Author: James T. Walker
Date: 13:17:36 11/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2003 at 13:56:25, margolies,marc wrote: >Since you have explicitly expressed doubt about the intelligence of your >respondents in the title of your piece, then it is taunting and also presumes >that you have the authority ( implicitly ) to do that. That is the basis of why >I wrote to you about it. This is the sixth post. Has it sunk in yet? > >And when someone writes to you in a public forum where you posted, you also >demand that I declare my 'status' in order to have a conversation. It says more >about you than me,friend. Maybe your reading comprehension is not so good. If you read my last post again you will see that I admited that it was intended to be taunting. So why are you stuck on that line? Also I don't need any authority to express my opinion here except that granted by the charter. The only thing that has sunk in is your inability to understand what my post was about. I questioned your status since you seemed to be indicating that you were not intelligent. I demanded nothing. Last of all, I'm not your friend. You assume too much. Jim > >On November 06, 2003 at 09:10:21, James T. Walker wrote: > >>On November 06, 2003 at 01:25:26, margolies,marc wrote: >> >>>I suppose that i am more logical than I am intelligent. For instance, i am still >>>wondering if you are giving me the 'conditional' bug off or the 'unconditional' >>>bug off.... >>>If you don't want to take responsibility for the taunting predicate of your >>>post, that's fine. But it can't give you the authority to persuade others. >>>BTW no one bickered except you. Tony Hedlund and SSDF came around to our >>>position while you were still back biting me. >>>Please turn your 'Ponder' to on and read some of the posts here as well as >>>writing them. >>> >>> >> >>I have not asked for nor assumed any authority of any kind. I simple expressed >>my opinion which I am entitled to do here. If you have a problem with that then >>take it up with the moderators. I'm happy that the SSDF will test Chessmaster >>9000 as it is sold. I was never against that. I only pointed out that there >>was a lot of whining about the way they were testing TheKing engine. I also >>pointed out that it's the SSDF perogative to test it any way they wish. TheKing >>engine with the "SKR" settings is thought by many here to be one of the best >>setups. I'm personally interested in it's rating with the General.ctg book. If >>you found my subject line "taunting" that's fine. It was meant to be. >>Jim >> >> >> >>>On November 05, 2003 at 09:09:18, James T. Walker wrote: >>> >>>>I will ask you again. Do you claim to be unintelligent? If so the post does >>>>not apply to you so bug off. If so it applies to you if you were one of the >>>>people complaining/bickering about the way SSDF is testing TheKing engine. I >>>>expressed my opinion on the way it was being tested by SSDF. Again, if you have >>>>a problem with the subject line, then that's your problem. You seem to be the >>>>only one. Too Bad. >>>>Jim
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.