Author: odell hall
Date: 06:39:28 03/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 1999 at 09:24:50, KarinsDad wrote: >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. Ok Karinsday, I believe you when you say you are not trying to attack me in your post, and I hope you don't take it as I am trying to attack you, I am not here at this forum to make enemies. However I could not live with myself If I allowed people to tell me what I can and cannot say, although I am not breaking any rules, and it infringes on the sensitivities of certain indivisuals. As I said to Michael, Sorry you don't like it, but I am not here to please anyone. As long as I conform to the charter of CCC, and break no legal laws, then no one has a right to attack me. Especially when my intent is not retribution, or out to harm anyone, but simply to know if I was cheated. Again My reason for posting the handle of this person , was that others could investigate for themselves I apologize to you if I have used any language that was extreme and uncessary.
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.