Author: Chessfun
Date: 15:01:04 04/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2000 at 16:38:32, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On April 25, 2000 at 14:18:49, Chessfun wrote: > >>But Mogens it depends on the tone of your question as to which >>personality replies. If you look carefully at what happened Sunday >>I am sure you will see what I mean. :-) >>Thanks. > >Hmmm... Should have let sleeping dogs lie. I think ironic remarks will be my >downfall in the end. Since you disapprove of my behaviour this Sunday, I'll try >to wipe the slate clean if I can. I admit that my remarks - albeit true - was >presented in an overly sarcastic tone, which isn't appreciated by all. You presented them that way on purpose if you were really honest with yourself you know that is true. >A >scandinavian trademark I think. This was caused by the refusal on your part to >address the critical remarks raised against your test and _not_ to antagonize >anyone. To be honest I don't believe that's the case, I will always address to the best of my ability anyones questions. I think it was simply posted that way to see if you got a reaction, as you then later posted other comments in different threads refering to me. >In spite of my very unfortunate remarks, your reply nevertheless >escalated the affair unnecessarily in my humble opinion. This is somewhat true.....I could have simply ignored the remarks as I later did in the non related threads. The one about strongest winboard engines there was one in there I believe. >Since I don't believe >in grudges and since the apology deficit is in your favour so to speak, I'll >consider it a bridge under troubled waters. I also apologize for my part, it is true I may have overeacted but also from my point of view I knew you were intentionally doing it. Thanks. >Best wishes... >Mogens
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.