Here’s my take on the $500 offer. This is how I think it would go down in my jurisdiction. YMMV. FTR, IAAL.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
So I have a possible offer for you. If I give you $500, will you just go away?
[/QUOTE]
Post #42. This is not an offer, but a “possible” offer. It’s basically indicating a willingness to do a deal on these terms but subject to agreeing the finer points of the deal which are to be worked later.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Sweet. You’re on, Liberal. As soon as your check clears, I’ll never post here again. E-mail me for where to send it, etc.
[/QUOTE]
Post #46. Indicates an agreement to entering into a contract.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Since I’m sure you will agree that you are not to be trusted, here’s the deal. As of the timestamp of this post, if you do not post for two years, then I will send you $500 and just take your word that you will never post again. You may signify your agreement by your immediate compliance.
[/QUOTE]
Post #49. Proposes terms of contract.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Not at all what you offered. Rejected.
[/QUOTE]
Post #51. Rejects terms.
In response to pseudotriton ruber ruber’s suggestion that Liberal was trying to weasel out of the “offer”:
[QUOTE=Liberal]
There’s no reason for me to back out of my offer. It’s what your sense of honor is worth to you, but it’s just chump change to me. I have a lot more than that just in my personal allowance account. (I get $100 per week in personal allowance.) If you really cared at all about your convictions and your allegedly noble cause of stamping out faith, no amount of money would buy you off. I think it’s worth $500 to prove you’re a fraud — the Judas of atheists.
But my terms. You can’t be trusted.
[/QUOTE]
Post #54. “There’s no reason for me to back out of my offer” has to be interpreted as meaning that (a) there was an “offer” as such, and (b) it still stands, but subject to the original terms as defined at post #49.
In response to suggestion by hajario at post #59 that the money be held in escrow for the two year period:
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I actually intended for Poly to execute it for me. I know him in real life and trust him. Tris would also be acceptable.
[/QUOTE]
Post #65. Provides further definition re the original terms. The use of the word “intended” has to be taken to refer at the time of making what post #54 confirms was actually an offer. The statement that “Tris would also be acceptable” (as distinct from “would also have been”) indicates that the offer could still be accepted.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
You’re totally full of shit, and your every post just advertises that fact more and more clearly. If you’d ever intended to involve Poly or Tris, both of whom I regard as honorable (probably far too honorable to get mixed with some bullshit scam of yours), you would have at least mentioned that in your post making the offer. (I notice that now it’s an “offer” again, and not just the possibility of one.) If you had mentioned this part of your fantasy, there would have been no need to present me with an arbitrary deadline or to put a two-year delay on paying me. You could have just given either of those gentlemen the money now, and I would have been content to stop posting for two years, because I would trust them to deliver the money in 2009. In fact, I’ll accept that as your offer right now, provided you can get either of them to agree to involving himself with you, and the two years will start as soon as one of them tells me he is holding $500 in cash from you for me. If you want to choose, Poly’s already got my mailing address, so I’d prefer him on that basis alone.
[/QUOTE]
Post #67. Offer accepted.
In response to Bryan Ekers’ suggestion that pseudotriton ruber ruber ought not accept the deal as Liberal had posted elsewhere in August 2005 that he did not expect to be “on this earth for more than another year or two”:
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Like I said before, I would give the money to Poly to handle. Did you happen to, you know, actually read anything before making up your little mind?
[/QUOTE]
Post #155. At this point, there is a valid contract and the third party should already hold the money.

