Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 14:06:09 05/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2003 at 15:58:26, Russell Reagan wrote: >On May 30, 2003 at 18:36:32, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >>when you regard the type of my arguing to be in a religious style, then there >>should be something wrong with it. That would be not at all the effect I intend >>to raise. >Seems completely religious to me. You are arguing passionately over this small >detail between the differences of shuffle chess and FRC, and your points don't >even support the superiority of FRC. You just keep stating things like "FRC >castling makes perfect sense," which is nothing more than an opinion (that many >people happen to disagree with). [...] well I have tried to explain why for me FRC is nearer to chess than Shuffle Chess could be. It is up to you to follow my ENGAGED arguments or not. But there is no reason for you to start any INQUISITORY discussion about my opinion. It seems to me as if you have no idea at all what the word 'RELIGIOUS' is really meaning. Moreover your postings seem to have the intension to claim a bad flavour of any type of favouring FRC by libelling those as 'religious'. So do not try to hang that name on me. May be it could help you to look into a mirror. Reinhard
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.