***OFFICIAL*** Brewster's Millions Plot Holes Thread (1 Viewer)

[Otis]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

 

[Commish77]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

Agreed... I could have spent that 30 million in one day.

 

[Finless]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

We used to get blond coke whores. Now we get Brewster's Millions plot holes.

 

[WVU Alum]

I think the point of the movie is that he was a poor guy of average intelligence who never had money and had no idea how to spend money and not have things. It would have been harder in '86 to burn through 30 mill than it would be today. But quite doable in 30 days.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Ten million, ten million, ten million dollars!

 

[Otis]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

We used to get blond coke whores. Now we get Brewster's Millions plot holes.

It hurts me more than it hurts you, gb.

 

[Otis]

NONE OF THE ABOVE

Doesn't someone have to win the election?

 

[rick6668]

Ten million, ten million, ten million dollars!

I bought an oil well, I bought a commodity thing..

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

I love this movie, but I always said he should have just kept the 30 mil.

 

[Drunk on Jesus Juice]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

I always thought the stamp thing violated the rules anyway. He wasn't allowed to destroy stuff.

 

[flufhed]

I think the point of the movie is that he was a poor guy of average intelligence who never had money and had no idea how to spend money and not have things.

Although good job by Otis to be the first one to "crack the code."

 

[Hoart Petterson]

I have an idea for a sequel, same premise but a little different. It's called Brewster's Billions(!).

 

[Hoart Petterson]

I don't know how anyone hasn't fired up the Chuck Fleming alias yet.

 

[Ghost Rider]

"Now THAT was a real ###hole!"

 

[bigbottom]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

The stamp issue is a major plothole in other ways as well. One of his rules was that he couldn't destroy anything valuable. Another was that he couldn't buy things of value and then give them away. Finally, he couldn't own anything at the end of the 30 days. So let's apply these rules to the valuable stamp. If the stamp is now worthless by virtue of being mailed, he's destroyed something of value. If it still has value in spite of the postmark, then he owns something of value. If it has value but is not owned by Brewster, but by the receipient of the postcard, then he's given something valuable away.And thus, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.

 

[bigbottom]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

I always thought the stamp thing violated the rules anyway. He wasn't allowed to destroy stuff.

Damn, beat me to it.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

The stamp issue is a major plothole in other ways as well. One of his rules was that he couldn't destroy anything valuable. Another was that he couldn't buy things of value and then give them away. Finally, he couldn't own anything at the end of the 30 days. So let's apply these rules to the valuable stamp. If the stamp is now worthless by virtue of being mailed, he's destroyed something of value. If it still has value in spite of the postmark, then he owns something of value. If it has value but is not owned by Brewster, but by the receipient of the postcard, then he's given something valuable away.And thus, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.

I disagree. He "used" the item for it's intended purpose. The only problem with the stamp angle is why doesn't he simply buy 30 million in rare stamps and mail a bunch of letters. Of course he could've blown the 30M in a few minutes doing a variety of things but then there wouldn't be a movie.

 

[Drunk on Jesus Juice]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

The stamp issue is a major plothole in other ways as well. One of his rules was that he couldn't destroy anything valuable. Another was that he couldn't buy things of value and then give them away. Finally, he couldn't own anything at the end of the 30 days. So let's apply these rules to the valuable stamp. If the stamp is now worthless by virtue of being mailed, he's destroyed something of value. If it still has value in spite of the postmark, then he owns something of value. If it has value but is not owned by Brewster, but by the receipient of the postcard, then he's given something valuable away.And thus, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.

I disagree. He "used" the item for it's intended purpose. The only problem with the stamp angle is why doesn't he simply buy 30 million in rare stamps and mail a bunch of letters. Of course he could've blown the 30M in a few minutes doing a variety of things but then there wouldn't be a movie.

Mailing a zillion dollar stamp is not its "intended purpose."

 

[bigbottom]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

The stamp issue is a major plothole in other ways as well. One of his rules was that he couldn't destroy anything valuable. Another was that he couldn't buy things of value and then give them away. Finally, he couldn't own anything at the end of the 30 days. So let's apply these rules to the valuable stamp. If the stamp is now worthless by virtue of being mailed, he's destroyed something of value. If it still has value in spite of the postmark, then he owns something of value. If it has value but is not owned by Brewster, but by the receipient of the postcard, then he's given something valuable away.And thus, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.

I disagree. He "used" the item for it's intended purpose. The only problem with the stamp angle is why doesn't he simply buy 30 million in rare stamps and mail a bunch of letters. Of course he could've blown the 30M in a few minutes doing a variety of things but then there wouldn't be a movie.

I don't buy it. He bought a valuable asset. While he may have used the asset, it is still a valuable asset that he either kept or gave away.

 

[Commish77]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

The stamp issue is a major plothole in other ways as well. One of his rules was that he couldn't destroy anything valuable. Another was that he couldn't buy things of value and then give them away. Finally, he couldn't own anything at the end of the 30 days. So let's apply these rules to the valuable stamp. If the stamp is now worthless by virtue of being mailed, he's destroyed something of value. If it still has value in spite of the postmark, then he owns something of value. If it has value but is not owned by Brewster, but by the receipient of the postcard, then he's given something valuable away.And thus, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.

I disagree. He "used" the item for it's intended purpose. The only problem with the stamp angle is why doesn't he simply buy 30 million in rare stamps and mail a bunch of letters. Of course he could've blown the 30M in a few minutes doing a variety of things but then there wouldn't be a movie.

Mailing a zillion dollar stamp is not its "intended purpose."

Buy lesser valued stamps and just mail more of them.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

The stamp issue is a major plothole in other ways as well. One of his rules was that he couldn't destroy anything valuable. Another was that he couldn't buy things of value and then give them away. Finally, he couldn't own anything at the end of the 30 days. So let's apply these rules to the valuable stamp. If the stamp is now worthless by virtue of being mailed, he's destroyed something of value. If it still has value in spite of the postmark, then he owns something of value. If it has value but is not owned by Brewster, but by the receipient of the postcard, then he's given something valuable away.And thus, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.

I disagree. He "used" the item for it's intended purpose. The only problem with the stamp angle is why doesn't he simply buy 30 million in rare stamps and mail a bunch of letters. Of course he could've blown the 30M in a few minutes doing a variety of things but then there wouldn't be a movie.

I don't buy it. He bought a valuable asset. While he may have used the asset, it is still a valuable asset that he either kept or gave away.

He did neither. He used it.

 

[flufhed]

I don't see the stamp in and of itself as a plot hole at all. Stamps are meant to be mailed. Some nerds collect them and think they are worth money, but stamps are made to be mailed. He could have bought $30M worth of regular stamps and mailed a letter to a ####-ton of people. In fact, he would have had to have paid people to stuff the envelopes and everything, so actually would not have needed $30M in regular stamps.

 

[bigbottom]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

The stamp issue is a major plothole in other ways as well. One of his rules was that he couldn't destroy anything valuable. Another was that he couldn't buy things of value and then give them away. Finally, he couldn't own anything at the end of the 30 days. So let's apply these rules to the valuable stamp. If the stamp is now worthless by virtue of being mailed, he's destroyed something of value. If it still has value in spite of the postmark, then he owns something of value. If it has value but is not owned by Brewster, but by the receipient of the postcard, then he's given something valuable away.And thus, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.

I disagree. He "used" the item for it's intended purpose. The only problem with the stamp angle is why doesn't he simply buy 30 million in rare stamps and mail a bunch of letters. Of course he could've blown the 30M in a few minutes doing a variety of things but then there wouldn't be a movie.

I don't buy it. He bought a valuable asset. While he may have used the asset, it is still a valuable asset that he either kept or gave away.

He did neither. He used it.

Who owns the stamp now? The rich trustee dudes own it. And it is still a valuable stamp. Could he buy a Ferrari and "use" it to drive over to the trustee's house and leave it there?

 

[Short Corner]

Who would have thunk this cinematic masterpiece had a whole in the plot?

 

[bigbottom]

I don't see the stamp in and of itself as a plot hole at all. Stamps are meant to be mailed. Some nerds collect them and think they are worth money, but stamps are made to be mailed. He could have bought $30M worth of regular stamps and mailed a letter to a ####-ton of people. In fact, he would have had to have paid people to stuff the envelopes and everything, so actually would not have needed $30M in regular stamps.

Now you're back to Otis' plot hole.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

The stamp issue is a major plothole in other ways as well. One of his rules was that he couldn't destroy anything valuable. Another was that he couldn't buy things of value and then give them away. Finally, he couldn't own anything at the end of the 30 days. So let's apply these rules to the valuable stamp. If the stamp is now worthless by virtue of being mailed, he's destroyed something of value. If it still has value in spite of the postmark, then he owns something of value. If it has value but is not owned by Brewster, but by the receipient of the postcard, then he's given something valuable away.And thus, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.

I disagree. He "used" the item for it's intended purpose. The only problem with the stamp angle is why doesn't he simply buy 30 million in rare stamps and mail a bunch of letters. Of course he could've blown the 30M in a few minutes doing a variety of things but then there wouldn't be a movie.

I don't buy it. He bought a valuable asset. While he may have used the asset, it is still a valuable asset that he either kept or gave away.

He did neither. He used it.

Who owns the stamp now? The rich trustee dudes own it. And it is still a valuable stamp. Could he buy a Ferrari and "use" it to drive over to the trustee's house and leave it there?

Apples and oranges. Stamps are for mailing letters. That's what he did.

 

[wadegarrett]

Brester would have gotten the $300 million regardless of spending/not spending the $30 million. Warren and the partners of the law firm committed fraud. Monty would surely have won a civil suit against the law firm. So...

 

[Joseph]

I'd just throw myself a super sweet 16 party...

 

[bigbottom]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

The stamp issue is a major plothole in other ways as well. One of his rules was that he couldn't destroy anything valuable. Another was that he couldn't buy things of value and then give them away. Finally, he couldn't own anything at the end of the 30 days. So let's apply these rules to the valuable stamp. If the stamp is now worthless by virtue of being mailed, he's destroyed something of value. If it still has value in spite of the postmark, then he owns something of value. If it has value but is not owned by Brewster, but by the receipient of the postcard, then he's given something valuable away.And thus, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.

I disagree. He "used" the item for it's intended purpose. The only problem with the stamp angle is why doesn't he simply buy 30 million in rare stamps and mail a bunch of letters. Of course he could've blown the 30M in a few minutes doing a variety of things but then there wouldn't be a movie.

I don't buy it. He bought a valuable asset. While he may have used the asset, it is still a valuable asset that he either kept or gave away.

He did neither. He used it.

Who owns the stamp now? The rich trustee dudes own it. And it is still a valuable stamp. Could he buy a Ferrari and "use" it to drive over to the trustee's house and leave it there?

Apples and oranges. Stamps are for mailing letters. That's what he did.

And cars are for driving to someone else's home.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Airtight, from my point of view.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

The stamp issue is a major plothole in other ways as well. One of his rules was that he couldn't destroy anything valuable. Another was that he couldn't buy things of value and then give them away. Finally, he couldn't own anything at the end of the 30 days. So let's apply these rules to the valuable stamp. If the stamp is now worthless by virtue of being mailed, he's destroyed something of value. If it still has value in spite of the postmark, then he owns something of value. If it has value but is not owned by Brewster, but by the receipient of the postcard, then he's given something valuable away.And thus, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.

I disagree. He "used" the stamp as it was originally intended to be used. He didnt destroy it, he applied it.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

The stamp issue is a major plothole in other ways as well. One of his rules was that he couldn't destroy anything valuable. Another was that he couldn't buy things of value and then give them away. Finally, he couldn't own anything at the end of the 30 days. So let's apply these rules to the valuable stamp. If the stamp is now worthless by virtue of being mailed, he's destroyed something of value. If it still has value in spite of the postmark, then he owns something of value. If it has value but is not owned by Brewster, but by the receipient of the postcard, then he's given something valuable away.And thus, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.

I disagree. He "used" the item for it's intended purpose. The only problem with the stamp angle is why doesn't he simply buy 30 million in rare stamps and mail a bunch of letters. Of course he could've blown the 30M in a few minutes doing a variety of things but then there wouldn't be a movie.

I don't buy it. He bought a valuable asset. While he may have used the asset, it is still a valuable asset that he either kept or gave away.

He did neither. He used it.

Who owns the stamp now? The rich trustee dudes own it. And it is still a valuable stamp. Could he buy a Ferrari and "use" it to drive over to the trustee's house and leave it there?

Apples and oranges. Stamps are for mailing letters. That's what he did.

And cars are for driving to someone else's home.

Right. Not leaving them there.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

The stamp issue is a major plothole in other ways as well. One of his rules was that he couldn't destroy anything valuable. Another was that he couldn't buy things of value and then give them away. Finally, he couldn't own anything at the end of the 30 days. So let's apply these rules to the valuable stamp. If the stamp is now worthless by virtue of being mailed, he's destroyed something of value. If it still has value in spite of the postmark, then he owns something of value. If it has value but is not owned by Brewster, but by the receipient of the postcard, then he's given something valuable away.And thus, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.

I disagree. He "used" the item for it's intended purpose. The only problem with the stamp angle is why doesn't he simply buy 30 million in rare stamps and mail a bunch of letters. Of course he could've blown the 30M in a few minutes doing a variety of things but then there wouldn't be a movie.

I don't buy it. He bought a valuable asset. While he may have used the asset, it is still a valuable asset that he either kept or gave away.

He did neither. He used it.

Who owns the stamp now? The rich trustee dudes own it. And it is still a valuable stamp. Could he buy a Ferrari and "use" it to drive over to the trustee's house and leave it there?

Apples and oranges. Stamps are for mailing letters. That's what he did.

And cars are for driving to someone else's home.

But not for leaving it there. If I buy some rare truffle for a boatload of money I can eat it and not violate, right? who owns my excrement?

 

[bigbottom]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

The stamp issue is a major plothole in other ways as well. One of his rules was that he couldn't destroy anything valuable. Another was that he couldn't buy things of value and then give them away. Finally, he couldn't own anything at the end of the 30 days. So let's apply these rules to the valuable stamp. If the stamp is now worthless by virtue of being mailed, he's destroyed something of value. If it still has value in spite of the postmark, then he owns something of value. If it has value but is not owned by Brewster, but by the receipient of the postcard, then he's given something valuable away.And thus, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.

I disagree. He "used" the item for it's intended purpose. The only problem with the stamp angle is why doesn't he simply buy 30 million in rare stamps and mail a bunch of letters. Of course he could've blown the 30M in a few minutes doing a variety of things but then there wouldn't be a movie.

I don't buy it. He bought a valuable asset. While he may have used the asset, it is still a valuable asset that he either kept or gave away.

He did neither. He used it.

Who owns the stamp now? The rich trustee dudes own it. And it is still a valuable stamp. Could he buy a Ferrari and "use" it to drive over to the trustee's house and leave it there?

Apples and oranges. Stamps are for mailing letters. That's what he did.

And cars are for driving to someone else's home.

But not for leaving it there. If I buy some rare truffle for a boatload of money I can eat it and not violate, right? who owns my excrement?

Of course. Because once you eat a truffle, it no longer has value. The million dollar stamp still has value as an asset.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

We used to get blond coke whores. Now we get Brewster's Millions plot holes.

Speaking of blonde coke whores, I'm sure Brewster could have blown through the money rather quickly on them.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

The stamp issue is a major plothole in other ways as well. One of his rules was that he couldn't destroy anything valuable. Another was that he couldn't buy things of value and then give them away. Finally, he couldn't own anything at the end of the 30 days. So let's apply these rules to the valuable stamp. If the stamp is now worthless by virtue of being mailed, he's destroyed something of value. If it still has value in spite of the postmark, then he owns something of value. If it has value but is not owned by Brewster, but by the receipient of the postcard, then he's given something valuable away.And thus, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.

I disagree. He "used" the item for it's intended purpose. The only problem with the stamp angle is why doesn't he simply buy 30 million in rare stamps and mail a bunch of letters. Of course he could've blown the 30M in a few minutes doing a variety of things but then there wouldn't be a movie.

I don't buy it. He bought a valuable asset. While he may have used the asset, it is still a valuable asset that he either kept or gave away.

He did neither. He used it.

Who owns the stamp now? The rich trustee dudes own it. And it is still a valuable stamp. Could he buy a Ferrari and "use" it to drive over to the trustee's house and leave it there?

Apples and oranges. Stamps are for mailing letters. That's what he did.

And cars are for driving to someone else's home.

But not for leaving it there. If I buy some rare truffle for a boatload of money I can eat it and not violate, right? who owns my excrement?

Of course. Because once you eat a truffle, it no longer has value. The million dollar stamp still has value as an asset.

My #### will have value for crops.

 

[lafan68]

That's very generous of you! Very generous! I'm going to have to put you on my Christmas card list.

LAFan68

P.S. I still use this line regularly.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

The stamp issue is a major plothole in other ways as well. One of his rules was that he couldn't destroy anything valuable. Another was that he couldn't buy things of value and then give them away. Finally, he couldn't own anything at the end of the 30 days. So let's apply these rules to the valuable stamp. If the stamp is now worthless by virtue of being mailed, he's destroyed something of value. If it still has value in spite of the postmark, then he owns something of value. If it has value but is not owned by Brewster, but by the receipient of the postcard, then he's given something valuable away.And thus, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.

I disagree. He "used" the item for it's intended purpose. The only problem with the stamp angle is why doesn't he simply buy 30 million in rare stamps and mail a bunch of letters. Of course he could've blown the 30M in a few minutes doing a variety of things but then there wouldn't be a movie.

I don't buy it. He bought a valuable asset. While he may have used the asset, it is still a valuable asset that he either kept or gave away.

He did neither. He used it.

Who owns the stamp now? The rich trustee dudes own it. And it is still a valuable stamp. Could he buy a Ferrari and "use" it to drive over to the trustee's house and leave it there?

Apples and oranges. Stamps are for mailing letters. That's what he did.

And cars are for driving to someone else's home.

But not for leaving it there. If I buy some rare truffle for a boatload of money I can eat it and not violate, right? who owns my excrement?

Of course. Because once you eat a truffle, it no longer has value. The million dollar stamp still has value as an asset.

Not to him though, he mailed it.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

The stamp issue is a major plothole in other ways as well. One of his rules was that he couldn't destroy anything valuable. Another was that he couldn't buy things of value and then give them away. Finally, he couldn't own anything at the end of the 30 days. So let's apply these rules to the valuable stamp. If the stamp is now worthless by virtue of being mailed, he's destroyed something of value. If it still has value in spite of the postmark, then he owns something of value. If it has value but is not owned by Brewster, but by the receipient of the postcard, then he's given something valuable away.And thus, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.

I disagree. He "used" the item for it's intended purpose. The only problem with the stamp angle is why doesn't he simply buy 30 million in rare stamps and mail a bunch of letters. Of course he could've blown the 30M in a few minutes doing a variety of things but then there wouldn't be a movie.

I don't buy it. He bought a valuable asset. While he may have used the asset, it is still a valuable asset that he either kept or gave away.

He did neither. He used it.

Who owns the stamp now? The rich trustee dudes own it. And it is still a valuable stamp. Could he buy a Ferrari and "use" it to drive over to the trustee's house and leave it there?

Apples and oranges. Stamps are for mailing letters. That's what he did.

And cars are for driving to someone else's home.

But not for leaving it there. If I buy some rare truffle for a boatload of money I can eat it and not violate, right? who owns my excrement?

Of course. Because once you eat a truffle, it no longer has value. The million dollar stamp still has value as an asset.

The stamp doesn't have value after it's been canceled. And I'd argue that since he mailed it, as its intended purpose, and the post office canceled it, thus destroying its value as a collectable in the process, Brewster did not destroy it.

 

[bigbottom]

Because once you eat a truffle, it no longer has value. The million dollar stamp still has value as an asset.

Not to him though, he mailed it.

Right, thus violating the giving away a valuable asset rule.By your logic, Brewster could simply have bought 30 million dollars worth of gold, had them spun into a hundred envelopes, and then mailed the envelopes.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Because once you eat a truffle, it no longer has value. The million dollar stamp still has value as an asset.

Not to him though, he mailed it.

Right, thus violating the giving away a valuable asset rule.By your logic, Brewster could simply have bought 30 million dollars worth of gold, had them spun into a hundred envelopes, and then mailed the envelopes.

No he couldn't have. And he didn't give it away, he used it. Giving it away would not entail licking it, sticking it on a postcard and dropping it in a mailbox.

 

[Otis]

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to buy lots more of those expensive stamps and mail them out to people?

The stamp issue is a major plothole in other ways as well. One of his rules was that he couldn't destroy anything valuable. Another was that he couldn't buy things of value and then give them away. Finally, he couldn't own anything at the end of the 30 days. So let's apply these rules to the valuable stamp. If the stamp is now worthless by virtue of being mailed, he's destroyed something of value. If it still has value in spite of the postmark, then he owns something of value. If it has value but is not owned by Brewster, but by the receipient of the postcard, then he's given something valuable away.And thus, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.

I disagree. He "used" the item for it's intended purpose. The only problem with the stamp angle is why doesn't he simply buy 30 million in rare stamps and mail a bunch of letters. Of course he could've blown the 30M in a few minutes doing a variety of things but then there wouldn't be a movie.

I don't buy it. He bought a valuable asset. While he may have used the asset, it is still a valuable asset that he either kept or gave away.

He did neither. He used it.

Who owns the stamp now? The rich trustee dudes own it. And it is still a valuable stamp. Could he buy a Ferrari and "use" it to drive over to the trustee's house and leave it there?

Apples and oranges. Stamps are for mailing letters. That's what he did.

 

[Otis]

Buying super expensive wine and drinking it all down?

 

[bigbottom]

Because once you eat a truffle, it no longer has value. The million dollar stamp still has value as an asset.

Not to him though, he mailed it.

Right, thus violating the giving away a valuable asset rule.By your logic, Brewster could simply have bought 30 million dollars worth of gold, had them spun into a hundred envelopes, and then mailed the envelopes.

No he couldn't have. And he didn't give it away, he used it. Giving it away would not entail licking it, sticking it on a postcard and dropping it in a mailbox.

Why couldn't he have? Envelopes are for sending letters. He would have "used" the envelopes.

 

[Darth Cheney]

I liked how he chartered a flight for The Bulls from Newark to New York, had helicopters bring the team from the airport to a meet and greet somewhere where the band was allowed to play...and then had buses take them from the meet and greet back to the practice field. That shows thinking outside the box.

 

[General Malaise]

Hard to believe both pitcher and catcher are gone....

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Because once you eat a truffle, it no longer has value. The million dollar stamp still has value as an asset.

Not to him though, he mailed it.

Right, thus violating the giving away a valuable asset rule.By your logic, Brewster could simply have bought 30 million dollars worth of gold, had them spun into a hundred envelopes, and then mailed the envelopes.

No he couldn't have. And he didn't give it away, he used it. Giving it away would not entail licking it, sticking it on a postcard and dropping it in a mailbox.

Why couldn't he have? Envelopes are for sending letters. He would have "used" the envelopes.

Why not just eat the money? C'mon, you're reaching here.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Hard to believe both pitcher and catcher are gone....

Manager too.

 

[Darth Cheney]

Hard to believe both pitcher and catcher are gone....

Manager too.

Uncle Rupert down?

 

[The Football Freak]

Because once you eat a truffle, it no longer has value. The million dollar stamp still has value as an asset.

Not to him though, he mailed it.

Right, thus violating the giving away a valuable asset rule.By your logic, Brewster could simply have bought 30 million dollars worth of gold, had them spun into a hundred envelopes, and then mailed the envelopes.

I think you are looking at the stamp wrong. It wasn't incorrect for him to use it to mail a postcard, but it shouldn't have worked anyway. It was a rare OLD card, the postage wouldn't have been correct.