Author: Albert Silver
Date: 11:17:24 02/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2000 at 11:32:12, jonathon smith wrote:
>On February 07, 2000 at 10:32:30, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>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,
>
>Please allow a repetition of what you just said:
>
>"I wasn't actually commenting on the content of what he said".
>
>Please observe the title of this thread:
>
>"The trouble with jonathon smith...."
>
>ChrisW told me the question is why do truthful, content based posts get replied
>to only with personal attacks and character assassinations?
Mmmm.... Yes, one can return to the first post of the thread, but the discussion
has proceeded beyond it and I was commenting on your response to Bruce's post,
and not Tina's. Allow me the same courtesy of repeating the relevant lines:
>>>>>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".
You questioned Bruce's calling your truths as "a considerable stir", and I
replied that under the circumstances, this was not incorrect because you had
tried to guide a thread that had nothing to do with ChrisW into a discussion on
him. All this in the name of 'truth'. I think (no offence) you are trying to
blow smoke in my face, for though the facts presented may in fact be true, they
are also completely irrelevant to the thread they were presented in and have
nothing to do with the 'truth' of said thread. In other words, it isn't about
what you said, but where you chose to say it.
Albert Silver
>
>
>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.