Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 15:00:51 06/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2004 at 17:51:23, Jonas Bylund wrote: >>Yes, telling for my smartness and politeness. I was writing to Glanzfeld who >>insulted me. Did I insult? No. But you had only a single question: could a >>psychologist still be a punk. Important question, my dear. Let's now stop this >>conversation. We will hopefully meet again in one of the next topics. Ok? > >Well if you thought i was talking about a completely different topic when i >never made any mention of it, i am not sure that it is telling for your >smartness... I know. Look, what was the topic in the thread? And you want to tell me that you did NOT mean that topic? Who now must prove his standpoint? Me or you? > >No i never posed a question, i stated a fact, that your titles or anybody elses >titles for that matter does not make them clear of being wrong or a punk even. I see. If someone is insulting me as punk, you are eager to tell me the truth - that a psychologist still could be a punk - in principle!! Dont you see the implied insult? And you are claiming that this is just stating a fact. Very telling for you. > >Also you said that based on :"Not a punk but a psychologist with studies in test >theory & practice of course.Your perception sucks." > >That to me is insulting, but you are right he insulted you first, but that does >not make you right. I see. You think that "punk!" was insulting, but if I tell him that I'm a studied psychologist with statistics and all, you "inform" me that if I concluded that his perception THEREFORE "sucked", that this is also insulting!! Bravo! That must have been stated by someone! You are the one. But is it also correct? I don't think so. Let's stop it. From now on I won't respond to your insults anymore. Excuse me.
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.