The War Room Bet Thread

[Quipling]

@Mods . . . in this official dispute resolution process, are there sanctions for frivilous claims?

All of the costs of resolution are tolled against the moving party already.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Seems to me the impasse is that your proposed bet isn't addressing what he considers to be the crux of the disagreement, and that what you're harping on is of little consequence, and has already been conceded on his part. He's accusing you of ducking the bigger picture of the disagreement in order to save face.

In short, you appear to be trying to win the battle without acknowledging the war.

OK, here is the thing though, when this all started I wasn't debating, I was asking for him to make his case, and source his claims. At first he wouldn't provide a source, and told me to go find it myself. Then he provides the source, but refuses to identify what in the source makes Zinn a liar. Eventually he makes his 1200 soldier claim.

I will admit I then start playing some games with him, because when he claims Zinn said 1200 soldiers over and over, and the quote says 1200 men, I then play dumb, and pretend I can't find it in his quote, in an attempt to force him to quote his source himself, and show that his claim of 1200 soldiers was complete BS.

So now we have established the path that this debate has taken. perhaps you or anyone else can explain what claims lfd0311 has made to support the idea that Zinn is a liar. His only claim he ever made was this claim that Zinn was lying about taking 1200 soldiers with him, when that wasn't the case.

He has made no case that Zinn is a liar, other then this 1200 soldier claim. And as you can see from just his last post, he still insists on calling Zinn a liar over and over.

If he can make that case, that is fine, but he has not made it, and in fact exposed himself as a liar, while declaring victory the entire time.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

OK, here is the thing though, when this all started I wasn't debating, I was asking for him to make his case, and source his claims. At first he wouldn't provide a source, and told me to go find it myself. Then he provides the source, but refuses to identify what in the source makes Zinn a liar.

I will admit I then start playing some games with him, because when he claims Zinn said 1200 soldiers over and over, and the quote says 1200 men, I then play dumb, and pretend I can't find it in his quote, in an attempt to force him to quote his source himself, and show that his claim of 1200 soldiers was complete BS.

So now we have established the path that this debate has taken. perhaps you or anyone else can explain what claims lfd0311 has made to support the idea that Zinn is a liar. His only claim he ever made was this claim that Zinn was lying about taking 1200 soldiers with him, when that wasn't the case.

He has made no case that Zinn is a liar, other then this 1200 soldier claim.

Epic.

 

[lfd0311]

Seems to me the impasse is that your proposed bet isn't addressing what he considers to be the crux of the disagreement, and that what you're harping on is of little consequence, and has already been conceded on his part. He's accusing you of ducking the bigger picture of the disagreement in order to save face.

In short, you appear to be trying to win the battle without acknowledging the war.

I believe I've said about 10 times that he thinks he's making himself look better with all of this, yet he doesn't understand that everyone can see he's the one acting childish.

 

[lfd0311]

OK, here is the thing though, when this all started I wasn't debating, I was asking for him to make his case, and source his claims. At first he wouldn't provide a source, and told me to go find it myself. Then he provides the source, but refuses to identify what in the source makes Zinn a liar. Eventually he makes his 1200 soldier claim.

I will admit I then start playing some games with him, because when he claims Zinn said 1200 soldiers over and over, and the quote says 1200 men, I then play dumb, and pretend I can't find it in his quote, in an attempt to force him to quote his source himself, and show that his claim of 1200 soldiers was complete BS.

So now we have established the path that this debate has taken. perhaps you or anyone else can explain what claims lfd0311 has made to support the idea that Zinn is a liar. His only claim he ever made was this claim that Zinn was lying about taking 1200 soldiers with him, when that wasn't the case.

He has made no case that Zinn is a liar, other then this 1200 soldier claim. And as you can see from just his last post, he still insists on calling Zinn a liar over and over.

If he can make that case, that is fine, but he has not made it, and in fact exposed himself as a liar, while declaring victory the entire time.

Oh really? That means you must have ignored this post from the other thread then....

LOL, where was it like pulling teeth, you absolute liar? I provided the link to his book 8 times, motherf**ker!! Oompaloompa had to explain to you that "1200" and "Twelve Hundred" are the same thing. Honestly, this goes way beyond an inability to read and is starting to venture into you just straight up having a mental disorder.

"Men" being interchangable with soldiers. It's always been exactly that. You're just still lamely clinging to the hope that you can convince someone otherwise

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/men

7. a male follower or subordinate:
the king's men. He's the boss's number one man

And from the very same link, under "British Dictionary Definitions for Men"

10. (usually pl) a member of the armed forces who does not hold commissioned, warrant, or noncommissioned rank (as in the phrase officers and men)

11 .a member of a group, team, etc

16. a vassal of a feudal lord

24.to provide with sufficient people for operation, defence, etc.

Would you like me to keep going with owning you, or no?

Uh... Yeah... that's because that's exactly what's going on. I'm destroying you and you're completely the problem. I'll take that historical evidence that backs up Zinn's claim of Columbus bringing 1200 SOLDIERS with him to conquer and enslave the natives, please. Along with that bibliography you promised. Or you could just admit that you're a liar and Zinn is too.

Oh, I have no issue with saying the man was biased. He was also a liar, and so are you. If he had just been biased I wouldn't have so much contempt for him. But his entire book is a lie. I would have gone deeper and deeper into the mass of lies he told just about the story of Columbus, about how there was no possible way Columbus killed 8 million people. How Zinn tells the story of a generic "arawak" tribe, despite the fact that Columbus interacted with three seperate Tribes in his time in the the West Indies on his first voyage. We would have gone into how Zinn breezes past the atttack by the Carib on Fortress Navidad while Columbus returned to Spain, and the killing and eating of the 39 men inside of it by the tribe, whose name is the origin for the word "cannibal". Zinn dismisses this and claims that the Spanish were actually killed because they were kidnapping local women from the defenseless natives. We could never get that far because you could never support a single one of your positions and elected to try to play a semantics game with me for the last 3 weeks or so and just made yourself look like a dick.

We could never that far because lying was far more important to you, as I've now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt for a few weeks now. I'm sticking to my guns because I'm entirely, completely, 100% correct in every possible aspect. Are you starting to catch on to that yet?

That's post #780 in this thread:

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/g...ebates-potential-game-changer.3307787/page-40

To which you responded with this gem of a post, number 784

Type me 8 more paragraphs. Take the bet or shut the fuck up.

If you are right, then take the bet.

Make your case to a mod to decide who is right, and who is full of shit.

I'm done running in circles with you.

You just got caught outright lying once again, dude. Either that or you just didn't bother to read my post, then claimed that the only reasoning I've given for him being a liar is the 1200 men issue. We could never get passed that because you wouldn't allow the conversation to progress. Just these two posts were 9 days ago. So you're either too dumb to understand what you've been told, or you're just a liar. Seeing as you went on from here to argue that the English definition of an English word was a ridiculous baseline to use for what "men" means in the context that it was used by Zinn, it's pretty easy to tell which one it is. P.S., Cubo De Sangre posted that picture of the tap out because this post was you tapping out. And you liked it.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Cubo De Sangre posted that picture of the tap out because this post was you tapping out. And you liked it.

While I'm giving you the nod overall, that picture was me tapping out on trying to spur this fuckin' mess toward resolution. Good luck!

 

[lfd0311]

@Mods . . . in this official dispute resolution process, are there sanctions for frivilous claims?

What claims are "frivilous" in your mind?

 

[ncordless]

What claims are "frivilous" in your mind?

Semantics disputes.

 

[lfd0311]

Semantics disputes.

Got ya

 

[VivaRevolution]

Oh really? That means you must have ignored this post from the other thread then....



That's post #780 in this thread:

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/g...ebates-potential-game-changer.3307787/page-40

To which you responded with this gem of a post, number 784





You just got caught outright lying once again, dude. Either that or you just didn't bother to read my post, then claimed that the only reasoning I've given for him being a liar is the 1200 men issue. We could never get passed that because you wouldn't allow the conversation to progress. Just these two posts were 9 days ago. So you're either too dumb to understand what you've been told, or you're just a liar. Seeing as you went on from here to argue that the English definition of an English word was a ridiculous baseline to use for what "men" means in the context that it was used by Zinn, it's pretty easy to tell which one it is. P.S., Cubo De Sangre posted that picture of the tap out because this post was you tapping out. And you liked it.

Fucking LOL, I'm glad everyone reading this gets to see.

You see everyone, Howard Zinn is a liar, because the word men actually means soldier.

Yet, at the same time he makes these other claims, and still zero sources provided for his claims. Just Zinn says this, and I say that, but no source for anyone to verify, just lfd's word on it.

lfd0311 isn't full of shit, and proves this when he refuses to take my bet.

I mean he believes his BS argument, just not enough to take the bet.

And as everyone can read from what he quoted, everyone gets to see this nuanced argument he made, of how men actually means soldier, and this somehow makes Zinn a liar.

 

[Lead]

My verdict is this argument has lasted far too long

 

[Gandhi]

This troubled nympho broadened Lead's sexual horizons but crossed the line with this proposal.

What is gerbiling?

 

[Gandhi]

And can't read 15 pages of this

Is anyone taking trump bets or not?

 

[Lead]

What is gerbiling?

I'm too drunk to google that

 

[VivaRevolution]

My verdict is this argument has lasted far too long

I agree, and the whole argument is stupid, but the fuck if I'm going to walk away when he won't let it go, and won't concede meaningful ground.

Ifd admits he said that, but men equals soldier, and Zinn is still a liar. Fuck that.

If lfd0311 wants to agree with a mutual walk away, I will agree to that, but I'm not letting him get the last word, and salvage any kind of victory in his eyes.

 

[lfd0311]

Fucking LOL, I'm glad everyone reading this gets to see.

You see everyone, Howard Zinn is a liar, because the word men actually means soldier.

Yet, at the same time he makes these other claims, and still zero sources provided for his claims. Just Zinn says this, and I say that, but no source for anyone to verify, just lfd's word on it.

lfd0311 isn't full of shit, and proves this when he refuses to take my bet.

I mean he believes his BS argument, just not enough to take the bet.

And as everyone can read from what he quoted, everyone gets to see this nuanced argument he made, of how men actually means soldier, and this somehow makes Zinn a liar.

LOL, not a single person agrees with you, you total fool. The dictonary doesn't even agree with you, but don't let that stop you.

 

[lfd0311]

I agree, and the whole argument is stupid, but the fuck if I'm going to walk away when he won't let it go, and won't concede meaningful ground.

Ifd admits he said that, but men equals soldier, and Zinn is still a liar. Fuck that.

If lfd0311 wants to agree with a mutual walk away, I will agree to that, but I'm not letting him get the last word, and salvage any kind of victory in his eyes.

You're the one who isn't letting go. You're getting owned and making a fool of yourself. Shut up and go away, as you've been told by multiple people other than me. Cubo De Sangre has told you that, politely, about 5 times. Upaloompa told you that twice in the other thread. The only thing I've ever "admitted to" was that I forgot that I said "half truths" at some point in our now, what month and a half long conversation. You look like a petulant clown. You aren't willing to make your bet about the actual body of the argument, as has been pointed out to you by other posters not involved in the conversation, and I'm not going to get into a bet about semantics, somthing else that others have pointed out to you. So just stop responding and walk away, if that's what you really want to happen.

And I don't need to "salvage" anything. I've won. The fact that you want to have a semantic bet is proof of that. The fact that you're still here trying to get the last word is proof of that. That last part about "salvaging any kind of victory in his eyes" is some of the most epic projection I've ever encountered.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I will admit I then start playing some games with him, because when he claims Zinn said 1200 soldiers over and over, and the quote says 1200 men, I then play dumb, and pretend I can't find it in his quote, in an attempt to force him to quote his source himself, and show that his claim of 1200 soldiers was complete BS.

I usually skip lfd's stuff, though last I checked, it seemed like he had you, but what you describe here is pretty shitty behavior. This kind of game-playing and dishonesty is such a waste of time. This is a fucking message board, not your marriage. Just get to the damned point as clearly as possible, always, and be honest all the time. The discussions would be infinitely better if everyone did that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It birthed this entire thread idea but has yet to meet its full potential. After a few pages. @Fawlty is the only poster among us to have balls. Not only have balls but to whip them out and place them right on the table. We still haven't even had a two way bet yet.

Not mentioned here, but I have a loser leaves bet going with a nutter (can't remember his name now) who thinks that Clinton will invade Iran if she wins (LOL). It was amazing to me that he was willing to take it. I figure that these guys just say crazy shit out of tribalism but deep down know that it's full of shit, but the fact that he was willing to stand behind it tells me that the crazy is real.

Ed: Looked it up. It's @therealdope

 

[Gandhi]

LOL Hendo