Author: KarinsDad
Date: 11:40:33 02/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 1999 at 14:03:38, Reynolds Takata wrote:
[snip]
>>
>>Yet again Reynolds, you have lost me.
>
>That apparently is not a difficult thing to do.
I guess you were unable to read between the lines and understand that I meant
that your opinion lost me (and how you could have it), not that I did not
understand your statements. A little too subtle I guess. But good rebuttal here
on your part nonetheless.
> Further all of these postings
>that you are making that don't contribute to the subject, but attempt to point
>out something i have said that you personally don't understand are getting to be
>ridiculous. Further these post stating you don't like something i have said are
>getting to be ridiculous and need to stop. If you have a problem with something
>i have said report it to the administration. Other than that you are just
>taking up space.
It's a shame that I respond whenever you repeatedly insult someone else.
Character flaw on my part.
>
>>
>>Jame's point is that regardless of which side of the fence you are on, the
>>sample set is too small, regardless of the outcome. Therefore, anything stated
>>now or within the next 5 months has little meaning as does the actual results of
>>the contest.
>
>James has no point because my post has nothing to do with his subject of
>excuses. My post is about a demonstration of not drawing illogical conclusions
>from the evidence that might be gleaned from a match between H7 and a GM.
As per my other posting, the conclusion can be premature and correct, or
incorrect. To be illogical would mean that there is only one correct answer and
any other answer would be based on faulty ideas. Since it is obvious that the
data is not yet in, you are assuming that Hiarcs 7 is GM strength, hence, any
other opinion to the contrary is illogical since you assume one possibility.
Since you are not basing that on the data, you are the one making the illogical
conclusion.
>
>>
>>Your first statement was that if the GM beat the computer by 3.5 to 2.5, then
>>you would hope that nobody would claim that the computer isn't GM strength. Fair
>>enough. You made a factual statement. But the entire point in response to that
>>is "so what?".
>
>So what? This is a ridiculous thing for you to say,
Not any more ridiculous than your attacks on James. In fact, considerably less
so.
> my post is about not
>drawing illogical conclusions from the match. It has nothing to do with opinion
>whatsoever.
Since your statement is about illogical conclusions and it in and of itself is
not based on any data yet, it IS an opinion.
> It is simply not logical to make a claim that the comp losing the
>match alone means it's not a GM.
>
> The match is indicative of strength, regardless of outcome, but
>>is not proof of strength. Therefore, any claims in any direction are merely
>>opinions
>
>Opinions do not have to be excuses.
But they can be, especially if an opinion is later shown to be flawed. Then
people will make excuses on their opinion.
> Secondly my post is about not forming
>illogical opinions based upon either winning or losing alone, it is not about
>having excuses. I posted here to bring about more careful thought among the
>membership of this group when they do come to conclusions about the match.
If your intent was to get more careful thought, why is it that you attack anyone
(and specifically James) whenever they give a contradicting thought? You do not
debate or rationalize, you attack. Bottom line. I wouldn't be surprised if
practically everyone who read the post with the exception of you understood what
James meant by excuses. When it suits you, you become a semantics lawyer (as per
real life) and ignore the intent.
> It
>has nothing to do with anyone personally making EXCUSES to defend their
>ego(generally that's what an excuse is for), about an opinion they actually
>believe is wrong, yet still want to maintain(excuse).
>
>>
>>That's all.
>>
>>Why is it that everytime someone doesn't agree with you or has a different
>>opinion, you get bent out of shape ("I resent you attempting to cheapen...")?
>>Get a clue. You have GOT to give up your day job. Try taking up chess.
>
>I'm trying to have a civil toungue with you.
You forgot the happy face :)
> You are not my friend and you do
>not know me, or what my attitude or emotion is about the subjects discussed in
>this group. Further your opinions about the tone of my writings
It's not the tone. It's the written (i.e. verbal equivalent) abuse.
> is off topic,
>if you don't like it report it to the administration.
Don't worry. They will read it.
> On top of this every
>posting that you have written has been way off base,
To you. No one else has indicated this.
> and it is you who need to
>get a clue, and a day job. Why? Apparently as you have stated time and time
>again you don't understand,
Your ramblings I understand. Your lack of respect for others and their opinions
I do not understand.
> and further you have endless time to waste on
>pointless abd most frequently faulty rhetoric that has nothing to do with the
>group but about opinions you have drawn concerning the perona of individuals in
>the group. So once again if you have some problem with what i say or the way i
>say it, report it to the administration. This especially because i certainly
>will not waste a moment reporting you if this continues.
Feel free.
>
>
>R. Takata
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.