(I'm ignoring the Australian usage of the word "moot", since that means "vagina")
Pronounced differently. "Moot" as in point is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as hoot. "Moot" as in vagina is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as foot.
Topic: Pirate wants to settle with individuals for less. Don't let him do it. - page 2. (Read 4594 times)
August 31, 2012, 02:59:14 AM
(I'm ignoring the Australian usage of the word "moot", since that means "vagina")
Pronounced differently. "Moot" as in point is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as hoot. "Moot" as in vagina is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as foot.
August 31, 2012, 02:32:20 AM
The point it mute, but since Matt doesn't have to pay interest, no reason to start paying til he has to..
That's the second time, and I really have to correct you there because "mute point" bugs the shit out of me.
The phrase is "moot point". It comes from the "moots" or debates old english counties would have. Clearly, mutes would not have been much use at moots.
(I'm ignoring the Australian usage of the word "moot", since that means "vagina")
August 31, 2012, 02:23:53 AM
Chaang Noi's clients are his - not Pirate's. Your bet surely requires that Chaang Noi (Pirate's client) is paid. (?)
Goat isn't a straight passthrough, he takes a commission.
And this changes things how...?
Maybe he meant to say he's a gay passthrough? But yeah, even then, I don't think sexuality has much to do with anything here.
August 31, 2012, 02:20:08 AM
Chaang Noi's clients are his - not Pirate's. Your bet surely requires that Chaang Noi (Pirate's client) is paid. (?)
Goat isn't a straight passthrough, he takes a commission.
And this changes things how...?
August 31, 2012, 12:41:38 AM
I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate. I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.
I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness.
Chaang Noi's clients are his - not Pirate's. Your bet surely requires that Chaang Noi (Pirate's client) is paid. (?)
Goat isn't a straight passthrough, he takes a commission.
August 31, 2012, 12:41:04 AM
I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate. I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.
I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness.
Chaang Noi's clients are his - not Pirate's. Your bet surely requires that Chaang Noi (Pirate's client) is paid. (?)
August 31, 2012, 12:36:41 AM
if I had 350k on the line i would enter full time silly mode.
August 31, 2012, 12:36:18 AM
August 31, 2012, 12:32:33 AM
how can he block them?
i don't see how he can stop lenders from telling pirate their own account info.
i don't see how he can stop lenders from telling pirate their own account info.
oh good, now I can tell pirate about my bitcoin max account that had 40k coins in it. I even have a screen shot to prove it.
i wouldn't say lack of verification counts as 'blockage' or censorship.
matt said
Quote
Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to.
i was wondering how goat can even disallow this.
duct tape?
August 31, 2012, 12:29:06 AM
Quote from: imsaguy
Well considering the bet doesn't have an arbiter, its a sucky bet anyway.
yeah, there is that...
August 31, 2012, 12:27:21 AM
I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate. I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.
I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness.
He cant MAKE his clients do anything.. He can recommend action, but he certainly cannot make anyone do or say anything. (Unless he has a gun to their heads)
But, we have to wait til the 9th of September until we can officially call the bet between Matthew and the bettors. The point it mute, but since Matt doesn't have to pay interest, no reason to start paying til he has to..
August 31, 2012, 12:22:51 AM
I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate. I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.
I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness.
Matt,
I hope your not setting up to win the bet on a technicality.. If the investors don't get at least 90 percent of their money back and it was agreed by the investors and Pirate, (including all interest owed up to the minute of the deal, (if there is one)) then he is in default and is fraudulent.. Now, if Pirate says, i ill give you guys 50 percent as long as you take my deal. I would consider that being held hostage and he is in default.. The way its written, if Pirate doesn't pay at last 90 percent back and its agreed upon by the lenders, then Matt would win.. Anything less, then the bettors would win..Plain and simple..
AR
90% would be a loss as well, the bet was that pirate would repay 100% and nothing less.
Well considering the bet doesn't have an arbiter, its a sucky bet anyway.
August 31, 2012, 12:20:58 AM
I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate. I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.
I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness.
Matt,
I hope your not setting up to win the bet on a technicality.. If the investors don't get at least 90 percent of their money back and it was agreed by the investors and Pirate, (including all interest owed up to the minute of the deal, (if there is one)) then he is in default and is fraudulent.. Now, if Pirate says, i ill give you guys 50 percent as long as you take my deal. I would consider that being held hostage and he is in default.. The way its written, if Pirate doesn't pay at last 90 percent back and its agreed upon by the lenders, then Matt would win.. Anything less, then the bettors would win..Plain and simple..
AR
90% would be a loss as well, the bet was that pirate would repay 100% and nothing less.
August 31, 2012, 12:20:18 AM
Quote from: Matthew N. Wright
If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% without agreement to investors, -that- is fraud and a failure to pay back. I would obviously lose the bet.
If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% but the investors agreed to it, -that- is the agreement and therefor he has paid it back. I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and pays back 100%, I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and does not pay anything anything back, I would lose the bet.
If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% but the investors agreed to it, -that- is the agreement and therefor he has paid it back. I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and pays back 100%, I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and does not pay anything anything back, I would lose the bet.
but then:
Quote from: Matthew N. Wright
Post in this thread how much you're committing and I will double that amount you commit (maximum of 10,000BTC in bets allowed in this thread total) if Pirate does not pay out in 3 weeks as he described in his thread.
And pirate's thread:
Quote from: Pirateat40
When will I get my coins?
Starting Monday I’ll begin systematically closing and withdrawing accounts as coins are transferred. I don't expect the entire process to last longer than a week. The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent.
Starting Monday I’ll begin systematically closing and withdrawing accounts as coins are transferred. I don't expect the entire process to last longer than a week. The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent.
By this criteria Matthew has lost the bet. Pirate has admitted default and interest is no longer accruing which is in breach of the terms. QED.
You could argue the accounts were automatically closed when he defaulted. If he pays 100% up until the default that would be hard to call Matthews bet lost.
Once again is there any proof he is trying to settle for less than is owed?
You could argue, Matthew would be a nutter not to unless he really hates loads of cash.
The way I read it, and I admit I am biased, Matthew has already lost his bet. Pirate has defaulted. Interest has stopped. This is in breach of pirate's own terms.
August 31, 2012, 12:20:12 AM
how can he block them?
i don't see how he can stop lenders from telling pirate their own account info.
i don't see how he can stop lenders from telling pirate their own account info.
oh good, now I can tell pirate about my bitcoin max account that had 40k coins in it. I even have a screen shot to prove it.
August 31, 2012, 12:15:25 AM
I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate. I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.
I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness.
Matt,
I hope your not setting up to win the bet on a technicality.. If the investors don't get at least 90 percent of their money back and it was agreed by the investors and Pirate, (including all interest owed up to the minute of the deal, (if there is one)) then he is in default and is fraudulent.. Now, if Pirate says, i ill give you guys 50 percent as long as you take my deal. I would consider that being held hostage and he is in default.. The way its written, if Pirate doesn't pay at least 90 percent back and its agreed upon by the lenders, then Matt would win.. Anything less, then the bettors would win..Plain and simple..
AR
It's a mute point. He HAS defaulted.. He's admitted it.. No way will everyone get at least 90 percent of their money back...
August 31, 2012, 12:10:39 AM
Quote from: Matthew N. Wright
If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% without agreement to investors, -that- is fraud and a failure to pay back. I would obviously lose the bet.
If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% but the investors agreed to it, -that- is the agreement and therefor he has paid it back. I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and pays back 100%, I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and does not pay anything anything back, I would lose the bet.
If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% but the investors agreed to it, -that- is the agreement and therefor he has paid it back. I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and pays back 100%, I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and does not pay anything anything back, I would lose the bet.
but then:
Quote from: Matthew N. Wright
Post in this thread how much you're committing and I will double that amount you commit (maximum of 10,000BTC in bets allowed in this thread total) if Pirate does not pay out in 3 weeks as he described in his thread.
And pirate's thread:
Quote from: Pirateat40
When will I get my coins?
Starting Monday I’ll begin systematically closing and withdrawing accounts as coins are transferred. I don't expect the entire process to last longer than a week. The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent.
Starting Monday I’ll begin systematically closing and withdrawing accounts as coins are transferred. I don't expect the entire process to last longer than a week. The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent.
By this criteria Matthew has lost the bet. Pirate has admitted default and interest is no longer accruing which is in breach of the terms. QED.
You could argue the accounts were automatically closed when he defaulted. If he pays 100% up until the default that would be hard to call Matthews bet lost.
Once again is there any proof he is trying to settle for less than is owed?
August 31, 2012, 12:09:13 AM
Of course pirate wants to pay the bond holders individually. I'm sure a large amount of the bond holders purchased the bonds at significantly lower than face value and would be pleased to get something from pirate. However, if I purchase a 1 BTC bond for .50 BTC, and pirate settles with me for .75 BTC, that is not 150% payback, that's 75% payback, and Mathew's bet is lost given the original terms. Given the original terms of Matthew's bet, if anyone settles for less than face value of the bonds, the bet is lost.
August 31, 2012, 12:07:20 AM
Quote from: Matthew N. Wright
If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% without agreement to investors, -that- is fraud and a failure to pay back. I would obviously lose the bet.
If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% but the investors agreed to it, -that- is the agreement and therefor he has paid it back. I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and pays back 100%, I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and does not pay anything anything back, I would lose the bet.
If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% but the investors agreed to it, -that- is the agreement and therefor he has paid it back. I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and pays back 100%, I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and does not pay anything anything back, I would lose the bet.
but then:
Quote from: Matthew N. Wright
Post in this thread how much you're committing and I will double that amount you commit (maximum of 10,000BTC in bets allowed in this thread total) if Pirate does not pay out in 3 weeks as he described in his thread.
And pirate's thread:
Quote from: Pirateat40
When will I get my coins?
Starting Monday I’ll begin systematically closing and withdrawing accounts as coins are transferred. I don't expect the entire process to last longer than a week. The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent.
Starting Monday I’ll begin systematically closing and withdrawing accounts as coins are transferred. I don't expect the entire process to last longer than a week. The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent.
By this criteria Matthew has lost the bet. Pirate has admitted default and interest is no longer accruing which is in breach of the terms. QED.
August 31, 2012, 12:05:18 AM
Not to pick any sides in this but is there ANY proof that pirate is trying to settle for less? Newer OP here making a baseless accusation without any proof to back it up makes it pretty hard for me to believe this.
Jump to: