Author: Ernst A. Heinz
Date: 11:35:02 11/09/97
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 1997 at 16:30:50, Chris Whittington wrote: > >On November 08, 1997 at 14:14:23, Ernst A. Heinz wrote: > >>On November 08, 1997 at 03:13:57, Chris Whittington wrote: >> >>>Well, as long as you guys want to carry a load of ad hominem baggage >>>around you'll be unable to debate this topic. Carry on with the old >>>regime and its dinosaur ways, then. Have no modem next year. Keep the >>>amateur / professional distinction. Drive away some programmers over >>>$1000. Fine. >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>Some of us can. $10,000 worth of professors can't. But you can't debate >>>this issue, apparently. >> >>Chris, >> >>I think you are the only one who apparently seems to be unable to >>discuss >>these matters honestly and without pouring unfounded accusations or >>flaming >>sarcasm all over the place. > >Since I'm the only one 'discussing' them; and the only counter points >are personal ad hominems - your use of the words "honest .... " etc. are >without foundation. > >Point your comments in better directions, or 180 degrees round. > >Look there was no modem communications, right ? This was a bloody >shambles as we say here. > >Also at issue is the expense vis a vis the $1000 entrance fee. > >If you'ld like me to list the accidents, I'll do so. I say accident >proneness means bad organisation and that general renewal is required. > >But please carry on your diversionary tactics for a while longer .... > >Or maybe you want to carry on with sloppily organised tournaments where >loads of stuff goes wrong, various things get fixed at the last minute, >various things don't get fixed at all and Marie Antionette-ish let them >eat cake, sorry canapes, seems to rule ... > >Chris Whittington > >> >>=Ernst= Chris, you are not *discussing* anything -- you rather state your preordained opinion about certain matters in a very aggressive and flamingly sarcastic way without offering *objective* evidence. This seems to be your typical style which makes it quite hard for many people to communicate with you -- myself included. As long as the objective evidence about the "wrongdoings" of the ICCA is missing, you are not "discussing" but simply "flaming around" in my opinion. I just cannot take arguments without a thorough foundation seriously. I completely agree with you that all of us should worry about expense control. But before I convict someone guilty I want to see according evidence -- detailed and objective. Your blur about knowing how much this and that costs is just blur unless you can prove that it really applies in this case. As for the missing Internet connection, I already conceded this to be a serious organizational flaw. But I still do not know who can really be made responsible for it. Do you know it for sure or -- as usual -- only by heresay or your own speculative guesses? =Ernst=
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.