Another mind-boggling cuepee argument with a bonus mind-boggling money argument. Trolley is happy

If he actually welched then he shouldn't be allowed to post on a gambling forum any longer. Ofc you could all just be trolling him just bc why not

they are trolling as that is all truthfully they are interested in.

Candy and I discussed an outline for a bet. That outline was loosely agreed to but not finalized. We both agreed to a potential arbiter and trust agent. That person refused.

Candy then re-summarized his own arguments as the 'proof' and declared them proof and that I needed to pay up or was welching. Literally just his own summary of the very points I disagreed with that I wanted to bet on.

Trolly and uke then jumped on the 'yup you are welching if you don't pay up' bandwagon in an attempt to prompt a 15 page trolling exchange they know I would never relent to but instead I just ignore.

It is beyond the most obvious of trolls to suggest one of the litigants in a bet can be the decider of the outcome when the agreed to arbiter refuses to do it.

The question then begged is 'should a gambling forum not ban people who accuse others of welching with zero merit when such a label, can in fact be considered very negatively in that type of venue?'

Considering nobody really answered but you I have to assume it's just trolling

Thread recap (warning: this is long, but better than re-reading the whole thread)

I'm baffled by Cuepee's posts and how he's received here, so I make a post (initially in the other thread) asking how he is around here, referencing my previous interactions with him and casually summarizing them:

Cuepee completely flips out and most likely having completely misremembered our exchange, offers $500 to anyone who can show that I'm being truthful:

So while I was sure that he won't pay up, I provide the quotes that demonstrate that my summary is accurate:

Cuepee, of course, seeing absolutely no way out beyond picking semantic nits (which I had already predicted!!!), of course, goes there. And ups the offer to $10,000 and offers it to anyone that could find him "doomsaying" that GDP was going to be DESTROYED.

So Cuepee's contention at this point is that my use of the verb "destroy" to describe what Cuepee thought was going to happen to GDP (i.e. "a significant GDP correction" and "a prolonged period of depression in GDP") is a flat-out, blatant lie:

I was highly amused and thought at this point, well obviously Cuepee is being ridiculous (like what else could the word "destory" mean other than causing a significant correctino or a prolonged period of depression, as applied to GDP) but thought he may never have used the term "destroy" in this sense, so could win, at least in his mind, on semantics. But I did some basic due diligence and found that my case was much stronger:

In other words, Cuepee describes a mere 4.2% drop in GDP with the word "destroy" and in the very same post goes onto predict a ~50% drop in GDP. Which makes it impossible for him to refute the claim that he did predict that the GDP will be destroyed.

Cuepee responds with a complete non-sequitur:

Recap so far: Cuepee offered $500 to anyone who would do something for him. I did the exact thing Cuepee asked. He refused to pay up. Then Cuepee offered $10,000 to anyone who would do something for him. I did the exact thing Cuepee asked. At this point I'm clearly owed $10,500 though the acutal probability of collection is rather low.

Then, despite the fact that he owes me money already, he offers some convoluted bet that somehow involves me having to send money to a third-party.

Obviously from my perspective, it's a massive concession (at best, I go from being owed $10,500 to getting paid $10,000 and somehow have to risk the whole escrow process) but at least this paves the way for me to get paid at all. But Cuepee being Cuepee, his terms are incoherent and don't make any sense. So I restate the terms:

Cuepee then balks at the possibility of me getting paid:

Of course I have no interest in any of this nonsense except for the possibility of getting paid:

Cuepee then straight up lies that I was never eligible to be paid and that it's been made clear even though no such conditions were ever applied. It's quite amazing given that Cuepee is trying to win an argument on semantics:

There's of course no reason at this point for me to trade Cuepee owing me $10,500 to me for some weird bet where I cannot get paid. So I refuse to accept this conversion and explain why:

Others read catch up on the thread and realize that Cuepee managed to turn a losing internet argument into owing real money:

Cuepee now offers $50K for, well I really have no idea what the hell he's talking about. At this point, Cuepee is just a bundle of anger:

I offer a simpler version of the earlier bet that would allow Cuepee to honor his original offers without having to accept my interpretation of his offers:

Cuepee never accepts this offer and hence still owes me $10,500.

Rococo then shows up to say that he wants no part of this:

With absolutely no sense of shame whatsoever - one might remember a time when Cuepee lashed out at someone for being a liar when he thought the summary had used the wrong word or something, despite being essentially accurate - Cuepee completely rewrites the story, pretending that this started with some sort of a bet between us that was not finalized:

Reality: he welched on two offers, then somehow tried to turn those unilateral offers into a bet that wasn't payable to me, which I promptly rejected as ridiculous once I understood his intention.

Reality: there was of course nothing for him to refuse at this point.

Reality: my point has always been that he owes me money - the whole negotiation for a bet was simply a way for me to find ways to get Cuepee to honor this. When someone says, do this and I will pay you, when I do what's asked, I expect to get paid.

Reality: When Cuepee offered $10,000, Cuepee was relying on the technicality that "destroy" in this context doesn't mean the types of GDP declines that he was predicting. After the challenge was made, I then found quotes clearly demonstrating that Cuepee himself used the term "destroy" to describe a substantial GDP decline (4.2%), then showed that he was predicting a substantially larger decline in GDP (~50%). Which clearly supports the notion that Cuepee's prediction was that GDP will be destroyed.

Before I read all that, may I just say lol @ economy depending on small business. Bc we all know wall street titans, whales and actual monsters would put their cocaine funds into John the plumber and co.


All these quotes would need to be independently verified to see any payout or scam accusations fly

I'm not part of this community but enough freaks and geeks are to vet it out

Lol. You really must be desperate to get some money from a stupid misunderstanding. Or whatever it was...

Semantics, semantics, semantics.

As you haven't made clear conditions of this bet, all of this is senseless. A bet on the internet isn't binding. A bet on the term 'destroy' when all you have is another post of the definition destroy is also laughable. If you know cuepee like we do, we know what he posts big quantities and the more you shoot the more you miss. The more errors you will make.

You are trying to nail him on a word, A term. Destroy, lol
Destroy is so subjectice, it could mean literally everything. He probably meant if I'm not mistaking a whole worse scenario. And then got irritated when you put a word in his mouth destroyed. Thats all it was that made him start making bets. He won the bet right there and then. Because he didn't use the term destroyed, do you get this? You're whole bet is based on a term, a misunderstanding that you want go profit off now, it seems.

Anyways nice try. But you are not getting any money from this. Cuepee is being honest as far as I can tell. If he's wrong, he genuinely mistaking. And like I said he only objected him using the term destroyed. Which he was correct. So technically, he might as well win that bet. But it's a bullshit bet anyways. It.started when he got tilted because you kind of gas lid him. He didn't use that word. He could have ment something completely different, or have a whole other understanding of the term.

Anyways, make clear conditions next time. No misunderstanding, and have someone confirm the bet is on before you go. Everything else is just wishywashy bs.

Nutalla, small business make up a big part of citizens. If they go out the country is destroyed. I second this. The country would break down. Imagine they go all out. What do you think will happen? The country is f then. Only because you have a few giants making more in total doesn't mean a thing. Especially if they are getting taxed somewhere else and only a few people only really profit from it.

Thats where the misunderstanding came from imo. It's based on semantics. Everyone understood something different. So they were talking pass each other.

there is not much to understand.

the contention is I welched on a bet.

At no time did we finalize terms on the bet (we got to a high level agreement on what the question would be but then were still not agreed on the specifics.

We did not get out our escrow and arbiter to agree. Rococo the lawyer said no to us.

So no bet was constituted and they cannot show you either those things that would constitute a bet.

Candy then summarized his arguments, the same ones I believe were wrong and said that was the proof... he thus won the bet... and i should pay up.

His position is as long as one person in the bet repeats their position and that they are right that then makes them right and the other person has to pay up. That any person in the bet can be the arbiter simply by repeating themselves.

If you want to make them prove themselves just ask them to quote the key elements of us coming to final terms of the question of the bet and saying agreed and then the arbiter (Rococo) agreeing to his role. Simple.

The entire exchange in the BFI is an easy and not long read.

Candy took a position that GDP elements were fully baked in and there would be no further GDP impact on the economy.

My position was it was not yet fully baked in and we would see still more knock on effects in the coming years once stimulus money left the system and the damage to small and mid businesses was fuly realized. Especially in smaller communities.

Candy took issue with that saying Amazon and other big tech had already picked up all those sales so there is no loss to the economy. Small shops lost them but Amazon got them thus a wach to to GDP. I against disagreed saying Amazon can pick up the sales but like when Walmart decimated small businesses (and got their sales) the impact would be greater than the sales alone. Especially since Amazon is not always putting other types of jobs in those small communities like Walmart did.

My point in that thread was not that the country was doomed, I merely said the entire GDP impact was not yet priced in. That is all.

Candy took that and lied and said i was doomsaying that the Stock market was going to fall apart (read the thread. I never suggested any such thing) and then when i was citing a parallel example of how a knock on effect could do damage and could devastate things he took as if i was saying that was definitely the outcome I was predicting now which again, was not the case.

In the end my position merely was and still is that we have yet to see the full GDP impact on the economy priced in and we wont see that fully until all covid restrictions are behind us and the market adjusts to all the vacant store fronts from all the small business closures and we see if that then leads to a second and third round of other small business closures such and coffee shops, restaurants and stores, etc that sued to serve those people who lost their jobs an small businesses in the first wave.

It angers Candy that I maintain that view and won't accept his view it is all priced in because Amazon has the sales already but such is life. As I told him in the other thr3ead, many times, we could agree to disagree and time will then tell. But he does not like that, thus why he drags it out months later to still say I am wrong.

Doesn't seem like you've read or understood any of it. $500 was offered if anyone could show Candy was being truthful and the claim was made that he was flat out lying. Well the quotes were provided and he sure as hell wasn't flat out lying. It's it's a binary outcome, either Candy gets 500 or Candy was flat out lying he obviously should get the $500. Semantics only comes into play if the person offering the $500 decides he doesn't want to pay and is looking for minor differences in Candy's summary. Of course when the money was first offered there was no claim that minor differences exist, it was that Candy was simply lying.

I read it. Cuepee offered anyone 500 who could prove he's lying. That was based on the word destroy, which he did not use. So he was right then and there. The compounding happened later when they got fully tilted. They should do both more thinking before putting so much money behind thinking they are right in the future tbo. Especially if nobody understands what they mean.
(I think qps intention was simply to underline he was right about the term being used or not)

Ya, so @QP you basically said the gdp was tanking right?
Not as in destroyed, but tanking? Then I can see why I would get upset too. If I hadn't used that exact term and someone would say I used it. That was from what the loco bets were coming from right?

Anyways if I read cuepees last post it makes sense. The gdp did tank btw.

Nope. This was before any bet.

“I'll forward the first person who can show candy is being truthful on that $500 as he is flat out lying there. But hey, free money.”

If he objected to the word destroy he should have just said so. Instead he accused candy of lying, which he clearly wasn’t even if his summary wasn’t 100% accurate.

Any bet needs some method to determine what consitutes a win, and there has to be some meeting of minds somwhere. That is so lacking here, to put it mildly given it's cuepee whose arguments we are familiar with even if we struugle to fathom how they are happening. Saying he shuld have said it was about 'destroy' is meaningless.

“I'll forward the first person who can show candy is being truthful on that $500 as he is flat out lying there. But hey, free money.”

To make this a valid bet beyond what cuepee thinks was shown, someone or some group had to be granted (and accepted) the power to determine what was shown. That never happened. Posters can think what they like about who was right but that's it.

Holy ****, chez, who wrote this? Grammarly?

Absolutely shameful display of welching.

err. Me thinks it was me

Whose grammarly?

I don't believe you.

In fact, **** it, let's make it interesting. I'll bet 5k you can't write that well under exam conditions.

Are you bob dillon?

Matt, sir. My first name is Matt. How do you do?

I'm like a rolling stone txs

Erm, Cuepee, I haven't really been involved in all this, and only just skimmed the summaries, but this doesn't look ideal for you. You always like to throw these hypothetical "I'll give you $x if you can show y"'s out there when making a point. Looks like someone pulled your card, bro. So you gonna pay it?

Jaaahahahaaa!! Here comes insomnia drunk mattie!
Go to bed mate!

Btw u skimmed wrong, no word can be attached to this madness. It's completely hideous. Two idiots trying to make a bet or something, where both are speaking a complete different language.