I think that would be more of a scam than a con, ita, but that's just my gut reaction.
But why? I mean, drawing from fiction isn't the best example, but on a recent episode of Hustle they had a con where "something for nothing" meant the mark offered 500 pounds. But an honest person might have seen the same setup and offered 5000. Would it have stopped being a con and then become a scam just because the mark was honest and offered full market value?
A swindle is a swindle. There's nothing I can find in the dictionary definition that makes it not also a con.
If I had the money, I would look into installing one of these in cutiehead sarameg's basement: [link]
Hah. Don't think I haven't idly had the same thought. Except it would be ridiculous and INSANE and asking for trouble. Besides, I like going to the Y.
Sarameg needs her pool boyfriends and girlfriends. She's got it going on, dog.
Kim Clijsters? Still cute.
Would it have stopped being a con and then become a scam just because the mark was honest and offered full market value?
That's a really good question. I don't think I saw that Hustle (there are recent episodes?), so I'm not sure what my answer would be.
The whole thing is pretty fuzzy - I don't think it's wrong, as such, to refer to a swindle as a con, but I do think it's an evolution of the term and that saying "you can't con an honest man" refers to the older and more specific usage.
shrift, sympathies and good guiding wishes.
I'm sorry, shrift, and good luck with the problematic people.
Much sympathy, shrift, and good luck with the herding.
I'm so sorry shrift. Good luck with the people herding.
