Again, I don't make it a habit of lying. You said it was suspicious, I offered you to wager on it. I most definitely have proof, as my schedule is known for an entire year and I have ~10 weeks off built into it. The timing of it lining up with my ban isn't even weird, it has a ~1/5 chance of happening.

I'm willing to take a picture of my schedule coinciding with the dates in question to proove it. Let me know if you'd like to bet.
There is nothing difficult about what I suggested. Explain why you think it would be an issue?

Ah the joys of shift work.

The pool of posters we'd both accept as arbiters is probably not very large. You've made no provision for the possible eventuality of running out of arbiters.

I trust Original Position's judgment. I already asked him to use people who are unbiased, which I trust he will do. I do not see what the problem is here. If I lose I will pay you immediately and I will not question Original Position's methodology. If he runs out of arbiters, I'm sure he will mention it. We can then proceed accordingly.

So, we going to bet on my vacation or do you just want to chalk it up as simply another thing you are wrong about?

We don't have to throw out arbiters, I'll just tell them to rule in favor of wil or jalfrezi if that is what you two prefer. I can also give them the option to throw out the bet completely if you two want to add that as well. Please let me know.

Also, jalfrezi, do you also want the other arbiters to remain anonymous?

I prefer a winner be named. Everything else I leave up to your judgment. If they wish to remain anonymous that's fine.

It doesn't matter what you call it. And this isn't America, it's the World Wide Web, you racist xenophobic knuckle-dragging Trumpoid ******.

I agree with what wil wrote here

"The only thing I ask is there are 3 judges, majority vote wins, and that a few pages of thoughts after the bet was made are read by those judges...

That's pretty much it. I would think the judges should be kept anonymous, and we both trust you to pick fair and unbiased judges that can confirm with you they are not biased for or against either of us (preferably, sensible people who don't post in this forum or the main politics forum). I'm fine with you being a judge and 2 others, or you just picking 3 judges, as long as a winner, either way, is decided."

...apart from

a) A "No Bet" ruling should be allowed. I will not move on this point, not least because many people here (although not me of course) were of the opinion that the bet should be null and void and therefore it should be included as a possible verdict, and

b) Your choice of judges should be kept anonymous and we'll rely on you to post their findings back, including a brief summing-up of salient features, if that's OK and not too much work. I'd also like you to have the power to throw out any judge's verdict if you think it was reached through clearly unsound reasoning and/or bias/prejudice.

You missed the fact that I was raising two points: one that you might be lying about your holiday, and the other that your latest ban might have been conveniently contrived to coincide with a period of leave.

In any case, I've already clearly stated that I have such a low opinion of you as a human being that there's no evidence you could provide across the internet that would convince me of anything. Get it?

I can vouch for Spaceman Bryce, he should def be one of the judges.

He seems mad.

If this is America then how come I'm drinking tea?

This is an American website based on an American game that is made up of mostly Americans. Sorry.

Absolutely not. A winner should be named and I'm perfectly fine with losing.

Lol at this. An untrustworthy deadbeat claims the other person is untrustworthy.

Everything about your behavior in this thread has been utterly deplorable, and you claim I am the one who is untrustworthy? Lol, you made yourself look like a lying dirtbag over a bar tab, homie.

You're being stupid, as usual.

If the arbiters decide that you were, indeed, too thick to realise what the bet was and conclude that therefore this means that as both parties had a different understanding of the bet then the bet should be voided, then, although I dont agree with this conclusion, I support their right to come to this verdict, as you should too.

It's also totally unfair to expect people to give a verdict that they don't believe, purely because some angry maniacal midget decrees that possibility should not be allowed. lol

I care nothing about what you think.

I do not agree. I want a winner to be named and I'm well aware I may lose. So be it. We entered a bet and the only reason it's come to this is because of YOUR stupidity. Involving others in this bet is embarrassing, but that's what happens when you enter a bet with a lying, angle shooting scumbag euro trash leftist.

No void. Let them choose a winner.

Why do you think I should give a fig what you think either?

Let the judges judge. Free the judges from the tyranny of dimwits!

You declared yourself the winner and called me a welcher. You were nothing but confident in the result. I'm fine with that, then let the judges proclaim a winner.

No draw, no void.

Meanwhile on an amusing related note, I spotted a post by aoFrantic the other day in alpha. In the post he called another poster a disgraceful liar.

I mean seriously, you can't make this **** up.

Lol, call him a kitten killer.

Wil lies more than aoFanatic does.

Aofrantic owes 40 dollars to an animal shelter. Summon him here to answer for his crimes against felines.

He is committing no crimes against felines so you are lying again. It's like you can't stop.

No, you are lying now kerewo.

aofanatic owes money to the animal shelter.

By witholding that money he is effectively killing kittens.

It is of no surprise to me you would defend a person who offered, of his own volition, to donate to a cause every person here would be happy with if it could be proven to have lied.

He was taken up on that challenge and proven multiple times he lied. He has since disappeared from this thread and is hiding in the main forum.

What planet do you live on where you can defend that man's actions? He said he'd donate it to an animal shelter, which we are more than happy to see happen, yet he has reneged on that promise.

I don't want his money, and neither do the others who took up his challenge. We want to see the animal shelter get their donation. What purpose do you have in defending him here, when that man won't come here and address the issue he himself caused?

You're just unbelievable, kerowo. How can any person's mind work in the manner that yours does? Are you mentally handicapped or something? You are literally doing everything in your power to defend not one, but two scumbag lying welching dirtballs in both aofrantic and jalfrezi. Go tell jalfrezi to come in this thread and defend himself, or shut the **** up about it. Give him a handjob on your own time but don't insult the rest of us by defending a man who won't even come defend himself.