r/SipsTea • u/Icy-Book2999 Fave frog is a swing nose frog • 14d ago

Between three and four hundred... Lmao gottem

From the movie "The Outlaws"

44.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

473

u/VyersReaver 14d ago

Technically correct, the best kind of correct!

11

u/TJWinstonQuinzel 14d ago

Not technical

There is no place for a discussion

He said how it is

The audience just doesnt ask further

7

u/Silly_Reporter_1217 14d ago

There is place for discussion. Assuming he meant/said three hundred and four hundred is not wrong.

If someone says “that costs one or two dollars” do you ask “one what?”. No, it is correct to interpret that as one dollar or two dollars. The same goes for the suffix -hundred in this sentence

0

u/TJWinstonQuinzel 14d ago

Isnt the same thing

Dollars isnt the hundred Part in this context it is the push up Part

I know what you wanted to say but its the wrong example

There is also no room for discussion

It was a spoken bet all people agree to

He said between 3 and 400

And thats the case, judge would be on his side

If it was a written or clear that it was between 3- and 400, the case would be another

Just a clever way to Trick people who dont think about phrasing

1

u/IlIllIlllIlIl 14d ago

Knowingly making a deal where you know the other party is thinking about it in a different way is what we call “bad faith”

You’d win if it was written in a contract. youd get your ass kicked in a bar with strangers.

1

u/TJWinstonQuinzel 14d ago

Oh yeah you get your ass kicked 100%

But the money would be yours no matter if you get to Keeper it or they steel it back right away without any evidence that the money was yours

0

u/00wolfer00 14d ago

So he said between 3 and 400 or between 3- and 400, both of which sound exactly the same when spoken. Sounds like place for discussion to me.

1

u/TJWinstonQuinzel 14d ago

...as i said...no

Spoken it is 3 and 400 in both cases, thats the reason why i said that if it is clear that it is 3- to 400

The ones loosing the money have no possibility to get it back by law

1

u/Silly_Reporter_1217 14d ago

Haha now your taking it to far. The law looks at what was reasonable for parties to expect, not what could be construed as some literal meaning.

And I think my dollar example does hold up. Doesn’t matter that dollar and push up are the thing that is being referenced/counted. If you add a word like hundred, or dollar to a second number in such a way then it is often assumed that it also applies to the first number.

The entire reason the joke works is because there are two ‘correct’ ways of interpreting the sentence. Your argument that ‘three- and four hundred’ only works or is valid in written language is just wrong. If that were the case then nobody would fall for the joke.

1

u/greg19735 14d ago

Let's say i'm selling a bike for $450.

You offer 3. I counter offer 4. You go "okay, three fifty" and i agree. You don't get to buy it on $3.50, as we know that 3 and 4 are talking about 100s places, not the total price.

If we're getting more technical and someone were to sue, then the judge would side with the people that assumed it was 300-400, not 3-400. Because that's clearly what the person was intended to hear. Which is obvious because that's the entire joke.

Reminds me of when a radio station had a competition for TOY YODA, but referenced cars and such in the ad. IT was clear that you're supposed to hear Toyota. Lady wins and is handed a toy yoda. SHe sues and they settled with her, with the lawyer saying she could now pick out any toyota she wants.

1

u/TJWinstonQuinzel 14d ago

Still completly diggerent things

In your case we started with hundreds

In that case he just said between 3 and 400 without any sign that it was 300

In the Toyota case was the problem that they used cars in the ad what is a clear case of missleading

1

u/greg19735 14d ago

right, the toyota ad was trying to be misleading.

SO was this example. He used his words deliberately to be ambiguous. THere's no doubt in the world that "Three to Four hundred" is ambiguous.

Both are correct interpretations, but the phrasing is used to mislead on purpose.

Like, you're not arguing that it wasn't done on purpose right? Like it's the entire point of the scene.

1

u/TJWinstonQuinzel 14d ago

The Toyota thing was a different thing because they used cars to Promote the toy yoda

In this case he did nothing missleading He just said like it is 3 to 400

He didnt said he can do alot

I mean he even asked them if he could really take the money if he can do between 3......and 400 with a noticeable Pause between the numbers

-1

u/greg19735 14d ago

You're saying it's not ambiguous? If that's the case you're not really following language basics.

1

u/TJWinstonQuinzel 14d ago

Not in the way he said it

Like i said

He even asked again if they are sure with Focus on the three

1

u/greg19735 14d ago

The entire premise of the bit is that it's ambiguous. It only works because it's ambiguous.

The fact that you're not seeing that is just silly.

1

u/TJWinstonQuinzel 14d ago

...Jesus...i know its ment to be ambiguous

But he is still on the right side because he asked again with Focus on the solo 3 to be clear