We know Trolly is going to troll so I ignore that. But this is pathetic even for you and only proves trolling and piling on are your main goal.

Again in a dispute with Candy where the dispute is me saying he is mischaracterizing and selectively quoting my posts and I will have an arbiter look at them on a bet....

...when he then instead provides 'yet another summary of his I find full of distortions'....


... you guys are now arguing he has satisfied the bet and won and I am whelching if I don't pay up.

The very guy where the dispute is his lies and mischaracterization you are arguing I must cede to his submitted 'proof' or be a whelcher. Not an arbiter. But one of the litigants.

it is such an overly absurd position to take, that I will only quote this going forward in reply.

Cuepee, there's a simpler way to do this - you send $10,500 to Rococo and let him decide, based on your initial offer of $500, then $10,000 who is eligible and whether the posts posted so far meet the criteria. If Rococo agrees with you that I'm not eligible or that my posts in this thread do not qualify, then so be it and others can step up. If no one qualifies, you get your money back and get to proclaim that you won the bet or something. Rococo can keep a fixed fee regardless of the outcome, so that he can remain neutral.

You already put up the money and no one else did, so it would be unreasonable for you to ask anyone to put up the money as a condition for you putting up the money.

This seems very reasonable.

lol. call it a trollfest, first with many targeting DS while ignoring the OP topic and then switching to trolling Chez and me and anyone who was not on board said trolling of DS.

It has gone to the levels of ridiculous trolling that Trolly and uke are now trying to bait me into pages of replies by saying in a dispute with Candy over his summaries of my posts where I offered to have Rococo arbitrate it in a bet, that since Candy recycled yet another distorted summary, that indeed served as proof for the bet and I should pay up or be labeled a welcher.

They are arguing that if one of two parties arguing over something simply recycles their position and lies that constitutes proof the other should accept and pay up.

There is not a bet in the history of bets that would be settled by one of the two parties saying 'here is my summary... thus I have now proven myself right'.... but here we are taking up pages. Because trolling is fun.

Well there's been multiple derails but the latest derail started around here:

It kind of precipitated a meltdown where Cuepee started offering ever increasing amounts of money ($500, $10K then $50K) to anyone who could prove him wrong or something but of course never followed up despite most people agreeing that he does indeed owe money. His point is that he never specifically said "small business failures are going to destroy GDP" even though he's clearly indicated that he was expecting a substantial decline or a prolonged depression in GDP and the only #s I could find him offering in terms of the magnitude of the decline was around 50% (or GDP back to 1990 levels) and he's previously used the term "destroy" to describe the 4.2% reduction in GDP during the Great Recession.

This was such a reasonable post too. Now that I read that again, I never even wrote that Cuepee said anything and merely implied that this was what he believed.

You could just accept these terms if you want to avoid being labeled a welcher. This doesn't require you to accept my (or Trolly's or uke's) version - it's up to the resident arbitrator Rococo to decide:

I dont think one persons testimony about what happened in a thread several months old, even if backed by quotes, which can easily be spun in numerous ways, is close to reliable summary of what took place in said thread.

What are u guys betting 50k on? 50k should be illegal on any forum! 100 dollars max to prove a point.
A poker forum with bets and welcher accusations.How original. I dare u! im right! No im right! Lmao.You don't even know what u want to bet on it seems. Or you make it more clear.

All u have is a nothingburger bet, which is highly subjectable. No bookie will ever take it. It's just too stupid.

Also, oh is this politics, wow, never realised, but this is the guy I had an argument with several months ago in another forum, and gee guys, this is what he said... this is a weird look.

Sure that's fair I don't care if anyone thinks my summary is accurate and that wasn't even really the point of that post. You can always read the actual posts and decide for yourself. The interesting part is the extended freakout that this has caused, where Cuepee insta-called me a liar and promised to dig up some derpy posts from me in the thread, then came up with narrow technicalities (that aren't even correct) and how that proves that I was flat-out lying.

Cuepee, do you remember when you promised to find some derpy posts from me? How's that going? I know you've done a fair amount of searching.

This is true. With that said, are you not entertained? The background of course is that in BFI, everyone's always complaining about Cuepee like how he is the worst poster ever and I didn't quite understand (he's bad but there are a lot of bad posters in BFI) and I was curious as to whether the politics folks know more about this. I'm starting to understand now.

Cupee annoys some posters by being over verbose and wall of text derail, I dont think he is known for having scorching hot takes, no more or less than average politics poster.

Think thats fair.

Also the posters complaining so much in BFI are often of the Toothsayer calibre, or worse toothsayer on a pedestal merchants, which is the lowest form of poster on this site.

There's some truth to this and there's that hive mind that hates almost anyone that's not politically aligned with that particular brand of right-wing populism but I think you're somewhat ignoring the extent to which Cuepee is universally detested in BFI even by some of the liberal folks.

Either way, my priors were that Cuepee would be more accepted here, so the general interactions between Cuepee and others here earlier in the thread actually surprised me a bit. Which is why I was generally asking about him and sharing my experience with him in BFI. I totally get that it sounds weird though this is 2p2.

But Candy summarized his own prior posts with a new summary garbage post and uke and trolly say 'checkmate, that qualifies as proof. Pay up'.

You won't last long in this thread without getting attacked if you don't realign with the correct sides.

Anyway Candy was not one of the worst BFI posters as he often went head to head battling Tooth (the actual worst) as both would proclaim themselves having the best analytical skills of any poster in that thread. I think Candy proclaiming himself that is why him and Tooth would never get along a Tooth believes that is him. Candy was also cited by others as the worst poster in that thread (a slight I think thrown at me and Monty more than once) so maybe we can bond over that.

For now the posters here will enjoy their new found BFI buddy as long as he colours within the lines and no which side to stick to. Not much more is needed than that to get a circle jerk and endless validation going as demonstrated by the circle jerk arguments that 'yes Candy has provided the proof. Pay up' garbage. The most nonsensical argument (a party in a bet just needs to reiterate his pov to then be correct and get paid) but no argument is too low or trollish when the circle jerk begins and everyone has a handful.

As you might imagine, I have no interest in being the escrow agent or the arbiter.

Well yes, but also provided a bunch of direct quotes from you and then you responded and I read all of that and it was immediately clear that you were in the wrong, once again, saying something silly, getting caught and then trying to endlessly spin afterwards. If I was the arbiter of this bet I'd award candy as the clear and unambiguous winner.

Generally speaking going around on an internet forum claiming $50k bets of who is right is a sign you should log off and take some serious time away.

Not how bets work.

person A make claims of XYZ does not get to 'respond' that he was right and here is new summary of XYZ to prove it and have the circle jerk crowd (whom I also would have bet would only jump to any specious lengths to applaud and jerk him) affirm it and then that is a welch by person B if he does not accept it.

Not when you are such an obvious troll who does not have any credibility to be an arbiter on this matter as you are neither neutral nor honest on this.

And that is proven by you (and Trolly) proclaiming it is welching when you KNOW it is not. You are being purposely dishonest there to try and 'get' me. To label me as having welched on a bet on a betting forum when that is no such thing but you don't care as its all good fun re taking sides.

So what should I take from your arbitration or assessment seriously when you start by exposing yourself as deliberately dishonest.

Btw, this thread from this point on is actually a decent read if you're interested in macroeconomics (though you should stop around the time Tooth joins in, because well lol Tooth and the topic changes to Tooth's aggressive ignorance of how Wall Street works). A lot of people were wrong about the stock market and the general economy in 2020 and there are a lot of fundamental misconceptions that people have and reasoning errors around how to account for demand and supply. In a way, Cuepee being such a content-free poster was helpful as I instantly had him marked as clueless after the first post and mostly used the exchange to help inform the lurkers on basic economic concepts. The overall thrust of Cuepee's argument was ludicrous but there are some errors that he made that other, smarter observers have also made that I was able to explain in a fair amount of detail in a reasonably accessible way.

Damn cupee. Forget the bets just admit you were wrong. Not a big deal.

I'll "bet" you $100k he won't do this despite it being very clear he is wrong.

If candy were to forgive the $10k debt, that would be an amazing sign of goodwill.

Lol subscribed.

Cuepee. Didn't really read this thread but it looks fun.

Being wrong and doubling down on it is a drug for him.

I would certainly consider this but he'd have to come clean first.

Can we get some cliffs here