Local bookies and "honor"
Put it this way, if you want to have a local bookie and you don't go over your head and your book man is on time and not a shyster, then it is a great thing. Conversely, you need to be the same way.
Holy 5h1t!Quote: Wizard...I had a so-called friend who stiffed me because he started singing the blues about money -- despite the fact that he drove a brand new Bentley and owed me an amount in the low four figures only. It just goes to show that some people have zero honor.
I don't know any folks who own brand new Bentleys, and if i did, and if I were a millionaire, I don't know if I'd let them owe me four figure sums.
I've lent £5k to a friend to pay for some private medical care, but I had significant financial control over him. I've also lent £500 to a family member who needed it. Beyond that, I wouldn't ever lend more that I was prepared to give freely.
Losing a friend who has zero honor + $$$$ of your money is a net win, IMHO.
Quote: beachbumbabsIt's "whom ", because you're describing the object (friends) of the first clause. If you were describing "I" as the subject of the sentence, you would use who.<snip>
beachbumbabs,
I agree that "whom" is correct, but I disagree with your reason. As a counter-example, consider this sentence:
"I caught the boy who threw the rock."
Here, the antecedent of "who" is "the boy", which is the object of "caught". Thus, by your reasoning, I should have used "whom". Instead, "who" is correct here because if we separate the sentence into two sentences, we get this:
"I caught the boy. He threw the rock."
Thus, we see that "who" is replacing "he", the nominative form of the pronoun.
Hope this helps!
Dog Hand
P.S. Thanks to Mr. Myers, my senior-year high school English teacher.
Quote: WizardI used to book bets on credit for friends, who* I considered recreational players. Big mistake. Here are the three main problems:
1. There will be disputes. For example, what happens if there is a starting pitcher change in baseball and it wasn't discussed what to do in that event. Another one I had involved a past World Cup game that ended in a tie in regulation and went into overtime and there was some argument about whether the bet was on the regulation period or who won the game. You just never know what will end up in a dispute until it happens. If you get into a dispute your choices will be to concede the loss or lose a friendship.
2. You will discover some of your friends are deadbeats. This is quite simple, some so-called friends will just stiff you. I had a so-called friend who stiffed me because he started singing the blues about money -- despite the fact that he drove a brand new Bentley and owed me an amount in the low four figures only. It just goes to show that some people have zero honor.
3. It is a pain to do all the accounting.
* Or is it "whom"?
It's "whom" - it's like Babs said; if you rewrite it as, "I consider ___ a recreational player," it's "him" (object), not "he" (subject), so it's "whom."
As for #1, in "ye olden days," didn't a pitcher change call off the bet unless the bettor said, "With Action"?
Also, the version I heard was, in the 1958 NFL Championship Game, the Colts were favored by something less than six, and the fourth quarter ended in a tie, but the Colts scored a TD in overtime and covered - and there was quite a row over whether or not bets on the Giants won (because the Colts didn't cover the spread at the end of regulation). Today, soccer is usually treated differently as most sports books take bets "English style" - a match that ends in a draw is considered a loss for anyone who bet on either team to win, and you have to specifically bet on a draw to win the bet. I find this strange, since you can also bet on draws in boxing, but if a fight ends in a draw, all bets on either fighter are considered pushes, in addition to having to pay off on the bets on a draw.
Quote: WatchMeWinAnd here is my advice to any members here that are in college or just out of college who like the gambling scene. Sports betting with bookies can be very dangerous. You can get over your head very easily and they will allow you to go Way Beyond your means. Just keep it to a very minimal wager For Your Entertainment and enjoyment. If you are looking to score and beat a book then you better have the funds to pay up if you lose.
IIRC, somebody not being able to pay up after losing, doubling the bet, and losing again, is how the Arizona State point shaving scandal started.
Note that the NCAA doesn't allow its athletes or coaches to bet money on any sport - whether college or pro, whether or not it's in the person's sport, and whether or not the person's team, or even conference, is involved - where there's an NCAA championship, including football. For example, college football players can't bet on NBA games. Every athlete is "supposed to" be informed of this every season. Of course, you're only punished if you get caught.
Quote: billryanI've heard the Colts didn't try for a field goal because they were favored by six and the owner would have lost his bet. Aren't there also rumors that his death by drowning was suspicious?
Didn't they barely make the field goal that tied the game - in fact, had there been two officials underneath the goal posts like they have now at pretty much every level of football, it might have been called wide?
Trivia: in both the NFL and NCAA rules, a ruling on whether or not a field goal attempt that passed over an upright was good or wide cannot be reviewed by instant replay.
It wasn't the only time the owner was involved in suspected shenanigans.
