The War Room Bet Thread V3

[SBJJ]

CNN wins in court/Mike wins

CNN loses in court/SBJJ wins

Any other outcome is a push

 

[MikeMcMann]

Jesus Christ dude. How can anyone have a bet with you when all you do is change shit

I mean it's damn near impossible to even decipher what you are saying.

You went from you KNEW CNN/ACOSTA would win in court to all the BS you are posting now

Plain and simple. CNN wins in court(highest court after any appeals) you win. If they do not win(Acosta not reinstated by the court) you lose

Stop bitching out of your original claim. And stop posting the same BS over and over in the bet room to camouflage you changing your predictions/bets

I've always been more than fair with those I bet with. But I'm not going to continue to indulge you when you are not working in good faith

CNN wins in court/you win
CNN does not win/I win

I.didn't change shit, you did liar.

I proposed.a simple bet with one question which I'll re quote now.

The issue of the bet is:

- Will the CNN lawsuit against the White House and Trump to re-establish access for Jim Acosta to the White House press conferences be successful.

I say yes it will. He says no it will not.

That is a very straight forward bet but you wanted to change it

You wanted to add that you should also win if CNN drops it or accepts a compromise putting on another reporter.

I said ok but then I want a.compromise too.

If Trump and WH then basically reinstated Him so the suit has to go away then I should win.

That is fair if you want your extra. Or I'm fine with both those things being a push as originally was proposed.

But you are trying to run from the original purposes bet or at least skew it in your favor because you know now you are likely to lose. That is cowardly dude.

 

[MikeMcMann]

CNN wins in court/Mike wins

CNN loses in court/SBJJ wins

Any other outcome is a push

Yes.

Agreed. Back to my original proposal just up thread before YOU tried tio change it to load yourself up.

Nice of you to copy and paste me.

I accept.

 

[SBJJ]

Yes.

Agreed. Bach to my original proposal just up thread before YOU tried tio change it to load yourself up.

Nice of you to copy and paste me.

I accept.

This was my original bet when I came in here. Lol

CNN wins in court. You win

CNN loses in court. I win

All other outcomes push

I do suggest we add a 1 month bet that if CNN drops the suit I win and if WH settled and allows Acosta back you win

Again, I want you to understand this bet is for Acosta only. He MUST be allowed back. Any court win for CNN MUST include Acosta returning

 

[MikeMcMann]

@MikeMcMann

Looks like you two are still hashing out the bet but when ready, use this formatting to get the final approval

1. CNN has launched a lawsuit to have Jim Acosta's press pass for White House Access reinstated

2. CNN wins in court/Mike wins; CNN loses in court/SBJJ wins; Any other outcome is a push

3. Once the court proceeding is finalized the outcome is accepted (or no longer appealed) by the losing party (CNN or WH) including any appeals. To be clear, either party losing and saying they think the ruling is wrong or flawed but then not appealing does not impact the prior.

4. This is a 3 month sig and Av bet where the winner gets control of the losers for that period for any use within Sherdog rules

5. 3 months

6. Bet is void if CNN withdraws lawsuit or if WH simply relents allowing Acosta back in which would nullify the suit and lead to it being withdrawn. this is a very strict bet tied to the outcome of point 2's very black and white rules.


If @SBJJ replies back 'agreed' we can continuing this bet in place.

 

[MikeMcMann]

This was my original bet when I came in here. Lol

CNN wins in court. You win

CNN loses in court. I win

All other outcomes push

I do suggest we add a 1 month bet that if CNN drops the suit I win and if WH settled and allows Acosta back you win

Again, I want you to understand this bet is for Acosta only. He MUST be allowed back. Any court win for CNN MUST include Acosta returning

I posted in this thread on this bet BEFORE you did and wrote this and you could have simply accepted as it was EXACTLY what we talked about in the prior thread that set this up...

- Will the CNN lawsuit against the White House and Trump to re-establish access for Jim Acosta to the White House press conferences be successful.

I say yes it will. He says no it will not.

We agree that if it is dropped, or Settled, or does not go to final Court decision the bet is a push and only a Court Ruling decides the bet.

You had already agreed to these simple terms in the other thread but then, here, upthread you tried to change those terms and add to it in a way that would greatly benefit you. Here is what you added.

Also, if CNN drops the suit and sends in another reporter I think that should count as a loss

That is a substantial addition to the bet in your favour as I had already said in the prior thread that I do not think this makes the court regardless. No one is going to lose this bet based on the original terms as it is likely to be settled in some regard.

One of the ways it might be settled is what you say above and how you would win with the amendment.

The OTHER way it would be settled is if if the WH simply relents allowing Acosta back in which would nullify the suit and lead to it being withdrawn.

So I said FINE if you want your 'Settled' clause in I will accept it but then you have to accept mine. That is more than fair particularly since I already stated I think there is no way this goes to court and therefore neither of us wins. So your 'settled' addition would give you a path to win otherwise which I would not.

You then acted as if I was doing something off side by asking for asking what you asked for. A 'SETTLED' clause for both of us.

 

[SBJJ]

I posted in this thread on this bet BEFORE you did and wrote this and you could have simply accepted as it was EXACTLY what we talked about in the prior thread that set this up...




You had already agreed to these simple terms in the other thread but then, here, upthread you tried to change those terms and add to it in a way that would greatly benefit you. Here is what you added.



That is a substantial addition to the bet in your favour as I had already said in the prior thread that I do not think this makes the court regardless. No one is going to lose this bet based on the original terms as it is likely to be settled in some regard.

One of the ways it might be settled is what you say above and how you would win with the amendment.

The OTHER way it would be settled is if if the WH simply relents allowing Acosta back in which would nullify the suit and lead to it being withdrawn.

So I said FINE if you want your 'Settled' clause in I will accept it but then you have to accept mine. That is more than fair particularly since I already stated I think there is no way this goes to court and therefore neither of us wins. So your 'settled' addition would give you a path to win otherwise which I would not.

You then acted as if I was doing something off side by asking for asking what you asked for. A 'SETTLED' clause for both of us.

Ok dude. There is NO bet. I've tried to make this as simple as possible and off your original prediction in the original thread

My advice to you is less talk and more action. Huge posts about all the BS should be left out the Bet Thread. U honestly lost me when u started with the WH dropping the case schtick

Good luck in the future

 

[MikeMcMann]

Ok dude. There is NO bet. I've tried to make this as simple as possible and off your original prediction in the original thread

My advice to you is less talk and more action. Huge posts about all the BS should be left out the Bet Thread. U honestly lost me when u started with the WH dropping the case schtick

Good luck in the future

lol. I predicted you'd back out as you realized after you would lose and your precisou bet record means to much to you.

i wrote out the most simple bet for @Lead based on exactly what we agreed to in the other thread. It is as SIMPLE as possible. In fact I quoted you in point 2 to Lead to ensure you would have no issue with it.

It was you who proposed an amendment that made it more complex and when I agreed but asked for the SAME consideration you cried. You want a bet loaded in your favour and not balanced.

Your bet record is suspect so you should not brag about it again as it is clear you only take a bet if you can stack it in your favour. Again the bet I wrote out for @Lead above is EXACTLY what we agreed to first and what you tried to change and then said you wanted to go back to. And now you won't accept it. lol.

 

[SBJJ]

lol. I predicted you'd back out as you realized after you would lose and your precisou bet record means to much to you.

i wrote out the most simple bet for @Lead based on exactly what we agreed to in the other thread. It is as SIMPLE as possible. In fact I quoted you in point 2 to Lead to ensure you would have no issue with it.

It was you who proposed an amendment that made it more complex and when I agreed but asked for the SAME consideration you cried. You want a bet loaded in your favour and not balanced.

Your bet record is suspect so you should not brag about it again as it is clear you only take a bet if you can stack it in your favour. Again the bet I wrote out for @Lead above is EXACTLY what we agreed to first and what you tried to change and then said you wanted to go back to. And now you won't accept it. lol.

No disrespect but I have stopped reading these novels you keep posting. I'm not betting with a guy that is going to keep doing this. I checked out when you tried to bring in the WH dropping the suit.

 

[MikeMcMann]

No disrespect but I have stopped reading these novels you keep posting. I'm not betting with a guy that is going to keep doing this. I checked out when you tried to bring in the WH dropping the suit.

For any who may care since SBJJ likes to brag about his betting cred, you will see his bitch move here to duck our bet. Don't let him ever again get away with bragging about his betting when he is a duck...

Here is the history if you care.

- this all started on post 954 above where i spelled out the clear and simply terms of a bet he approached me on in another thread

The issue of the bet is:

- Will the CNN lawsuit against the White House and Trump to re-establish access for Jim Acosta to the White House press conferences be successful.

I say yes it will. He says no it will not.

We agree that if it is dropped, or Settled, or does not go to final Court decision the bet is a push and only a Court Ruling decides the bet.

That is a very simple black and white bet and we agreed in the other thread that any other result would be a PUSH. I even stated in the other thread that I thought this was likely to be a push as it would be DROPPED or SETTLED and not make it to court.

- SBJJ then replies to my post 954 in his post 955 that he is ok with the bet but that he wants to add this in his favour...

Also, if CNN drops the suit and sends in another reporter I think that should count as a loss

I say sure we can add that but only if you ALSO then ADD that if the White House SETTLES the case by re-instating Acosta then I should win.

Since I already said prior that I do not think this is going to court and is likely to end via being DROPPED or SETTLED, I am certainly not going to give him "DROPPED" so he can win and not take "SETTLED" so I can.

He then cries that is unfair (lol) in Post 960/1 and says to go back to the original bet

CNN wins in court/Mike wins

CNN loses in court/SBJJ wins

Any other outcome is a push

I then accept that and go back to that, which was MY original post he tried to change and I simply cut and paste his terms into a post to LEAD in Post 965 which should be it. I have cut and paste SBJJ terms and we are ready to go... but are we?

NO SBJJ immediately bitches and wimps out (post 967) saying his own quoted terms are too confusing and he is out.

But that is not why he is out. It was his terms (which were my original terms) so there is no reason not to make the bet. Except it is not clearer and clearer he is wrong based on the information that has come out since. So he wants to duck his bet. Simple as that.

Don't let him forget it.

 

[SBJJ]

For any who may care since SBJJ likes to brag about his betting cred, you will see his bitch move here to duck our bet. Don't let him ever again get away with bragging about his betting when he is a duck...

Here is the history if you care.

- this all started on post 954 above where i spelled out the clear and simply terms of a bet he approached me on in another thread



That is a very simple black and white bet and we agreed in the other thread that any other result would be a PUSH. I even stated in the other thread that I thought this was likely to be a push as it would be DROPPED or SETTLED and not make it to court.

- SBJJ then replies to my post 954 in his post 955 that he is ok with the bet but that he wants to add this in his favour...



I say sure we can add that but only if you ALSO then ADD that if the White House SETTLES the case by re-instating Acosta then I should win.

Since I already said prior that I do not think this is going to court and is likely to end via being DROPPED or SETTLED, I am certainly not going to give him "DROPPED" so he can win and not take "SETTLED" so I can.

He then cries that is unfair (lol) in Post 960/1 and says to go back to the original bet



I then accept that and go back to that, which was MY original post he tried to change and I simply cut and paste his terms into a post to LEAD in Post 965 which should be it. I have cut and paste SBJJ terms and we are ready to go... but are we?

NO SBJJ immediately bitches and wimps out (post 967) saying his own quoted terms are too confusing and he is out.

But that is not why he is out. It was his terms (which were my original terms) so there is no reason not to make the bet. Except it is not clearer and clearer he is wrong based on the information that has come out since. So he wants to duck his bet. Simple as that.

Don't let him forget it.

NEVER FORGET!!

Dear Diary...SBJJ got me upset because he stopped reading my War & Peace posts!! He made me very sad!!

InB4 the next 500 word ramble

 

[MikeMcMann]

NEVER FORGET!!

Dear Diary...SBJJ got me upset because he stopped reading my War & Peace posts!! He made me very sad!!

InB4 the next 500 word ramble

lol.

All that need be said is your bet cred is gone.

You laid out a bet. I copied and pasted it and you ranted about that and ducked the bet.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Anbody seen @waiguoren lately?
Seems kinda weird that he hasn't been around for a few.

 

[Prokofievian]

Anbody seen @waiguoren lately?
Seems kinda weird that he hasn't been around for a few.

He duckin.

 

[Limbo Pete]

He duckin.

@waiguoren explain yourself

@Jack V Savage that sig is pretty great imo

 

[SBJJ]

lol.

All that need be said is your bet cred is gone.

You laid out a bet. I copied and pasted it and you ranted about that and ducked the bet.

Yes. I'm the one ranting

 

[MikeMcMann]

Yes. I'm the one ranting

...and you struggle with comprehension. 'Ranted' is past tense and yes you did.

 

[Lead]

Jack and Wai cycle out. SBJJ and Mike cycle in. The thread gets new life.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Also looks like Silver's over/under was spot on, maybe slightly underestimated Democrats. Even if that one isn't official, wai was *willing* to bet against that outcome, indicating that he thought it was highly improbable. I wonder if that's led to some reconsideration.

 

[SBJJ]

...and you struggle with comprehension. 'Ranted' is past tense and yes you did.

Ok. I'll stop ranted/ranting/doughnuts/pikachoo