "well I said you could buy my car for $10,000, but we never agreed on how long this is for. It was only for a day."

Congratulations folks, you are now reading the most replied to thread in PFA history!

Steve, I agree that intent is of the utmost importance. I intend/ed to win a bet regarding if Vegas could find posts containing misuses of "those two words."

You analogy is again poor. Please respond to my analogy. If you offered me $100 and told me to get a picture of "those two having sex" isnt it implied that you mean together? When you use a phrase such as that you cant then later seperate the two.

If that is the only statement than either interpretation is correct, but with 15 posts before it clarifying what the spirit of the wager is than it would be clear.

I tried to see if a day in between would have you come to your senses, but since it hasn't (and you ared still somehow making the claim you won the bet) I'll once again bow out of the conversation, since I'm making more progress debating my desk.

[jsearles22]

I'm starting to understand the problem, your reading comprehension is terri-bad. I said the "best you can hope for is the bet is voided", I assumed at one point in the thread that is what you wanted when you actually wanted more (to win) which I didn't think you would even attempt to try because it's one of the biggest leaps of faith I have ever seen.

There is no usage of the word "BOTH" in the post by Vegas you keep linking to, that was a separate post by someone else.

"used those two" is a lot closer to an interpretation of both then it is to either

Not when you consider all of the other posts; you can't use that single sentence and throw away everything before and after it. This isn't a signed contract so intent is very important. When viewed as a whole it's crystal clear what the bet was for. What your trying to say is more like someone agreeing to sell a car and the next day they come to your house and take it, saying, "well I said you could buy my car for $10,000, but we never agreed on how long this is for. It was only for a day."

Congratulations folks, you are now reading the most replied to thread in PFA history!

Steve, I agree that intent is of the utmost importance. I intend/ed to win a bet regarding if Vegas could find posts containing misuses of "those two words."

You analogy is again poor. Please respond to my analogy. If you offered me $100 and told me to get a picture of "those two having sex" isnt it implied that you mean together? When you use a phrase such as that you cant then later seperate the two.

If that is the only statement than either interpretation is correct, but with 15 posts before it clarifying what the spirit of the wager is than it would be clear.

I tried to see if a day in between would have you come to your senses, but since it hasn't (and you ared still somehow making the claim you won the bet) I'll once again bow out of the conversation, since I'm making more progress debating my desk.

You continue to make the salacious 15 posts before claim and that is simply a fabrication. There were 3 total posts discussing the bet before Vegas made his now infamous offer. Just because there are other posts in this thread, they literally had nothing to do with this bet.

[Steve-O]

"used those two" is a lot closer to an interpretation of both then it is to either

Not when you consider all of the other posts; you can't use that single sentence and throw away everything before and after it. This isn't a signed contract so intent is very important. When viewed as a whole it's crystal clear what the bet was for. What your trying to say is more like someone agreeing to sell a car and the next day they come to your house and take it, saying, "well I said you could buy my car for $10,000, but we never agreed on how long this is for. It was only for a day."

Congratulations folks, you are now reading the most replied to thread in PFA history!

Steve, I agree that intent is of the utmost importance. I intend/ed to win a bet regarding if Vegas could find posts containing misuses of "those two words."

You analogy is again poor. Please respond to my analogy. If you offered me $100 and told me to get a picture of "those two having sex" isnt it implied that you mean together? When you use a phrase such as that you cant then later seperate the two.

If that is the only statement than either interpretation is correct, but with 15 posts before it clarifying what the spirit of the wager is than it would be clear.

I tried to see if a day in between would have you come to your senses, but since it hasn't (and you ared still somehow making the claim you won the bet) I'll once again bow out of the conversation, since I'm making more progress debating my desk.

You continue to make the salacious 15 posts before claim and that is simply a fabrication. There were 3 total posts discussing the bet before Vegas made his now infamous offer. Just because there are other posts in this thread, they literally had nothing to do with this bet.

Sorry if I was hyperbolic, but one post or 5,000, the intent was there. Fin

[Sloppy Joe]

Maybe this was covered on radio (I don't listen), but why has Druff not given his two cents on this? If an arbitrator is needed, who better than the founder of PFA whose site is dedicated to covering frauds and scams?

Nobody, not even JSearles22, can question Druff's integrity in dealing with such matters.

[TheTemplar]

Maybe this was covered on radio (I don't listen), but why has Druff not given his two cents on this? If an arbitrator is needed, who better than the founder of PFA whose site is dedicated to covering frauds and scams?

Nobody, not even JSearles22, can question Druff's integrity in dealing with such matters.

This 100%.

[jsearles22]

Not when you consider all of the other posts; you can't use that single sentence and throw away everything before and after it. This isn't a signed contract so intent is very important. When viewed as a whole it's crystal clear what the bet was for. What your trying to say is more like someone agreeing to sell a car and the next day they come to your house and take it, saying, "well I said you could buy my car for $10,000, but we never agreed on how long this is for. It was only for a day."

Congratulations folks, you are now reading the most replied to thread in PFA history!

Steve, I agree that intent is of the utmost importance. I intend/ed to win a bet regarding if Vegas could find posts containing misuses of "those two words."

You analogy is again poor. Please respond to my analogy. If you offered me $100 and told me to get a picture of "those two having sex" isnt it implied that you mean together? When you use a phrase such as that you cant then later seperate the two.

If that is the only statement than either interpretation is correct, but with 15 posts before it clarifying what the spirit of the wager is than it would be clear.

I tried to see if a day in between would have you come to your senses, but since it hasn't (and you ared still somehow making the claim you won the bet) I'll once again bow out of the conversation, since I'm making more progress debating my desk.

You continue to make the salacious 15 posts before claim and that is simply a fabrication. There were 3 total posts discussing the bet before Vegas made his now infamous offer. Just because there are other posts in this thread, they literally had nothing to do with this bet.

Sorry if I was hyperbolic, but one post or 5,000, the intent was there. Fin

You lose Steve! You said it yourself:

If that is the only statement than either interpretation is correct

In the 3 posts there was no discussion at all regarding one use or multiple uses. Vegas denounced me, I made a million dollar offer, it was reduced to $500, and then he made the offer. By your own account, based on the facts, EITHER interpretation is correct.

[jsearles22]

Maybe this was covered on radio (I don't listen), but why has Druff not given his two cents on this? If an arbitrator is needed, who better than the founder of PFA whose site is dedicated to covering frauds and scams?

Nobody, not even JSearles22, can question Druff's integrity in dealing with such matters.

I have asked Druff to weigh in multiple times. I thought he was going to yesterday when he made the "let's reserve judgement" post but then he must have gotten busy.

[pavoe]

so you, Jsearles, claim that you only booked the bet because you knew that vegas wouldnt find 25 posts where both words are used wrong. maybe some could give your interpretation of the bet some credit but i strongly believe that you thought about your interpretation afterwards.

your post #72 makes no sense to me...why would you ask for 24h to check your posts first when your are 100% sure that it would be impossible for vegas to find those 25 post. so i call BS on your interpretation..you thought about that after you realized that you fucked up.

and no, i dont know vegas or someone else who dislikes you..

[jsearles22]

so you, Jsearles, claim that you only booked the bet because you knew that vegas wouldnt find 25 posts where both words are used wrong. maybe some could give your interpretation of the bet some credit but i strongly believe that you thought about your interpretation afterwards.

your post #72 makes no sense to me...why would you ask for 24h to check your posts first when your are 100% sure that it would be impossible for vegas to find those 25 post. so i call BS on your interpretation..you thought about that after you realized that you fucked up.

and no, i dont know vegas or someone else who dislikes you..

The 24 hour thing was actually a joke. See I made the offer to Vegas and then he disappeared for 24 hours. When he shows back up he immedietly admits that he had searched for the words, albeit it unsuccessfully. However, he then wants to immediately book a bet. What this looks like to me is that there was at least the potential that I was being rolled. With that in the front of my mind, I pounced on Vegas' poorly worded offer. He made the offer and I accepted. I fully expect to hold him accountable. Everyone is seemingly forgetting that he still has around 12 hours to produce. He could very well win still, and I will ship if he does.

[pavoe]

sure, it was a joke...

wait - you are the joke