Do You Know Why Finn Knows More About Politics Than Cyclo?

It is difficult for me to post this, as I find him to be an odious person, but he was correct in this case...

After reviewing the text of our bet, I concede that Finn d'Abuzz correctly predicted that the decision of FL and MI was made prior to the decision about the nomination. I had previously thought the wording to be different.

It is difficult for me to post this, as I find him to be an odious person, but he was correct in this case, and this thread was the term of the bet.

I am happy, however, that my contention at the time was correct; Clinton was not able to make up the deficits she incurred during February, and FL and MI did not materially affect the outcome of the Dem race.

Cycloptichorn

After reviewing the text of our bet, I concede that Finn d'Abuzz correctly predicted that the decision of FL and MI was made prior to the decision about the nomination. I had previously thought the wording to be different.

It is difficult for me to post this, as I find him to be an odious person, but he was correct in this case, and this thread was the term of the bet.

I am happy, however, that my contention at the time was correct; Clinton was not able to make up the deficits she incurred during February, and FL and MI did not materially affect the outcome of the Dem race.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

After reviewing the text of our bet, I concede that Finn d'Abuzz correctly predicted that the decision of FL and MI was made prior to the decision about the nomination. I had previously thought the wording to be different.

It is difficult for me to post this, as I find him to be an odious person, but he was correct in this case, and this thread was the term of the bet.

I am happy, however, that my contention at the time was correct; Clinton was not able to make up the deficits she incurred during February, and FL and MI did not materially affect the outcome of the Dem race.

Cycloptichorn

I don't understand the value of the bet, if the loser just had to post the fact that he was wrong? Shouldn't there be a more specific declaration of the winner's overall greater intelligence in the specific subject? That was the title of this thread. Yet, there is no explanation, other than a "correct prediction." Why was he correct? Could intelligence have something to do with it (my contention).

Heck, if the Japanese can bow to each other for no greater reason than a greeeting, shouldn't there be something more obsequious here? And, the last sentence, "I am happy, however, that my contention at the time was correct" really takes away from celebrating the actual winner, in my opinion.

Why not have started this post with the salutation that Emily Dickenson used in starting some letters to a male friend ("Master")?

Foofie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

After reviewing the text of our bet, I concede that Finn d'Abuzz correctly predicted that the decision of FL and MI was made prior to the decision about the nomination. I had previously thought the wording to be different.

It is difficult for me to post this, as I find him to be an odious person, but he was correct in this case, and this thread was the term of the bet.

I am happy, however, that my contention at the time was correct; Clinton was not able to make up the deficits she incurred during February, and FL and MI did not materially affect the outcome of the Dem race.

Cycloptichorn

I don't understand the value of the bet, if the loser just had to post the fact that he was wrong? Shouldn't there be a more specific declaration of the winner's overall greater intelligence in the specific subject? That was the title of this thread. Yet, there is no explanation, other than a "correct prediction." Why was he correct? Could intelligence have something to do with it (my contention).

Heck, if the Japanese can bow to each other for no greater reason than a greeeting, shouldn't there be something more obsequious here? And, the last sentence, "I am happy, however, that my contention at the time was correct" really takes away from celebrating the actual winner, in my opinion.

Why not have started this post with the salutation that Emily Dickenson used in starting some letters to a male friend ("Master")?

No need to push noses in the dirt.

Cyclo knows he lost, and I won and that's good enough.

Obviously Cyclo is hardly ignorant when it comes to politics, he just allows his partisan zeal to override his sense.

I'll be about damned; I actually agree 100% with a Foofie post.