Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

Is a chronic grievance over an imaginary win, a measure of someone's integrity?

Chronic grievance - i have refereed to your welshing twice since you welshed back in 2016. Chronic.

As for the idea that GR would welch on a publicly made bet should he loose, heavens forbid. I am sure he is an honourable man of his word. Even were such an unlikely event to occur I am sure I would get my 100 euros worth of value eventually just being able to remind him of having done so on here for years to follow

imaginary win - cyprus44835-210.html?hilit=loose#p843265

And you still miss the point. I am not the one asking people to run some code I have written on their machines such that they may wish to consider 'is this person trustworthy'

Lesson to be learned: Next time don’t type nonsense invalidating the meaning.

Oh and use whichever software you like...

[erolz66]

Lesson to be learned....

Alternative lesson learnt, do not assume that GR will necessarily do the right and honourable thing, just because it is right and honourable.

[erolz66]

While I am at it. Not only did you not, imo, act honourably you also chose to take the most dishonourable approach as well.

Option 1

Make a bet, lose the bet, pay up.

This is the only honourable way to behave when you make a bet.

Option 2

Make a bet. Lose the bet. Say 'hah hah, you did not think I would really pay up did you ?

This is dishonourable but it is also materially less dishonourable than

Option 3

Make a bet, Lose the bet. Make a bullshit excuse (not reason) why you are not going to honour the bet and then attack the person you made the bet with, using the (alleged) ethnicity of the person you made the bet with and accuse them of dishonourable behaviour because you do not want to pay up.

So not only, as far as I am concerned, did you not act honourably you then chose to act in the most dishonourable way possible.

Of course this is all in my opinion but it is there in 'historical record' cyprus44835-210.html?hilit=loose#p843265

[Get Real!]

Erol, there’s a big difference between...

“remain to loose”

and

“remain camp to lose”

Start expressing yourself properly and you’ll have fewer misunderstandings.

I'm done with this issue.

[erolz66]

Erol, there’s a big difference between...

So you took the bet knowing you would not pay out in the event you lost ? I mean this mistake was in the terms of the bet itself and in my previous suggestion to have a bet with you before that and yet then, before you had lost, you expressed no difficulty at all in understanding me. You think this appears a credible explanation as why you did not welsh on the bet ? lol Seems quite the opposite to me.

I'm done with this issue.

You seemed to me pretty done with it almost as soon as you welshed which is pretty inevitable I guess. You may well be done with it, I on the other hand may well chose to continue to mention it as and when I feel like it, especially if there are discussion that pertain your honour or trustworthiness. Don't you just love 'open and free' forums without excessive moderation and unedited histories ?

[Get Real!]

In future get a parent/guardian to write things out for you or proofread your posts, and quit giving us a headache. Thanks.

[erolz66]

In future get a parent/guardian to write things out for you or proofread your posts, and quit giving us a headache. Thanks.

After I posted the terms of the bet, you re-quoted them back to me, complete with the word loose in it and then said "Yeah, that sounds reasonable. You're on for €100." cyprus44835-210.html#p843266

Now being as fair to you as possible I actually think it is most likely that you did misunderstand the bet, in your own head. But that is your misunderstanding not mine and it is nothing to do with the word 'loose' rather than 'lose'. If you remove that part entirely, you still misunderstood the bet. Even if the bet was "remain have to win by more than 60% for you to win. 60% or less, and I win". There is a full stop between the two things. Your win condition does have 'if they win and' which is superfluous because its is not possible to not win and get 60% or over. There is no connection between that and my 'win condition' which was solely '60% or less, I win'. The full stop clearly and definitivley sperates your win condition and mention of winning from mine , with no such mention of winning. The notion that my win condition as written and as re-quote by you and accepted by you, was 'they must win but win with less than 60%' is entirely your misunderstanding and your mistake ans something that existed only in your head and nothing to do with the use of the word 'loose'.

So here is a proposal for you. Just accept that you misunderstood the bet and that your not paying is based on your misunderstanding and I will never mention it again on this forum. Unlikely I know but the offer is there. Hell you can even do so via a private message if you like and I will stick to my side of this proposal.

[Londonrake]

This thread has been totally fascinating.

To the point where I would happily fork out the €100 if we got together for a beer.

I imagine that's a bit of a problem though - given all the harsh words

Milti would, I have no doubt, vouch for me as a neutral agent.

[Sotos]

The bet was crystal clear. So there are only two possibilities: (1) GR was dishonest , (2) GR is even more stupid than what we think.

[Get Real!]

This thread has been totally fascinating.

To the point where I would happily fork out the €100 if we got together for a beer.

I imagine that's a bit of a problem though - given all the harsh words

Milti would, I have no doubt, vouch for me as a neutral agent.

I swear sometimes I feel like I’m married to 50 women in here… they whinge all day relentlessly… the drama never stops!