Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 11:58:16 04/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 14, 2002 at 14:37:43, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On April 14, 2002 at 14:26:07, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >this guy posts something completely off-topic. > >But please tell me this: is his posting ON topic or OFF topic? >He's busy with flames against me personal, he's not busy with >anything else. He definitely is not asking for any computerchess >statement. I think his posting is definitely on topic. This is a discussion forum. If there is a disagreement, the point of arguing is attacking a persons ideas, or attacking their reasoning or conclusion. What he is saying is: 'Vincent, I think your argument that he knows nothing about computerchess is meaningless because it is unfounded and you regularly use it without substantial evidence to support it. So I, and possibly other persons don't find it a convincing argument.' He didn't state it this way, but this is how I read it. It's an attack on your way of reasoning, not against you personally. There is a big difference between attacking a person and his ideas. There is a difference between calling my ideas stupid and calling me stupid. The first is an attack on my ideas and is perfectly acceptable here, the latter is an attack on my person and is not (*). >Does even a person who loves online wars (you clearly told >you love to read those) find that on topic or off topic? As I said, I think it's certainly on topic. I have done it myself in the past, and possibly even against you. (*) I personally think it is acceptable to attack a person here IF a) there is evidence or very strong indications that this person is malicious b) it is of interest to our community that his person is malicious This is why I think it was acceptable for you to accuse Jef Kaan of cheating. -- GCP
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.