I don't need to take the moral high ground with people like you, jalfrezi. There is no need because you portray yourself exactly the way you truly are. Why would I need to prove myself honorable or honest compared to people like you?

The forum can come to its own conclusions, and it's no small feat that there are quite a few people who side with me, not you, in many of our arguments.

Ah, an appeal to higher authority: mongibbon and BS.

lolwil

This get better and better.

Well, we shall see shortly. Remember, this idiocy came from you, not me.

Uhh, Wil kind of clearly wins this bet here and in arbitration Jalfrezi would unquestionably lose.

Any of you going LolWil in this spot, that is a pretty awful look. Don't be a scumbag goofyballer.

haha shocking judgment here

I think a panel of 3 mods is a fair way to conclude the bet. Preferably mods who don't know anything about either of us. I'm fine with it and will pay what they decide

How speedy is the justice system here on 2+2?

Will we have a verdict on this by year end?

I mean I am not a scumbag, so regardless of the parties involved or my feelings towards them, there is really only one correct judgement here.

No need to be a scumbag too Victor, this is all pretty clear.

Victor, I've asked you specifically to answer a question quite a few times directly. You haven't given me a real response. Why?

I'll lay you 2 to 1 on 5 bucks if you wish.

The fact Wil is willing to just go to a 3 2+2 mod decision is pretty generous on his part, but understandable since the money amount is trivial.

If this were an actual large wager and went to professional arbitration, jalfrezi unquestionably loses.

The fact Jalfrezi is welching is a testament to being a scumbag, and the cheerleading from others who would say that Wil is welching is either a testament to ignorance, or moral failing and being a scumbag as well.

Someone pretending to be a liberal while espousing non liberal values isn't a scumbag? I see. I guess this has nothing to do with your support for faux liberal wil either, transparentdan.

What did I post that was wrong, Dan? wil tried to claim jalfrezi was bringing this up as a last minute technicality; it was clearly jalfrezi's intent all along, and I laid out evidence demonstrating that. That's being a "scumbag"?

Jalfrezi,

Zzz you are a liar and a piece of **** scumbag. The fact you are welching in this spot is not surprising.

It is called having both morals and a rational mind, sorry scumbag.

Goofy,

Who wins the wager and which of the two is welching on the bet?

I've never welched on any bet and am not welching now. Retract this accusation, scumbagdan.

Wait do you seriously agree with wil that jalfrezi's pulling this at the last minute and it wasn't his intent all along????

Jalfrezi,

Na, you are clearly both a pathological liar and in this spot are attempting to welch upon a wager that you lost. It is not an accusation, both of those are facts, scumbag.

Goofy,

"Fell for it hook, line, and sinker". How can he fall for anything when it doesn't affect the wager? Seems like a classic case of 'played yourself' to me. It may have been his intention all along, it doesn't matter. Care to answer the above question? Pretty easy one!

ScumbadDan has no need to research the history of the posts that led to the bet being struck, oh no.

ScumbagDan instantly knows his boy wil must be defended.

The spirit of the bet was clear. To root for jalfrezi to win the bet is loltastic. It was as scummy a move as a person can make entering a bet here. As much as I genuinely dislike some people here I'd never in a million years just pull the stunt jalfrezi did and I sure as hell would say nothing if someone tried to pull that on someone I disliked. I may not root for the person I disliked but I would never side with the angle shooter because it would reflect badly on me. What's surprising about goofy is that he's a mod and this isn't just a silly point somewhere, there is actually a bet involved, which makes me question his judgment.

That being said I'd be very surprised if I'm ruled against here. If jalfrezi wins this bet then it would imply that there must be ridiculous care about technicalities in every wager on 2+2. The sprit of the bet was obvious to everyone.

I like jalfrezi and wil is... an unpleasant person, but if it were me arbitrating this, I'd be leaning in wil's favour. First and foremost, there's an ambiguity to 'literally' that undermines the premise of the prank. "I was only joking" is probably not a valid argument in contract law ("I was obviously only joking" probably is, but that's where the ambiguity comes in). I bet when jalfrezi was writing the post, he considered putting "propogandist" in quotes, and decided against it for fear of blowing the gaff. I think his case would be a lot stronger if he had.

I'm not sure I like the idea of being able to constantly bamboozle dyslexics into fake bets just for shigs, basically.

I mean, it was, is that really up for debate? Whether or not jalfrezi winds up having played himself, one can still appreciate that dumbass wil was completely blindsided by this and had to resort to laughably claiming it was a last-minute welch attempt and not his intention all along.

Sorry, I didn't see the question you edited into your post after I read it. Yes, I think jalfrezi likely loses this in arbitration, and I think he will likely pay up if ruled against. OTOH you are quite a scumbag for calling him a welcher before he's even had the chance to welch.

goofy,

Lol! that is some crazy thinking buddy. He wasn't 'blindsided' because he didn't lose by an attempted angle.

And Lol at your gleeful 'luling' initially, and you call me a scumbag for pointing out that an attempted angleshoot has backfired and now Jalfrezi is trying to not pay? You are ****ing demented son, have some self respect.

"quite a scumbag". **** you prick.

lol you mad? Did you ever play poker or gamble at all, Dan? The word "welcher" means something on this forum.