LAMO, of course wil won't let it go. He has a history of trying to welch on bets and now he is just doubling down on being an awful person to bet with. It's laughable. It's even more obvious than being LG telling him he knew what he made on the salary bet, all wil had to do was cut and past "propogandist" into the search box, but SMH to the for again and he ****s it up. Was he even drinking this time? Him being sober and falling into this is just super amusing.

How is this shooting an angle again? He said "I bet you you've never been called this string" and he hadn't. What more should he have done? "I bet you've never been called this string and notice how it is a slight misspelling of a word you don't' understand to being with?" Who does that?

LOL, the way you verify the bet is to copy and paste the string into the search box, how is that angle shooting? Why didn't Wil say, oh do mean this spelling, instead of just jumping at the bet? Again, what is the angle?

One dishonorable person defending another. Wow, that's surprising.

Wil, you've never been able to show how I was dishonorable, but why didn't you search for the string he was betting you on before taking the bet?

the liberals are the ones that absolutely try to stand up for the poor immigrant from bangladesh.

and no, I dont think they are less worthy of sympathy or welfare than the black kid from detroit. no one does. you are simply mistaken in your characterization of the left.

So Wil is contending that all those people in the airports protesting the muslim ban were conservatives?

Taking out the LG fiasco and this current Jalfrezi situation, I'm willing to make a large wager that you can't find a single person who I've ever had a problem with financially on this website. How much would you like to wager?

Obviously we will need rules and escrow. Name your price.

Nonsense. Google "Stuyvesant testing" and report back.

Professor, your history of welching on bets IS LG and Jalfrezi. It's like John Wilkes Booth saying, other than Lincoln I never killed another President. Idiot.

Amazing.

I never welched on LG. He was paid immediately, and I was well aware of me absolutely losing the bet but I went along with it because I deserved to lose and I felt it was dishonorable for me to back out at that point.

You have no idea what you are talking about because you want to bismirch me. I've done business with many people on this website and never had an issue with any of them. It seems the only issues I ever really have are the ones from people from the politics forums. I wonder why?

While we may disagree with each other and have a genuine dislike sometimes, some of us choose to act in an honorable and honest fashion. You seem to lack that self-respect to carry yourself with a least a semblance of dignity.

I don't think jalfrezi ever intended on collecting so it wasn't so much of an angle, as it was a stupid prank. That said, if it went in front of arbiters, the only one who'd stand a chance at losing would be jalfrezi.

Kerowo's string of letters argument is absurd.

And wil, you have no authority to claim 'someone's gonna pay,' so you should probably just let it go.

Speaking of honor and paying immediately, let us not forget what happened before all that...

wil's 2017 revisionist history: "I knew I deserved to lose and paid immediately"

A bet was made and someone is paying. I'm not letting a thing go.

Jalfrezi absolutely intended on collecting, I don't know what posts you were reading.

I explained exactly my line of thought there. I saw no reason why there would be a delay in proof, as I could access my pay history at home and thought he was doing something shady. I was wrong and apologized. I might have been drunk when I posted most of that, also.


The truth is I simply don't trust many of you, especially the "liberals" here. Time and Time again you prove yourselves to be deceitful and dishonest. This jalfrezi bet is just another example of why so many of you are scum. Sorry goofy, but you're included in that group.

This has gone on a lot longer than I expected, but it's been interesting.

As others have stated, the bet was about whether or not you would spot the difference between your misspelling of a word and the correct spelling, following several posts of mine that even repeated the mistake for you to see.

That it became obvious to you only in hindsight that you'd been bound to lose (in contrast to how clear it was to others at the time) offers you no excuse not to pay up, though it is evidence of what a stupid person you are.

This bet was intended to be fun (which is why I agreed to your suggested sum instead of trying to take you to the cleaners), and I'm happy it's given people here something to laugh/argue/rant about.

That is why after winning the bet I decided I'd prefer you to send the $200 to a LGBT charity (after all of your hateful and ban-earning comments about transgender people itt that I expect won the approval of your fellow far right deplorables HaterDan, marn and BS, who as if by magic have turned up here to support your lost cause).

That is what I expect you to do because I'd have honoured the bet if, somehow, you'd found a post describing you as a propogandist.

Finally, if you're incapable of discerning the terms of a bet maybe you should stay away from betting in future.

So long, tosser!

Yeah, this is fair enough. I wasn't aware of this 'meeting of minds' principle, seems reasonable.

Well, I arbitrarily (no pun intended) decided it should apply to bets :P

This is not how it's going to work, sorry. As far as I'm concerned you owe me the money, not the other way around.

I'm willing to go to a 3 man arbitration to end this bet but you claiming you won in this situation is disputed. Name your terms of coming to a conclusion here and if acceptable I will agree. They can be 3 well respected regulars that don't frequent this forum or have any ties with us and I'm ok with it as long as a neutral 3rd party picks them.

Choose your terms but your current demands are unacceptable.

Well you know something, Gene, if these jabronis were Real Americans, they'd settle the score in a steel cage match at Summerslam 2017. The only arbitrators the Hulkster needs are these 38" pythons and a folding chair.

Why?

Because, as Flynn pointed out, it's not very typical (at least for non-computer-programmers :P) to interpret the word "literal" in jalfrezi's proposition to be a reference to a "string literal", rather than a reference to the word "propagandist". When people misspell words, we don't tend to assume that they actually intended the misspelling, if we even notice. The most reasonable interpretation of the proposition is not that it's making a claim about people calling wil a "propogandist" (a specific string of characters, as opposed to any other string of characters) but that it's a claim about people calling will a "propagandist" (a word, as opposed to any other word).

That is, it's far more natural to interpret "literally a propogandist" as indicating the idea that someone wrote specifically that wil is a propagandist, using exactly that word and not some other word like "shill", with spelling mistakes ignored, than it is to interpret the sentence as a claim that someone typed that specific string of characters, where the meaning of words is entirely ignored. The function of the word "literal" more naturally picks out the specific word choice, not the specific spelling.

Lol kerowo

This just seems like a lot of handwaving for someone not paying attention. At some point the person agreeing to the bet has to take responsibility for what's being bet and the literal wording of a written bet seems like a low bar to set.