Author: A. Steen
Date: 01:47:32 11/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2005 at 04:23:23, enrico carrisco wrote: >On November 21, 2005 at 04:17:30, Graham Banks wrote: >>Here's another pointer. A direct quote from a post further down in this thread. >> >>"Real engineers keep it simple." >> >>Have a closer look at the website. >> >>Graham. See the time of posting, Graham, and you'll see how the applicability of the catchphrase must have stuck in my mind from the website you had minutes before misdirected me to, given that the other person abusing me in this thread is apparently some form of engineer, but is making things complex (HDDs are mechanical and are slow, it is that simple; you can't cache masses of stuff, RAM isn't enough, and if you do with large modern multi-file EGTBs you will waste even more time as the cache will be continuously discarded and replaced, making what is an issue into something intolerable). >Perhaps, but I don't desire to waste the time to investigate it as he has proven >he is a troll with his posts. He also refuted that is his identity: >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?463340 Correct, I did. Not to do so would be to mislead. >Additionally, I remember a time here in CCC where someone used the term "Beaten >like a red-headed step-child" and was moderated. I believe the same sort of >(personal) attack is evident here: >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?463340 > >Hence, it's best to ignore such troubled and socially "challenged" individuals >than to fuel their future banterings. This is a further incredible attack from someone who started a thread with a claimed example of a belief but that I simply proved to instead be the opposite, a counter example of the same belief! My impeccably polite correction seems to have enraged him a little, and while temporarily less-perfectly-balanced he seems to think that any insult against me (troubled and socially "challenged" troll being the most recent but far from the worst) is justified, or even to be encouraged or supported. Why people can't say "Sorry, I am wrong" when they have been shown to be wrong is something I don't properly understand. They then dig themselves in dieper and diaper with ad hominems and attempted justifications of what is best not attempted to be justified. I am getting the feeling I don't fit in. But is this not in part a technical forum, which means that incorrect technical (ie, not subjective) assertions can "expect" to be (politely, respectfully, PROPORTIONATELY) challenged with factual refutations or attempts at refutation. These should also be responded to politely, not with accusations of aggression (by the aggressor(s)) or abuse (now, by the other source, suggestions of a birth handicap of all things). Do you share this (my) view? Or, am I simply at fault for being totally correct and not allowing the other to squirm out? Truth is more important to me than popularity, but you have more than enough logic to have already worked this one out or else your CM-tweaks would _really_ (and not jokingly) be counter-tweaks. :) My correction elsewhere of manifestly wrong chess analysis (where I demonstrated that the multiply-claimed GM blunder was if anything a brilliancy - the blunder was 8 moves later, and was wholly unnecessary and random - and that the claimed suicidal attack was in fact a most logical attack where any deviation by the attacked party would have resulted in immediate loss) is also being portrayed as trolling. Why do I bother? Best, A.S.
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.