Author: Joe Besogn
Date: 03:12:02 11/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2000 at 16:22:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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 is an on-topic, non-abusive account that wishes to stick to issues of Kuhn's ideas in relation to computer chess. This side thread is, imo, utterly pointless and off-topic and I don't wish to be in it. Consider how this side-thread grew, because the usual process will be to declare it off-topic and disruptive and then blame me for it. I'm a grown adult, father etc. etc., just like you. If you can operate effectively in a mode of self-moderation, which is what you do, nobody moderates you except yourself, then so can I. So can most people. My last post in this side-thread.
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.