You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
People often claim that if someone _really_ believes something, they should be willing to bet on it at commensurate odds. I agree with this when money is clearly a primary motivator for that person. But if it's not, lack of willingness to bet means little about their sincerity
Quite a few replies are having trouble empathizing with the notion of not being motivated by money. Imagine the bet stakes are for a grimblful (win), and a thoktak (lose). These are fictitious, meaningless stakes; not being willing to bet would mean nothing about your sincerity.
Note also that I'm not engaged at all with the question of whether a person should care about money or not - I'm assuming as a premise that the person genuinely isn't much interested.
(This is rare for very large sums, though not unheard of - e.g., I know people who've turned down millions of dollars to live modest lifestyles doing things they like. For small sums, it's not uncommon.)
There's an old joke in which an oral exam question in mathematics begins "Suppose n is an integer [etc]", and the student replies "But, professor, what if n is not an integer?" Many of the replies to this thread have been of the form "No way could n have been an integer!"
I'm not interested in whether someone _should_ be motivated by money (which is what you're engaging with). I'm saying: if someone isn't, then this is the situation.
I'll give you 10 grimblfuls if you can figure out the answer to that question from what I've previously written.
I don't trust anybody who isn't motivated by grimblfuls.
I wonder what the grimblful / thoktak exchange rate is?
If you are not willing to bet, then you must be afraid to lose the thoktak.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
