Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 22:36:22 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 18:40:34, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 I have answered this question several times. For some or another reason (illness, work etc) one or another tester can be inactive for a period. >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. You have number one in a lot of sports too. The person with most points at a certain time is presented as number one (the digit). It's only one that receives the gold-medal and it don't matter if (S)he wins with a thousand of a second or a whole minute. It may be sad but true. Bertil >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.