I think we need at least a half dozen more posts about who would have won the fake bet that never existed

"Due to high demand Wii U will ship by Friday"

Seems like there is some kind of demand at least.

The title says gamestop. The OP says "wii didn't have much of any stock for more than 2 years " referencing stores. Why would the conditions only have been for an online portion of a giant retailer?

The title does say Gamestop, but the OP:

"www.gamestop.com

 their headline.. WII U NOW IN STOCK!

Although still early, wii didn't have much of any stock for more than 2 years and wasn't available for order on many online gaming sites for quite a while.."

... refers to Gamestop online.  Again, conditions.

Yes, Leo-j used a head provided on the retailers website for evidence that the retailer has stock. That doesn't change the fact the OP was talking about gamestop's stock levels (which include both online and stores). Osed challenged leo's statement by saying that wont be the case in 2 days. I said i would take that bet... conditions have nothing to do with it. If osed started making criteria thats called going back on his original statement that challenged leo-j's.

No, conditions have everything to do with it.  The OP certainly led me to believe that he was referring to Gamestop online, but in any event, Osed's statement was non specific, meaning he could have very well been referring to Gamestop.com in his post, which was the post that you challenged.  Again, conditions.

Well of course. After the fact you change your statement you can make anything fit your agenda.

How did I change my statement?  I firmly believe the OP was referring to online.  That hasn't changed.  And if I thought that, then there's a good chance that osed thought that as well when he made his post.  Really, it's not hard to understand.  In my experience, anyone who would contest something so painfully obvious is someone who believes he is infallible.  So by all means, carry on...

I was talking about osed changing the statement. And the only one who can clarify what the OP meant is leo-j. So basically this comes down to comprehension of the OP. This means that whoever would have won would have been the one who understood the OP better.

So let leo-j decide this for us. If he meant both online and retail then I would have won. If he meant online only then osed would have won. I don't see how "completely in stock" could possibly just meant online only because then you are isolating an entire other section of the business. And I also don't know why leo-j would reference Wii stock at retailers if he was just talking online either.

So the would have been winner of this bet is the person with better comprehension of the OP.

GameStop still has them listed as in stock.

There were a couple on shelves (Deluxe SKU) the week of launch at the Target City in SF. Yesterday there was a Basic SKU in the floor stock cabinet (that holds about 4 console boxes).

At any rate, I resisted the impulse buy back during Black Friday weekend the first time I saw them in stock (I bought the first Wii I found on shelves a good six months after the debut in mid 2007) and after seeing another one on a Monday, I don't feel any compulsion to buy one now so that I don't have to wait to buy one later once the platform has any games I would buy for it. There is no mad rush for new stock and no camping for the stock truck to come in.

I don't think there are going to be any stort stock issues as was the case with the Wii although individual resellers/flippers are trying to and presumably succeeding at selling each of the SKUs at about $50 over retail on average.