Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 09:49:36 03/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 23, 2000 at 12:07:07, Fernando Villegas wrote: >On March 23, 2000 at 02:05:50, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On March 22, 2000 at 18:52:20, Fernando Villegas wrote: >> >>>On March 22, 2000 at 13:35:28, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>> >>>>On March 22, 2000 at 09:38:37, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>>> >>>>>Dan: >>>>>Each time I see you writting this kind of funny stuff, I feel this site is >>>>>getting better and more mature, more pleasant, more relaxed. I hope nobody will >>>>>have the silly idea to separate these things from chess things in a second, >>>>>different board because of a fundamentalist definition of this place as a sheer >>>>>"computer chess place". It is in the mix where the kick is. Pity that some heavy >>>>>squared heads does not understand that, but as much they does not ask for a >>>>>crusade againts lawbreakers, all is fine. >>>>>With LOL >>>>>Fernando >>>> >>>>I'm not exactly sure what you're attempting to accomplish with this message. >>>>Speaking for myself only, it manages to appear simultaneously complimentary and, >>>>well, uncomplimentary. Presumably I am misinterpreting it. >>>> >>>>Dave >>> >>>Dave: >>>It is completely complimentary. If you think there is something else, you are >>>wrong. Just remember I am not english fluent and so, sometimes, I miss the >>>subtilities of this fine idiom. Or it is said "language"? So I was just trying >>>to say thanks for a well written and funny piece of fiction. >>>Cheers >>>Fernando >> >>I'll take the time to point out a few adjectives that in the context of your >>message appeared as uncomplimentary to me, so that the next time you intend to >>say something completely complimentary, it stands a better chance of coming out >>that way. >> >> - silly >> - fundamentalist >> - heavy squared >> >>The next time you encounter a situation where someone in a position of group >>responsibility is doing their best (and mostly, I think, succeeding) to act in a >>way that is palatable to the group, as opposed to their personal preference, you >>might refrain from poking them in the eye with a stick. >> >>Dave > >Dave: >So you feel I did that? So I must refrain to express my thanks in an indirect >way due to the likelihood some adjetive is not exactly the one you want? Cannot >you believe just in the intention and good will of a message, as told by the >poster? Are you going to do a semantic scan of any sentence looking for not >adequate words according USA usage? I will tell you more: I was out of the city >- we have summer and vanacnces in february in my country- when election of >moderators was done and until this very day I did not try to know whom were the >winnin guys. So yoiu was one of them? Congratulations. Do not worry: I will drop >my unconscious stick and let your eyes in good health from now on. >Come on, David, I was and I am just trying to me amiable and nice. Forgive me; I >am not an USA or British citizen, just a second world spanish speaker. >Hasta la vista amigo >Fernando You said that your message was intended to be completely complimentary. Will said "bs" (= bullshit). I agreed, because while you complimented Dann you took a swipe at people who don't agree with you on how the place should be moderated. I think your English is good enough that you understand this. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have referred to 'heavy squared heads' in the first place. It was completely possible for you to express pleasure with Dann's post without taking a swipe at anybody. I think you just chose not to. But if you want to insist that it wasn't intended, fine, I'll take that at face value. Dave
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.