Quote from: Korbman on April 05, 2013, 12:59:20 AM

Quote from: KGambler on April 05, 2013, 12:12:14 AM

Actually, it is pretty clear that Luke is an employee of some sort (contractor, etc.).

Alrighty..I've seen this posted a number of times now. You guys do realize there is a huge difference between being an employee of a company and being contracted by one..right? That just because they compensate you in some form for your work doesn't make you their employee.

Am I the only one employed who understands this?

No, I don't realize that there is a "huge difference" between "being an employee of a company and being contracted by one".

I understand where you are coming from. You are not the only ones to have heard these very specific usages for "employee", and this is a very common mistake for people to make. I have worked as a full time employee for American corporations and have also worked as a contractor. I know how these terms are generally used. I also know, due to being a native English speaker, that the way words are used in various professions or even individual companies is not the only way they are used and in some cases can even be considered incorrect usage. In other words, it helps to sometimes assign a more exact meaning to a word AS USED in a profession, or within a legal document, etc, but that does not change nor limit the overall meaning of the word.

Here, this should help. It is an example of ONE definition of the English word "employee" (first one that showed up on google):

em·ploy·ee

/emˈploi-ē/

Noun

A person employed for wages or salary, esp. a nonexecutive.

Synonyms

worker - servant - employe - clerk

Now if we were writing... say, a Federal Healthcare Law, we would make sure that if we used the term "employee" that we assigned it an exact definition. The act of doing so would NOT change the meaning of the English word "employee" though. Does that help?

Reading the way the bet was written, there is no reason to believe that the intent was to define "employee" as a full time, salaried worker at BFL or some such nonsense. It's supposed to be a wager between two willing, gentleman gamblers who are going to honor the spirit of the bet, not two slimy, scumbag lawyer types who say things like "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is" (for our foreign friends, that's an actual quote from arch-scumbag lawyer Bill Clinton). Otherwise, each and every bet would have to employ "legalese", with all of those ridiculous run-on statements that attempt to cover each and every possible interpretation, eventuality, etc.

Read the bet. Do you assume they meant to use the specific definition of employee which would preclude a guy who has worked as a contractor for BFL since 2012? Your employer's official usage of "employee" is not the one and only "true meaning", although many people come to that conclusion concerning all sorts of English words.

My take on it is that there is no need to nitpick here. A guy who is currently working for BFL in exchange for compensation should not be excluded from the definition of the term "employee" used in the bet terms. Furthermore, Luke-Jr. has been doing work for BFL (at least off and on) since early 2012. In my mind, it would be absurd to exclude him based on the use of the English word "employee", your own employer's usage notwithstanding.