1 minute ago, Bacarty2 said:

You we're running your mouth, like always, bet on a random dudes dog and lost, cause his dog is dying. LOL. what a f****ing clown. 

I didn't bet on the dog, I said the dog would win a bet against you, strictly because, as usual, you would weasel out of the bet.

Well the Noah Ellis era is over. That was fast. 

 

2022 - 2022

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Well the Noah Ellis era is over. That was fast. 

 

2022 - 2022

Noah Ellis, off the roster faster than @Bacarty2 bailing out of a bet.

Jalen Hurts didn't show up. 

Or he never left.

Or he's not any promotional material again.

 

Good thing Minshew and his magical bus bothered to show up.

3 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

He and AJ are still on the mountain.  

They can't quit each other

3 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

He and AJ are still on the mountain.  

AJ is shilling Lord Brunson merch

5 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

AJ is shilling Lord Brunson merch

Well, after seeing his purse, we know who wears the pants in the Hurts / Brown relationship.

49 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Ok here is the entire exchange....or the posts that matter.  This looks like a classic case of @Bacarty2 making ish up again and then running to the ignore feature.  If we have to put it up for a vote, then we can.  But looks like the parameters have been set.  Hurts gets 42 or more TD (total) Bacarty is banned for a year.  Anything less and Bacarty is set to resume making things up for another 12 months.  

So it is written, so it shall be done.  

 

 

 

 

 

@Bacarty2 when you indicated to @Aerolithe_Lion that he set the terms of the bet and you would accept them.  He named terms of a proposed deal that does not offer anything for you.  I think the question is whether @Aerolithe_Lion actually named a bet.  Bets can be defined as either a multi-party or unilateral bet. A bet is a contract between 2 or more parties where a sum of money or other thing, shall be paid or delivered to one of them on the happening or not happening of an uncertain event.     It can also be defined as the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.  The elements in the first defiinition are: 1) an agreement, 2) for something of value 3) between 2 or more parties 4) based on an outcome of an uncertain event.    The other definition is for what I think would be more of a unilateral bet.  The elements are 1) staking something of value 2) upon the outcome of a sporting event and 3) on the understanding the person will receive something of value in return.  

I think we can analyze @Bacarty2's and @Aerolithe_Lion's conversation under both definitions.   Using the multi-party definition,  we have to first look at whether an agreement was reached.  An agreement is essentially a meeting of the minds.  While I think there may be a question as to the meeting of the minds, @Bacarty2 unequivocally stated he would accept any proposed terms of a bet.  @Aerolithe_Lion, in response, proposed terms.  I think his response, in light of the proposal, would constitute an agreement.  I do not think the response alone would constitute a bet.  The second element is where the proposal fails.  I think @Aerolithe_Lion would have to propose giving up something of value in order to meet the 2nd element of a bet.  Just because the proposal isn't a bet under a multi-party inquiry, I don't think that's the end of the analysis.

The unilateral betting definition also has an element of value but I think the lack of the requirement of mutual value requires a different analysis.  The question that has to be answered is what of value does @Bacarty2 receive if he wins.  I do think this isn't as clear cut because of how value could be defined on the Board.  By making the proposal, it could be argued that @Bacarty2 implicitly was claiming something of value in the proposal.  The board has both a reputation score and a reaction button.  Moreover, many of us want acknowledgement of our correct opinions and even better the elation that comes with telling other people they were wrong and you were right.  I think there is a fair argument that the value @Bacarty2 sought that type of value in making the proposal.  The question would be did he leave open the stake that he would have to make in order to make that bet.  Again, he asked @Aerolithe_Lion to name the bet (or stake) he would make that he would give up if Hurts scores more than 42 TDs combined.  The stake was a one year ban. 

Therefore, I believe there was a bet made by @Bacarty2 .  If Hurts scores more than 42 TDs and @Bacarty2 does not ban himself for one year, then he has reneged on the bet.

 

 

Last season Hurts had 139 carries and 432 pass attempts for a 32.2% rushes/passes.  It's been my contention for some time that he cannot be an effective franchise QB with a percentage greater than 20%

I'll offer up two bets for 2022:

1)  He will remain over 25% in rushes/passes

2)  If he stays over 20% the Eagles cannot/will not win 12 games.  I would say 11, but the schedule is comparatively easy 

 

I'll wager up a 3-month ban on posting (has to be two-way bet) if there are any takers on either one.

6 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

@Bacarty2 when you indicated to @Aerolithe_Lion that he set the terms of the bet and you would accept them.  He named terms of a proposed deal that does not offer anything for you.  I think the question is whether @Aerolithe_Lion actually named a bet.  Bets can be defined as either a multi-party or unilateral bet. A bet is a contract between 2 or more parties where a sum of money or other thing, shall be paid or delivered to one of them on the happening or not happening of an uncertain event.     It can also be defined as the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.  The elements in the first defiinition are: 1) an agreement, 2) for something of value 3) between 2 or more parties 4) based on an outcome of an uncertain event.    The other definition is for what I think would be more of a unilateral bet.  The elements are 1) staking something of value 2) upon the outcome of a sporting event and 3) on the understanding the person will receive something of value in return.  

I think we can analyze @Bacarty2's and @Aerolithe_Lion's conversation under both definitions.   Using the multi-party definition,  we have to first look at whether an agreement was reached.  An agreement is essentially a meeting of the minds.  While I think there may be a question as to the meeting of the minds, @Bacarty2 unequivocally stated he would accept any proposed terms of a bet.  @Aerolithe_Lion, in response, proposed terms.  I think his response, in light of the proposal, would constitute an agreement.  I do not think the response alone would constitute a bet.  The second element is where the proposal fails.  I think @Aerolithe_Lion would have to propose giving up something of value in order to meet the 2nd element of a bet.  Just because the proposal isn't a bet under a multi-party inquiry, I don't think that's the end of the analysis.

The unilateral betting definition also has an element of value but I think the lack of the requirement of mutual value requires a different analysis.  The question that has to be answered is what of value does @Bacarty2 receive if he wins.  I do think this isn't as clear cut because of how value could be defined on the Board.  By making the proposal, it could be argued that @Bacarty2 implicitly was claiming something of value in the proposal.  The board has both a reputation score and a reaction button.  Moreover, many of us want acknowledgement of our correct opinions and even better the elation that comes with telling other people they were wrong and you were right.  I think there is a fair argument that the value @Bacarty2 sought that type of value in making the proposal.  The question would be did he leave open the stake that he would have to make in order to make that bet.  Again, he asked @Aerolithe_Lion to name the bet (or stake) he would make that he would give up if Hurts scores more than 42 TDs combined.  The stake was a one year ban. 

Therefore, I believe there was a bet made by @Bacarty2 .  If Hurts scores more than 42 TDs and @Bacarty2 does not ban himself for one year, then he has reneged on the bet.

 

 

 

@Aerolithe_Lion @Bacarty2 @NCiggles

9 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

By making the proposal, it could be argued that @Bacarty2 implicitly was claiming something of value in the proposal.  The board has both a reputation score and a reaction button. 

You know, I was thinking that, but I didn't want to say it because I was pretty timid at the time. 

1 hour ago, Bacarty2 said:

 

We have friends in town so lord knows what the misses has planned for me. 

But you wont see me on here after 5pm. 

Bet-dat

 

2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

and now the dogs dead, good work

LOL this is where the forum is coming to that you have to announce what a mutual bet is

I win the bet, pay up

3 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Last season Hurts had 139 carries and 432 pass attempts for a 32.2% rushes/passes.  It's been my contention for some time that he cannot be an effective franchise QB with a percentage greater than 20%

I'll offer up two bets for 2022:

1)  He will remain over 25% in rushes/passes

2)  If he stays over 20% the Eagles cannot/will not win 12 games.  I would say 11, but the schedule is comparatively easy 

 

I'll wager up a 3-month ban on posting (has to be two-way bet) if there are any takers on either one.

I would accept number 1 with the following modifications - Hurts must play more than half the season, meaning 8 games and more than 2 quarters of football during the regular season.  Second, I don't think there's any value for me in a ban but I would be willing to wager a bottle of liquor for it.  

Still have one spot open for Jordan Howards AARP corpse 

1 hour ago, Bacarty2 said:

But you wont see me on here after 5pm. 

You sure about that ?????

5 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

and now the dogs dead, good work

Correct me if am wrong @Bacarty2, but did you post this at 5:34 PM EST ?????

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

You sure about that ?????

Correct me if am wrong @Bacarty2, but did you post this at 5:34 PM EST ?????

Too slow. Payout is mine 

14 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Last season Hurts had 139 carries and 432 pass attempts for a 32.2% rushes/passes.  It's been my contention for some time that he cannot be an effective franchise QB with a percentage greater than 20%

I'll offer up two bets for 2022:

1)  He will remain over 25% in rushes/passes

2)  If he stays over 20% the Eagles cannot/will not win 12 games.  I would say 11, but the schedule is comparatively easy 

 

I'll wager up a 3-month ban on posting (has to be two-way bet) if there are any takers on either one.

I'd like a 3 month ban. Where do I sign up?

10 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

and now the dogs dead, good work

LOL this is where the forum is coming to that you have to announce what a mutual bet is

I mean if you don't think Hurts has any chance of scoring more than 42 TD's then there's really nothing at risk.  

2 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

I would accept number 1 with the following modifications - Hurts must play more than half the season, meaning 8 games and more than 2 quarters of football during the regular season.  Second, I don't think there's any value for me in a ban but I would be willing to wager a bottle of liquor for it.  

I agree to #1 on the 25% rushes/passes under your conditions Hurts plays more than 8 games and 2 quarters -- for the bottle of liquor at about a $50 limit.

If I win I'll choose this variety:

 

@Bacarty2, you have 9 minutes to accept this bet.  I bet you will be on here again after 5 PM.......................................

Good work today @4for4EaglesNest @LeanMeanGM @TorontoEagle @Alphagrand @NCiggles @Swoop @Texas Eagle

Blog seems to be holding up well since we reinforced the foundation with young strong pillars.

2 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Good work today @4for4EaglesNest @LeanMeanGM @TorontoEagle @Alphagrand @NCiggles @Swoop @Texas Eagle

Blog seems to be holding up well since we reinforced the foundation with young strong pillars.

I bet that I am more "pillar-y" than some of those clowns. 

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I bet you Welch on the bet 

I bet you that if you aren't careful my army of stupid memes and goofy pictures will be after you next, buddy boy.

28 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

@Aerolithe_Lion @Bacarty2 @NCiggles

Am I getting banned for a year now? 

@Bacarty2 I thought you were not going to be on after 5 PM ................... here you are at 3:00 PM PST, which makes it 6:00 PM EST.