Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 15:40:34 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 12:04:42, Tony Hedlund wrote: >>>Above you write "Please learn English before you make such conclusions." And in >>>the end you write "Again, please try to learn English before you step in other >>>people's debates." I maybe to sensitive, but accusing me to not understand >>>English is insulting. >> >>Yes, because you take everything at face value. How could I, with my weak >>English invite you to learn better English. Hint => Joking. And that is proven. > >What is proven? That you was joking? How have you proved that? > >>But I leave it here. This message will prove that are no game at debates. You >>simply prefer to make _your_ jokes and leave most of the questions aside. > >Can you give an example where I'm joking? > >>This >>message here does prove that have no answers for most of my questions. Just take >>a look for yourself. Well, I will call it arrogance again. Then you will reply >>"but he's insulting". And exactly that is the defamation. Like Sune Fischer. >>Butr answers, you have not. > >I've answered on everything until your sentence "Tony, I invite you to think >about all this - if you have time. Let's discuss this in a friendly atmosphere. >Perhaps we can find a new base for SSDF." In CTF Ed Schröder gave a nice comparison of Hans Blix second report with the Swedish SSDF list, when he meant somethig for everyone. I can draw another parallel with actual politics. We all say that Saddam must cooperate. Perhaps that explains what's going on in our discussion here, Tony. Look please, I am not a warrior, I am not a politician who must win elections. My questions and critics come from my independent thinking and experience. Yes, it's true, you are aswering me. But you do not cooperate. For every question I give, you step aside and lose yourself in meaningless answers. I give two example just by heart: 1. How many testers in SSDF: 8-10 was your answer. What does that mean? Why is 5 false? etc. So this way we cannot debate. you know it would be better to admit that you don't want to talk. From a science view I can't take your answers for serious. 2. I showed you why you have no valid and significant data to present a number one. Your answer is something of a joke: we have understanding [in SSDF]. You did simply not explain why 1.-3. similar results would be odd for you and why. Our debate is now in the archives and I will repeat the parts that were destroyed the other day. So that is ok for me. I don't need more. It is your list. The experts here and all readers know what is wrong, and that is all your busiess now. One time you ordered me to exactly explain what I meant. As if I were a member of your club. That is all very strange. Since I am now a member of the Peace Politics of Germany against the dangers of a war against Iraq I must leave the SSDF topic alone. We will see many more events in future so that we could re-start a critical debate any time we want. I wish you all the best in SSDF. I hope that I could make clear that I am in great admiration for your longtime efforts. And I am a bit sad that it's so difficult to tell you very basic truths. Finally I admit that I am very happy that you gave a few answers at all. But as I said unfortunately they were still less than I had expected. Also that were forced after my critics. I wish you personally all the best and I hope that you send us further games in future, thak you. Rolf Tueschen > >It seem to me that you didn't expect me to have so much answers. So you call me >arrogant and refuse to continue the debate. > >Tony > >>Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0 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.