CALJIC 14.14, theft by false pretenses, was given here and neither defendant objected to it. The claim that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete is waived on appeal unless an amplifying or clarifying instruction is so requested. Because no such instruction was sought here, the issues were waived. There was no error in the trial court’s admitting evidence of uncharged incidents involving three other elderly men who had been victims of Miller and Harris’ scam. Each approach followed a similar pattern, tended to show that appellants harbored the requisite intent to defraud, and established their modus operandi. The trial court did not abuse its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 in failing to exclude this evidence which was relevant and probative on the issues of intent and corroboration of the victim’s testimony. Sufficient evidence of reliance on Miller’s representations was provided by the victim’s testimony that some of her lies did not matter to him and some of them did. The jury was entitled to believe that testimony and find reliance. The evidence here was sufficient to convict co-appellant Harris for theft by false pretenses. The testimony of three other vulnerable elderly men as to similar false pretenses used by Harris and Miller against them was sufficient to corroborate the victim’s testimony here.