By sneaky bastard tactics you mean I proposed a bet with forfeit terms that you agreed to. Then you realised that you had ****ed up and you moaned and whined about the terms, and then you cancelled the bet. As a self claimed legal hotshot and Cambridge graduate you should have found the terms simple to understand, so not sneaky at all. #chicken
No, Pix. Here you go again trying to create rules in your favour where there are no rules. This is a common theme with you, sadly. I have offered to re-affirm our original bet numerous times, now, and it is clear that you lack the stones to do so. I will not judge you for that. That sort of thing is beneath me. I am the bigger man.
Do you want to re-affirm our original bet or don’t you have the stones for it. or are you still bottling it. either way I am the bigger man
No, G4E. You used sneaky-bastard tactics in order to try to gain a wum-advantage. You knew full well the terms on which I was prepared to wager, and you tried to be clever. I saw straight through it, eventually, and made it clear to you that I wanted nothing to do with such underhanded methods. What you proposed isn't the kind of bet that any sane person would accept, and thus it is declined with the contempt that it merits.
Actually, I'm lying in bed in my hotel room, sipping wine and languidly scratching my bollocks. True story.
....hmmm "no difference" ?? ... Quentin has written War & Peace above about the bet itself... from its' "spirit" to what underwerar it was sporting... HIAG may be amusing himself (and probably in more than one way) but his vision of wummery is the most tedious of turds and has constipated this thread, as it has done with several others ... he needs to put up or just shut up ... and stop boring the fcuk out of everyone .... and that is all
What rules am I trying to create ? You agreed to our bet, which was straight forward, then had a strop about it and cancelled it. The only one here who has been ****ing with the rules, trying to create conditions favourable to themselves and squirming and going back on their word is you HIAG. You are dishonourable and lack any integrity to hold down a bet. As you’ve demonstrated time and time again.
And in that same strop he cancelled my bet. Also he did the same with Fosse's bet when he realised that what he'd agreed to, meant that he had to change his avatar if Leicester stayed up. There's no point betting with HIAG, he hasn't got the stones to honour them.
Anyway after you boys have sorted it out let me know if the OP needs updating with a fresh bet. I'm trying to remain impartial. I've stuck to nothing more than the rules in the OP.
Agreed mate ... not having a pop at you but there was a whole page of the usual bollocks that was just too tedious for words : Here is "the bet" from the OP Hiag/Piskie - Arsenal finish above Spurs, Hiag changes avatar for a month. Spurs finish above Arsenal and Piskie changes avatar for a month, of each other's choosing. What the fcuk is there to debate about there? ... nobody else is involved but the board's own Cissie & Ada please log in to view this image So @PISKIE are you willing to take this bet? ......... One word answer please "Yes" or "No" ? @Hoddle Is A God are you willing to take this bet? ......... One word answer please "Yes" or "No" ?
Not that bet...why would he? That one is stamped and sealed. Plus it's worded the way Hiag wanted it....and you can't change the wording so really there is no problem with that bet or shouldn't be. I understand the ****ery regarding G4e I thought you and Hiag were on about some new bet that you had lured him into lol.
Nope. Our bet was straight forward and HIAG still cancelled it. I can’t be arsed with him. He’ll only go and welch or cancel it again. He’s proved that he can’t stick to the terms of a bet so as he’s instructed the bet is cancelled.
