AlaskaGuy: Bet Welcher

[OUGuy1999]

MEANWHILE

IN THE SPORTSHOOPLA COURTROOM:

I love this movie.

It's like a midget horse. lulz

Yea, had to look it up, figures with the spelling such as "Shetland" it would be Scottish. Gotta love them scotts.

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

It's like a midget horse. lulz

 

[ukfanfrombirth(cali cat)]

I already posted the conversation... you can see it HERE

Thanks for the link.
I just mentioned screenshots 'cause they really do set certain types into a tailspin, and it's fucking hilarious.

I'm not really familiar with AG, so I don't know if he's one of those "certain types," or not.

 

[ukfanfrombirth(cali cat)]

KYS EAD

Delete your post ...

~and~

EABOD

 

[OUGuy1999]

Thanks for the link.
I just mentioned screenshots 'cause they really do set certain types into a tailspin, and it's fucking hilarious.

I'm not really familiar with AG, so I don't know if he's one of those "certain types," or not.

Welcome, I really dislike AG, he is pretty much a loony toon. I have no issues with the two that are accusing him of not paying bets, to be honest i wouldn't doubt it that AG does it often. However the bet in question has missing pieces. Therefor i cannot take any particular side on this other than what is being shown.

 

[Ojb81]

First and foremost don't confuse me as someone you want to target, i dont play those games.

Second, no i am not a lawyer, are you? If you want to claim that you are please provide your credentials so we can all see.

Third, i have worked as a contractor for years, i know how to read contracts and understand the liabilities within them. So i have a pretty good understanding as what a legal contract looks like.

Fourth, i don't like AG one bit, however i look at what is presented and make a clear judgement in what is shown. So far no evidence has been provided to show that a conceptual agreement had been taken place between two people. We have an offer, we have odds presented, we have a question about the odds and agreement, we do not have an acceptance between two parties of the offers provided. That by law is not a contractual agreement between two people, only a conversation.

I would be more than happy to take your side, like i said before i don't like AG one bit. However you have to provide valid evidence in what your claim is. So far, you only have a conversation of a bet, not acceptance between two parties. For that reason, your argument of the bet taking place in acceptance between two parties is not valid.

 

[Bayou Tiger]

Welcome, I really dislike AG, he is pretty much a loony toon. I have no issues with the two that are accusing him of not paying bets, to be honest i wouldn't doubt it that AG does it often. However the bet in question has missing pieces. Therefor i cannot take any particular side on this other than what is being shown.

Ban both of them?

Double ban all the wayyyyyyyyyy........

 

[ukfanfrombirth(cali cat)]

Welcome, I really dislike AG, he is pretty much a loony toon. I have no issues with the two that are accusing him of not paying bets, to be honest i wouldn't doubt it that AG does it often. However the bet in question has missing pieces. Therefor i cannot take any particular side on this other than what is being shown.

It's actually kind of refreshing to see someone trying to make a fair assessment, instead of just fucking around (like I am).
The only one of the three with whom I have any real familiarity is handi. I've posted with him on several sites ... for years. Hell, there have been suggestions over those many years I'm one of his alts, too.

 

[steelerssb]

Delete your post ...

~and~

EABOD

What a Trolly McTroller

 

[huskers1217]

What a Trolly McTroller

Fuck you and DIAF you clocastain


@JuiceTheGator

 

[ukfanfrombirth(cali cat)]

What a Trolly McTroller

What ever happened to Trolly?

 

[steelerssb]

Fuck you and DIAF you clocastain


@JuiceTheGator

 

[steelerssb]

What ever happened to Trolly?

I'd need to know who's alt that was first

 

[JuiceTheGator]

Fuck you and DIAF you clocastain


@JuiceTheGator

Why u talk like LeaderOCola?

 

[ukfanfrombirth(cali cat)]

I'd need to know who's alt that was first

All I can say is it was someone who was on cBS. At one point, he decided to stop posting with the SN by which people were familiar with him and created Trolly (this was all back on cBS). To my knowledge, he used the Trolly id from that point on.

 

[7Samurai13]

@michaeljordan_fan what bet did AG welsh on you?

 

[ukfanfrombirth(cali cat)]

Ban both of them?

Double ban all the wayyyyyyyyyy........

But ... but ... if @handicappers got banned, you, and @dbldwn711 , and @Peter Gozintite , and @Wild Turkey , and @steelerssb , and all of handi's alts (this id included) would have to be banned, too.

That would kinda suck.

 

[7Samurai13]

But ... but ... if @handicappers got banned, you, and @dbldwn711 , and @Peter Gozintite , and @Wild Turkey , and @steelerssb , and all of handi's alts (this id included) would have to be banned, too.

That would kinda suck.

 

[dbldwn711]

What i posted was the original conversation of the bet taking place. Now, if you have further evidence to prove he accepted the bet then it is your job as the prosecutor to provide said evidence to convict the defendant. So when you provide that, then we can provide proper judgement of evidence provided.

I did provide “proof”. I stated his CONDUCT coupled with his FAILURE TO REJECT the terms (after acknowledging them) constitutes “acceptance”.

I FURTHER showed “proof” by the concept of detrimental reliance (handi relied upon his conduct and lack of saying “no”) to presume a bet. That is a reasonable and foreseeable reaction to his CONDUCT therefore it’s an enforceable bet.

As such, the burden of proof then shifts to you to DISPROVE both of these things. You haven’t because you can’t! That’s why you keeping reverting back to your erroneous understanding of contract law regarding offers/acceptance and your ignoring of the concept of detrimental reliance. The fact is your arguments are circular and as such WRONG.

 

[dbldwn711]

Please reach out to your finance department at your place of employment and ask them how invoices and contracts between suppliers work. It is apparent that you have no clue what so ever.

So no answer to my question... just an insult. Got it.

very telling.