Ninth Doctor Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 In my personal evaluation: the easiest thing would be to give in to the blackmail and send you your $100.I'm calling foul on your use of the term "blackmail". RB already addressed it so all I'm doing is wagging my finger in your general direction, I don't have anything to add to what he wrote. I'd give you a warning point, if I were a moderator (no thanks!). If we're going to sling legal terms around, how about Implied Warranty? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty Did Burgess specify that the name he was seeking was one he hadn't heard of before? Someone he could form a partnership with? I get the feeling he wanted those two features, a kind of fitness for a particular purpose. Did he work it into the offer? Oops, time for more reading, now on Offer and Acceptance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance Nope, he didn't. Is it an offeree's function to...forget it, this is getting boring even for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 (edited) RB said: The offeree is not responsible for anything except the plain meaning of the offer. Unless, of course, meaning involves the intentional states of the speaker. In which case, on an occasion when the offerer realizes the wording (symbols-syntax) was not making clear their intended referents, they might simply take responsibility for the ambiguity... However, a person who learns that the offerer did not in fact mean what conditions the offeree took as satisfying the intentional object-state of affairs they intended to convey, might feel this is not the sort of trade they are interested in....(might) Edited May 26, 2014 by Plasmatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted May 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) If you're going to throw around serious accusations like "blackmail," ... ... Someone pointed out to me that Burgess was almost certainly unaware of this discussion on this forum. I agree. In other words, he probably was not aware of any rudeness and hostility from you. Therefore, I was wrong to call it "blackmail". (Added after a search: For a discussion on blackmail, and whether it ought to be a crime at all, see this topic.) Edited May 28, 2014 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted May 29, 2014 Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 Thanks. That is an interesting examination of blackmail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted June 1, 2014 Report Share Posted June 1, 2014 Is James Randi a full-time, specialized activist for reason? In summary, working only from these three samples and from his newsletters which I read decades ago, I can say James Randi has had a long, productive, successful career as a defender of science and an exposer of "flim-flam." He is not a specialized, full-time activist for reason. Randi's relationship to reason is analogous to the imprint a seal makes in wax. The imprint in the wax is a result of the seal. Likewise, Randi's work in supporting science is a result of his respect for reason, but respect for a subject is not the same as specializing in promoting it.  The imprint a seal makes in was essentially a description of Aristotle's view of how the mind forms concepts.  From what I've been able to glean from a small vien of sources, is that Burgess is actually seeking someone worthy of being financed to actively promote reason on a full time basis. Such a specialist would indeed be worth his weight in gold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted June 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2014 Burgess's second book, "The Power and the Glory" documents a few advocates for reason from centuries past. So, this is consistent with that theme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted June 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2014 A follow-up post from Burgess, in which he proposes a "Donor's Network for Reason Activists". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted June 7, 2014 Report Share Posted June 7, 2014 "PLAN. No money will pass through DNRA. Money will flow directly from individual donors to individual activists." Â According to the IRS: To be deductible, charitable contributions must be made to qualified organizations. Payments to individuals are never deductible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.