Jump to content

InterMat Forums v. Ban Basketball

BobDole

By BobDole
in College Wrestling

 Share

Does Ban Basketball owe Bob Dole $1,000?  

49 members have voted

  1. 1. Please render a verdict

    • Yes he is guilty of all charges
      37
    • No, he is not guilty
      12

Recommended Posts

Wrestleknownothing Big Brain

Wrestleknownothing

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Maxwell Smart said:

It is ( not it's) pinfelled. Put "pinfelled in google, no definition came up.

I can't (not cannot) decide which I enjoyed more. That if you remove the paranthetical "correction" that was un-needed (because as I will explain in this un-needed paranthetical, my original post said it is, not it's) you say it is pinfelled, or that you googled pinfelled. Thank you for brightening what had been a bad few days.

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 579
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

nhs67
nhs67

Page 5 of 5. Weasel words are the true victors. There was no inferring even being attempted or insinuating until BB lost the bet.  Then he weaseled out of it. Under technicality, @jross

bnwtwg
bnwtwg

I like having Ban around because then I’m not the dumbest person allowed to wander outside The Zoo walls. He’s like the husband in my wife’s friend group that swears by crypto - I look good by default

Caveira
Caveira

A jury of ban’s closest family would convict him based on his personality alone.   Can you imagine spending a week in a Vrbo with him?    

Posted Images

WildTurk State Placer

WildTurk

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

How do you guys jerk in a circle? I tried to do it but I just got super dizzy and apprehended by TSA and anyways hey woah woah woah woah woah TMFINR!!!!

This thread is Wild.. 

Last one to finish eats the Cookie. You know the rules. One Bite

Link to comment
Share on other sites
98lberEating2Lunches College Redshirt

98lberEating2Lunches

Posted
Posted

Ban asks Bob about more recent years after mentioning "in 10 years" AND in that very same post.  This indicates Ban thinks he knows Penrith's (distant years) correctly, and so asks about more recent years.

It's clear from the dialog Ban never accepts the bet when restated by Bob.

Two different bets were proffered about the number of UNI AA wrestlers:

1) Ban: In (any) 10 years at 14 (initially 17 but revised);

2) Bob: In most recent 10 years (ending in 2012) at 9.

Ban does not accept many subsequent attempts by Bob to obtain Ban's agreement to Bob's terms.

Neither bet was ever agreed upon  by both Ban and Bob.  Therefore, no bet was made. Only terms of potential bets were under consideration.  Therefore, neither Ban nor Bob owes the other $1,000.

Therefore Ban does not owe Bob $1000.  As such, Ban is not guilty of the charge based on the evidence presented.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BobDole NCAA All-American

BobDole

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, 98lberEating2Lunches said:

Ban asks Bob about more recent years after mentioning "in 10 years" AND in that very same post.  This indicates Ban thinks he knows Penrith's (distant years) correctly, and so asks about more recent years.

It's clear from the dialog Ban never accepts the bet when restated by Bob.

Two different bets were proffered about the number of UNI AA wrestlers:

1) Ban: In (any) 10 years at 14 (initially 17 but revised);

2) Bob: In most recent 10 years (ending in 2012) at 9.

Ban does not accept many subsequent attempts by Bob to obtain Ban's agreement to Bob's terms.

Neither bet was ever agreed upon  by both Ban and Bob.  Therefore, no bet was made. Only terms of potential bets were under consideration.  Therefore, neither Ban nor Bob owes the other $1,000.

Therefore Ban does not owe Bob $1000.  As such, Ban is not guilty of the charge based on the evidence presented.

I stated twice my position with the exact words of last 10 years with data to back up my statement. He twice rebutted that I was wrong, the proposed the bet and I agreed based on my statements. He only backed down when he realized he was ***gasp*** wrong! You can't make a bet then go back on it when you realize you lost.

If he was insinuating the Penrith years he would have said that in one of the two rebuttals after I posted exact data to support my claim. Instead he is so infatuated with always being right that he didn't even read the post to see what I was saying.

Never did he mention Penrith until after he initiated the bet. He initiated the bet based on my statement of 9 AA's in the last 10 years. It is not my fault his reading comprehension skills are not up to par.

What he did was akin to playing blackjack and crying because he didn't know the dealer could hit 21 after he lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nhs67 Big Brain

nhs67

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

It is pronounced wrestle known o'thing. I am half Irish on my father in law's side.

To me it looks like
"Wrestle Known Oth
         Ing"

"I know actually nothing.  It isn't even conjecture at this point." - me

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nhs67 Big Brain

nhs67

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, 98lberEating2Lunches said:

Ban asks Bob about more recent years after mentioning "in 10 years" AND in that very same post.  This indicates Ban thinks he knows Penrith's (distant years) correctly, and so asks about more recent years.

It's clear from the dialog Ban never accepts the bet when restated by Bob.

Two different bets were proffered about the number of UNI AA wrestlers:

1) Ban: In (any) 10 years at 14 (initially 17 but revised);

2) Bob: In most recent 10 years (ending in 2012) at 9.

Ban does not accept many subsequent attempts by Bob to obtain Ban's agreement to Bob's terms.

Neither bet was ever agreed upon  by both Ban and Bob.  Therefore, no bet was made. Only terms of potential bets were under consideration.  Therefore, neither Ban nor Bob owes the other $1,000.

Therefore Ban does not owe Bob $1000.  As such, Ban is not guilty of the charge based on the evidence presented.

Does he at least owe CKWC $2600 ($1k*2) when factoring inflation) for being a turdbiscuit?

Asking for a friend.

"I know actually nothing.  It isn't even conjecture at this point." - me

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bigbrog NCAA Champion

Bigbrog

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, BobDole said:

Always the groundbreaker, the first one to cancel himself.

Reminds me of the ride along I did with my stepbro who is a cop and he pulled over this guy doing 70 in a 30 mph zone.  Guy was super pissed and blamed my stepbro for making him late to work...ummm, sorry, but YOU made yourself late for work, and now you are going to be even more late and your wallet is going to be much lighter.

Ban is intent on banning himself...and then will once again play the victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BobDole NCAA All-American

BobDole

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 minutes ago, Caveira said:

A jury of ban’s closest family would convict him based on his personality alone.   Can you imagine spending a week in a Vrbo with him?    

That is called cruel and unusual punishment. I wouldn't wish that upon my worst enemy.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...