Author: blass uri
Date: 16:31:52 08/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2000 at 18:54:36, blass uri wrote: >On August 07, 2000 at 18:31:15, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>On August 07, 2000 at 17:49:33, Alvaro Rodriguez wrote: >> >>>I´m not saying you are wrong though, but you understood it different that´s >>>all...You and Uri maybe didn´t have the same english teacher in school :-) >> >>Yes, I understood it differently. I might have overinterpreted Uri's remark, but >>I don't think so. Mainly because Uri has argued for readcount before. Even >>though he won't admit it, he wants to apply value to messages based on the >>number of participants. I add these factors together and reach a conclusion. I >>find my conclusion to be correct. You're more than welcome to disagree. I'll >>survive :o). > >I meant not to respond to your messages about this subject but I must make it >clear that I thought to use read count to decide if a message is on topic or off >topic in cases that it is not clear. > >This is not relevant to most of the subjects because in most of the cases it is >clear to me if the subject is on topic or off topic. > >I also explained my opinion that the subject of chessmaster books was on topic. > >Uri correction: I see that I probably did not explain that the subject was on topic but I think that it is clear and even the poster who asked to use email did not say that the posts were off topic. Uri
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.