Author: Albert Silver
Date: 07:32:30 02/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2000 at 10:08:03, jonathon smith wrote:
>On February 07, 2000 at 09:26:34, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>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:
>>>>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".
>>
>>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.
>
>Rhetorical surprise.
>
>Put truth into lies and what do you get? Normally personal attack, character
>assasinations, cries of Who Cares, cries of Boredom, calls for Banning. Anything
>but face up to the truth. ChrisW told me you might be better off looking at the
>perpetrators of falsehoods.
>
>>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?
>>
>
>ChrisW told me that he didn't say anybody was a "rat". He did say that Mr
>Enrique and Mr Schroeder were hypocritical. And he affirms that that is a true
>statement which is backed by data.
Playing blind? :-) I suspect ChrisW understood that I wasn't actually commenting
on the content of what he said, but that he said anything at all on a touchy
subject in a thread that had nothing to do with it. Else, why not bring up the
subject of the terrible injustices inflicted on ChrisW in the threads on 'LG2000
v2.5 is a Tactical Beast' or 'Fritz 6 with Tablebases', etc...? The relevance is
the same.
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.