(07-14-2020, 02:47 PM)IAMTAT Wrote: CLAIM #3
I noticed you said you "had" the racing shirt...and had to describe it from memory.
Why do you no longer have this treasure?

Good sense of observation there, Mr IAMTAT!! On claim #1, I mentioned losing everything twice. Well, that was during the second time. When I ended up in the ward for four months, I was renting this tiny little apartment on a monthly basis, without a lease. In the ward, we weren't allowed visitors, nor phone calls. The guy I rented this piece of shit hole from, not having heard from me in a couple of months, decided to get rid of everything I had, to rent to someone else.

All my documents, lawyers papers, the little furniture I had, everything I had really, just went out to the garbage. Including that shirt. I can't imagine how much it would be worth today as a collector's item and honestly, I rather not know.

Hope it answers your question.

Now to @"TheRedneck" for his third and final question.


.

(07-14-2020, 03:06 PM)Sol Wrote:

(07-14-2020, 02:47 PM)IAMTAT Wrote: CLAIM #3
I noticed you said you "had" the racing shirt...and had to describe it from memory.
Why do you no longer have this treasure?

Good sense of observation there, Mr IAMTAT!! On claim #1, I mentioned losing everything twice. Well, that was during the second time. When I ended up in the ward for four months, I was renting this tiny little apartment on a monthly basis, without a lease. In the ward, we weren't allowed visitors, nor phone calls. The guy I rented this piece of shit hole from, not having heard from me in a couple of months, decided to get rid of everything I had, to rent to someone else.

All my documents, lawyers papers, the little furniture I had, everything I had really, just went out to the garbage. Including that shirt. I can't imagine how much it would be worth today as a collector's item and honestly, I rather not know.

Hope it answers your question.

Now to @"TheRedneck"  for his third and final question.


.

Thank you, Sol.
That's worse than mom throwing out all your old comic books.

(07-14-2020, 03:18 PM)IAMTAT Wrote:

(07-14-2020, 03:06 PM)Sol Wrote:

(07-14-2020, 02:47 PM)IAMTAT Wrote: CLAIM #3
I noticed you said you "had" the racing shirt...and had to describe it from memory.
Why do you no longer have this treasure?

Good sense of observation there, Mr IAMTAT!! On claim #1, I mentioned losing everything twice. Well, that was during the second time. When I ended up in the ward for four months, I was renting this tiny little apartment on a monthly basis, without a lease. In the ward, we weren't allowed visitors, nor phone calls. The guy I rented this piece of shit hole from, not having heard from me in a couple of months, decided to get rid of everything I had, to rent to someone else.

All my documents, lawyers papers, the little furniture I had, everything I had really, just went out to the garbage. Including that shirt. I can't imagine how much it would be worth today as a collector's item and honestly, I rather not know.

Hope it answers your question.

Now to @"TheRedneck"  for his third and final question.


.

Thank you, Sol.
That's worse than mom throwing out all your old comic books.

Dunno. some old comic books are worth a pretty penny nowadays. But yeah, it does suck.

POINT OF PROCEEDURE QUESTION...
Is the claim-maker allowed to continue lying when asked about the the specific claim that was his initial intended lie...or is he ONLY allowed to tell ONE lie in the game...during the initial telling of 3 claims?

Claim #2:

What kind of business was it that you had, and what was the result of the spun article on your business?

TheRedneck

(07-14-2020, 04:31 PM)IAMTAT Wrote: POINT OF PROCEEDURE QUESTION...
Is the claim-maker allowed to continue lying when asked about the the specific claim that was his initial intended lie...or is he ONLY allowed to tell ONE lie in the game...during the initial telling of 3 claims?

Good point.

The Narrator tells two truthful claims and one lie.

When asked a question that is aimed at one of his truthful claims, the Narrator MUST answer truthfully, even if all six questions were to be aimed at those.

When asked a question that is aimed at his lie, the Narrator may continue to lie his butt off, even if all six questions were to be aimed at that one lie.

Hope it answers your question :)

(07-14-2020, 04:32 PM)TheRedneck Wrote: Claim #2:

What kind of business was it that you had, and what was the result of the spun article on your business?

TheRedneck

Complicated question. Because it's political.

I was in business with two other fellas. We had opened a consumer electronics store. The area I was in, was very Liberal but the questioning came from the opposition party which was very conservative.

To put that in an American perspective, it's like having the store in a highly Republican area but being interviewed and cheated by the opposition party which would have been the Democrats, from your point of view.

So imagine, the article comes out but makes me look like I favor the opposition while being in the main Liberal party area. See where I'm going with this?

The flak I got, you can't even imagine. We looked at possibly suing but the costs were too damn high and the damage had already been done.

Politics and business don't always merge together all that well. Lesson learned.


Hope it answers your question :)


@"IAMTAT" @"TheRedneck" ... now it's time to find the lie...

IAMTAT has first choice. Which will it be?

Quote:Claim # 1 - I've gone bankrupt. Twice. Lost everything. Twice. Spent 4 months in the mental ward as a result BUT have rebuilt myself again.

OR

Quote:Claim # 2 - As a business owner, I was interviewed by the opposition political party to the one I had voted for. When the article came out, they had spun the narrative to make it look like I supported them. It made my life a living hell for a good period of time.

OR

Quote:Claim # 3 - I had an autographed original McLaren racing shirt from Lewis Hamilton, given to me by him and his team, when he won the Montreal Grand Prix, in 2007.

All yours!!

I have my guess but I'll wait for TAT and Redneck to state theirs so I don't persuade them....and cause them to get it wrong

(07-14-2020, 05:22 PM)FauxMulder Wrote: I have my guess but I'll wait for TAT and Redneck to state theirs so I don't persuade them....and cause them to get it wrong

I do believe I have it figured out. Now to wait for IAMTAT to see if he takes my answer.  

That number 1 position does hold an advantage!

Either way, good game Sol. You made a few neurons actually have to work for a living.

TheRedneck

Okay...
Sol...you're good.
I bounced between #2 and #3...but I have to go with the nagging in my little grey cells.
I believe you witnessed the drawing for the racing shirt...and really wanted it...but you didn't get it.
Your excuse of Claim#1 for no longer having it...was too convenient for my comfort.

I choose #3.

IAMTAT has chosen Claim #3.

@"TheRedneck" ... your turn...

(07-14-2020, 06:14 PM)Sol Wrote: IAMTAT has chosen Claim #3.

@"TheRedneck" ... your turn...

Damn... IAMTAT took my choice.

OK, between #1 and #2... #2 sounds feasible, primarily because there are so few details in there. #1 looks reasonable as well... the medicines checked out (sorta, at least so far as what could be prescribed by an idiot doctor).  Bankruptcy twice is not that uncommon, and a breakdown is certainly not an unreasonable response.

Now add in what I thought was the clincher... tying it to #3. If #3 is true, then at least part of #1 is true. If #3 is false, then why tie it in? Possibly to make it look like #1 and #3 are both true, leading to #2 being false as the logical conclusion... but then multiplying that by pi cubed and convoluting the result with a pure white noise signal and setting epsilon to the square root of 2 makes my nose bleed...

...

...

...

Dammit, Sol, look what you did to me!  

OK, turning on the conspiratorial part of my head... if Sol tied #3 to #1 in order to make them look true, and I cannot choose #3, that leaves me with...

I choose #1. It's probably mostly true, but maybe there's a detail in there that throws it off.

TheRedneck

And TheRedneck has chosen Claim #1.

Sorry for messing around with your brain, my friend, but it was one hell of a backwards time traveling thingie for me as well...


What do members think is the lie??


I will reveal the truth later!!

I think #1 is the lie. Not because it didn't happen but it only happened once! 

To be honest though, I could make a case for each one. So great job!

Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is 'never get involved in a land war in Asia' - but only slightly less well-known is this: 'Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line!' Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

-Princess Bride

(07-14-2020, 06:45 PM)FauxMulder Wrote: I think #1 is the lie. Not because it didn't happen but it only happened once! 

To be honest though, I could make a case for each one. So great job!

Yeah, I noticed Sol emphasized the word "TWICE" twice... perhaps that was the lie. He did seem to concentrate on a single occurrence...

TheRedneck

(07-14-2020, 06:41 PM)Sol Wrote: Sorry for messing around with your brain, my friend, but it was one hell of a backwards time traveling thingie for me as well...  

Bah, nothing a few minutes with some light reading on Quantum Singularities won't cure...  

TheRedneck

(07-14-2020, 07:51 PM)TheRedneck Wrote:

(07-14-2020, 06:45 PM)FauxMulder Wrote: I think #1 is the lie. Not because it didn't happen but it only happened once! 

To be honest though, I could make a case for each one. So great job!

Yeah, I noticed Sol emphasized the word "TWICE" twice... perhaps that was the lie. He did seem to concentrate on a single occurrence...

TheRedneck

Can't be #1 (based on that)...because in answer to my question about CLAIM #3...Sol referenced the #1 CLAIM saying: "On claim #1, I mentioned losing everything twice. Well, that was during the second time." 

He is not permitted to lie in BOTH.
That leaves #2 or #3  as the LIE.

(07-14-2020, 07:57 PM)IAMTAT Wrote:

(07-14-2020, 07:51 PM)TheRedneck Wrote:

(07-14-2020, 06:45 PM)FauxMulder Wrote: I think #1 is the lie. Not because it didn't happen but it only happened once! 

To be honest though, I could make a case for each one. So great job!

Yeah, I noticed Sol emphasized the word "TWICE" twice... perhaps that was the lie. He did seem to concentrate on a single occurrence...

TheRedneck

Can't be #1 (based on that)...because in answer to my question about CLAIM #3...Sol referenced the #1 CLAIM saying: "On claim #1, I mentioned losing everything twice. Well, that was during the second time." 

He is not permitted to lie in BOTH.

Good point! I must've missed that. Could be 2 because no one should be surprised the media lies (ie family and friends). Could be 3 for the reasons you stated and because it's not related (originally) to the other 2.