Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 12:00:38 04/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 14, 2002 at 14:58:16, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >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 say that. He said: "Tell us Vincent.Is this your standard sentence to guarantee that you are always right? I can remember you use it quite often against several different people.Not very charming and serios." That's completely different. >He didn't state it this way, but this is how I read it. It's PLANET EARTH TO PLANET JURASSICA, WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU LIVE? >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 0.01 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.