roland comments on But Somebody Would Have Noticed - Less Wrong

36 Post author: Alicorn 04 May 2010 06:56PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (250)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: roland 05 May 2010 09:53:58PM -2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: jimrandomh 05 May 2010 10:08:38PM 6 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Jack 05 May 2010 10:23:47PM 5 points [-]

Everyone here is here ostensibly to have their false beliefs exposed. If they are deceiving people here that is even worse.

Comment author: byrnema 05 May 2010 10:56:58PM 2 points [-]

Roland, just to be sure, why don't you instant message the person and see if they don't mind?

Comment author: RobinZ 05 May 2010 09:59:51PM 4 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Alicorn 05 May 2010 09:59:42PM 3 points [-]

If I'm the selected adjudicator I'm willing to do it in private and keep the details secret.

Comment author: roland 05 May 2010 11:42:51PM 1 point [-]

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?

Comment author: Jack 05 May 2010 11:49:59PM 3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: roland 05 May 2010 11:51:40PM 0 points [-]

If Alicorn agrees to be a meta-adjudicator I will write her my concerns in private.

Comment author: Alicorn 05 May 2010 11:57:02PM 3 points [-]

I reserve the right to unilaterally publicize if I consider it appropriate, but will field the concerns privately first if you like.

Comment author: taryneast 06 February 2011 05:53:17PM 1 point [-]

so... what happened?

Comment author: Alicorn 06 February 2011 05:54:16PM *  1 point [-]

I counseled letting the matter lie upon receiving further details. It's not very interesting.

Comment author: taryneast 06 February 2011 11:08:05PM 0 points [-]

Darn... the build-up made it sound so intriguing :) ah well.