Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:22:39 11/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2000 at 15:00:52, Joe Besogn wrote: >On November 08, 2000 at 14:50:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 08, 2000 at 14:09:30, Joe Besogn wrote: >> >>>On November 08, 2000 at 13:32:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On November 08, 2000 at 11:57:13, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 08, 2000 at 11:36:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Good eyes. Glad to see you are alert and picked up on the "ID". >>>>> >>>>>Thank you. I've known for a while, but an attempt to repeat the previous >>>>>irrelevant thread deserved a reply, however limited. >>>>> >>>>>>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". >>>>> >>>>>Maybe we should all do that. It could be the start of a new paradigm to benefit >>>>>us all. Noone have to feel alone or feel that their views are unwanted. Be your >>>>>own most avid supporter. >>>> >>>>That is yet another "new paradigm" that Chris can have credit for. :) A >>>>group discussion between alter-egos of one participant. I suppose the >>>>ultimate would be where each member has his own message board, where he can >>>>talk and argue with himself without being distracted by others? :) >>>> >>> >>>Another smear. You make 'peace' offerings in one thread and smears in another. >>> >>>Since I'm not aware of conducting conversations with myself, where is this >>>alleged thread that I may check? >> >> >>In this case, you are talking with Thorsten, about yourself, as though you are >>a third party. My wording may have been poor... as here you didn't talk to >>yourself. But you definitely have in the past. > >No. And your explanation is nonsensical. > >"group discussion between alter-egos of one participant" and "he can talk and >argue with himself " is clear. > >An accusation of creating multiple aliases with the intention of >self-discussion. A smear. You said it, because you thought it. You thought it >because you're on another world, and you make assumptions about the 'enemy'. > >It's called paranoia. > > Actually it isn't paranoia. It is "weariness". As a moderator, I get tired of getting complaints about "this is really Chris, you know..." on a weekly basis. And then we (myself and the others) have to go and study the posts in question, even if we really don't care about the subject, in order to make a decision about whether it is or it isn't Chris. That gets old. Would you like to know how many alter-egos we have deleted since I took over? And the same for the moderators before us? It is a bit ridiculous, IMHO. I saw this kind of nonsense in Cub Scouts, with young kids. But by the time my son reached Boy Scouts, this kind of stuff had been left behind. >> >>It isn't a 'smear' at all, and my 'peace offering' was quite sincere, and still >>stands... > >I can see it still stands. But how do expect some kind of peace when you smear, >are forced to admit you were wrong, but effectively then repeat the smear. > >Are you actually capable of a straight "sorry, I was wrong" ? And sound like you >meant it? > >Waiting for an answer ..... I responded in a previous post. But, for your benefit, I'll reword it again: Sorry, I was wrong when I said you were talking _with_ yourself here, on this occasion. You were talking _about_ yourself on this occasion. However, remember that it takes two to Tango. You've hardly been an "innocent victim" in our discussions. So don't expect me to take the blame for every disagreement we have had in the past. I simply suggested that we forget the past and move on. I have no problems doing so. I got past the 'grudge' stage 20 years ago. How about you?
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.