I was challenged by John Mace to a wager:
“PAYBACK’S A BITCH” says grief-crazed prez–blows up wrong house, women, kids
Views: 4,037
Posted By John Mace
Wanna bet?
I made a good faith effort to engage.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=354144&highlight=mitchell
I have not been graced with either an acceptance of my terms, or a proposed ;modification.
I want one or the other, or an admission that he was blowing smoke up my ass.
LOOK, Context: Post #109
With any reasonable terms, John’ll just take your money.
fine and feathers.
Let him put some terms on the table.
I have defined the prospective wager as follows.
!. Some standard of events:
a:regime change in pakistan
b. repudiation of the alliance by musharref
Some standard window of time,
proposed, six months .
The stakes:The Mitchell Bros. vs. San Jose Equivalent
I grant you, there is NO equivalent to the Mitchell Brothers, anywhere in the Continental United States (trust me on this I’ve made a study) let alone San Jose, but I’m easy.
“Wanna bet” is a colloquial expression meaning “I’m very sure that’s not gonna happen.” It doesn’t mean the speaker is actually wagering.
yes, well that was option # 2…
Unless the speaker is Bricker, and then I hope that Bricker takes the OP for all he’s worth.
for cryin out loud, two tickets to the Mitchells, (if advantageously purchased, ie during “discount hour” 5-6 pm–(oh no–I’ve said too much) $30.00
I’ve already stipulated that he’s on his own for lapdances, or "whatever’
I have been known to make a bet or two around here. 
At the time, though, I wasn’t serious since it would’ve been such a sucker bet. That’s why I didn’t pursue it further. But since you sooooo much want to be a sucker, alericthegoth, I will oblige.
I’m sure you didn’t mean “survive” in the literal sense, so I’ll be easy on you for the actual bet. I’ll take it that “survive” means “stays in power”. Now, we just have to figure out the timeframe. Three months from the date of the bombing?
Mitchell Brothers is fine There isn’t one in SJ, but there is one in SF. I’m up there often enough.
I think six months is a reasonable window–after all, he’s already survived two assassination attempts, and it may take awhile to organize the next one. I’d be open to splittig the difference, ie 135 days.
nb, as well, if he renounces the alliance (warning, he’s already reported to have forbidden further bombing).
Query:assume another “targeted assassination”, followed by ritual denunciation.
How shall we parse the same for sincerity versus management of public opinion.
ie, what is the standard for renunciation of the alliance, given that M. is powerless, after all, to PREVENT the dispatch of predators.
there are supposedly 80k pak troops in the tribal areas.
how about the withdrawal of some significant fraction, say 1/3 to be evidence that M. has moved towards placating the oppo. which we have inflamed.?
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Are you saying you want other conditions for the bet? Here’s what prompted me to bet in the first place:
The bet is simply over whether or not he survives, with “survive” meaning “reamains in office”. I’m not betting about “rtiual denunciation”, whatever that even means. I’m not betting about public opinion.
It’s a simple bet. Take it or leave it.
You seem to have lost some of the bravado you exhibited in your thread title…
I specifically alluded to the alternative that he capitulates to the demand from his opposition that he distance himself from the US
Surely you don’t want to rule that out as equally unlikely (from your point of view?
herewith my original proposition:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace
Wanna bet?
I suppose we would need to clarify the parameters–ie, how much modification of his public stance (amelioration) would I concede to, how long a period do you give for the upheaval to occur, how do we define “survive” (I don’t mean physically, altho I’d say he’s rolling the dice there as well, given past history…)
Even if I was interested in that type of bet (which I’m not) it would be impossible to measure. I’m only interested in the original bet. If you’re not interested, then you might just want to ask a mod to close this thread.
heres a simple formulation
My premise is that the actions under review have impaired our strategic interests in the area, whatever the alleged tactical gains.
let the standard be the state of the us-pak alliance at the end of 135 days.
set forth what you consider to be that will evidence that it continues unimpaired.
I think you should ask a mod to close this thread. Seriously. I’m not ineterested in some random bet about Pakistan. If you don’t think Musharif will be forced out of office, then you shouldn’t have posted what you did in the original thread.
fair enough. dead or out in 135.
I think he will try and trim, but to no avail… It does not look as if he will be able to enforce his mandate vis-a-vis further incursions, and I think that will be the measure of his fate. So it’s a bet.
135 or 90 days, no matter. But I’m concerned about the ethics of betting over someone’s death. If you clear it with one of the mods, OK, but the death has to be an assissination-- death by accident or natural causes doesn’t count. Assissinated or out (of the presidency) in 135. BTW, his current term in office ends in '07.
Holy shit. If Vegas sportbooks changed the parameters of a wager a fraction as often as this, they’d be out of business.
Alaric, are you betting he’s President in 6 months. or are you betting on some convoluted formula that may (I doubt it) make this less the sucker bet that it really is?
Come up with a straightforward line and I might even be interested.