Author: Albert Silver
Date: 06:31:58 02/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2000 at 06:57:44, jonathon smith wrote:
>On February 07, 2000 at 03:13:24, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>
>>On February 07, 2000 at 01:00:19, Pete Galati wrote:
>>
>>>On February 07, 2000 at 00:32:34, Tina Long wrote:
>>>
>>>>The trouble with jonathon smith is that he actually believes everything that
>>>>that Chris W tells him.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps Chris W just fools jonathon smith occassionally!
>>>>
>>>>Tina Long
>>>
>>>Funny thing is, a few of us have told Chris that (in so many words) he should
>>>stop pretending his name is johnathon smith, and he never makes any effort to
>>>deny that he is indeed Chris Wittington, and not johnathon smith...
>>>
>>>Ok, and then Bruce Moreland says to Karensdad "Chris is banned.", so what does
>>>that leave us with here?
>>>
>>>Somehow it still leaves us with Chris Wittington, pretending his name is
>>>johnathon smith, even though we know exactly who he is, and just to further rub
>>>our noses in it (like we all just crapped on the floor) he talks in this 3rd
>>>person speak, just to make it even more obvious who he is, and that we havn't
>>>gotten rid of him, only banned him.
>>>
>>>Does anyone see why there's a problem here???
>>
>>There have been several other Chris-like accounts that have been gotten rid of
>>after they caused a considerable stir.
>>
>>Jonathan Smith has been registered here for a very long time, but nobody has
>>really noticed. I was content with this situation, personally. Recently, the
>>account becamse much more noticeable but I didn't think it was really his fault,
>>and I figured that if that situation could be passed, the next group of
>>moderators could consider what they wanted to do with the account and what they
>>wanted to do with Chris.
>>
>>The past couple of days the account has caused a considerable stir.
>>
>>bruce
>
>ChrisW said he only spoke the truth. ChrisW says he finds it amusing that the
>truth is called "a considerable stir" or "troublemaking".
Formatting went awry for some reason, so I'm posting this again.
When Jonathan first became conspicuous, I too thought it was only in an
appropriate response towards comments made on ChrisW, and I also thought that
given the amount of response that ensued, he was able to finally discuss what
had clearly been causing an enormous amount of frustration and anger. Without
wishing to bring up the veracity of the perspectives of both sides, being true
and causing a considerable stir are hardly mutually exclusive, and I don't see
why it should surprise you as you imply.
On the other hand, I have seen threads and arguments that had NOTHING to do with
Chris, whether stated or implied, that you (don't you love this schizophrenic
talk?) tried to somehow make about him. I view this last a little differently
than the first. An example:
Posted February 31, 2000 at 00:00:00, Donald Duck wrote:
>Posted February 30, 2000 at 23:59:59, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>I read that Mindwipe will no longer be supporting their software Chess Doggie
>3000 because they claim it is now as good as it can get. This despite the
>numerous bugs such as the famous "Burn baby" bug where the computer's CPU
>immediately begins to fry after inserting the CD. This is grossly unfair!
>
> M.M.
Yes, you speak of Mindwipe's unfairness, but this reminds me quite clearly of
the time you stepped on my toes, despite the neon signs Disney placed in that
scene, and then had the gall to claim you hadn't seen them. I am bringing this
up in the interest of truth in order to show to all the hypocritical rat you
are.
Donald
Truth perhaps, but what's the relevance?
Albert Silver
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.