Author: Joe Besogn
Date: 10:33:11 11/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2000 at 13:28:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 08, 2000 at 12:00:47, Joe Besogn wrote: > >>On November 08, 2000 at 11:36:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On November 08, 2000 at 11:23:04, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>> >>>>On November 08, 2000 at 11:02:54, Joe Besogn wrote: >>>> >>>>Chris, >>> >>>Good eyes. Glad to see you are alert and picked up on the "ID". >>> >>>I particularly like it when he talks about himself in the third person, >>>and pats himself on the back. I still get a chuckle out of these >>>conversations where there appear to be "many" but in reality there are just >>>a "few". >>> >>>:) >>> >>>(hint: look for other posts by him - same handle ) >>> >>>I was going to suggest that he and Thorsten communicate via email or phone, >>>since they were having what was essentially a private conversation in another >>>thread. I thought better of it, but since you bring it up. :) >>> >>> >> >>Please get your facts straight before posting. Look at the thread headers below: >> >>six replies from Fernando >>one reply from Thorsten Czub >>one reply from Christophe Theron >> >>also replying to other posters >>one from Christophe Theron >>one from Johnathon Lee >>one from Uri Blass >> >>Where is the 'private conversation between 'he' and Thorsten? >> >>Your 'many' and 'few' smear implies that I'm talking to myself somewhere. Which >>of Christophe, Thorsten, Fernando, Johnathon or Uri am I impersonating? > > >None of the above. I am sure you can figure out the rest. BTW it happened >in a thread that shows up near the _bottom_ of CCC, not in this one. But the >same "pseudonym" appears there... > I can't figure out the rest at all. What do you mean? I presume you're trying some kind of diversionary smear, but which thread are you refering to? Can you explain your smear? Thank you. >> >>This account is on-topic, non-abusive and restricts itself to topics of computer >>chess development and difficulties faced by participants therein. >> >>Thank you. >> >> >> >>Re: To all those discussing 'new paradigm' - Fernando Villegas 10:41:01 >>11/06/2000 (2) >>How much radical a new way of thought has to be to be a paradigm? - Joe Besogn >>09:33:56 11/07/2000 (1) >>Re: How much radical a new way of thought has to be to be a paradigm? - >>Christophe Theron 00:41:05 11/08/2000 (1) >>Re: How much radical a new way of thought has to be to be a paradigm? - Joe >>Besogn 07:15:59 11/08/2000 (0) >>Re: To all those discussing 'new paradigm' - Joe Besogn 10:52:19 11/06/2000 (1) >>Re: To all those discussing 'new paradigm' - Fernando Villegas 11:32:01 >>11/06/2000 (1) >>Re: To all those discussing 'new paradigm' - Joe Besogn 15:24:04 11/06/2000 (1) >>Re: To all those discussing 'new paradigm' - Fernando Villegas 15:32:02 >>11/06/2000 (2) >>Re: To all those discussing 'new paradigm' - Joe Besogn 06:44:19 11/07/2000 (1) >>Re: To all those discussing 'new paradigm' - Fernando Villegas 08:40:09 >>11/07/2000 (1) >>Re: To all those discussing 'new paradigm' - Joe Besogn 10:08:56 11/07/2000 (1) >>Re: To all those discussing 'new paradigm' - Fernando Villegas 11:40:39 >>11/07/2000 (2) >>Re: To all those discussing 'new paradigm' - Joe Besogn 07:32:19 11/08/2000 (0) >>Re: To all those discussing 'new paradigm' - Christophe Theron 01:07:57 >>11/08/2000 (1) >>Good example of paradigm shift thinking - Joe Besogn 06:28:54 11/08/2000 (1) >>Re: Good example of paradigm shift thinking - Thorsten Czub 07:39:24 11/08/2000 >>(1) >>Re: Good example of paradigm shift thinking - Joe Besogn 09:28:14 11/08/2000 (1) >>Re: Good example of paradigm shift thinking - Fernando Villegas 11:35:19 >>11/08/2000 (0) >>The chess board has semi-precise 64 squares; the universe is different - >>Jonathan Lee 16:09:49 11/06/2000 (1) >>Re: The chess board has semi-precise 64 squares; the universe is different - Uri >>Blass 17:02:32 11/06/2000 (0)
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.