Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 10:36:22 10/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2000 at 00:01:22, Chessfun wrote: > >Two or three times Dr. Hyatt has posted at CCC that I posted >the first insult to him calling him a liar. > >I had wanted not to post further on those threads but cannot >sit while he makes these statements freely. > >The facts are; >In message # >http://site2936.dellhost.com/forums/1/message.shtml?131533 >The Dr. casts the first stone. I am going to assume this was the first post in this current war. If it isn't, what I say may not be valid. In this post, the lead-up seems to involve some confusion about what Bob was playing against. He said he'd seen lots of games against the Tiger beta, presumably over a significant period of time, and made an assertion about its play. Someone responded and told him that the version in question had only been out a few days. He replied that he'd seen a few games against the handle that was running against that version, and hadn't noticed anything. Now we are up to your comments and Bob's replies. You pointed out that Bob had contradicted himself. I think Bob's reply to that was reasonable, and could have been predicted from what went previously. He only knows what people tell him, and who knows what they are telling him. The critical part of the post comes next, the part where you made comments about doubting that he'd played hundreds of games versus Tiger beta, and then made comments about his noplay list and formula. Honestly, how do you evaluate your tone there? Are you asking simple factual questions, or are you tying in with previous posts where people have given Bob a hard time about his noplay list and formula? Your first sentence, when you say that you doubt that he's played against the beta, is fine, although if you are trying to point out a misunderstanding (as opposed to a lie), you could temporize somehow. You could point out the inaccuracy of formula notes, the randomness of character of automatic computer operators, or at least suggest that Bob had been mistaken. To me, it seems that you clarify your intent in your next paragraph, where you bring up the formula and noplay list. It's clear that your intent is hostile, or at least peeved. You are on Bob's case about something. You are bringing back memories of people who have written posts in here accusing Bob of manipulating his formula and his noplay list in order to maximize his rating and/or to avoid losing consistently against particular accounts. From Bob's point of view this wasn't an innocent pair of comments. You aren't trying to point out confusion and mistakes, you are impugning Bob's integrity. That is why you got a hostile response. He was much more blunt and direct than you were, but don't you see why he did it? bruce >In reply to that I posted in message # >http://site2936.dellhost.com/forums/1/message.shtml?131545 > >This is what he claims then led him to the rest of his insults. > >Sarah.
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.