Author: Jonas Bylund
Date: 11:37:12 05/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
>I think you're wrong Uri here. You are perfectly free to adopt a lawyer's
>position and try to change the words or interpretation to mean whatever you
>like, but that only serves to try to prove a person correct (whether they are or
>not) as opposed to seeking the truth. The issue isn't on how many different ways
>it can be interpreted, but on what the obvious way it will be understood, and
>whether this obvious way is representative of the truth. If it isn't then the
>person is misleading and that is wrong.
>
>Let me put it another way: suppose I said truthfully, "I can and do beat
>Kasparov in chess regularly". Just read that small statement and read the
>natural conclusion one should reach.
>
>Of course, I am not really saying I beat him on equal conditions. I actually
>beat him regularly after he has had 2 bottles of Vodka and is playing blindfold.
>So what I said ("I can and do beat Kasparov in chess regularly") isn't
>incorrect, but it is GROSSLY misleading.
Good point! it would be like me saying that Kasparov, sober and at sane mind,
never beat in a classic time controlled match, and that _is true_....... because
we never played :)
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.