(no subject)

[chess]

Everyone's doing this 'ask a question, get an honest answer' thing. However, if I were to do so (and I'm tempted to) I'd have to add a caveat - 'if giving an answer doesn't betray anyone's trust'. I have an absolutely miserable track record with other people's secrets, and I'm certainly not going to give out an oppertunity for anyone to demand them from me.

I'm just wondering why no-one else has ordered this caveat. Is it a case of a) less other-people's-secrets, b) less scruples or c) less thought?

(I must quit posting mildly to seriously controversial stuff and get back to my life, such as it is, sometime or other.)

Comments

[passage.livejournal.com]

It is an valid point.

But then how good is the offer?

If you forgot and I asked you to betray someone else's trust you could go back on your statement and say "that's not what I meant" or whatever, you're not a computer, this isn't a formal system.

You're very generous however, I was going to (and I'm not tempted ;-)) I'd have to add the caverat "Unless you manage to hit a question I really don't want to answer."

Neil

[chess]

Not very good, in my particular case :) - that is, if you're asking questions with the sole intention of trying to embarrass me.

Y'see, I don't think there *are* any questions I really don't want to answer that aren't covered by that caveat... provided I'm allowed 'I don't know' or 'no opinion' as an answer when those are the true answers.

[naath.livejournal.com]

because none of the embarassing questions are about other ppls secrets...

[chess]

I suspect one of them would count as your brother's secret.