Author: Uri Blass
Date: 17:39:09 10/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2003 at 20:04:22, Christophe Theron wrote: >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 Everything is ok. He already sent me an email in the same day that he posted his post when he said that he did not mean to offend me and he hopes that I did not take his post in that sense. I replied that there is no problem. Uri
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.