Oregon shooting: Gunman dead after college rampage

(CNN)The man who opened fire at Oregon's Umpqua Community College on Thursday is dead, Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin told reporters.
No police officers were injured, but preliminary information indicates 10 people were killed and more than 20 others injured in the shooting, according to Oregon State Police spokesman Bill Fugate.

Officers and the gunman exchanged fire at the Roseburg campus. The shooter was a 20-year-old man, according to Oregon Gov. Kate Brown.
"It's been a terrible day," said Hanlin. "At this point, it's a very active scene. It's a very active investigation."
A law enforcement official told CNN four guns believed to have belonged to the suspect were recovered at the scene.

We arrived to find multiple patients in multiple classrooms. Law enforcement was on scene and had the shooter neutralized," said Douglas County Fire Marshal Ray Shoufler.
He told CNN that two patients died while being transported to a hospital.
Mercy Medical Center posted on Facebook that it had received 10 patients from Thursday's shooting. The extent of their injuries was not known.
Three female victims were at PeaceHealth Sacred Heart Medical Center at RiverBend in Springfield, about 70 miles north of the shooting scene, according to a hospital spokeswoman Thursday afternoon.
The shooting appears to have started in one building before the gunman moved to the school's science building, a source with knowledge of the investigation told CNN. Those killed and wounded were found in at least two classrooms.
ATF agents were on scene and canine teams were en route to search for explosives, fire arms casings and ammunition, a spokesman said. FBI agents were also en route, officials said Thursday.

I'm so insignificant'

According to the source close to the investigation, authorities are looking at social media posts between a person they believe may have been the shooter, and others.
The conversation happened Wednesday night on 4chan.
In it, the writer talks about planning to carry out a shooting. Others egg him on, giving him suggestions on how to do it, and the type of weapons to use.
The responses are mixed -- with some users characterizing the would-be gunman as a pathetic loser. Others called him a twisted hero.
In the posts, there is a reference to the UC Santa Barbara shooter, who wrote a manifesto and videoed himself before opening fire a year ago.
"This is the only time I'll ever be in the news. I'm so insignificant," reads an apparent post by the would-be Oregon gunman.

'This is so out of character'

Roseburg is a city of about 22,000 people located about 70 miles south of Eugene, Oregon, and some 180 miles south of Portland.
The school itself is up on a hill outside the city center, according to Rick Francona, a CNN military analyst who lives nearby. Francona said that logging is a big industry in the region, which is fairly rural but easily accessible from Interstate 5.
"This is so out of character for this whole area," he said.
News of the shooting quickly reached Washington, with the state's senior senator, Ron Wyden, visibly shaken and Sen. Jeff Merkley tweeting that he was praying for the victims and their families.

More on the link:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/01/us/oregon-college-shooting/

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AGAIN!!!

Sounds like a radical Christian:

CNN wrote:The gunman, while reloading his handgun, ordered the students to stand up if they were Christians, Boylan told her family.

"And they would stand up and he said, 'Good, because you're a Christian, you're going to see God in just about one second,'" Boylan's father, Stacy, told CNN, relaying her account.

"And then he shot and killed them."

What's weird is that several on-line chatters apparently were egging him on.

funny that quill lectures Europe on morals and values

Original Quill wrote:Sounds like a radical Christian:

CNN wrote:The gunman, while reloading his handgun, ordered the students to stand up if they were Christians, Boylan told her family.

"And they would stand up and he said, 'Good, because you're a Christian, you're going to see God in just about one second,'" Boylan's father, Stacy, told CNN, relaying her account.

"And then he shot and killed them."

What's weird is that several on-line chatters apparently were egging him on.

You assume he was a radical Christian because he targeted Christians?

There's lots of info coming out about the alleged shooter - Chris Harper Mercer.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/02/chris-harper-mercer-first-details-emerge-of-oregon-college-killer

Mercer’s page also contained several photos promoting the Irish Republican Army, as seen below:

Heavy.com also posted a screenshot from a dating site profile attributed to Mercer, in which he describes himself as “not religious, but spiritual” and as a Republican. That image can be seen below:




http://www.newsfixboard.com/t11788-majority-of-republicans-believe-climate-change-is-real-and-affected-by-human-activity

It's a bit soon to form an opinion really, but he seems to have been a young man with a lot of mixed interests who was perhaps a bit shy, and who was drawn to "geeky" people. He wasn't religious but had an interest in spiritual matters. There's nothing particularly unusual about any of that.

Is this another case of a person who feels like they should be on a different planet?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oregon-college-shooting-father-of-survivor-says-gunman-was-targeting-christians-a6676306.html

http://news.sky.com/story/1562419/us-gunman-ordered-victims-to-reveal-religion


I agree with Rags though best to wait until more information comes out

who wants to bet that in the coming weeks islam will be found to have some kind of connection??

any takers???

smelly-bandit wrote:funny that quill lectures Europe on morals and values

Anybody can. No one has the franchise.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:funny that quill lectures Europe on morals and values

Anybody can.  No one has the franchise.

americans lest of all eh??

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Sounds like a radical Christian:



What's weird is that several on-line chatters apparently were egging him on.

You assume he was a radical Christian because he targeted Christians?

Because he made a point of referencing the Bible, and alleging that he was doing the work of Christ. It is well known that the Pauline Bible has as a central thesis, the idea of redemption; it is expressed as meeting God upon death. As he shot each victim, he was espousing this doctrine..."you're going to see God in about one second."

Killing someone is extreme. He was espousing a Christian biblical belief. He is a Christian extremist. If he did the same with the Koran or the Book of Mormon, you would unhesitatingly declare him a Muslim or Mormon extremist.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You assume he was a radical Christian because he targeted Christians?

Because he made a point of referencing the Bible, and alleging that he was doing the work of Christ.  It is well known that the Pauline Bible has as a central thesis, the idea of redemption; it is expressed as meeting God upon death.  As he shot each victim, he was espousing this doctrine..."you're going to see God in about one second."

Killing someone is extreme.  He was espousing a Christian biblical belief.  He is a Christian extremist. If he did the same with the Koran or the Book of Mormon, you would unhesitatingly declare him a Muslim or Mormon extremist.

Could you link to that please?

If someone shot a Muslim and said beforehand - you're going to meet Allah - that wouldn't mean that the shooter was a Muslim would it?

Quill, of course you want him to be a Christian extremist.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's a bit soon to form an opinion really, but he seems to have been a young man with a lot of mixed interests who was perhaps a bit shy, and who was drawn to "geeky" people. He wasn't religious but had an interest in spiritual matters. There's nothing particularly unusual about any of that.

Is this another case of a person who feels like they should be on a different planet?

That's a judgment call...your judgment.  I would say he was religious, but, he was not a zealot.  Many times the quiet ones are the more dangerous.

Profiling is an art, not a science.  We take things on facts, and then we theorize.  The facts are that he was shooting people, and, espousing Christian doctrine.  Those two things are all we have in the way of tangible facts.

I would guess he was carrying out a Christian script, found in the Bible. Why was that the thought on his mind as he did the deed?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Because he made a point of referencing the Bible, and alleging that he was doing the work of Christ.  It is well known that the Pauline Bible has as a central thesis, the idea of redemption; it is expressed as meeting God upon death.  As he shot each victim, he was espousing this doctrine..."you're going to see God in about one second."

Killing someone is extreme.  He was espousing a Christian biblical belief.  He is a Christian extremist. If he did the same with the Koran or the Book of Mormon, you would unhesitatingly declare him a Muslim or Mormon extremist.

Could you link to that please?

If someone shot a Muslim and said beforehand - you're going to meet Allah - that wouldn't mean that the shooter was a Muslim would it?

I already linked to the article, and quoted it.

Yes.  I believe most here would follow the line of reasoning that if he was shouting out religious doctrine while killing people, he was a religious nut.

But he wasn't Christian, was he?
He was adamant in that blog, above?

http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ChrisHarperMercer3.jpg

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's a bit soon to form an opinion really, but he seems to have been a young man with a lot of mixed interests who was perhaps a bit shy, and who was drawn to "geeky" people. He wasn't religious but had an interest in spiritual matters. There's nothing particularly unusual about any of that.

Is this another case of a person who feels like they should be on a different planet?

That's a judgment call...your judgment.  I would say he was religious, but, he was not a zealot.  Many times the quiet ones are the more dangerous.

Profiling is an art, not a science.  We take things on facts, and then we theorize.  The facts are that he was shooting people, and, espousing Christian doctrine.  Those two things are all we have in the way of tangible facts.

I would guess he was carrying out a Christian script, found in the Bible.  Why was that the thought on his mind as he did the deed?

Well if he's the chap who said in his profile that he wasn't religious, it's not me who's saying it, is it?

eddie wrote:But he wasn't Christian, was he?
He was adamant in that blog, above?

http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ChrisHarperMercer3.jpg

Quill wants him to be a Christian, so he can say that it was an extremist Christian murdering people.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Could you link to that please?

If someone shot a Muslim and said beforehand - you're going to meet Allah - that wouldn't mean that the shooter was a Muslim would it?

I already linked to the article, and quoted it.

Yes.  I believe most here would follow the line of reasoning that if he was shouting out religious doctrine while killing people, he was a religious nut.

No Quill, only you would think that way, and possibly some other nutters. He wasn't shouting religious doctrine anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:But he wasn't Christian, was he?
He was adamant in that blog, above?

http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ChrisHarperMercer3.jpg

Quill wants him to be a Christian, so he can say that it was an extremist Christian murdering people.

You're too quickly on the defensive.  I would say it's the other way around...you started this conversation by urging he was not religious...just spiritual, whatever that means.

It think the act speaks for itself: shooting people, while espousing religious doctrine.  You just can't see the plain view, for all your issues you have to deal with in the way.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Quill wants him to be a Christian, so he can say that it was an extremist Christian murdering people.

You're too quickly on the defensive.  I would say it's the other way around...you started this conversation by urging he was not religious...just spiritual, whatever that means.

It think the act speaks for itself: shooting people, while espousing religious doctrine.  You just can't see the plain view, for all your issues you have to deal with in the way.

You were too quick to say this chap was a Christian. Why is that Quill?

You're the one who mentioned religion first, or have you forgotten?

Why would he shoot Christians if he was a Christian himself?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You're too quickly on the defensive.  I would say it's the other way around...you started this conversation by urging he was not religious...just spiritual, whatever that means.

It think the act speaks for itself: shooting people, while espousing religious doctrine.  You just can't see the plain view, for all your issues you have to deal with in the way.

You were too quick to say this chap was a Christian. Why is that Quill?

You're the one who mentioned religion first, or have you forgotten?

Why would he shoot Christians if he was a Christian himself?

But my mention of his Christian sayings was not picked up on. You later gratuitously alleged he was spiritual, but not religious. This conversation then ensued.

Regardless of who started it, the facts are that he was killing people while calling out religious references. No one denies that. And it is very strange.

Strange enough for anyone denying this was Christian extremism to have to explain herself. Can you explain your assertion that he was spiritual, but not religious? I see no evidence there; it appears to be a distinction without a difference.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You were too quick to say this chap was a Christian. Why is that Quill?

You're the one who mentioned religion first, or have you forgotten?

Why would he shoot Christians if he was a Christian himself?

But my mention of his Christian sayings was not picked up on.  You later gratuitously alleged he was spiritual, but not religious.  This conversation then ensued.

Regardless of who started it, the facts are that he was killing people while calling out religious references.  No one denies that.  And it is very strange.

Strange enough for anyone denying this was Christian extremism to have to explain herself.  Can you explain your assertion that he was spiritual, but not religious?  I see no evidence there; it appears to be a distinction without a difference.

You started it Quill, so don't bother to change your argument now.

Sounds like a radical Christian:

Do you have problems with your memory?

My assertion? It was his assertion, not mine.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But my mention of his Christian sayings was not picked up on.  You later gratuitously alleged he was spiritual, but not religious.  This conversation then ensued.

Regardless of who started it, the facts are that he was killing people while calling out religious references.  No one denies that.  And it is very strange.

Strange enough for anyone denying this was Christian extremism to have to explain herself.  Can you explain your assertion that he was spiritual, but not religious?  I see no evidence there; it appears to be a distinction without a difference.

You started it Quill, so don't bother to change your argument now.

Sounds like a radical Christian:

Do you have problems with your memory?

My assertion? It was his assertion, not mine.

But my mention of his Christian sayings was ignored.  The conversation went on to other things.  You later, then, gratuitously alleged he was spiritual, but not religious.  This conversation then returned to the religious subject.  That part of it was on your initiative.

It really doesn't matter who brought the subject up; what matters is the topic at hand.  How do you distinguish between religious and spiritual, and how do you explain his making biblical references while shooting people?

I think the religious aspect matters because it is one of the very few facts we have regarding his motive.  Recall that when Dylann Roof was terrorizing and killing victims in the Charleston shooting, he was saying racist things about blacks, such as "You rape our women and you're taking over our country. And you have to go..."  These then provided motive.  

The same here: his words as he is killing provide some insight into his motive for killing people. He says, in so many words, 'you believe in god, and you're about to meet your maker', and this is in part an explanation of his motive. He's telling his victim what and why he is doing it.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You started it Quill, so don't bother to change your argument now.



Do you have problems with your memory?

My assertion? It was his assertion, not mine.

But my mention of his Christian sayings was ignored.  The conversation went on to other things.  You later, then, gratuitously alleged he was spiritual, but not religious.  This conversation then returned to the religious subject.  That part of it was on your initiative.

It really doesn't matter who brought the subject up; what matters is the topic at hand.  How do you distinguish between religious and spiritual, and how do you explain his making biblical references while shooting people?

I think the religious aspect matters because it is one of the very few facts we have regarding his motive.  Recall that when Dylann Roof was terrorizing and killing victims, he was saying racist things about blacks, such as "You rape our women and you're taking over our country. And you have to go..."  These then provided motive.  The same here: his words as he is killing provide some insight into his motive for killing people.

There weren't any "Christian sayings" or Biblical references. Even if there were, that doesn't mean he was a Christian. People on this forum quote from the Bible, but most of them are athiests.

It was Didge who posted the bit about him not being religious but being spiritual. I mentioned several things about him to indicate that he didn't seem to be unusual - that was just one of them.

Your argument would be like saying that Dylan Roof was black himself.

You're not claiming that his motive was hating Christians, you're claiming that he was a "radical Christian" himself.

Actually, do you even know what you're claiming?

Raggamuffin wrote:You're not claiming that his motive was hating Christians, you're claiming that he was a "radical Christian" himself.

Right, well not hating Christians. But hating what he was doing to them. He seemed almost apologetic...that if they were Christian, they would meet their maker and that would make amends for what he was doing. But no one picked up on it, and the conversation went to other places.

Thus my curiosity was piqued when you made the spiritual v. religious distinction.  But his reference clearly was to a "god", and the idea of meeting him seemed to come directly from the theory of redemption in the Christian Bible.

I see you ignored most of the points in my post.

Raggamuffin wrote:I see you ignored most of the points in my post.

Well, that was because they missed the point.  You'll find I ignore flak and antagonism that can only be headed toward insults and argument.  Rather, I tend to focus on the analytical direction of the conversation.

In this case I merely clarified what I was saying.  We need not speculate on shoulda, coulda, woulda sorts of suppositions.  We can go directly to the point...and move on.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I see you ignored most of the points in my post.

Well, that was because they missed the point.  You'll find I ignore flak and antagonism that can only be headed toward insults and argument.  Rather, I tend to focus on the analytical direction of the conversation.

In this case I merely clarified what I was saying.  We need not speculate on shoulda, coulda, woulda sorts of suppositions.  We can go directly to the point...and move on.

They didn't miss the point at all.

I think this discussion has gone as far as it can go. It's interesting that not many people have posted on it - I guess it's because it wasn't black people who were shot or something.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:But he wasn't Christian, was he?
He was adamant in that blog, above?

http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ChrisHarperMercer3.jpg

Quill wants him to be a Christian, so he can say that it was an extremist Christian murdering people.

You're too quickly on the defensive.  I would say it's the other way around...you started this conversation by urging he was not religious...just spiritual, whatever that means.

It think the act speaks for itself: shooting people, while espousing religious doctrine.  You just can't see the plain view, for all your issues you have to deal with in the way.

Quill did you see the link that was put up at least twice?

He is NOT in the least, religious - seemed quite the opposite actually!

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You're too quickly on the defensive.  I would say it's the other way around...you started this conversation by urging he was not religious...just spiritual, whatever that means.

It think the act speaks for itself: shooting people, while espousing religious doctrine.  You just can't see the plain view, for all your issues you have to deal with in the way.

Quill did you see the link that was put up at least twice?

He is NOT in the least, religious - seemed quite the opposite actually!

Yes, I saw it. It's a self-profile...almost guaranteed a lie. Chrissake, the boy wants to get laid. He describes himself a "lover" and then goes and kills 10-people in cold blood? Tough choice...lover or murderer??

If one's evaluation is taken from the entry about being 'spiritual', then I think you have your answer. It's a lie. In this case I believe that actions speak over words.

The boy went and took a gun to kill 10-people, while screaming about god. He's a Christian extremist, run a-muck.

Actually, I get the distinct impression he's a militant atheist who wanted to get his name known.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Quill wants him to be a Christian, so he can say that it was an extremist Christian murdering people.

You're too quickly on the defensive.  I would say it's the other way around...you started this conversation by urging he was not religious...just spiritual, whatever that means.

It think the act speaks for itself: shooting people, while espousing religious doctrine.  You just can't see the plain view, for all your issues you have to deal with in the way.

i take it you hold the same views when Muslims are concerned??

you know?? when they rape,maim and murder people whilst invoking the name of their god or reading from their blood book??

wouldnt want to to fall foul of hypocrisy

sassy wrote:Actually, I get the distinct impression he's a militant atheist who wanted to get his name known.

That's a possibility.  It's something to do with god, though.  It seems to be important to him that he was killing Christians. Maybe he felt god somehow let him down. Or, maybe he equated Christians with the establishment.

Sassy of course, you're most probably bang on the money.
If he was a Christian nut, he'd have been proud to be so and stated it boldly.

It seems that Quill made the assumption (fair enough as we all assume at times) and then got proven wrong (as far as we can see) and didn't want to say so.

eddie wrote:Sassy of course, you're most probably bang on the money.
If he was a Christian nut, he'd have been proud to be so and stated it boldly.

It seems that Quill made the assumption (fair enough as we all assume at times) and then got proven wrong (as far as we can see) and didn't want to say so.

Well no, it's not fair enough. There was no reason for him to assume the chap is a radical Christian.

Whatever he was or wasn't, letting nutter like him have guns is totally balmy.

And Smelly, I'll take you up on that bet about an Islamic motive.  If I win, will you sod off?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Sassy of course, you're most probably bang on the money.
If he was a Christian nut, he'd have been proud to be so and stated it boldly.

It seems that Quill made the assumption (fair enough as we all assume at times) and then got proven wrong (as far as we can see) and didn't want to say so.

Well no, it's not fair enough. There was no reason for him to assume the chap is a radical Christian.

In the article, the shooter himself, mentioned Christians; I'm only assuming that's where Quill made the link.
Which is fair enough.

He's wrong though, as far as we can see. He only has to say so and the debate can move forward.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well no, it's not fair enough. There was no reason for him to assume the chap is a radical Christian.

In the article, the shooter himself, mentioned Christians; I'm only assuming that's where Quill made the link.
Which is fair enough.

He's wrong though, as far as we can see. He only has to say so and the debate can move forward.

It's not fair enough.

eddie wrote:Sassy of course, you're most probably bang on the money.
If he was a Christian nut, he'd have been proud to be so and stated it boldly.

It seems that Quill made the assumption (fair enough as we all assume at times) and then got proven wrong (as far as we can see) and didn't want to say so.

That's what you call a script, eds. Scripts and stereotypes, rather than reasoning. It's all in John Dewey, How We Think (1901).

The better way is to take stock of what we have. We have a guy killing 10-people, screaming something about god. I like sassy's theory because it explains his killing Christians, but it still fails to explain his espousing Christian doctrine as he is shooting.

So if a shooter mentioned Muslims, and then shot Muslims, would people assume that he was a Muslim himself?

I thought we all sorta assumed he was an atheist of sorts?

The idea of an athiest mass murdering Christians would send Quill into a spin - that's why he's so insistent that the guy was a radical Christian.

Raggamuffin wrote:So if a shooter mentioned Muslims, and then shot Muslims, would people assume that he was a Muslim himself?

Yeah...it's confusing. Sassy's right...he is killing Christians. But then, he is making sure and giving assurances he is following redemption. And, of course, he lives in a Christian nation and calls himself a 'conservative'.

At this point we are just doing back porch psychoanalysis. But he definatly had something to say about Christians.

sassy wrote:Whatever he was or wasn't, letting nutter like him have guns is totally balmy.

And Smelly, I'll take you up on that bet about an Islamic motive.  If I win, will you sod off?

do you want me gone because you feel threatend by my intellect??

i understand

fair enough sassy I will take you up on the bet, i assure you sassy no one loves a good bet better than me , ask any of my friends they will all say the same thing...................but the thing is sassy.

the thing is, that no matter how good an argument I present, you will always do a "didge" and declare yourself the victor.

sounds rather like a fixed, and i should know!!!!

dont get me wrong ,no one loves a fixed bet more than me, ask any of my friends, they will all say the same thing.

I am not opposed to a fixed bet but im normally the one profiting from the fixing of the bet ............so to speak

so i find myself at a crossroads in life.

if I take your bet I run the risk of losing your bet due to your didge powers of invincibility and face the prospect of a long night in exile

but if i refuse then i will forever be the one who ran away.

what on earth is an honest man to do??

smelly-bandit wrote:

sassy wrote:Whatever he was or wasn't, letting nutter like him have guns is totally balmy.

And Smelly, I'll take you up on that bet about an Islamic motive.  If I win, will you sod off?

do you want me gone because you feel threatend by my intellect??

i understand

fair enough sassy I will take you up on the bet, i assure you sassy no one loves a good bet better than me , ask any of my friends they will all say the same thing...................but the thing is sassy.  

the thing is, that no matter how good an argument I present, you will always do a "didge" and declare yourself the victor.

sounds rather like a fixed, and i should know!!!!

dont get me wrong ,no one loves a fixed bet more than me, ask any of my friends, they will all say the same thing.

I am not opposed to a fixed bet but im normally the one profiting from the fixing of the bet ............so to speak

so i find myself at a crossroads in life.

if I take your bet I run the risk of losing your bet due to your didge powers of invincibility and face the prospect of a long night in exile

but if i refuse then i will forever be the one who ran away.

what on earth is an honest man to do??

No Smelly, I want you gone because you are so fucking boring basically.

Anyway, took you up on your bet so we will have to wait and see.

Ah come on sassy, you may not agree but he's anything but boring!

I don't always agree with you and at times, we've rowed like hell, but I've never thought you boring!

smelly-bandit wrote:

sassy wrote:Whatever he was or wasn't, letting nutter like him have guns is totally balmy.

And Smelly, I'll take you up on that bet about an Islamic motive.  If I win, will you sod off?

do you want me gone because you feel threatend by my intellect??

i understand

fair enough sassy I will take you up on the bet, i assure you sassy no one loves a good bet better than me , ask any of my friends they will all say the same thing...................but the thing is sassy.  

the thing is, that no matter how good an argument I present, you will always do a "didge" and declare yourself the victor.

sounds rather like a fixed, and i should know!!!!

dont get me wrong ,no one loves a fixed bet more than me, ask any of my friends, they will all say the same thing.

I am not opposed to a fixed bet but im normally the one profiting from the fixing of the bet ............so to speak

so i find myself at a crossroads in life.

if I take your bet I run the risk of losing your bet due to your didge powers of invincibility and face the prospect of a long night in exile

but if i refuse then i will forever be the one who ran away.

what on earth is an honest man to do??

Friends???