- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/13/15 at 1:44 pm to GRTiger
quote:
It's not the same, because the gift card was, in practice, payment for a future lunch for the loser. Since he used it to pay for the winner's lunch in your hypo, he now has to buy that future lunch with his own money.
And if the guy would have otherwise never used the gift card, which is not uncommon at all?
Posted on 10/13/15 at 1:44 pm to Slip Screen
quote:
No, person B got lucky. A was only entitled to 1 free lunch
Nope, according to the OP A was entitled to a lunch bought by B. That hasn't happened yet. This seems very simple.
Posted on 10/13/15 at 1:46 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
And if the guy would have otherwise never used the gift card, which is not uncommon at all?
But in your scenario, he did.
Posted on 10/13/15 at 1:46 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
And if the guy would have otherwise never used the gift card, which is not uncommon at all?
Completely irrelevant. People don't spend money they have all the time. Your non sequitur is way off track.
Posted on 10/13/15 at 1:46 pm to elposter
quote:
This seems very simple.
It is. OP got his free lunch. The lunch just happened to cost the amount of tip in this instance. OP can make the next bet more specific if he cares to.
Posted on 10/13/15 at 1:46 pm to GRTiger
quote:
But in your scenario, he did.
I don't think you followed what I was saying.
Posted on 10/13/15 at 1:47 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
It is. OP got his free lunch.
A free lunch for OP wasn't the bet though. I don't know why people can't understand that.
Posted on 10/13/15 at 1:47 pm to elposter
quote:
Completely irrelevant.
It's as relevant as how much the loser of the bet paid to provide the meal. Since the loser spent money on the meal, the debt is paid.
Posted on 10/13/15 at 1:48 pm to elposter
quote:
A free lunch for OP wasn't the bet though. I don't know why people can't understand that.
And the lunch wasn't free.
Posted on 10/13/15 at 1:49 pm to CE Tiger
Yes. Person B has to feel the personal burden of sponsoring said lunch. That personal pain is what makes person B less likely to challenge person A's authority in a future disagreement. Going through the motions and lucking up on not having to actually pay for said lunch does not qualify as having gritted through the humiliating pain of defeat.
Posted on 10/13/15 at 1:50 pm to LNCHBOX
I absolutely did. You are applying an impossible hypothetical to dictate the perception of an actual event. There is no way to judge, because both scenarios cannot happen.
What if the loser said "I am going to use this $20 bill to buy you lunch, or I am going to burn it in the fireplace?" Your logic dictates that the loser still didn't buy the winner lunch, because of his motive for the money if it wasn't used for lunch.
What if the loser said "I am going to use this $20 bill to buy you lunch, or I am going to burn it in the fireplace?" Your logic dictates that the loser still didn't buy the winner lunch, because of his motive for the money if it wasn't used for lunch.
Posted on 10/13/15 at 1:50 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
And the lunch wasn't free.
I've said the tip thing complicates things a bit. He paid for the service but not the food. Partial compliance with the requirement of the bet. I say he still owes him a meal, but A has to tip.
Posted on 10/13/15 at 1:51 pm to CE Tiger
you owe him lunch, Jerry
Posted on 10/13/15 at 1:51 pm to GRTiger
quote:
I absolutely did. You are applying an impossible hypothetical to dictate the perception of an actual event. There is no way to judge, because both scenarios cannot happen.
If the guy was never going to eat there before this incident and is never going back, he will never have to spend his own money there.
quote:
What if the loser said "I am going to use this $20 bill to buy you lunch, or I am going to burn it in the fireplace?" Your logic dictates that the loser still didn't buy the winner lunch, because of his motive for the money if it wasn't used for lunch.
No, you just missed where my logic came form.
Posted on 10/13/15 at 1:52 pm to elposter
quote:
to a lunch bought
quote:
buy
/bi/
verb (mainly transitive)
-to acquire by any exchange or sacrifice
This post was edited on 10/13/15 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 10/13/15 at 1:53 pm to elposter
quote:
I've said the tip thing complicates things a bit.
And this is where you and OP come off looking like cheap petty douchebags.
The entirety of the meal was paid for by the loser. OP should change the wording of the bet, or likely just kill himself for being a miserable douche.
Posted on 10/13/15 at 1:53 pm to htownjeep
quote:
quote:
to a lunch bought
quote:
buy
/bi/
verb (mainly transitive)
-to acquire by any exchange or sacrifice
Boom.
Posted on 10/13/15 at 1:54 pm to CE Tiger
quote:
Does person B still owe person A lunch since person B did not pay anything for A's lunch.
No, assuming B still tipped the waiter.
Posted on 10/13/15 at 1:55 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
The guy provided a meal.
No he didn't. The restaurant did.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News