Jump to content
  • Playwire Ad Area

InterMat Forums v. Ban Basketball


BobDole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.
  • Playwire Ad Area



  • Playwire Ad Area
  • Latest Rankings

  • College Commitments

    Adam Mattin

    Delta, Ohio
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Stanford
    Projected Weight: 125, 133

    Grant Stromberg

    Mukwonago, Wisconsin
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Northern Iowa
    Projected Weight: 285

    Hudson Ward

    Canton, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 165

    Alex Reed

    Shikellamy, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125

    Darren Florance

    Harpursville, New York
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125
  • Playwire Ad Area
×
×
  • Create New...