Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 12:45:56 02/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
Apparently nobody looked in the dictionary very closely, or they would have noticed that whining doesn't have 3 n's in it. Dave On February 19, 2000 at 13:10:15, Jay Rinde wrote: >I looked in the dictionary too. Whinning=when one does not agree with you. Not >Whinning=when one agrees with you. > > > > >On February 19, 2000 at 12:26:59, Alvaro Polo wrote: > >>On February 19, 2000 at 12:09:42, Michael Neish wrote: >> >>>On February 19, 2000 at 11:02:20, Alvaro Polo wrote: >>> >>>>On February 19, 2000 at 10:13:10, KarinsDad wrote: >>> >>>>If I were in Adams shoes, I would probably have done the same thing. So what? As >>>>Shakespeare said (I quote from memory, sorry) "If we were treated as we deserved >>>>to be, who could avoid being whipped?". I mean, I am not a model role and I >>>>don't claim to be one. I maintain what I said. The sportman (and a competition >>>>chessplayer is one) who wants to win a match without playing it is a jerk. In >>>>Adams' case this is specially clear because, due to *his* *own* connection >>>>problems, the match was delayed two hours. Note the subtle point: he was not >>>>forfeited. When Junior runs into the same problems, he claims forfeit. To be >>>>fair to the truth I don't believe he is the only jerk in the whole story. >>> >>>If you put it that way, of course it sounds pretty damning for Adams, but I >>>think there is more to consider than just the fact that he wasn't forfeited >>>after a >>>two-hour delay at his end, etc. I think the ones on this forum who are most >>>qualified to give their opinions on what happened on that day are the ones >>>who were directly involved. The rest of us are just going on a load of >>>incomplete information tinged with personal opinions, and so we have no >>>right to go up in arms and start calling people "jerks" and "cowards", and >>>claiming certain people are "afraid" and what have you. We need to know >>>the complete picture, and we simply haven't got it. And it doesn't solve >>>the problem anyway. The last thing computer Chess needs is an >>>acrimonious atmosphere between players and programmers. Isn't it better >>>just to cool it, find out as much as possible about what happened, and then >>>work on finding ways to prevent it from happening again? The deed has >>>been done, and that's that. Let's all look forward to the next time. >>> >>>Name calling -- now that really is a clever solution. >> >>First of all english is not my langage. I have looked in my dictionnary and >>"jerk" doesn't appear to be such a strong word, but you could substitute it for >>"nasty" if I am mistaken and the word is too much. >> >>My view on Adams is damning, but it is the way I see it. Your proposal to wait >>for the facts, in theory, is very good, but in practice, it is naive. Do you >>think that you have the real facts in every branch of life where someone has an >>interest? Do you think you know the facts of Clinton-Lewinsky? Or in chess, do >>you know the real facts of the first Kasparov-Karpov match, or the complete and >>true facts on Hsu-Kasparov-Williams recent negotiations? It is naive to assume >>that we will ever know the true facts, because everyone tells what they want to >>tell and we must assume that. >> >>This is an opinion forum, and this is the place to tell our opinions. The DJ >>forfeiture is a significant event, and we are entitled, in my opinion, to tell >>what we think about it without waiting forever for a Godot (the true and >>objective facts) that will never come. >> >>Another thing, to be a coward can be more or less pretty, but it is not a crime >>being one, so I don't see any reason why you should not tell that someone is a >>coward if you think so. Incidentally, I didn't call Adams a coward, and I don't >>think he is. I just think he is a bad sportman and had a nasty behaviour. >> >>Alvaro >> >>> >>>Mike.
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.