Tommy,

Here's how "cheesy" Sandhusker's win is:

Sandman (from above post): "Tam, the bet was that he could prove his statement."

That was not the bet Tommy!

My statement involved the entire time period that the border was closed not just calendar year 2004.  

In my mind, I committed to calendar year 2004 in the bet and I know that in calendar year 2004, the losses in Pasco and Boise did not offset the gains in Brooks (Lakeside) and that is why I lost the bet.  I have a conscience.

The losses in Pasco and Boise were greater than the gains in Brooks for the entire period of time that the border was closed.  If the bet was as Sandman said above, to prove my statement, I never lost THAT BET.

I could easily grab this statement and avoid paying the $100 but I know that I agreed to calendar 2004 and so does Agman so I'm going to pay it.

As you can plainly see, the bet in Sandman's mind revolved around my original statement that he called a lie but he'll take the money and claim victory anyway because that's the kind of person he is. 

~SH~