Unconscionable Abuse
Unconsionable Abuse
I would like to report on a matter regarding certain posters on talk.origins who continue to post slanderous accusations against me. Namely, the charge is that I owe a certain pseudonym by the name of Gen2rev $150 as a result of a bet that took place early this year (2003). The fact be told, I actually bet Dana Tweedy and not Gen2rev. Gen2rev took it upon himself to enter into that challenge that was made to Dana Tweedy. The bet was that Johanson stole a pelvis out of a grave. It turned out that it was actually a femur and not a pelvis, so I would have lost the bet if Dana Tweedy had accepted it.
As it turned out, I never did accept Gen2rev’s offer to bet. I did ask him two times if he wanted to go through with it. But I never did say that I accepted his challenge. No one who is accusing me of not paying on the bet actually can produce a quote wherein I accepted the challenge (ie. “the bet is on”, “I accept”, “OK”, “Let’s go for it”, “Yes”, “Positive” and so on.) Critics cite myself as saying, “Do you really want to go through with this?” But this is a question, and not an acceptance statement or even acknowledgement of a bet in acceptance. And even if it is interpreted as such, a post later I turned down Gen2rev’s offer as he made a stipulation that I needed to have this done in one week’s time. I refused it stating that I couldn’t even get to a library in one weeks time.
Gen2rev’s proposal that I pay in 1 weeks time was something I could not accept. In contractual law if a proposal is made after a primary proposal is made, then it is the second proposal that is in question.
For example:
Danoman: Will you build a house for me?
Connoman: Yes.
Danoman: Are you sure?
Connoman: Yes. But you must pay in one weeks time.
Danoman: I can’t even get to the bank in one weeks time.
In this instance, if Connoman began work on the house, he could not collect ANY money on his work because Danoman did not approve the new proposal, which changes the nature of the contract proposal.
As proof of this, the fact that Gen2rev modified the proposal from 1 week to 2 weeks is proof that even he understood the nature of contract proposal. I never responded to Gen2rev’s counter proposal of two weeks.
Some critics say that I owe Gen2rev being that my query as to whether he is really willing to bet me on this is a sign that there is some contract in motion. But as I have said above, Gen2rev needs to produce a statement inbetween wherein I specifically say that the bet is on.
In May of this year, I even affirmed this truth in the following post:
From: J McCoy (mccoy@sunset.net)
Subject: Re: Dr. Leakey's response
View this article onlyNewsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 2003-05-10 11:35:02 PST
wilkins@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote in message news:<1furlyj.1cbyj1p1nahm3mN%wilkins@wehi.edu.au>...
> J McCoy wrote:
>
> > "Adam Marczyk" wrote...
> > > "J McCoy" wrote in message
> > > news:3f355ee.0305091335.6493249@posting.google.com... ...
> > >
> > > Lying to save face is something you probably know all about, nameless. Have
> > > you sent out that $150 check to John Pieret? Need the address again?
> >
> > For your information, I offered a bet, and it was accepted, but I
> > never accepted that acceptance. Terms were set so the the whole bet
> > is illegitamate and null and void. It's called technicalities, you
> > know, femur and pelvis. Technicalities.
> >
> You lying waste of amino acids. You set the terms, and made the offer.
> Nobody forced you to do this. Once you had done this, there was no need
> for anyone to accept the acceptance. You offered the bet and it was
> taken up and you lost. Fair and square. You have the morals of a slug.
Yeah, but the acceptance specified specific limits like "within a week" and that sort of thing. I didn't think that I could make it so I never accepted for that reason. If that stipulation was never made I would have accepted at the time. So I ended up never accepting. You can get mad about this but I never accepted the $300 bet either. There are reasons as to why lawyers will tell you that my bet is not legitamate for those reasons. You may accuse me of having morals of a slug but aren't you talking about the technicality guy who won't accept pelvis for femur? I am perfectly well within the law, and you have no grounds to stand on. If the law upholds me and you don't that means you're wrong and you're wrong for persuing this. I was perfectly willing to go beyond the technicalities of the bet and flow with the spirit of the intent, except you are WILL NOT acknowledge that I had won the spirit and intent of the bet and further your pressuring and harping has reach beyond it's limits. You keep bringing it up even in threads that have no bearing on the matter to force your way. If anything, this is the straw that breaks the camels back. Simply put, you're rude and undeserving. I need not honor a bet whose acceptance rife with stipulation has not even been accepted.
J McCoy
Free Webpages at Webspawner.com
Send E-Mail to: mccoy@sunset.net
This page created using the webpage creation facilities of Webspawner.
Copyright © 2002 . All Rights Reserved