Author: odell hall
Date: 12:21:14 07/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 16, 2001 at 14:48:38, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: >On July 16, 2001 at 14:11:22, odell hall wrote: > > >> >> >> I guess I can ask you the Same Question, Why is it so important to you that I >>agree with Bob? I notice the only time you have posted in the last two months >>has been in response to me, or some comment i have made involving bob, why are >>you so obssessed with me and my feeling about Bob? Bob can defend himself, he is >>a Big boy, he doesn't need his watchdog christopher Dorr to come to his defense >>everytime someone debates with him. >>> > >Think about that Odell. Others have criticized Bob, and I haven't 'jumped to his >defence'. I like and respect Bob, and would never pretend that he needs my >defence. I disagree with him about things too. But your posts are over the top. >I decided to comment about your posts, because they seem aggressive, >disrespectful, and just plain silly. Mr. Dorr I am not going to argue back and forth with you, Peronally I don't give a fat rat's ass what you think of me or my post, I will continue to Challenge Bob on the Issue as long as I please. If you don't like my Post Don't read them. Don't you Dare tell me what should, and should not be important to me. If the issue is silly and trivial to you fine, you have a right to your values and choices. This is A Computer chess forum, as long as I am discussing computer chess then i am well within my rights, It's Your Problem if you think what I am discussing is Silly, and yes I have heard you defend Bob many times, not only here but at Rggc, you need to learn to mind your own business, and stay out of things that do not concern you. > >> >>>If computers *are* GM strength, then eventually the evidence will be totally >>>incontrovertable. Bob isn't a zealot. If he believes the evidence supports that >>>contention, he'll recognize that. Right now, he appears not to believe this. Why >>>is it so important to you that he does this now? >> >>Because i believe that Bob does not think computers are not Grandmasters, but is >>simply being arrogant and won't admit he was wrong. For me, the biggest question >>in Computer Chess is whatever Computers have Reach Grandmaster Strength, if they >>have then this is the Biggest Milestone in Computer Chess History, therefore it >>is extremely important, and should be Acknowledged. Why people try and >>trivialize the subject is beyond me, or why people get annoyed whenever the >>subject is brought up , I won't ever understand. >> > > >The subject *is* fairly trivial Odell. if you can't see that, you have some >issues bigger than these posts. What will change if Bob says 'Yes Odell! You >were right! They are GMs! How could I be so foolish when you were so brilliantly >pointing the right way?" The only thing that would change is that you would have >'won'. You would have 'beaten' Bob. And that is just ridiculous. > >Again, if they *are* GMs, the evidence will eventually be overwhelming. If they >are not GMs yet, someday they will be. So who cares? Whether Bob thinks they are >GMs doesn't affect how I play or use them. Or how they *do* against other >computers or GMs. > >Who will care what somebody thinks about a milestone, if indeed it *is* a >milestone? You are so intent on proving that you are right and Bob is wrong, you >just keep trolling. It seems like pathetic attention seeking behaviour. This is >the kind of gibberish I came here to avoid. if I wanted personal attacks and >trivial obsessions, I'd still subscribe to RGCC. > >Look at your last paragraph. You care about 'making Bob admit he was wrong'. >That is childish and silly, and has nothing to do with computer chess. You just >want to 'beat him'. We all know your position. We all know Bob's position. We >all see the incoming evidence. Is it necessary to start these trolling threads >that do nothing but take up space and cause unnecessary rancor? > >The simple fact is that you believe differently than Bob does. It *is* possible >to have a legitimate difference of opinion on this matter. You can't seem to >recognize that. Your position is (and seems to have been for a while) "I am >right! You have to agree with me! If you don't, I'll call you names and insult >you!" That's how a six-year old does things. It's *not* how an adult is supposed >to. > >Chris
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.