Originally Posted by Steve-O
I'm starting to understand the problem, your reading comprehension is terri-bad. I said the "best you can hope for is the bet is voided", I assumed at one point in the thread that is what you wanted when you actually wanted more (to win) which I didn't think you would even attempt to try because it's one of the biggest leaps of faith I have ever seen.Vegas offered a bet proclaiming that he could find 25 offending posts where I used both words incorrectly. I pounced on this knowing he could in fact not do so. If anyone tried to later change the parameters of the offered bet it was him.This was my initial line of thinking (and since we can't prove what either thought the bet was we can't speculate on their motives). But the more I read of their exchanges in the leadup to that one ambiguous post it is crystal clear what the bet was for, and Searles is using an added word (or lack of a clarifying one like "one of" or "either of") to try to win the bet on a technicality.
Searles, I understand and appreciate your concerns, but you overstate my criticism of you. It's possible that I described you as a raging doucher a couple of days ago, but I don't think I did. That isn't typically how I conduct my business on the boards.
I've been critical of your trolling of China, and also found your decision to go after guys like China and Vegas somewhat curious, but it's not like I've been ripping you a new one in every thread.
Since you have clearly refused to accept me as an arbiter or mediator, I will stop waiting and go ahead and give my take.
This will not be a popular decision, but I believe that both Vegas and Searles agreed to different bets, therefore the bet should be voided and cancelled. Vegas had him with this exchange:
and then the ambiguity arises:
Vegas clearly proved his point that Searles doesn't know the difference between then and than, and I do see this as a weak angle shoot attempt by J.
TommyT had the line of the thread when he mentioned that jsearles angle shot himself in the foot, and he nearly did.
What jsearles clearly did do was not accept my ability to be impartial. Too bad, I think this is as close as you're going to get.
I've already explained why this is impossible and the best he can hope for is a voided bet (because the same technicality he is purporting can be claimed by Vegas as well; that they had different interpreations of the bet). I'm still of the opinion that the two should comed to a decision about the dollar amount Searles should pay --I don't feel the full amountg is: A) going to happen and B) the best end to this mess-- as he most certainly lost the bet. The fact that he, out of the dozens of people who followed the thread, interpreted it this way doesn't make it so. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that this was his interpretation (and not an angle-shot from the get go) but it still is only a technicality and not enough to void the bet imo.
Since there is some ambiguity in the language it comes down to what the spirit of the bet was, and whether or not this was clear to both parties. The fact that Searles is saying his interpretation of the bet was why he made it (to screw over Vegas based on a technicality and offer him a "bad bet") CLEARLY SHOWS Searles understood both interpretations and therefore lost the bet he was making with Vegas.
Since this isn't a contract (where the wording must be followed) intent does come into play
I have said this before and I will say it again, if Vegas had said "I have a better bet for you... How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?" then I would never have taken the bet. He did however say "where you have used those two words incorrectly."
Steve-O, you keep implying that I entered into this thing hoping to get it voided from the outset. That couldnt be further from the truth. I entered into a bet hoping to win it! And that bet was that Vegas could not find 25 posts with multiple errors.
There is no usage of the word "BOTH" in the post by Vegas you keep linking to, that was a separate post by someone else.
"used those two" is a lot closer to an interpretation of both then it is to either
Reply With Quote
