Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:21:40 04/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 03, 2003 at 21:22:46, alan palmer wrote: >On April 03, 2003 at 06:07:04, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On April 02, 2003 at 10:00:10, alan palmer wrote: >> >>>On April 02, 2003 at 06:38:08, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On April 01, 2003 at 19:59:26, alan palmer wrote: >>>> >>>>>Its one thing to discuss the issues involved but sending these type of emails to >>>>>individuals makes it personal and thats out of order. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Objection! Ok, I don't know you and have no idea of your involvement into CC but >>>>the key for a better understanding of these PERSONAL emails, are ____ now your >>>>turn ... have you no idea? The key for these personal cynical postcards is the >>>>PERSONAL connection estimated by the sender with the addressees. Ok, but the two >>>>mentioned addrressees already refused to show any kind of personal concern. BOTH >>>>have reacted as if they were sitting on Dubya's lap or Laura's? :) >>>> >>>> >>>>Folks IF WE here in the community lose the rest of our humour, call it cynism, >>>>that is so important for any kind of intellectual living, then we've lost the >>>>battle of our lives. We ain't no such fools, no? >>>> >>>>It's astonishing that you saw the main key but you waved your arms as if you had >>>>discovered the abyss of Evil. But the key is designed to be our only hope! >>>>I can only advise to go into personal talks between all of you, Europeans and >>>>Americans alike. >>>> >>>>Rolf Tueschen >>> >>>Are you for real? Of course its personal: why send them to the individuals >>>concerned otherwise. Emails to individuals are by their very nature, PERSONAL. >> >>As I said, you see it but still you support open publication. Who is real here? >> >> >>>As for whether Bruce took the emails personally I suggest you read his comments >>>again. If it was a general comment >> >>I knew that it could make no sense talking to you. You simply can't understand. >>It WAS personal because the two know each other. Enough said? >> >> >>>about the war why not just post on the >>>relevant site and leave it at that. As for my involvement with this site (why >>>should that be mentioned), i was not aware i needed to post my C.V. before I >>>made a comment - I will comment where i think fit. >>> >>>Your comments re addresses etc is pontificating crap. > >I am quite aware they know each other but according to you Bruce did not take >the email personally - my point was I think he did. If you read his mail >carefully you might have noticed it. Are you saying you wouldn't have!! You must >be very thicked skinned. The other day I had someone who didn't know the term turkey. Now I have you confusing the term personally. 1) Like you I always saw that Bruce had taken this private email *personally*. BUT 2) My objection is NOT aginst his personal reaction but the following: that Bruce didn't keep personal a personal and private email but went into public here and published it more or less. That is the scandal. Please try to read and think a bit more carefully. Thanks. > >As for open publication, I did not say I was against that: I'm against making >these issues personal. It solves nothing and can make the situation worse but >you waffle on so much you lose the thread of your own argument! So, from now on, >why don't you: 1) put away your professorial hat and 2) stop thinking you are >always right. You know it makes sense. > >Oh and don't take this this message personally!
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.