Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
10/3/2024, 3:00:46 PM
X
In reply to:
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
281d
@GaryMarcus Dude, I didn’t say you lost. I made you two offers: concede early, admit you were wrong, and not pay, or take the opportunity to raise the bet 10x! Both were just offers—you can simply say no thanks, and we continue as is. If you click on the screenshots, it’s your post there!…
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
281d
@DeryaTR_ You are being incredibly thick.

1. The critical part of screenshot from me is not visible unless someone clicks and zooms in. Few people do that.
2. Most comments show that people didn’t do that, and didn’t understand that the bet was about 2025.

You can’t tell me there was…
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
281d
@GaryMarcus There are three screenshots, and the second one clearly says ‘end of 2025’ by YOU. I didn’t say you lost; I made two offers: concede or raise the bet even more, or just continue without accepting the offers. There’s absolutely nothing ambiguous about my post—zero ambiguity!
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
281d
@DeryaTR_ Disappointing. That is NOT an answer to my point that almost everyone misread your post, because the most important information (year) was cropped/not mentioned clearly in your post.
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
281d
@GaryMarcus As I said I made offer to save you from stress waiting another year, you don’t have to concede; you can actually raise it 10x or 20x if you like!
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
281d
@DeryaTR_ What makes it really misleading is that you don’t mention 2025 and the only reference to that is not visible unless one clicks and zooms in the right hand tweet and reads very carefully.

As is apparent from the comments, very few people did that.

The statement is part of a public discourse involving a debate about a bet and its terms, which has implications for public understanding and perception of the individuals involved. The tone is defensive and accusatory, focusing on clarifying misunderstandings about the bet's terms.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but the accusatory tone could escalate tensions.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy but engages in a public dispute that could affect the dignity of those involved. [-1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement lacks constructive criticism and engages in personal attacks, reducing the quality of dialogue. [-2]