Author: Peter Davison
Date: 08:53:43 09/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 08, 2000 at 11:13:19, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On September 08, 2000 at 10:43:16, Peter Davison wrote: > >>In a forum, ideas are what count. Ideas are tossed around. The unwritten rules >>are that an idea is not responsible for the people that believe in it, an idea >>is not owned, an idea does not connect to the ego of its originator, the >>mouthpiece for an idea doesn't feel personally bad if the idea is somehow >>disproven. > >Should I assume from this that you're not in any way trying to enhance or >propagate your ego here? Sorry, I don't quite buy that. Looks like the point is proven. The quoted chuck is an idea/opinion without any personal content or attachment. Where in the quoted chunk is there any "me" contained? Isn't the quoted chunk just about the concept of an 'idea' being independent of its creator or propagator? So why the ad hominem? >It seems as if you're >doing exactly what you're accusing everyone else of doing. To use your own >terms: You're playing zero-sum games with yourself. It is not my term. Zero-sum is a known concept. It is not possible to play zero-sum with oneself. Zero-sum, by definition, is at least a two-player game. Although, if I wished to analyse your text, I think I might try temporarily leaving out the "zero-sum" expression from "You're playing zero-sum games with yourself", and what would I end up with? An insult? A not-so-subtle attempt to wind up the personal angle? Surely not. >But everyone his or her own >pleasure. Or maybe surely so? The implication is clear. Is this the usual standard of debate here? > >>A club, on the other hand, is a place for relationships. Members enter clubs, >>make friends, find someone to send them emails, get less lonely, supposedly >>cooperate, although here the usual procedure is to provoke random personal >>zero-sum games as you yourself have shown recently with Villegas and Silver, >>presumably through boredom? > >I haven't initiated any zero-sum games with anyone, whatever the definition of >zero-sum games might be. I don't mind agreeing to differ with you. Otherwise please explain the annotation thread relevance, and why you didn't disagree at that point? >Besides, everything starts with oneself. What have you >done in the spirit of coorperation? Ah. We're back to "me" again. Always the same thing. Sorry that I find it so boring. I like ideas. But this place inextricably links them to persons. Then argues about the persons. My guess is that you have absolutely no idea of what I might or might not have done, cooperation-wise or not. How could you? Did we meet? Have we talked? Or do you just go by the cardboard cutouts you are restricted to 'seeing' by Internet, or hearing gossip about? >Nothing as far as I can tell. We have a >saying in Denmark: > >Don't throw stones if you live in a glasshouse (loosely translated). Personal: You threw a stone at Fernando Villegas. It was a gratuitous stone. I mocked the process. You backed down. Didn't that fix a little fight that was about to start in the greehouse? Big deal, but the other way round to what you suggest above. We're done by now, surely. Can I go? > >>So long. > >Bye. > >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.