Re: [NOISE] [Wager: Seeming Resolution]

At 12:57 AM 4/24/96 -0400, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:
>Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 23-Apr-96 [Wager: Seeming
>Resolution] by Black Unicorn@schloss.li 
>> The only issue is how you wish to modify that claim for the purposes of
>> the wager so as to bring it within a semblence of accuracy.
>>  
>> Absent further interest on your part, I consider the matter closed and 
>> your claim retracted.
>
>I confess I had a good laugh at Jim Bell's expense. His attempt at
>weaseling was sadly uninspired, and Black Unicorn was quite right to
>move in for the kill.
>

What "kill"?  Unicorn claimed a few days ago that he THOUGHT that his 
challenge would never be accepted, ostensibly because of haggling by me.  I 
interpret this as unwillingness to bargain in good faith (sandbagging), 
which is reasonable given Unicorn's track record.  Given this thinly-veiled 
warning of dishonesty, it is only realistic that I would not want to accept 
his challenge.  

Notice that he hasn't presented what he would claim to be the scope of the 
conditions, which suggests that he's going to try to spring them on me 
later.  I, for one, am not going to accept the legal equivalent of a 
witch-doctor's example, and I don't think anyone else here would find that 
to be acceptable either.

Further, all this is merely  an attempt to distract from the issue that I 
raised, one that Unicorn hasn't dared to talk about yet: I claimed that of 
the examples quoted in that SC decision, which were cited as exceptions to 
5th amendment protections in the US, all of them represent examples which 
were only considered technologically useful in the last 100 years, the 
oldest being fingerprinting.  Given this, it is easy to conclude that there 
is no realistic basis for an interpretation that they are genuinely 
exceptions to 5th amendment protections, and were allowed simply because 
they were useful.

Isn't it interesting how Unicorn always seems to dodge the analysis and 
replace it with precedent?

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

Jim:

On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:

> Notice that he hasn't presented what he would claim to be the scope of the 
> conditions, which suggests that he's going to try to spring them on me 

	I haven't seen a list of your conditions yet.

	How about placing your minimally acceptable requirements 
	for accepting Black Unicorn's Wager.  


> the examples quoted in that SC decision, which were cited as exceptions to 
> 5th amendment protections in the US, all of them represent examples which 
> were only considered technologically useful in the last 100 years, the 
> oldest being fingerprinting.  Given this, it is easy to conclude that there 

	Which makes it interesting that he provides an Ecclesiastical 
	Court Decision from the Seventeenth Century.  

	It isn't the US, but you haven't made an limitations 
	as to which legal system is acceptable.  

> Isn't it interesting how Unicorn always seems to dodge the analysis and 
> replace it with precedent?

	Almost as interesting as your not admitting your errors 
	when they are pointed out to you.

        xan

        jonathon
        grafolog@netcom.com



**********************************************************************
*								     *
*	Opinions expressed don't necessarily reflect my own views.   *
*								     *
*	There is no way that they can be construed to represent      *
*	any organization's views.				     *
*								     *
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*	ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/gr/graphology/home.html	     *
*								     *
*			     OR					     *
*								     *
*       http://members.tripod.com/~graphology/index.html             *
*								     *
***********************************************************************

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <m0uC7oO-00092NC@pacifier.com>,
jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> wrote:
> What "kill"?  Unicorn claimed a few days ago that he THOUGHT that his 
> challenge would never be accepted, ostensibly because of haggling by me.  I 
> interpret this as unwillingness to bargain in good faith (sandbagging), 
> which is reasonable given Unicorn's track record.  Given this thinly-veiled 
> warning of dishonesty, it is only realistic that I would not want to accept 
> his challenge.  

Jim Bell's ignorance apparently knows no boundaries.  That's not what 
"sandbagging" means.

In poker, to sandbag is to raise a bet after having opened that betting
round by checking.  It's frowned upon in some poker games, but completely
acceptable in others - check the house rules before trying it.

Try as I might, I can't see how Black Unicorn's statements qualify as
sandbagging.  He certainly didn't open the betting by checking!

- -- 
Alan Bostick               | They say in online country there is no middle way
mailto:abostick@netcom.com | You'll either be a Usenet man or a thug for the CDA
news:alt.grelb             |    Simon Spero (after Tom Glazer)
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQB1AwUBMX8PwuVevBgtmhnpAQHf3wL/VWAPk8uF8p9hsUKp9q6OLd8TpRKN4N0Y
aE3t2ECHB1unfjtSAeQxF1PeGhJdv53XWvcRyS44dgHNaylovpbJSXN3IEUg0GeT
9JyaieZ02EHBlHeNrUjCWTNfJAtSLVdX
=AGof
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----