Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 04:03:24 08/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 08, 1998 at 21:28:33, Shaun Graham wrote: > >>>I'm sick and tired of people like you trying to stir up riots around here. Shaun >>>didn't say anything, you are the only troll around here. >>Why don't you actually read the thread you are responding to? >>1. Shawn claimed that Dr. Hyatt was untruthful: >>"Hahah :), i will keep thinking it :) the truth will set you free! Stop trying >>to be apart of the group now heheheeh :). You know that 1 vote is you heeheh >>:)" > > > >You sir are apparently lacking half a brain. If you read the first thread >yourself you would have read that i said it probably wasn't him, but indeed i >would keep thinking it, which is my right. Further if you would note that i >laughed, obviously signaling that it wasn't serious, so it isn't a claim that he >was untruthful at all. All that it is a claim of is my surprise if it wasn't >him. Further it doesn't matter what he voted, but if you want me to go dig it >up, i can post 10 times over Hyatt saying exactly that "IMPOSSIBLE". Further i >checked out another post form you in another group and it had the same tag as >the ones from Hyatt, so i believe that indeed you are Hyatt with a seperate >account just trying to start up some big arguement in this group over nothing. > >>2. He then claimed that the entire purpose of the thread was to annoy Dr. >>Hyatt: >>"It isn't necessary:)! I was just getting his goat a little, i'm astonished >>that he would even try to show a voting record it's ridiculous." >> >>Trying to get someone to respond back to an annoying post is the _definition_ of >>a troll. > >Further it's obvious that i wasn't trying to get him to respond back, when i >said it was ridiculous for him to even suggest that he(or you) needed to show a > voting record. It is absolutely shocking that someone would be so caught up >about themselves that they would try to go and get such a record is infantile. > > there was definite "infantile" behavior here, but not on *my* part. You made that "statement" twice. I simply suggested a way that Tim/Steve could stop the thread by posting a statement about which option I voted for. I'm not "caught up in myself" other than I don't particularly appreciate someone posting how "they thought" i voted, then after I responded *directly* to the post by indicating *exactly* how I voted, that you respond a second time. It was definitely infantile. Maybe you should stop it? > > >P.S. > >Mr. Takata, if you read this thanks for your support, but i need no defense from >such people. I'm surprised i even responded to such foolish rhetoric.
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.