The HAIG vs PISKIE bet thread

The rules state an "image" .
The rules do not state that some part of the digital image cannot be a set of pixels that in fact
would be discerned by a human as letters in the English language.

Therefore such an image can be offered as a candidate to luvgonzo.

 

No the rules say a picture. Therefore that is a unaltered image.

 

the OP states the rules.

 

The rules do not state that the digital image has to be in its original form and must not
be altered in any way.

 

ok i may have exaggerated with the 168 pages - but there is still time

 

I'm afraid that it should have been stipulated in the rules if there was going to be any manipulation of the image. The rules say a 'picture' therefore that is an accurate representation of the image as captured by the photographer, without editing, altering or amending its original form. Sorry

 

Blah, blah, blah.

You claim I "bottled" this bet, but clearly I didn't.

I'm claiming that you are bottling the choice of avatar, which you clearly are, because you're trying to stick to "rules" that even you didn't consider to be set in stone when you were pissing in your keks over the prospect of me carrying a Sol Campbell avatar.

Are you really going to bottle this? Yes or no, Pixie?

 

All I have to do is write text on a piece of paper, hold it in front of some graphical visualisation of
either player at an appropriate perspective, and take a snapshot with a camera.

The resulting image captured is a "picture" .

 

I'm afraid that would be manipulating the original picture

 

If I was bottling it, I would simply come out with something like 'I will not give up my avatar!'

I'm quite prepared to accept the challenge as stated in the OP.

The moment I change my avatar, you will have lost this challenge as you weren't prepared to do so and had to be shamed into accepting

 

So why were people posting allsorts of avatars instead of just those of Tony Adams and Hoddle?

Someone has altered the rules here.

 

I think people must have got carried away and failed to read the rules in the OP

 

The snapshot is the "original picture" (a composition of multiple elements) .

 

A 'composition of elements' is not the original picture.

Im afraid you have entered the realms of 'pissing in the wind' now.

 

The elements are originals.
The T+Cs did not state that there can only be one element (the player) in any picture submitted.

And you're (much more) afraid of the text that might be coming.

 

I'm afraid that adding 'elements' to a picture changes the picture beyond its original parameters. Sorry to bust your bubble

 

But the "original parameters" were not defined precisely enough to infer or imply all of what you
are now squirming about. With the all too apparent effect on you.

 

I'm afraid that adding extra components to a 'picture' as stated in the OP, no longer makes it a picture, but a manipulated image.

I can see that you've got yourself all worked up about this, but you should be thanking me for pointing this out before you go off wasting your time creating manipulated images that would make the bet null and void.

 

The loser either takes Luvs choice or has bottled it. If you want to claim text is not part of it, you need to speak to Luv.

 

Afraid not.
If I take a camera snapshot of two adjacent elements in the same view, there is no "manipulation" .
The "picture" is a true rendition of what was physically in the field of view.

As the T+Cs do not state that the picture must comprise one element only, and that must be
be some physical rendition of said players ...