War Room Lounge V31: The Genius of the Crowd

Are Polls Reliable?


  • Total voters
    22
Status
Not open for further replies.
That's usually me, as I really think he's one of the best right-wing posters here, and I know y'all don't agree. But on this issue, he's wrong.
Haven't been following the conversation. Which issue am I wrong on?
 
Steal a victory. Right.

So I give you the specific terms of a bet.

You say deal.

And it's not a bet.

Am I understanding you correctly?
You know perfectly well that's not how it works in the War Room. We have a bet thread, and the bet was never confirmed. @Lead can confirm that many people have agreed to make a bet with me outside the bet thread but have pulled out before confirmation. That's exactly what happened here; I became aware that this was a dicey bet between the time I posted "deal" and the time that @Lead posted the terms of the bet and asked for confirmation.
 
Man, I can't imagine how BJ feels inside: he was one of if not the most talented fighter in the world and he kind of took it for granted. Now he's over the hill and losing fights left and right and clearly has more passion and desire than in years past, but he's just not good anymore.

The loss to Rory should have been it.
He’s losing fights to drunks outside of the bar now. Literally, that happened out here.

Pretty sad.
 
You know perfectly well that's not how it works in the War Room. We have a bet thread, and the bet was never confirmed. @Lead can confirm that many people have agreed to make a bet with me outside the bet thread but have pulled out before confirmation. That's exactly what happened here; I became aware that this was a dicey bet between the time I posted "deal" and the time that @Lead posted the terms of the bet and asked for confirmation.
The bet thread exists as a matter of record, to prevent squabbling, and to give mods a lever of enforcement.
You made that bet, fair and square.
 
To be in good standing on the right requires abandoning intellectual virtues and actively believing objectively false things (climate change is a hoax, regressive tax cuts increase growth, debt is an existential threat to America when the president is a Democrat and irrelevant otherwise, liberal media CT, etc.--even the notion that there's some kind of tidal wave of anti-free-speech sentiment from the left doesn't stand up to any serious analysis).

Would you say that Matt Schlapp is "in good standing on the right"? Can't vouch for his entire history of statements, but I'll guess that the closest you can get to those positions is a belief in anti-Trump media bias.
 
Again, the bet was never made official in the bet thread. It was a last-minute attempt to finalize, but we never got confirmation. @Lead can confirm. By the time Lead was asking about confirmation, I had already decided it wasn't a good bet.

Going in the other direction: there have been multiple times that posters have agreed to take losing bets with me but for one reason or another they never got confirmed in @Lead's thread. In most cases, the other party realized it wasn't a good bet before confirmation. That's fine. You'll notice I'm not on here bitching about people "not honoring" a bet which wasn't official. I'm already whipping their asses just fine with official bets.

An account bet is obviously different, since the bet thread explicitly does not honor them. That's purely a honor system kind of thing.
LOL sad. Man up you festering heap of parrot droppings. Your kind make me puke, you sniveling, maloderous toffee-nosed pervert.

Oh wait, you wanted an argument. This is abuse.

Apologies to Monty Python for the paraphrase.
 
The bet thread exists as a matter of record, to prevent squabbling, and to give mods a lever of enforcement.
You made that bet, fair and square.
If that's your position, then my betting record should be something like 12-2 and I would be the undisputed champion. Many of your sex partners on this site have made statements like "deal" with proposed bets but then backed out right before confirmation. Is normal. That's the way things have worked around here for years. I don't whine about it.
 
LOL sad. Man up you festering heap of parrot droppings. Your kind make me puke, you sniveling, maloderous toffee-nosed pervert.

Oh wait, you wanted an argument. This is abuse. Stupid git.

Apologies to Monty Python for the paraphrase.
Sure thing, Homer.
 
He’s losing fights to drunks outside of the bar now. Literally, that happened out here.

Pretty sad.
Penn was looking fine against Hall. Was winning the fight. Granted, Hall is overrated.

Penn can still win some fights with the right matchups. Give him Maynard or Sanchez rematch.
 
Again, the bet was never made official in the bet thread. It was a last-minute attempt to finalize, but we never got confirmation. @Lead can confirm. By the time Lead was asking about confirmation, I had already decided it wasn't a good bet.

Going in the other direction: there have been multiple times that posters have agreed to take losing bets with me but for one reason or another they never got confirmed in @Lead's thread. In most cases, the other party realized it wasn't a good bet before confirmation. That's fine. You'll notice I'm not on here bitching about people "not honoring" a bet which wasn't official. I'm already whipping their asses just fine with official bets.

An account bet is obviously different, since the bet thread explicitly does not honor them. That's purely a honor system kind of thing.

Show us where you stipulated making it official in the bet thread such that you saying "deal" was clearly not the end of it. Otherwise you basically shook on it and then backed out.
 
If that's your position, then my betting record should be something like 12-2 and I would be the undisputed champion. Many of your sex partners on this site have made statements like "deal" with proposed bets but then backed out right before confirmation. Is normal. That's the way things have worked around here for years. I don't whine about it.
No, it wouldn't, because only bet thread wagers go into the record.
The bet in question here was outside the official rankings, but no less a wager in any sense of the word.
And other people welching on bets would not be an excuse for you to do the same thing.
A bet is a bet, Wai.
 
Last edited:
If that's your position, then my betting record should be something like 12-2 and I would be the undisputed champion. Many of your sex partners on this site have made statements like "deal" with proposed bets but then backed out right before confirmation. Is normal. That's the way things have worked around here for years. I don't whine about it.

From what I've seen that's usually because once @Lead starts clarifying the terms there's some confusion revealed and the intended bet isn't workable. Here it sounds like you just changed your mind for no reason other than second thoughts.
 
If that's your position, then my betting record should be something like 12-2 and I would be the undisputed champion. Many of your sex partners on this site have made statements like "deal" with proposed bets but then backed out right before confirmation. Is normal. That's the way things have worked around here for years. I don't whine about it.
No, it wouldn't, because only bet thread wagers go into the record.
The bet in question here was outside the official rankings, but no less a wager in any sense of the word.
And other people welching on bets would not be an excuse for you to.
A bet is a bet, Wai.


NVM the fact you not posting for 3 months is welching you should be ousted from the rankings
 
Would you say that Matt Schlapp is "in good standing on the right"? Can't vouch for his entire history of statements, but I'll guess that the closest you can get to those positions is a belief in anti-Trump media bias.

Regular on Fox and head of the ACU. I'd say that he is. What are his views on climate change and the impact of regressive tax cuts?

Let me note here, in case it's not clear, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a couple of legit examples (though I don't know that Schlapp is one--interested in seeing your response to my request for a description of his views). But I think it's generally true. Just like there are probably some NBA players under six feet tall. For that matter, of course there are some right-wing academics. It's just that my explanation for why there aren't a lot (contrary to Inga and Anung's theory of a conspiracy against them) is that features of the movement (specifically hostility to free inquiry and the demand of acceptance of objective falsehoods) tend to repel academics. I asked Inga twice (and she twice refused to answer) if she thinks that biology departments should make an effort to hire creationists.
 
NVM the fact you not posting for 3 months is welching you should be ousted from the rankings

Gotta disagree there. Sure, him avoiding the place for the duration out of shame probably wasn't anticipated, but dude had no obligation to post unless it was stated in the bet.

Curious though, if you change your sig it doesn't update your past posts, like if you changed your AV?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top