Author: KarinsDad
Date: 06:24:50 03/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 1999 at 06:33:26, odell hall wrote: > > 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, Odell, Fine. We can all play the semantics game. Our only point is that "cheaters" should not be named. But you keep bringing up all these other issues such as proof and definition of words, etc. You have not once just posted a response to the only issue we have of naming a cheater without bringing in all of the associated proof baggage with it. We ALL think this guy used a computer. Big deal. As for the semantics game, I hearby change all of my posts which said slander or similar terms to libel. You stated above: "People have created their own definitions of words, in order to conform to their own limited understanding". This occurred with me with regard to the word slander (yup, I can admit when I am wrong). Let's see how it fits with regard to the word "cheat". "To swindle or defraud." "To mislead or delude; trick." "To practice fraud or dishonesty." None of these definitions indicate that someone does this by mistake or unintentionally. A cheater is someone who does something dishonest INTENTIONALLY. Where is your proof that this person knew he was breaking the rules? You even posted that it seemed unlikely that he gave you a fake name since he would not have known that you suspected him of cheating. Why not? If he really intentionally cheats, he would have probably been slightly paranoid over such a question. You cannot have it both ways. Either he does this stuff intentionally and could be suspicious, or he made a mistake and is clueless. But you continue to put assumptions to both his actions and his motivations. These are not facts, these are possibilities. When you post the proof that this person knew he was breaking the rules, then you can call him a cheater. In the meantime, why don't you stick to words like alleged cheater or suspected cheater? Or maybe even drop it completely. KarinsDad PS. When I respond to your statements, I am not attacking you. I am disagreeing with your assumptions. You have shown that a computer was most likely used. That's fine. But that isn't the point of our contention. > 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.