Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:44:02 01/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2000 at 13:32:34, jonathon smith wrote: >On January 27, 2000 at 12:48:39, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On January 27, 2000 at 06:08:56, jonathon smith wrote: >> >>>ChrisW is waiting for Bruce to come to the other necessary conclusion that a >>>belief in freedom of speech is only valid if you are prepared to argue it for >>>those that you strongly dislike and who have opinions that you strongly disagree >>>with. >> >>I think that there is a good chance that Chris wouldn't last very long here, but >>the circumstances of that ban disturbed me and I wanted to give him a chance to >>mess up and go out by the numbers, or to not mess up and stay. >> >>Not everyone wants to listen to this kind of stuff all day long, so I wanted to >>put a neat package around the whole situation, and allow it to be described as >>an accident, a flawed logical construction, or (at least resort) as an act of >>obvious vindictiveness, if that is what it turned out to be. I figured that if >>I could do that, I could send a few pieces of email, quote a few posts, and >>there would be an obvious course of action, you'd be back, and one or more >>people would start yet another a big thread about impeaching me. >> >>The Blatchford eruption diminished my enthusiasm. That account went out by the >>numbers, and could logically be determined to be Chris, since the last "Foxy >>Times" post was nearly simultaneously posted by Chris in r.g.c.c. >> >>I figured, fine, he wants to do that, he can sit tight for a while. >> >>Now we come to the point of my post. I don't give a damn about Chris' computer >>chess viewpoints. He wants to argue about slow search versus fast search, or >>using the eval function to guide the search, or speculation, or any of that >>stuff, I'm not remotely bothered. It would never occur to me to do anything >>other than *encourage* that, certainly I would have no interest in persecuting >>someone for that. >> >>What I object to are personal assaults on *people*, and these seem to go along >>with the package. > >Personal attacks, sheer hatred and public humiliations go along with computer >chess, egos and wierd people, as a brief glance at this board, or rgcc before >shows. > >For example when I posted a few days ago to this board, I (or ChrisW) was called >"schizo" by Enrique and a suggestion that I (or ChrisW) take my "prozac and >triptazine" was made by Hyatt. > >As far as I am aware, ChrisW, who was presumably the target, does not suffer >from schizophrenia and has never even seen such pills as Hyatt describes. > >ChrisW told me he thinks the comments made by the two of them reflect a greater >malaise. That is to condemn people who disagree with them as mad, and then to >make underhand, snide comments to that effect. He doubts they conspired together >beforehand, they didn't need to, this is just how they tend to deal with >difficulties. ChrisW says he notes the similarities with the decaying Soviet >Union which also had a tendency to describe those that disagreed with the system >as mad and sent them off to lunatic asylums. please, Please, PLEASE. The prozac was a humerous way of saying "You know the two of you are one person, we know the two of you are the same person, you know that we know, and we know that you know that we know..." Enrique's "Schizo" diagonosis was done in the same light, that of humor used to point out an obvious fact... > >These kind of comments are incredibly rude, IMO. And they serve a wider purpose >which is the slow drip-drip denigration and character assassination of those >they dislike. And pretending not to be someone, or pretending to be someone 'else' is ok? :) > >ChrisW says he thinks the use of direct, data backed 'accusations' can be >appropriate. It is important not to pick on weak people, but only to do this >with your chosen-field 'equals' or people who can defend themselves. > > I have no problem with what you/chris are doing with chess. the new cstal seems to be playing better and can actually play endgames for a change. This is a good thing. However, I refuse to knock how CSTal does what it does. You seem to take delight in knocking 'bean counters' as you call them. I think both have their place, their strengths, and their weaknesses... I don't mind sharp technical discussions... > >> >>bruce
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.