Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:51:41 10/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2000 at 12:17:18, Chessfun wrote: >On October 09, 2000 at 10:24:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 09, 2000 at 00:51:01, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On October 09, 2000 at 00:33:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>><snipped nonsense> >>> >>>You said I called you a liar first and that, that was the >>>first insult. That and that alone is now the issue. >> >>No... it is the issue _you_ want to make. I said that _you_ made the >>first insulting remark each time. > > >The reason I posted back into these threads were your comments in; >http://site2936.dellhost.com/forums/1/message.shtml?132159 > >"If you will check again, I did _not_ post the _first_ insult. And yes, >I consider being called a liar an insult." > >This statement claims that you consider I insulted you calling you >a liar and this alone was the first insult. Where does it say that? It does say that I consider being called a liar to be an insult. I don't see where it says that your calling me a liar was the first insult. Or the second. Or the last. Just "an" which could be anything. The "liar" point was in the long exchange about my seeing a bunch of games vs beta tigers. It was the main issue in that thread, if you read backward. > >I simply posted that was not the case that you, had insulted prior >to me saying you were "lying". > >This thread now claims that you were insulted by my posting; > >"I myself honestly doubt that Crafty has played hundreds of games >against the Tiger beta's, that includes the three main servers. >Probably 1/2 the computer accounts are noplayed anyway, then you >have a formula that don't exactly allow computers to easily play" > >"I myself honestly doubt" did you read that preface. >It's one I stand by. In fact it's is supported by your 87 number. >The 2nd part as you are only too aware is a number that I cannot >confirm as only you can see your =noplay list. Does that not say "I honestly believe that his statement is false"??? Or do we now have a new definition of "doubt" to go along with a new definition of "have seen"??? > >As I have said with each turn you twist the argument.....do you >see why it looks that way... As long as you continue to change the definition of key words, you may take that point. I'm sticking to my interpretion of "I honestly doubt" and "I have seen". I haven't changed them to suit the discussion at all. > >Anyway regardless of whether you consider the remark I made to be >an insult to you.....you most certainly got in your fair share of >insults as usual as posted in the initial post by Peter Davidson. I won't disagree there. I only disagree when you want to say "I started the insults.." We _both_ were guilty. I don't believe I started them. If you want to compromise and say we _both_ were wrong, fine by me. I would tend to agree. But I'm not on the front of this by myself, IMHO. >http://site2936.dellhost.com/forums/1/message.shtml?131699 >These remarks of yours are clearly insults....no other explaination. > >You as a moderator IMO set a nice example to follow; > >Sarah. Fortunately I am wise enough, and experienced enough, that I can separate what I do as moderator from what I do as a poster. The two things are separate. I have no trouble keeping them separate. I could serve on a jury for someone I dislike intensely and still have no trouble in judging the facts on their merit and rendering a verdict based only on the facts. I don't consider this hard to do. For some, maybe. For others, no. For me, definitely no. I have to do this regularly as a teacher. Some students are obnoxious. I find myself having no problems with grading their tests or projects, without regard to what I might consider personality faults. One example was a student that was _really_ obnoxious about criticizing one of our faculty members (not me) in a public departmental email list. Several times. I finally told him to shut up and take such complaints up the chain of command given in the student handbook. Which says "first talk to the faculty member, and then to the dept chair, then to the dean, then to the provost, and finally to the president of the university." I later had him in class and had no problem in treating him fairly, even though I did _not_ like his attitude. It is _not_ hard to do...
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.