Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 19:46:26 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 22:39:39, Roger D Davis wrote: >On November 27, 2003 at 22:36:52, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On November 27, 2003 at 22:34:47, Roger D Davis wrote: >> >>>>It's unlikely they banned the poor chap over suspect information alone. >>>> >>> >>>The chessbase letter states frankly that the evidence was circumstantial. If >>>they had positive proof that the code was bogus, they had no need to ask for the >>>source. >>> >>>Roger >> >>Shutup Roger, what is bogus is the diatribe you wrote in your prior post. > >I was trying to support my position with facts and logical argumentation. I >thought I was doing a good job. I was not trying to provoke you. I refused to >attack you personally, and I won't attack you personally now. > >Roger Roger you don't have the facts, stop pretending you do! That is why a logical arguement is impossible. You can't debate in a vacumm....period.
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.