Sage Rat, your time is up

Hello Sage Rat, Mr and Mrs North America, and all the ships at sea!

Back in January of 2017, you made a bet with the now banned Okrahoma in this post:

Alas, Okrahoma is now with the banned. He’s struck up the banned. He’s part of the banned of brothers.

But he’s banned and determined to collect on the wager nonetheless.

Because I served as an escrow service for a previous wager involving him and another poster, he reached out to me and asked if I would be willing to post a reminder here, on the off chance that Sage Rat had forgotten the end date for this had come and gone. I agreed.

He asks that the $100 donation be made to the Family Research Council or Freedom Watch. Or, if you prefer, although not technically a charitable donation, he will accept a donation to Trump’s 2020 campaign as satisfying the obligation.

He asks for a scanned receipt for the charity donation as proof.

If you DM me, I will supply his e-mail address.

Bricker! You didn’t fall off the edge of the world! Are you back, or is this a one-off?

This is likely a one-off, or a few-off. I’m cruising through the forums now, but my intention is not to resume regular participation.

I’ve sent Okrahoma a link to this thread, so, really, my job here is done. So I’m just going to wander around, murmur a bit at what you’ve done with the place, and fade back into legendary greatness of old.

Isn’t the bet off since Trump was impeached before 1/12/20?

It does look like the bet is off, reading the link.

Trump is impeached. Probably won’t be forced out of office, but he is impeached.

Welcome back Bricker, hope you at least pop in and out from time to time.

Thanks, and wow – can’t believe I missed that. I assume Okrahoma is reading this, but I’ll drop him a note to point out the impeached exclusion.

I think in this context they meant impeached as in booted from office.

In the 2017 thread, some people agreed:

But others did not:

There was this exchange:

I obviously can’t waive any claims Okrahoma might make, and I’ll pass on any commentary he has.

EXCEPT American history is rife with politicians resigning after impeachment to avoid trial. Plus if they meant impeached and convicted they should have written “and convicted”

Maybe. But it Post 96 Okrahoma specifically differentiates between impeachment and removal from office.


Trump has been impeached. There is nothing the Senate can do that can nullify that. Regardless of what people ‘understand’ impeachment to mean, it does have a specific meaning that does not change. Trump has been impeached, and he will always have been impeached.

Some may argue that ‘impeachment’ in the context of the bet is ‘understood’ to mean ‘removed from office’. Suppose two people are playing a game. They both ‘understand’ the rules. Perhaps one person understands explicitly as written, with knowledge of the definitions of the words making up the rules, and the other ‘understands’ the rules not as-written, but by ‘tradition’. Perhaps both parties ‘understand’ the ‘traditional’ usage instead of the explicit usage. (How many people play Monopoly where landing on Free Parking results in a windfall, vs. where landing on Free Parking is merely a no-penalty resting place?) If a dispute arises, then the players need to turn to the explicit rules. In the case of a bet, one may consider it a ‘contract’. If a contract is poorly written, then the parties must abide by the text as much as they must do if it was well-written.

The bet specifically stated impeachment as a condition that nullifies the bet. Trump was impeached. Therefore, the bet is nullified.

Name 3. Of the rifiest, please.

Yes, but in post 98, it sounds to me like “impeached” has been used as shorthand for impeachment and removal, given the aside about pedants:

I guess it depends on how legalistic/how much of a textualist you want to be about this. Technically and textually, bets are off. There is no question about that to me. From my perspective, the spirit of the bet used the word “impeached” to mean “impeached and removed from office” as that’s the only way it makes sense in context to me. But I trust Sage Rat will let us know his intent.

(Oddly, I had no recollection of participating in that thread, but I was totally wrong about Trump not getting technically impeached. Good thing I didn’t bet! :))

Not to Junior Mod but you should check with Tuba or somebody before posting any commentary. Acting as a banned person’s proxy might get you banned as well.

In the context of the thread, ISTM that “impeached” meant “removed from office” But that is up to Sage Rat, and I wouldn’t think any less of him if he believes the bet is off.

Hi, Bricker - I was going to bet you five bucks you weren’t going to post again, but that might be against the rules. But maybe that’s only in GD and P&E.


Hum, that’s true.

I appreciate the link to the new rules.

Huh. By that measure, even this thread may amount to prohibited communication.

Well, that’s it from me, then.

Well, I don’t know for sure. I could’ve sworn that one of the rules stickies mentioned acting as a proxy is verboten but neither the ones in ATMB nor the one in MPSIMS currently mention that. You should check with someone currently on staff.