Jump to content
Hamer Fan Club Message Center

Come one and Come all. Lay out your money and cast your vote!


bubs_42

The Court now here's Feynman Vs Bubs_42  

62 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Ok it looks like we are going to have to go to the polls on this one. What do you guys think, did I loose? Did I fold? Did I throw in the towel?

1.Bubs buys Mirage from Kiz's.

2.Bub's offers it back to Kiz's.

3.Kiz's needs to come up with the funds first.

4.Weeks later Kiz's post a FS of two fine guitars.

5.Bubs offers up the Mirage as a trade in which NO money changes hands.

I will 100% honor my bet if I am struck down in the polls.

Threads in question

http://www.hamerfanc...ge/page__st__60

http://www.hamerfanc...-block-special/

POLL END's 9PM CENTRAL TIME !

POLL CLOSED 21/21 TIE

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Looks like you did it right, my vote was entered, unfortunately I think that means you "did it" wrong, in terms of the bet.

I'd argue that money was never the issue, it was the acquisition of a new guitar.

As an example (albeit perhaps an odd one)

1) Your wife sleeps with another man because he offers her ONE MILLION DOLLARS

2) She claims that she didn't cheat on you, because she only did it for the money

3) You divorce her, and are $500,000 richer (division of assets - thanks babe!)

4) Point is, some other guy was parking his car in your garage - the money didn't change that

Link to post
Share on other sites

The original terms from Feynman:

"I've got a new Strat inbound to start the 3rd Annual "Year of the Strat" event. Shawn, since you have resolved to buy no more guitars this year, I'll resolve to keep this Strat longer than you can keep your vow."

That to me makes "buy" the key word to define. Online dictionary says, inter alia:

1. To acquire in exchange for money or its equivalent; purchase. See Regional Note at boughten.

3. To acquire by sacrifice, exchange, or trade

So, my vote is "maybe" under definition 1, if you assume that barter makes the guitar equivalent to money, but pretty clearly "yes" under definition 3 because it was an exchange or trade.

Sorry, Bubs :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, it will all come down to the definition of "buy another guitar", he actually trades it...but while it is just a trade, he does acquire a new guitar ( and I wouldn't mind to burn in Hell too for such a Standard)

Thanks God i'm not a lawyer!!! Can't vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the deal:

bubs had a resolution to buy only one guitar this year, and a few other things (amp modules, misc stuff). We are focused on the guitar here only.

I had a resolution to acquire a nice amp and Strat, and KEEP them all year. We are focused again on the guitar here (Strat is in the mail to me as I type this). As long as the Strat is not defective or something when it arrives, the wager is official.

The loser is to pay $150 to the HFC fund, and another $50ish gift to the winner.

I knew we should have consulted the HFC legal experts before finalizing the terms.

I say the spirit of the bet is "no new guitars for bubs, and no selling guitars for feynman."

Perhaps I can see the room for interpretation there, especially if, say, you don't want to admit you lost (just an example scenario).

1.Bubs buys Mirage from Kiz's. (WAY BACK on January 1st! - the "one" guitar for the year)

-- "bubs_42, on 01 January 2012 - 08:21 AM, said:...I'll take it."

2.Bub's offers it back to Kiz's. (sometime later - totally legit - sell all he wants to)

3.Kiz's needs to come up with the funds first. (ok)

....much time transpires....

4.Weeks later Kiz's post a FS of two fine guitars. (March!)

5.Bubs offers up the Mirage as a trade in which NO money changes hands. (Freakin' March 14th!)

:P

Edited to add: Our thread spawned a RechtsPost!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the concept of acquiring something for VALUE. My own reading of intent would be to, literally, BUY something (as with cash). Since there was no net flow of cash, either way, it seems that the net impact is no change (# of guitars, value of guitars, etc) That is just me....Not trying to be a loophole enabler.

Besides, it would be more interesting to see the bet drawn out!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bubs 'bought' another guitar, he just used something other than money as currency.

If he had a basket case Triumph Bonneville that someone said they'd take for the guitar he clearly wanted (remember who initiated the "trade"), would you still say that he didn't buy a new guitar?

He has a new guitar, how is this different than if he sold the Mirage with the express intent of turning the proceeds into the new guitar?

If someone just gave him a guitar, I think we'd all agree he didn't break the terms of the agreement, but the spirit of the deal was the acquisition of another guitar, not the idea that "buy" could be circumvented by creative financing, and that's what this comes down to. (Bubs - I'm not suggesting that's what you did here, and I'm sorry if it seems like I'm trying to 'convict' you, I just have a tough time dealing with bad arguments).

The definitions of 'buy', as was shown above, should make this clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bubs 'bought' another guitar, he just used something other than money as currency.

I can't use your definition of "buy" when I attempt to purchase gas or food or anything else for that matter, so I'm going to call what he and I did a trade, because that's what it is.

If he had a basket case Triumph Bonneville that someone said they'd take for the guitar he clearly wanted (remember who initiated the "trade"), would you still say that he didn't buy a new guitar?

Yes. Again, it's called a trade.

He has a new guitar, how is this different than if he sold the Mirage with the express intent of turning the proceeds into the new guitar?

Because 1. The guitar isn't new, and 2. he didn't sell it - he traded it.

We can't introduce variables that don't exist or didn't happen just to make the equation work out so that it is in line with your opinion.

The facts are he traded a guitar for another and didn't buy anything.

If someone just gave him a guitar, I think we'd all agree he didn't break the terms of the agreement, but the spirit of the deal was the acquisition of another guitar, not the idea that "buy" could be circumvented by creative financing, and that's what this comes down to. (Bubs - I'm not suggesting that's what you did here, and I'm sorry if it seems like I'm trying to 'convict' you, I just have a tough time dealing with bad arguments).

The definitions of 'buy', as was shown above, should make this clear.

YOUR definition of "buy" is not at all clear because it is arbitrary and fictional.

If they had used the word "acquire" instead of "buy" you would be right, but they didn't.

Their wager was spelled out and agreed upon, so the "spirit of the deal" argument is moot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think even Bubs agrees with the "spirit of the bet" argument overall. I'm guessing he never thought or planned to be able to trade guitars instead of buy them - this particular trade would just seem to be more of a special case exception...but I probably shouldn't speak for Bubs. We had lengthy discussions as to what this whole thing was about (we are 'helping' each other) - I just did a bad job of abbreviating the details.

The jury will decide though, and we must stand the hazard of the die. I'm guessing it will be a hung jury (at least once Gale weighs in).

Edited to add that I have a prize unabridged Webster's dictionary here which supports one definition of "buy" as "to acquire by exchange," but I'm not willing to argue that angle. I'd say he traded, which is different from buying, but if this goes to the Supreme Court I'll consider it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, "buy" implies that money is involved. This was a trade. The bet continues.

Disclaimer:

I am not an attorney nor have I ever played one on TV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bubs 'bought' another guitar, he just used something other than money as currency.

I can't use your definition of "buy" when I attempt to purchase gas or food or anything else for that matter, so I'm going to call what he and I did a trade, because that's what it is.

If he had a basket case Triumph Bonneville that someone said they'd take for the guitar he clearly wanted (remember who initiated the "trade"), would you still say that he didn't buy a new guitar?

Yes. Again, it's called a trade.

He has a new guitar, how is this different than if he sold the Mirage with the express intent of turning the proceeds into the new guitar?

Because 1. The guitar isn't new, and 2. he didn't sell it - he traded it.

We can't introduce variables that don't exist or didn't happen just to make the equation work out so that it is in line with your opinion.

The facts are he traded a guitar for another and didn't buy anything.

If someone just gave him a guitar, I think we'd all agree he didn't break the terms of the agreement, but the spirit of the deal was the acquisition of another guitar, not the idea that "buy" could be circumvented by creative financing, and that's what this comes down to. (Bubs - I'm not suggesting that's what you did here, and I'm sorry if it seems like I'm trying to 'convict' you, I just have a tough time dealing with bad arguments).

The definitions of 'buy', as was shown above, should make this clear.

YOUR definition of "buy" is not at all clear because it is arbitrary and fictional.

If they had used the word "acquire" instead of "buy" you would be right, but they didn't.

Their wager was spelled out and agreed upon, so the "spirit of the deal" argument is moot.

WOW - when you want to pick a side, you really won't let logic get in the way of the truth will you? I guess that Bill Clinton didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky either then, according to you.

1) The only reason you pull out the "when I purchase gas..." is because it's an easy example to run to, but only holds water because the gas station or grocery store isn't in the business of unloading all the crap people would want to trade. It's not that they "couldn't", it's that they choose not to for practical reasons. I bought a custom shop Strat from a friends shop about 12 years ago, and part of the deal was trading him my 'Walnut Strat', and you know what? I paid tax on the entire 'purchase' amount. Do you think the State of illinois thinks that I bought a Strat or traded for one? Go to a Pawn shop, and see what you can 'buy' without using money, only because they are set up to accept other forms of payment. Do you pay tax on a deal at a Pawn shop? Or a Jewelry store? You bet your ass you do. Why? Because you 'bought' something

How about a deal at a car lot. Trade a $60,000 '66 Corvette for a $60,000 '69 Z/28, and you'll pay tax on the deal. Do you think the State feels that you 'bought' a new car? The answer is yes.

2) Again, the semantics of 'trade' versus 'buy' is what you're hanging this on, and it would likely be a loser in a court.

3) "Guitar isn't new" isn't germain to the argument, and I never indicated that it was, so what is your point? It is 'new' for Bubs.

I can't introduce variables that don't exist or didn't happen to make the equation work? What? It's called an example, or analogy, and I can't do that, but apparently it's OK to try to make this about semantics.

4) Definition of buy is not clear, it's arbitrary and fictional? Wow, you seem to grasp it well enough to spend an awful lot of time trying to make lame arguments against it. What was unclear? You seem to understand just what I mean, you just don't like it, and for what it's worth, I was referring to the definitions of 'buy' that were supplied prior to my first post, by 'Guitarseh', which, it seems to me, that no one could misunderstand, though I'm sure you don't like those either.

Finally - the 'spirit of the deal' argument is moot? Try looking at the post by Feynman, where he states that he believes that Bubs is in agreement with the spirit of the deal, and I think you'll see all you need to know.

This has nothing to do with the lame argument that someone else tried to put forward, that one guitar moved out, and another moved in, so nothing changed, either. That's just stupid. It's a matter of honoring the deal, not trying to wiggle out by technicality. If Feynman wants to let him out of this, fine by me, play on, but to make 'buy' the central part of the argument against losing the bet, because no 'money' changed hands is weak at best, and shows no integrity at its worst.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I voted burn since it is a good time to start the barbecue season right here in Germany. 20 degrees Celsius announced for the weekend, yeah!

Second, even a so called trade has a value. If no extra money is involved, both items value the same and are supposed to be sold individually later on. I don't think both participants will keep the traded guitars for long. If you want to argue for good and call the trade neutral then wait until one or both traded guitars are sold and judge against the bet then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is "buying" a particular case of "exchanging" (trading something by money)?

Or...

Is "exchanging" the same than "buying" (it doesn't matter if it's money or not what you use as a currency: you buy when you exchange)?

If the later is true, then one might thing "exchanging" is bidirectional buying, as each part is "buying" from the other. This implies that, if one of the exchanged object is money, the one who receives the money is also buying -e.g. he/she bought money using his guitar as currency. That sounds kind of odd, even if it's logically correct.

So said, I stick to the intuitive definition of what "buying" is for the most of us (and for our wives): money is involved.

Conclusion: He didn't buy the guitar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me for butting in, but I find this really fascinating! To me focusing on the definition of "buy" etc is a bit of red herring, and you really need to get back to the spirit of the thing to resolve it. Abiding by the letter could also lead to a bet no one would ever have wanted to partake in (e.g. carte blanche to acquire tons of guitars as long as $$ is not involved).

The bet gambles on the ability of person A to refrain from activity X. So what is activity X? what is it about the behaviour of bubs that he has pledged to cease? Is it a) the continual acquisition of guitars that is the problem, or is it B) the amount of money that is spent that is the problem? If it is B) then clearly the "buy" aspect is crucial, since we are gambling on his ability to refrain from spending. But if it is a) then the means of acquisition is irrelevant.

As it happens it might have been a combination of both. From the New Years resolution post:

I have a goal of 1 guitar this year and I know which one it is. Stripping the Gear Down to get better instead of just having more stuff. I have a hard time even looking at myself this year on what i've spent on guitars,amps, pedals, ect.

The first two sentences estabilsh that it is the sheer amount of guitars that is the problem, and that he wants to "get better" instead of acquiring more things. But that last sentence muddies the waters by bringing in the issue of spending. Hmm. not as clearcut as one would hope. But nevertheless it seems clear that simply ceasing to use money, whilst continuing to acquire guitars would not aid him in "stripping the gear down" to one guitar. Thus the money aspect is not really relevant.

But wait! What actually happened here was that one guitar was swapped for another. He still has the same number of guitars - nothing was accumulated. So maybe he gets a pass? On the other hand though, one could forsee a case where he has 1 guitar that he continually swaps and thus is able to cure both the spending and the accumulation, but still fails to focus on "getting better" instead of focussing on the properties of gear. It is still cheating in the quest to cure the addiction. And maybe allowing it is just enabling him?

In any case if he gets a pass this time, you really need to clarify the terms for the rest of the year...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...