~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Interestingly, Phill responded to my last message with both a private one and a public one. In the private one (which I mistakenly believed was sent to the list), he told me that he was declining the wager. As his reasons, he mentioned that he was not as interested in money as I appeared to be. To which I replied: It's not about the money. Phill knows that, I know that, and so does everyone else. He further chided that I could draw no other conclusions then that he wasn't interested in the wager. I responded: Oh yes I can. And fortunately, so can everyone else. Better a live jackel than a dead lion, right? In Phill's recent public post he said:
Actually the original reply I made was simply one of a number of objections to what is a very silly argument. I could have equally answered that way had you actually proposed a duel or that we "step outside". It is a very silly mode of argument and desrves to be answered in the same manner (if at all).
Notice how Phil again proposes a straw man by making an implicit analogy between trials by combat, and a wager, the outcome of which would turn on the actual outcome of events forecast--in the alternative--by Phil and myself.
The essential humourless of your reply is indicated by your failure to realise that my conversion of your 25L into 2 cents was satirical.
Oh really? Then how come you at first defended it with your attempted face-saving "GBP" comment? Really, Phill, have you know shame? S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~