Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 07:18:17 01/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 1999 at 07:56:43, Fernando Villegas wrote: >On January 18, 1999 at 05:08:54, Prakash Das wrote: > >>On January 17, 1999 at 17:45:17, Fernando Villegas wrote: >> >>>Dear friend>: >>>Your way to see things surely is shared by a lot of people here, specially >>>programming people or technically biased people, but if we would follow your >>>advice a sad fragmentation of interest and relationships would be the result. >>>You see, in a community, no matter if real or virtual, a degree of confusion, >>>mixing and weird iteration must exist in order to feed the site with the >>>unexpected, the serendipity factor, the personal factor, the humour factor, the >>>life factor. I am not prtogrammer but I like to read that stuff from time to >>>time and at the same time to share even non chessic thoughts or jokes with >>>people here. Both things feed each other. THIS IS NOT an specialized magazine, >>>this is a site made out for and by human beings that want to share all aspects >>>of chess computers field. >>>Besides, you already know who are the programmers and who are not. Nobody >>>compels you to read those writen by people like me or any other more interested >>>in a pleasant chat about a commercial program than to discuss about the >>>bitboards. Let all kind of flower grow toguether. No problem. Life is confusion >>>and disorder. I like to see a degree of it in the pages of CCC. I do not want to >>>be part of a scientific utopy. I do not want too much order and rules. I do not >>>want to be compelled to go to a second class department in order to chat with >>>enrique about the weather AND his relation with Fritz. >>>With happy confusion >>>Fernando >> >> Hello Fernando, >> >>Once again you confuse the issue with a lot of literary flowery and little else. >> > >Hi Prakash: >I did not know that "once and again" I was confusing literature with computers. I certainly hope you don't. Literature is too great to confuse it with zeroes and ones. >Maybe -maybe, only maybe- you are confusing, as many people does, to try to >write entertainingly with writting without ideas. No exclusions are neccesary. True. We, the literary people, can be condescending enough when required. >I am not a chess programmer but am a scientist type (engineer and all)... If >>some (serious-minded) people come here to look for programming related threads >>one can assume they don't want to sift through hundreds of "off-topic" posts. >>Time is a valuable commodity. > > >Now iit is you yhar is falling in some kind of literary flowery: to "sift >trought" is not the real thing but just an image. In fact just to look at the >titles of the post is enough, or even less. I do not believe you expend more >than half a minute in detecting the purely programming stuff posts. Also true, and I skip them all carefully, or otherwise they would put me to sleep on the spot. I never skip your posts, though. >> There are enough non-programming threads to keep you (and me) amused. As Don >>Dailey says, in that case you maybe have rgcc=which is the equivalent of the >>waterhole in the Serengeti imo. >> There are no "second-class" departments as you think.. only topics pertinent to >>chess programming and not pertinent to chess programming. It's binary. > > >Finally pertinency is something to discuss. There are fuzzy limits between >things, Prakash. But I see you love liomitis and sou you are advicing me to go >to specific admusement sites :-) >Well, not. Let me get my share of it here. >Greetings from disneyland No, no. Talking non-technicalities about computer chess doesn't send you to that horrible place. Keep coming with your posts, please: I love them. Enrique >Fernando > >> >> Prakash Das
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.