The TruthSeeker1234 $1000.00 Challenge

[KingMerv00]

No, KingMerv, it matters not if the attention he hopes to garner is worth the price he's offering from your perspective (or even from his, actually) for purposes of contractual enforceability. It still satisfies the consideration element of the contract.

At first, I was thinking that the contract would be considered unconscionable in the court of law because the levels of consideration are vastly different. But the more I think about it, the more I agree with you. "Unconscionable" it a tough bar to reach.

 

[qarnos]

OK, now let me get this straight -- you'll give me $100, right now, if I just start a closed thread in which we debate? And when the debate is over, you'll give me the remaining $900? OK, but first I have a couple of questions: (1) How are you going to pay me? and (2) What defines the end of the debate, when one of us admits defeat?

Pardon me for not entirely trusting you on this yet, but as you're a self-admitted hoaxer, I'd like to be sure this isn't just another one.

[Randi Prize claimant mode]

He doesn't have the money.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

My, my, my. Mm-mm.

The entertainment potential of some people. Quite a thing to behold.

Yes sir. My, my.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Abby's cite of the monkeys reminded me.

Over in Forum Community, there's a thread responded to by some big league posters.... Why don't you post in CT? (Or a similar title.)

Here's a sample response.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1941453#post1941453

So if any of you know the work of DeBunk, Darat, Tragic Monkey, et al.... why not drag this thread over and entitle it, "Hey Tragic Monkey, wanna make a quick thousand bucks?" Admitted disinterest in the topic would be no obstacle. TM makes more sense (and is a whole lot funnier, by far) than BS1234 on any given day. Well, TM makes more sense on any non-given day or even on any for-given day, too.

I think I'd pay the thou to see a limited (say 25 posts each) debate between BS1234 and DeBunk. Hell, I'd even come in later to clean up the mess they made!

Truthseeker, why are you ignoring Abby's acceptance? You are just a smarmy little Troll, as we've proven so often. You offered. She accepted the challenge. You backed off, again. Lying Troll!

If you get serious, I propose the above thread as the location of the moderator or judge for the event. Veteran, logical, skeptics all! I'd take DeB's word for who won!

 

[Gravy]

Truthseeker1234, here's a proposition for you:

Fly me out to L.A., put me up, and I'll spend a day or two with you showing you why your arguments are wrong and your methods flawed. You don't appear to have read or understood the the threads in which you've posted here. I think a face-to-face meeting, without distractions, would be very helpful. I'm not as good with some subjects as R. Mackey, Arkan, and others here, but I think I have a solid overall understanding of the issues, and I know I can point you in the right direction in your quest for the "truth."

This would cost you less than $1,000, and you wouldn't be making an ass of yourself in public. Whaddya say?

 

[Abbyas]

Fly me out to L.A., put me up, and I'll spend a day or two with you showing you why your arguments are wrong and your methods flawed.

What are you, nuts?

 

[Foolmewunz]

What are you, nuts?

False concern?

You're just mad 'cuz Gravy's gonna cut off your income, right? You smell a quick grand!

 

[Gravy]

What are you, nuts?

No, I've just never spent time in L.A. Notice that I didn't invite him to NY?

 

[Abbyas]

You're just mad 'cuz Gravy's gonna cut off your income, right? You smell a quick grand!

Shhh, I'm workin' a grift here.

No, I've just never spent time in L.A.

Ha! Well, I hope that after he finds that he can't discredit your debunks, your tourguide doesn't get upset, chop you up and put you in the freezer!

 

[Rrramon]

I offer $1000.00 to anyone who will debate me, one on one, on a closed thread, and start the thread with the positive case for the impact/fire hypothesis. Resolved: WTC1,2, and 7 came down due to impact damage and fire.

Debate according to Arkan's rules. $100 up front (i.e. upon your having opened the thread made the first post being made), $900.00 balance paid upon completion of the debate.

OK, it's not the $1,000,000.00 challenge, but at least it's physically possible for someone to have an online debate, unlike the JREF $1,000,000.00 challenge.

How about it, anyone want my money?

I like how TruthSeeker is unaware of the fact that he is doing the exact same thing as Creationist goofball Kent Hovind right now:

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

Guess what...Nobody has won yet!!!

Why do you think that is, TruthSeeker?

 

[LashL]

At first, I was thinking that the contract would be considered unconscionable in the court of law because the levels of consideration are vastly different. But the more I think about it, the more I agree with you. "Unconscionable" it a tough bar to reach.

In terms of consideration, remember the peppercorn

Unconscionability, while it is available as a defence to a contractual claim in certain circumstances, is wholly separate from the issue of consideration for purposes of assessing the existence of contractual obligation in the first place (offer, acceptance, consideration).

Unconscionability is only raised as a defence to a contractual claim after it has been established that the prerequisites of an enforceable contract have been met.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Gravey offered

Fly me out to L.A., put me up, and I'll spend a day or two with you showing you why your arguments are wrong and your methods flawed.

Gravey, I accept, as long as you spend the first part of the first day starting a thread here call "Resolved: WTC1,2 and 7 came down because of impact damage and fires". And after that we continue the debate, per Arkan Wolfshade's guidelines.

Actually, a round trip ticket from NY to LA, plus hotel, and some spending money sounds like around a grand.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Stellafane was tempted.

OK, now let me get this straight -- you'll give me $100, right now, if I just start a closed thread in which we debate?

Not quite. I will give you $100 after you start a closed thread in which you post a detailed proof in support of the following propostion: "WTC1,2, 7 were brought down by impact damage fires". You agree to fufill the terms of debate set up by Arkan Wolfshade. I guess Arkan has agreed to moderate, is that correct?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Alternate offer for Gravy

Mackey officially turned down my offer to debate on live T.V, which is still my first choice of what I'd like to do. Gravey, if I buy your plane ticket and hotel room, will you come on T.V. and debate me for an hour? Please?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Abby has accepted your challenge. Don't pretend you didn't see her reply. And she will clean your clock, too, if you ever get around to honoring your own commitments.

No, I didn't see Abby's acceptance of my challenge. Let me look for it.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

OH, AbbyAS

Hell 1000 bucks for a few posts on a message board? I'll pretend that the positive case is "Monkeys ate the World Trade Center."

Let's go!

I didn't take this seriously. No, I'm looking for someone willing and able to actually defend and make the case for the official story.

 

[LashL]

Double post.

 

[LashL]

OH, AbbyAS

I didn't take this seriously. No, I'm looking for someone willing and able to actually defend and make the case for the official story.

In other words, "Truthseeker1234" has no intention of honouring his initial post and knows he wouldn't stand a chance in a legitimate debate.

No surprise there.

Now it's time for BS1234 to set out all of the terms that he did not set out earlier, but which he will surely insist upon.

So... go to it, BS1234.... spell out all of the terms in detail in your own words, and then send your money to LL to be held in escrow.

But first things first, spell out your terms - you know, step number one. Don't just quote someone else without providing a link, (as usual) .... and this should be easy for you because it has nothing to do with 9/11.... just spell out the details that you are espousing.

Pretty please.

With a cherry on top.

And sprinkles, too.

 

[Foolmewunz]

OH, AbbyAS

I didn't take this seriously. No, I'm looking for someone willing and able to actually defend and make the case for the official story.

You chose to quote her humorous second response. Read the first one. No conditions, whatsoever. She accepted your offer in Post #2.

The post you cited above was Abby having a little fun (she's of the comic persuasion), but she's also an able representative and can, as someone else has posted, clean your clock.

 

[qarnos]

POST #1:

I offer $1000.00 to anyone who will debate me, one on one, on a closed thread, and start the thread with the positive case for the impact/fire hypothesis. Resolved: WTC1,2, and 7 came down due to impact damage and fire.

Debate according to Arkan's rules. $100 up front (i.e. upon your having opened the thread made the first post being made), $900.00 balance paid upon completion of the debate.

OK, it's not the $1,000,000.00 challenge, but at least it's physically possible for someone to have an online debate, unlike the JREF $1,000,000.00 challenge.

How about it, anyone want my money?

POST #2:

Hell, yes.

Well, TS?