Author: Albert Silver
Date: 13:09:15 01/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2000 at 15:48:44, John Warfield wrote:
>On January 26, 2000 at 14:41:41, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>On January 26, 2000 at 13:20:48, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>>
>>>On January 26, 2000 at 12:33:37, John Warfield wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree about his tastless remarks Chris, in a earlier post he told me the
>>>>"drop Dead". Ofcourse complaining to the moderators is a waste of time so I did
>>>>not do so. Hyatt has all the moderators in his back pocket. Bruce moreland is
>>>>obviously a personal friend of his, so he has protection there. They would
>>>>rather throw 50 people out of this forum then expel hyatt, so i feel for you
>>>>pal. I notice that you have respected everyone here and I have never heard you
>>>>make a nasty or even sarcastic comment to anyone, it is a shame that you have no
>>>>recourse.
>>>
>>>I'm tired of being accused of this kind of stuff by everyone who has had
>>>conflict with Bob, whenever someone else has conflict with Bob.
>>>
>>>I am personal friends with a lot of people here. I'm also on the outs a lot of
>>>the time with some of the people here. I've been fighting with Thorsten for
>>>five years, for instance. But Thorsten is also still here, despite numerous
>>>complaints, some justified.
>>>
>>>I don't like Bob's style a lot of the time, but he spends a lot of time
>>>embattled, and sometimes overreacts, especially when provoked. The exact same
>>>thing is true of Thorsten. The similarities are startling, despite the enormous
>>>differences.
>>>
>>>There was no moderator email complaint this time. I believe that I found the
>>>part that bothers Chris Carson. Bob called him "petty" (an overreaction), in
>>>response to light provocation, after Chris was irritated by Bob and Peter
>>>Gillgasch. I don't think that any of the posts deserve deletion. I sent email
>>>to Bob and Chris about it.
>>>
>>>bruce
>>
>>My, how tempers rise. Thing is, in the posts you mentioned, Chris poked first.
>>Sure, Bob usually "rises to the occasion", but he had answered the question with
>>a fact, and then speculation. First he said that "In Hsu's case, he can't
>>_really_ give an exact nps, because the hardware processors don't count nodes."
>>and then tried to explain how he thought the number was reached. Chris ignored
>>this and made it clear he thought Bob didn't know what he was talking about.
>>Since some of the explanation contained "Hsu said" this sounds a little unjust,
>>and Bob poked back. Nothing too serious. Just egos bumping into each other, but
>>hardly justifying leaving altogether. I hope Chris will cool off and reconsider.
>>
>> Albert Silver
>
>
>
> Come on Albert!, I like you and everything but I can't help but notice that
>you seem to take hyatt's side on practically every issue. I can't see Chris as
>provoking anything, as he is one of the most mellowest people I have heard here.
It may seem like that, but it isn't really so. We approach things from a
different angle. He is a programmer, and I am a player, so I can hardly agree or
disagree on programming issues which constitute most of what he talks about.
I'll let the programmers do that and even if Bob is wrong, I don't have the
competence to see it or argue it. If Bob talks nonsense on a programming issue,
what can I possibly say? In the post in question, Bob responded with what he
knew ("In Hsu's case, he can't really..." and "Hsu said") and then speculated
(he was quite frank about it) on how the number was reached. Chris was quite
dismissive about it ("Analysis from someone who did not work on the project.
Speculation, hearsay, opinion.") and I thought it was a tad rude. I'm not
justifying Bob's reaction, but I can see how he would be annoyed. That's just
MHO on those posts.
Albert Silver
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.