Thank you, Dopers and (eventually) Pitters!

The BBQ Pit
281

Here’s my take on the $500 offer. This is how I think it would go down in my jurisdiction. YMMV. FTR, IAAL.

Post #42. This is not an offer, but a “possible” offer. It’s basically indicating a willingness to do a deal on these terms but subject to agreeing the finer points of the deal which are to be worked later.

Post #46. Indicates an agreement to entering into a contract.

Post #49. Proposes terms of contract.

Post #51. Rejects terms.

In response to pseudotriton ruber ruber’s suggestion that Liberal was trying to weasel out of the “offer”:

Post #54. “There’s no reason for me to back out of my offer” has to be interpreted as meaning that (a) there was an “offer” as such, and (b) it still stands, but subject to the original terms as defined at post #49.

In response to suggestion by hajario at post #59 that the money be held in escrow for the two year period:

Post #65. Provides further definition re the original terms. The use of the word “intended” has to be taken to refer at the time of making what post #54 confirms was actually an offer. The statement that “Tris would also be acceptable” (as distinct from “would also have been”) indicates that the offer could still be accepted.

Post #67. Offer accepted.

In response to Bryan Ekers’ suggestion that pseudotriton ruber ruber ought not accept the deal as Liberal had posted elsewhere in August 2005 that he did not expect to be “on this earth for more than another year or two”:

Post #155. At this point, there is a valid contract and the third party should already hold the money.

282

Well done buns3000, now you will start a legal debate… :slight_smile:

I move for a change of venue, so to speak, and let the laws of Oz apply. Let Lib and PRR have it out on the board. A “Kangaroo” (just kidding Aussies) court thing. US legal types on the board can play, but by Aussie rules. Something different.

Come on Lib and PRR, let’s have some fun.

283

Yes, but both third parties refused. Poly said he would not hold the money for any reason, and Tris said he would stuff it under a mattress and forget about it. There is still no meeting of mind among any three parties. Other than that, your recounting is substantially correct.

284

There are still a few thousand other potential third parties. You don’t get out of your offer that easily.

285

What a consistent little slave-whore you are. Nothing would please me more than to toss some coins at you and watch you do my bidding. But I don’t know thousands of these people, let alone trust them. When someone whom I trust volunteers, I’ll let you know. The realization of your empty philosophy — with which you insult genuine atheists everywhere — crashing and burning at the whim of a Christian is well worth the small cost.

286

Keep weaseling. You propose paying me, but lament that there is no possible way to do so, unfortunately, despite all my suggestions for how you might do so with no risk to yourself (or your precious wife’s life). If you just admitted your offer was insincere and that you never had any intention to pay me a nickel because you thought I’d never accept your offer, or might accept it conditionally (and so allow you some cover to weasel out), then I’d drop this subject.

Admit that and we’re done. Or keep weaseling. Your call.

287

I don’t want to get into the question of whether a genuine offer was made or not. But I do want to know what Americans call something-that’s-not-quite-an-offer. Over here it goes by the rather lovely term “invitation to treat”.

288

“Ground(s) for negotiation.” (Either.)

289

The phrasing of the original offer (“If I give you $500, will you just go away?”) suggests payment in advance was offered (as opposed to “If you just go away, I’ll give you $500”).

Heck, give me the money and I’ll send PRR a check dated March 1, 2009. He already knows my name and location (as does any SDMB reader) and I don’t care if he knows my address or the name of my bank. There’s a minor issue of exchange rates to be considered if my offer is accepted but I doubt it will so we’ll leave that for now.

In any event, I suggest Liberal spell out exactly what terms he has in mind because, as buns3000 has helpfully pointed out, they seem casually subject to modification. Further, the claimed “rejection” is specious, since the terms (“You may signify your agreement by your immediate compliance.”) are unreasonable - they include no means for prr to signal agreement and since Liberal has not offered an e-mail address nor established who will act as middleman, no means to negotiate payment.

Of course, I stand by my earlier statement that the whole thing is idiotic. This will not, however, prevent me from effective participation in a manner ultimately negotiated by the parties, provided my services as middleman are acceptable and incur no significant cost (i.e. more than a postage stamp or two) to me.
Suggested American phrasing: “sending up a trial balloon.”

290

Same term here. If an invitation to treat is “clear, definite, and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation”, then it may be considered an offer. See Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store (1957)

291

No for two reasons:

(1) A postdate on a check is a worthless scribble. A check may be cashed as soon as it is signed.

and

(2) After using a year-old post about my poor health as a means to lash out at me, you said with regard to this matter that I have no credibility, that you are not inclined to believe me, that you do not trust me, and that I am an idiot.

Trust, respect, and things like that go both ways, sir. It is astounding that you would present yourself as some disinterested third party. Maybe you’ll just keep my money to teach me a lesson.

292

The thought had occured, but I’m a fan of giving people enough rope to hang themselves (it’s the libertarian in me) so I’m more motivated to agree to your conditions just for the amusement of watching you change them. If I ever actually got the $500, I wouldn’t jeopardize my own standing on this board (such as it is) by not following through with what I had agreed. I could request other long-time Montreal SDMB members like matt_mcl serve as independent observer (or, for that matter, I nominate matt_mcl as a go-between - he’s an honourable sort).

In any event, if I’m not acceptable, what steps are you taking to find someone who is (or an acceptable method of direct payment to prr without the need for go-betweens)? That is, of course, assuming you’re serious about this entire affair.

I suggest you create a temporary e-mail address and get prr to send you his information (name, workplace address, etc.), which you can independently verify (if he is indeed a professor of something, he should have a web presence of some kind) and the information balance will be in your favour. Then, say, offer a half-payment upon his banning (which he would trigger in the manner described) and a half-payment mailed to his workplace two years from now.

Personally, I think you should give him the full amount after he gets himself banned - not doing so suggests you don’t trust the administrators of the SDMB to enforce their own rules. He can e-mail me (or any other satisfactory third party) when he receives your money, which will then be reported to the board, independently demonstrating your compliance.

293

This is simply brilliant! I love it! Here is what Tris said:

Seems like he/she could hardly be more excited about the idea. Just for shits and giggles I will highlight the relevant parts:

Oh and I almost forgot…

‘$$$’

294

Here, let me be clear in what I am willing to do.

Anyone who wants can send me money. Paypal to my board email address, or email me there and make other arrangements, which might be acceptable to me, or then again, might not. No guarantee on whether I will tell anyone my real name and address, this is the internet and you are all psycho stalkers until evidence suggests otherwise. Folks who already know my name and phone number can contact me that way, since if they are psycho stalkers, I am toast already.

I don’t promise to live any length of time. My youngest son might well outlive you all, though, and he is pretty honest. He will have access to my funds when I die, and your funds will be part of that. This is not an escrow offer. I put the money wherever I feel like it. The mattress comment was meant to suggest that if you send money to strangers for foolish social gestures, you get what you deserve, fudiciarily speaking. I am not actually a bank. Most likely, your money goes right into my checking account, or savings account. I do not offer interest on the money to you. You are getting more than you deserve from the fact that I actually will pay the funds to whomever the written agreement designates. (cyber written, and received by me in my email box from both parties, in precisely the same words and signed, with their board name.)

Failing compliance with the above, I don’t deposit anything, refuse any payments, and the deal is off. Assuming the deal goes down, I will send the money to the person I think has complied with the agreement, or back to the sender if I think compliance has not taken place. I will do so at the end of the term specified, or when I become aware of non compliance, by reason of traceable cites to the SDMB.

All this cost you nothing. All interest, if any on the sum sent remains mine. Comments about the security of my mattress are of no interest, since you won’t know where the money is. This is a trust issue. Liberal trusts me. Pseudotron may choose to trust me, or decline on the basis of an absence of trust. I will do what I say, but I won’t make this into a legally binding contract, since in my state, payment of wagers is not a legally binding contract anyway. I am a bagman, not a bank.

Anyone who wants to up ETF’s offer to have me leave the board will have to send cash up front, and trust me not to just laugh at them publicly for their foolishness. :stuck_out_tongue:

Tris

295

Wow, same here. What are the odds? :smiley:

296

I think your position was perfectly clear already but your honesty and transparency is certainly refreshing.

I’m just amused how Liberal seemingly shifts back and forth between excuses, all of them bogus. Lib I’m sure you can do better than “Tris said he would stuff it under a mattress and forget about it.” Put a little effort into it dude!

297

Heh. I think Jack Russells must have Great Dane sized adrenal glands in those little bodies.

So… you take PayPal, huh? Let me check my bank balance…

$$$$???

:eek:

Um, let me get back to you on that. :smiley:

298

Stop with the 500 bucks. he never intended to send squat . You are wasting time.
When people argue against you beliefs and political stances it won’t be pleasant. If your looking for pleasant this is not the place.
We all are pissing into the wind. Probably no one ever gets converted on the board. It is just an opportunity to see what the other side thinks ,generally from fairly intelligent people. That is all.

299

Sure, I trust you, Tris. This doesn’t have to be so complicated. All **Liberal ** has to do is send you $500 (and you don’t care how he gets you the money, nor does he–it’s me he’s concerned about murdering his wife, right?), and all you have to do is hand it over to me. I’ll drive down for the ceremony, and you can wtch me post on the laptop that I’m now holding 500 dollars and have made my final post on SDMB. If Liberal likes, I’ll request a permanent self-suspension, or I’ll do something that will get me banned permanently, like posting one time under the name “500 Dollars Richer,” announcing that I’m also PRR and for this, my first act of trolling, I insist on being banned permanently (if that’s not breaking SDMB protocol to do that–I’m not sure if I can even ask permission to be banned permanently. But I could do it in violation of the rules, which I’m willing to do, if the occasion should present itself.) As I say, this is all hypothetical, since I don’t think Liberal has the 500 bucks nor do I think if he can scrape it together I would ever see it. But this needn’t be complicated in the least, except for someone who wants it to be terribly complicated.

300

Can I respectfully request you be the bigger man and drop this silliness now. Most have already drawn our conclusions about the offer. Few think it was a good idea and many think it was in bad faith. Currently you look to be the better in the comparison to **Liberal ** on this issue. If you keep hammering away on it, you will not. You made your point, hell **Liberal ** pretty much made it for you.

Stand down sir, we know the score.

Jim