Author: odell hall
Date: 03:33:26 03/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Bruce I think you went just a little over my head with your use of the word Solipsim in the below quote, I had to pull out my good ole webster's dictionary to understand exactly what you were saying, here's the text. Personally I don't think it is worth getting worked up about, and I think a lot >of the legalistic and philosophical arguments are really painful to read, >especially posts that argue in favor of solipsism. > I Agree with you 100% , and this is exactly what has happened, People have created their own definitions of words, in order to conform to their own limited understanding, instead of using the real, technical legal definitions. For instance claiming that I committed slander, by naming the handle of the suspected cheater. Although I posted the correct definition of slandeur from the sharks law dictionary, which showed that I could not possibly be accused of this, That was not enough for people who are more intested in being right, and winning an argument rather to then getting at the truth of the matter. Anyone with a basic understanding can clearly see that I had no intention at all of defaming anyone. The strange thing about it, is even if I had used language that was condemning, they still could not technically accuse me of slandeur. If someone tried to sue me on this matter they would be laughed out of court. We are talking about a chess game for heaven's sake! I imagine if it was possible IBM would have sued Garry Kasparov a long time ago for slandeur! Ofcourse they know that it could never stick.
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.