= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Blueberry comments on But Somebody Would Have Noticed - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (250)
I will bet a $5 donation to SIAI that the person will be able to give a convincing answer, as judged by, say, Jack or JoshuaZ, provided that you give the person time to research 9/11 as necessary.
ETA: And provided that person is willing to spend the time answering.
There's a slight problem there. Roland said that the individual in question was not Jack. It might be me. Also, I would not be at all surprised if Roland considers both Jack and myself to be people who are in the group with anti-Truther bias here.
Well, I'd accept anyone who was not a rabid Truther, because I don't believe that Truthers will ever be convinced regardless of the evidence. But maybe Roland thinks anyone who isn't a rabid Truther is too strongly biased.
Alicorn would be a good choice, if she is still logged in.
Yeah, I was thinking of Alicorn, too.
I have an anti-Blueberry bias, and he is involved in the bet. If he will accept my adjudication regardless, then $5 for the SIAI and a chance to show off my mad adjudication skillz is worth the small amount of time I expect it would take to make the evaluation of whether the answer to "one simple question" is convincing. I don't know who the answerer of this question would be, though, and if ey declines to participate the bet should be considered off.
Well, if I'm not the subject of the bet (or heck even if I am) I might be willing to take the bet under the same terms but I'd be curious who would be an acceptable judge for Roland.
Although I'm pretty sure that I would win this bet I have some issues, I really don't want to expose anyone here and that's what calling the Bluff would entail. So I'm not sure if I want to go on with this.
If that's all that's holding you back, you could send them a private message. But I don't think you need to do even that; posting on a blog means accepting that people may publically rebut your arguments.
Everyone here is here ostensibly to have their false beliefs exposed. If they are deceiving people here that is even worse.
Roland, just to be sure, why don't you instant message the person and see if they don't mind?
If you are right, then numerous people on this forum are likely to have been misinformed and would benefit from correction. If you are wrong, then you are unlikely to cause harm by naming the individual in question.
In addition, if you are thinking of me, I would like to be told so.
If I'm the selected adjudicator I'm willing to do it in private and keep the details secret.
Alicorn, that sounds fair. Would you and the others agree on you being also a meta-adjudicator? In this case I would first expose my concerns to you in private and then we could decide if I should go public. What do you think?
I have to say, I would be pretty frustrated if, after all of this, the details of the bet weren't public. Especially if this is going to be evidence for or against a LW "bias" against 9/11 truthers. And I see no reason why they shouldn't be public. Especially, if you message the person in question and ask them if it is okay.
If Alicorn agrees to be a meta-adjudicator I will write her my concerns in private.
I reserve the right to unilaterally publicize if I consider it appropriate, but will field the concerns privately first if you like.
so... what happened?
I counseled letting the matter lie upon receiving further details. It's not very interesting.
Darn... the build-up made it sound so intriguing :) ah well.