Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 17:04:22 10/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2003 at 15:50:33, Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>On October 16, 2003 at 14:40:01, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On October 16, 2003 at 05:54:37, Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>>
>>>On October 15, 2003 at 23:28:23, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>On October 15, 2003 at 15:32:39, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On October 15, 2003 at 15:16:28, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On October 15, 2003 at 14:25:40, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On October 14, 2003 at 22:37:15, Arturo Ochoa wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Instead of searching for an example of Vincent attacking somebody in a post, try
>>>>>>>>>to search for the opposite example (Vincent not attacking anybody in a post).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Good luck...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>But well... We all LOVE Vincent. That must be love, as he is allowed in every
>>>>>>>>>message to violate the CCC charter without being banned. Actually without even
>>>>>>>>>being warned.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Peace on Earth and on CCC! :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Christophe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Greetings, Mr Theron.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>With all my respect that you deserves due to your strong engine. I hope you can
>>>>>>>>solve the violent traffic bettween you and Vincent in the coming Dutch Open.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Vincent creates "violent traffic" between him and everybody else. There is not
>>>>>>>much that can be done about it...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I dont see with good eyes, coming from the Author of a Top Engine such as Tiger,
>>>>>>>>insults without a good reason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I am still waiting your apologies from this
>>>>>>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?319392 message when you offended
>>>>>>>>Mridul without a logic reason, underestimating his professional profile. I did
>>>>>>>>not see any reason for your personal attack against him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I cannot access to the content of this message anymore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What did I say? I do not remember.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I do not remember exactly the words but as far as I remember
>>>>>>when you supported me you said that mridul has no chess program that he
>>>>>>developed or at least gave doubts about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Uri
>>>>>
>>>>>I found the words in a reply to reply to reply to your post that still did not
>>>>>diappear
>>>>>I am not going to post a link because it is going to diappear in a short time
>>>>>
>>>>>Here are your words:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You are talking without knowing Uri, obviously.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You are also talking about commputer chess without really knowing, I fear.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess that the second sentence is the sentence that Arturo and Vincent meant.
>>>>>
>>>>>Uri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>OK, I remember that post now. And I stand by what I have said.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Christophe
>>>
>>>
>>>Which is ?
>>>Can you elaborate so as to make your stand clear ?
>>>
>>>Mridul
>>
>>
>>
>>What is not clear in the post we are talking about?
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>
>What is the part that you "And I stand by what I have said."
>
>Considering that I cant seem to get that post by making a search in ccc archives
>, I dont think I can re-post your exact words.
>
>But the gist of your post was to seriously try to cast doubts on my abilities on
>writing a chess engine without in any way trying to validate the possible truth
>behind what you were insinuating.
>
>I felt it below my standard to respond to your post at that time , but such
>repeated remarks required that I speak out against it.
>
>It maybe a different issue that you be the author of the worlds greatest or
>worst chess program , but please do not take that as a license to try to
>admonish others.
>
>Without saying anything constructive in your post , you were chiding me for what
>I posted - not because it was technically correct or wrong (if wrong - then
>definitely it stands to reason to disprove it : and I will stand corrected and
>apologise for my mistake !) - but because in your limited information , you did
>not perceive that I maybe knowing what I'm talking about.
>
>I think it was a mistake on my part to act honourably - I should have responded
>back to you then and there and not expected a honourable behaviour from you.
>
>So I would be better if you dont take it upon yourself to act as the policeman
>and allow others the freedom of expressing their views freely.
>
>
>
>Mridul
Your objection to the post in question is approximately the same objection I had
about your post to Uri.
If you don't appreciate the way I have answered to you, then I think you can
understand why one would not appreciate the way you had answered to Uri.
Let's make a deal: if you can understand my point of view and admit that your
original post to Uri wasn't very friendly and apologize, I will apologize for my
answer to you and we will all stay in good terms.
I don't know you, so I have nothing against you. So let's make a step toward
each other and forget about this.
Christophe
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.