Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
10/3/2024, 3:07:07 PM
X
In reply to:
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
282d
@GaryMarcus People said this people said that…, you have the free will to concede or continue; you should know your own bet! Also if you had already lost, why would I make an offer to concede or raise the bet 10x?? It was an OFFER? Get it ?
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
282d
@DeryaTR_ I just tagged you on a of the posts of people telling me to pay up because (exactly as I said) they misread what the bet was from your post because (exactly as I sad) they only looked at had only a cropped view of the bet and they (exactly as I said) didn’t click through.

The…
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
282d
@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
·
282d
@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_
·
282d
@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
·
282d
@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.

The statement is part of a public discourse involving a debate about the clarity and interpretation of a public bet or offer. The conversation revolves around the misunderstanding of terms due to incomplete information in a public post, which is a public issue as it involves communication and transparency in public engagements.

  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 tone of the conversation is somewhat confrontational, which could lead to misunderstandings or escalation.
  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 and dignity, as it does not engage in cyberbullying or hate speech, but the tone is somewhat dismissive.
  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 does not engage in personal attacks but is part of a heated exchange that could benefit from more constructive dialogue. [-1]