Quote:
Originally Posted by DC2LV
I agree; that was absolutely the worst, most ridiculous comparison imaginable.
I stand corrected.
Yeah, so sure yet you got correct in another post. Hilarious you and the other guy, taking ambiguous shots and not explaining
why you think it's the worst comparison. It's pretty much the best analogy, vs any sports one w/ more rigid rules for "what ifs". Guy went 2/3s, we dunno if he
could've done 100% maybe maybe not, unknown, that's the fact. Also the fact is that he didn't do 100%.
The question remains, *why* did someone initiate the buyout? He's afraid the washroom dude will make it to 30 days? Then isn't it screwing the YES camp out of 33% or whatever it is since they only got 67% give or take?
Again, I didn't bet on this sh*tshow, I'm just telling it as it is, something fishy about the whole thing. I'd ask
why did someone think of the buyout and go from there. If it continues to sound fishy, possibility of some backroom shenanigans happening, screw that, I wouldn't pay. As it stands, the YES camp may have been shafted out of 33%, the NO camp may have been forced to pay 33% when perhaps washroom dude would've folded and then they would win. Buyout is messed up, it should've been stipulated in the rules in the first place, since they were already so thorough, I'm surprised no one brought this up, how could they not account for this from the very beginning?