Malstreĉiĝu kaj kuŝiĝu, frato.

' original posted by cuepee Nothing you posts there supports your lie that I was doomsaying GDP was going to be DESTROYED. You completely made that up.

That is your lie and I will up to free $10,000 and send it to anyone who can find me saying any such thing in your quotes of me. '

This is what cuepee was talking or thinking was the point of objection.

Find me a post that said this. Non existent? I bet you 5 bucks. Or it would have been produced already. Case closed.

U2 mate. Good night!

washoe, are you claiming that Cuepee was in the wrong, but doesn't technically owe me money since there was no clear agreement about the conditions for payment or are you claiming that Cuepee was correct in his determination that I was lying because anyone who paraphrases anyone else (or describes anyone else's position) on the internet in a way that introduces any new word that wasn't originally used is lying? I'm curious as to what your position here is.

Keep in mind, I never said that he said the word "destroy" - "he was so sure that ... small business failures are going to destroy GDP" - this is a description of his beliefs, not a literal transcription of what he wrote. So Cuepee's definition of the word destroy as applied to the GDP is actually irrelevant - what matters is what *I* meant, since it's clearly my description of his mental state.

Also, if Cuepee's reaction to me using the phrase "destroy GDP" as a shorthand for "significantly reduce GDP" was that this is such a gross representation that it rises to the level of a lie, then why did Cuepee himself use the term "destroy" to describe a modest reduction in GDP during the Great Recession?

Your timeline is off. This conversation occured in 2020 Q3 - the massive GDP drop in Q2 due to the lockdowns was already in the past by this point. Even Cuepee acknowledged that the GDP was growing at this point in time - his point was the economy was being propped up artificially at the moment but this would not last, especially after the election. Needlessly to say, nothing remotely close what he was talking about ever materialized.

The magnitude of the GDP drop that Cuepee was talking about was around 50%, which would be completely unprecedented and unfathomably devastating. Also, not sure if you saw that but in the very same post, Cuepee used the term "destroy" to describe the GDP drop of just 4.2% during the Great Recession.

And as mentioned before, no one said Cuepee specifically used the word "destroy" and there's zero chance that when he angrily called me a liar, that this technicality (which isn't even right) is what he had in mind. That came afterwards as he realized that he was in the wrong, but wanted to find ways to rationalize the previous night's accusations.

Cueps - I suggest you reach some sort of settlement, or your reputation on this forum is down the toilet.

And perhaps watch your mouth before the next time you start spouting off about how you'll bet 100 million on some point.

Been there before, bro. lol. Been there before. This one is on you though.

A bet is not a correct way to describe this offer. Imagine this scenario - you tell a group of people, I'll give $10K to whoever drives me to this restaurant, then someone takes up on it and drives you there, then you try to get out of paying by claiming that technically the car never entered the restaurant and there's no one who was granted the power to determine whether the "drove you to the restaurant" condition was met, so the bet is off, it's your claim against my claim and no one has to pay anyone anything, and btw, the driver wasn't actually eligible and you didn't really mean "whoever" but a different subset of people that excludes the actual driver.

That's roughly what happened here. Cuepee unilaterally offered $$$ to the person who would perform a specific act. He said this in plain language and until after the act was performed, he did not attach any conditions as to who would arbitrate this, nor specify how strictly this is to be interpreted. Quite frankly, he hasn't even really made any sort of real argument that the act was not performed - he just seems to be claiming that the act doesn't count because I'm not eligible and any evidence that I presented doesn't count because it's from me. It's pretty clear to me that he's doing this because he knows he's in the wrong - if he feels strongly that he's in the right, he should make that argument. He has never addressed why he would use the word "destroy" to describe a 4.2% drop in GDP during the Great Recession, he's never addressed why he claimed that I wasn't eligible to be paid, he's never addressed why "destroy GDP" isn't synonymous with "significantly reduce GDP" despite using the word in exactly this fashion in the past.

Btw, forgot to mention that I wrote this thread recap:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...php?p=57493241

because someone asked over PM questions about what's going on in this thread. So I wrote this and sent a link, since that would scale better, especially if I get more than one inquiry.

Candy has been immensely decent throughout this whole sad episode.

Btw, I think there's a reasonably interesting counter-argument to be made against my current position, in short, that Cuepee used the term "destroy" to describe a 4.2% reduction in GDP during the Great Recession, then went on to predict a 50% drop in GDP, therefore it's fair to say that he's said is clearly equivalent to "GDP will be destroyed." This counter-argument does not involve any sort semantic nit-picking. I will leave this as an exercise for others - no $$$ offer though, if you figure out, the reward is that warm fuzzy feeling of being smart on the internet.

All i'm saying on this is that having seen and had unfathomable arguments with Cuepee several times, he is one of the very few people who's meanings escape me. I believe there's a genuine disconnect at times.

If you can persaude him that you have shown you hsve done what he meant then fine but that is the extent of the 'bet' imo. If you're claiming some other sort of contract where you have provided a service then I defer to the laywers but I'm dubious it meets the requirements.

I'm not sure this is where you are heading but it's quite posible for value to be 'destroyed' while the value increases.

I doubt I'd use the word 'destroy' but i think it's very common and hard for some to fathom that this is quite normal and sometimes correlated. For example raising interest rates may reduce inflation even if it's correlated with inflation rising.

Mostly though I'd say 'destroyed' is a qualatitive judgement rather than a quantative one.

One last (hopefully) thing

You might be a bit put out by being called a liar but cuepee has a well known low bar for calling posters liars. it probably doesn't mean as much as you might think.

The funniest thing is, yesterday candybar would have just taken a retraction and an apology in lieu of the 10k.

Cuepee, what the **** are you doing? Either 10k means nothing to you and you'll pay it once proven wrong, or you should have taken his offer. There is no ****ing middle ground here.

In fact, I might be misremembering that. Not even an apology. Just a retraction. But if he is still beneficent enough to accept a pure retraction, you owe him an apology, IMO.

Definitely not what I had in mind. I don't think it's a good argument to claim that the term "destroy" with respect to GDP in this context could mean anything other than "significantly reduce" though you could quibble with the threshold. The argument I had in mind (for Cuepee) is legitimately a strong argument.

If it's about reciting digits of pi, I doubt you will need all 14.

Thanks! You are being too kind, but I do strive for decency and fairness in all things.

Can drop without being destroyed if its temporary and bounces back.

Covid might have done that to some extent

(I'm not getting involved in the actual argument with cuepee)

Cuepee's claim was that the GDP will be depressed for a prolonged period of time, so no, this cannot apply. And the GDP drop during the Great Recession was also temporary.

CP, I think I speak for all of us here: no one will judge you poorly if you admit you were out of line. You could just say you were wrong and candy would agree to forget the whole ordeal.

Again i'm not engaging in cuepee's arguments in particular. It's the sort of thing i do but as I said there's a disconnect that I haven't been able to fathom

but, and I'm not sayign this is anyway relevent ot your argument with CP, things can be depressed for a very long time without being destroyed. Like a value investor might have to wait a very long time if the price is depressed but the value hasn't been destroyed.

I don't care about being called a liar and his tendencies aren't a mystery to me. The two main issues are: a lack of rigor and psychological defense mechanisms. The former means Cuepee treats everything as a word association game, which allows him to ignore the implicit logic inherent in how the world works, that we sometimes take for granted in conversations. Thus anything and everything can be justified, words don't mean anything and it's just my words against yours. And the latter lead him do whatever it takes to protect his psyche from being exposed to things that are too painful. He calls me a liar because he cannot accept a reasonable summary of his position, then risks money because this makes him feel more right, which compensates for that small part of himself that knows he's wrong that he's desperately trying to suppress. After all, if he was wrong, he wouldn't risk money, so he must be right. He then repeatedly escalates the more and more he feels threatened. He refuses to even read the post that shows him to be wrong and now he's desperately trying to rewrite history in order to convince, well I believe, himself.

I do find it ironic given his early proclamations though - which seemed to be about he would've been a good student had his teachers given more open book tests - that he absolutely refuses to look up anything. Internet posting is clearly an open book test after all.