>For someone with "fully integrated honesty," your grandstand reward
>moves seem an awful lot like those rhetorical devices "used by con-men."
So you've checked out the 'fully integrated honesty' cult of "spamming net
pests" of which I am a member. Who has 'fully integrated honesty' vanished? Try
the US legal system and the Federal Government.. The 'Truth oath' that everyone
swears by to testify in court, is being replaced with a 'fully integrated
honesty' oath. It is now legal to reject the manipulative truth oath and swear
by fully integrated honesty.
>But on the slim chance that you're being honest, I suggest that you and
>Tim Rhodes select a mutually acceptable judge of his attempts to win the
>reward. You will send the check for $500 to the judge, who will forward
>it to the winner upon success.
I'm not going to lose the $500 whether we go by 'fully integrated honesty' or
'truth'. In 'fully integrated honesty' the offer was just to make a statement
that the Buddhists had no position based in reality. In 'truth', David McF.'s
clever point about the axioms being circular does not apply because, if you look
carefully at my statement, there is the word 'and' instead of an 'or'. So, my
500 bucks are safe, unless the judge to which I send the check is either a
Buddhist or on Level 3 and can accept contradictions:).
-David