I think Der Trihs is getting stuck on the concept that accepting the money constitutes agreement to carry out the terms under which the money was offered.
The business about “Why would you trust the word of someone who would accept a bribe?” was kinda funny to me, in a perverse sort of way…
When I dealt with him as a professor, which was a limited interaction (so I don’t know what he got his Ph.D. in, and I don’t know what courses he teaches, for instance… but I do know where he teaches, and we did have a limited interaction that involved his professional life-- I don’t want to say more because frankly, I don’t know how crazy you are and I don’t want to give you enough info to possibly track him down, OK?) he was pleasant and professional. When I dealt with him as a person, in person, he was friendly and decent. I like him and continue to like him. He’s not my bosom friend, but I did stick my neck way the fuck out in this and other threads to defend him, so obviously I thought it was worth it.
You still can’t just admit you were wrong, can you?
She’s pretty weak, overall. I wouldn’t waste a single hour waiting on Zoe fessing up to a fuck up.
Dude, I sure could use 500 bucks right now; and you seem to have a surplus of cash. What would my absence be worth and how long?
Emphysema. (Some problems are attributable to heart disease and diabetes as well, but the emphysema has been advancing the fastest.)
That’s like saying I convinced you to be party to it with your unending posts about it. I did not “convince” Tris of anything.
I’ll consider that as proof that you either didn’t read or didn’t comprehend or didn’t care about what I bothered explaining to you. Der Trihs has the courage of his convictions, as I said. At least it’s good to know you lied about all that “respect” business.
What if the thing you agree to do is something that’s inherently wrong? For instance, if you offer me money to kill someone, and I take your money, but then run right to the cops and don’t do the assassination, am I wrong?
OK, I pick “blood”. I think I can take you.
What is your deal?! First you claim that $500 means nothing to you; then you refuse to part with it, even in the face of dibs and unction; and now you want to give me all your blood instead? Cripes, I only included the “blood” option for form’s sake; I never seriously expected you to take me up on it. You’re just making this unreasonably difficult for all concerned.
Interestingly I have done none of the things you ascribe to me. You’re currently batting zero.
So, you’re not sticking to your offer to settle this in blood? Damn it, I had the arena and weapons picked out and everything, and I had chosen a nice black shirt to wear and started to work on my trashtalking. We were going to have a whole Thunderdome thing going with Dopers hanging on the walls and screaming.
Honestly, I’m having a hard time understanding how this doesn’t qualify as “inconsistency.”
I didn’t say I wouldn’t accept; it’s just that I’m not too clear on what you have in mind with the arena and shirt and all. As my earlier post clearly implies, the “blood” settlement works the exact same way as the “$500” settlement; that is, in lieu of giving me $500, you give me your blood. All of it.
Look, just give me the $500, okay?
Just out of curiosity though, what weapons had you picked out? I think I do have a nice sash lying around somewhere… Sashes are appropriate arena wear, aren’t they?
Sounds like a bad deal for me, doesn’t it? Naaah, I’ll stick to my “duel” interpretation.
Shan’t. So neener-neener.
Certainly. Sashes, bandanas, basically anything that hangs off you without actually serving a purpose. Be advised, though, that I intend to make full use of the “bulletproof nudity” rules.
Oops, didn’t answer the weapon question. Well, we’d start with the lirpa, for geek points. Then, the gasoline-driven chainsaw with very little gasoline left is always popular, followed by baseball bats with six inch nails in them. For that part of the event, we’d have to use shields. After that, some light firearm work might be in order before we finish it off with the ubiquitous sabre&main-gauche combination.
If you’re still standing after that, I guess my fists will have to show why I like to call them “Dynamite” and “Sledgehammer”.
PRR hasn’t actually gone, has he? I really hope not, despite everything.
Don’t worry. I am hoping to channel PPR and make his posts from “the other side.”
Well I have to really or I don’t get the $250.
Wait, I feel his spirit with us…
Fuck Christians!
Well, we have to get it from somewhere.
Jebus H. Christopher, I read your ‘explanations’. I found them lacking in defense. It still boils down to you paid a poster to go away. It was your action, in fact your action over my protest. **PRR ** was party to this, in fact he seem to goad you into standing by your offer. Liberal, I really dislike what you did, but I will say this for you. The calls for you being a weasel were wrong and incorrect. I am glad I did not hammer that point much. What you did was false to fighting ignorance or even general good behavior. Maybe you should consider another bit of time off for yourself.
PRR might annoy the hell out of people but he fully appears to be honorable enough to stand by this stupid deal. He is gone and planning on collecting his $500 in 2 years.
Jim
“An honest judge is one who stays bought.”
OK, we’ve allowed y’all to vent about this for a while.
At this point, since pseudotriton ruber ruber is no longer on the boards, personal insults directed against him are not permitted. This is a long-standing policy, that it is unfair to insult posters who are not around any longer or are somehow blocked from posting. They are unable to defend themselves, and so attacks are not sporting.
Discussion of the deal itself or the morality/ethics involved or the nature of hired work (in this case, hired idleness) is OK to continue, but please leave personal insults directed at PRR out of it.
And to clarify some comments made earlier, and emphasis a small point tomndebb made: pseudotriton has two fairly minor warnings over the last year. He was NOT on any sort of moderator’s “bad guy” list. Some of his opinions may have been unpopular* but that’s not a rules violation. The moderators decided to interpret this affair as being similar to a bet between consenting adults, and so not to interfere. The political or religious opinons of either party were not involved in that decision.