Author: margolies,marc
Date: 17:54:00 11/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
Perhaps you are not reading right,friend. When I say authority, I mean the intellectual authority <to judge others>(because we were talking about intelligence). I was not refering to your civil freedom to groan and bellow and make animal noises. Whatever floats your boat! On November 06, 2003 at 16:17:36, James T. Walker wrote: >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.