Author: Bella Freud
Date: 12:01:39 11/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 1999 at 11:19:48, KarinsDad wrote: >On November 15, 1999 at 07:25:34, Bella Freud wrote: > >>On November 14, 1999 at 19:20:57, KarinsDad wrote: >> >>>On November 14, 1999 at 10:58:39, Bella Freud wrote: >>> >>>[snip] >>>> >>>>Find the "some that does". I doubt you'll find them here. >>>> >>>> >>>>Bella >>> >>>I find your continuous insipid condemnation of the masses here (which include >>>some of us who do not see ourselves or others in your light) as monotonous. >>> >>>KarinsDad :| >> >>Since you are anonymous I believe I do not need to mince my words in dealing >>with you. You have no personality to be attacked. >> >>I find your comments patronising and devoid of computer chess content. I mean >>all your comments. I do not believe that you are "writing a chess program >>without alpha-beta". I think you are making that up in a vain attempt to give >>yourself credibility. Reason? Never any computer chess content that shows any >>sign of any understanding at all in any of your posts, ever. > >Hmmmm. > >For someone new here, you sure seem to have read an awful lot of the archived >messages. I haven't talked about my program in at least a month, but you sure >seem to know a lot about it for someone who has just been posting for less then >a month. Or could you be anonymous as well? > >> >>I see only dull "let's all (where "all" does not actually mean "all") be >>friends" posts, posts from you that attack anyone with any different viewpoint >>from the norm, and occasional immensely agressive moderation posts which seem >>designed to humiliate those who have been kicked enough already. If you were >>trying to make a clubby world where everybody said "have a nice day" and came >>here principally to click on an ICD purchase button, then I could understand >>your output. >> >>I also see that nobody, except Steve at ICD knows who you are. > >Wrong again. > >> >>This is suspicious in my opinion. >> >>> >>>PS. Will you apologize to me >> >>Why should I make any apology to an patronising anonymous whose motives I >>distrust? >> >>as well or do you finally see a repetitiveness in >>>your subtle, but inflammatory style of writing? How many apologies of yours will >>>it take before you stop with the subtle jabs at us all? It's getting old and >>>it's obvious that it is not unintentional, regardless of your feigned >>>expressions of apology. In other words, it's not a matter of someone being >>>offended by what you say. It's a matter of you ensuring that eventually someone >>>will be offended. Why do you waste your and our time doing that? If you find >>>yourself so far above the rest of us, why do you waste your time here with us? >> >>I should go away so you can continue to have a nice day? You have the judge, >>jury and executive power to ensure that. > >If you would be a reasonable poster, A fine argument. Please allow me to ask you a question. What is "reasonable"? Can you answer that with positives, not a list of don'ts? And then consider a second question. Is there more than one definition of "reasonable"? And the third question. Is it "reasonable" to be "unreasonable" under certain circumstances? Bella
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.