ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 155 OF 801 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-28-07
 | | jessicafischerqueen: as in a bad novel |
|
| May-28-07 | | chessmoron: Did you get it? |
|
May-28-07
| | jessicafischerqueen: But not to Cato |
|
May-28-07
| | jessicafischerqueen: rather, to Plato |
|
| May-28-07 | | WBP: <Plato> <Your comment was well-written and right on target, except for the "brilliant" remark which certainly doesn't apply to me> Sorry, don't agree. You're both highly intelligent and very gifted young men--what a future! You, <Plato> are, simply put, brilliant--I've read many of your posts. They are, along with <Danielpi's> (and I know neither of you wants to hear himself compared to the other), very intelligent, instructive, and insightful--and may I say, therefore, brilliant. When two such come along, it's entirely understandable that they might lock horns. I don't want to get into the middle of your disagreement. The <SeeSee> forum's open to you (though it's already turned into something a a trash-talk place!). I wish you both very well.
|
|
May-28-07
| | jessicafischerqueen: <Wilson> I still haven't left. Thanks for the IMBD link as well!
<Odishon> I wrote it down. |
|
| May-28-07 | | Plato: <danielpi: I've got enough friends. > I wasn't expecting to ever be friends after these exchanges, I don't think that will ever happen (or even want it to), but I meant we could still be on MUCH better terms with each other, without being friends. I'm not going to go back in detail to what happened on the Karpov page, except to say that I do think we both overreacted. <That's actually a pretty fair offer, but why not just ban directly addressing one another? I don't like to censor myself, and it's not the insults so much as the prolonged bickering that anyone really minds. As long as we don't directly respond to one another, I think it's probably fine. If you mention me in a forum, I won't be there the next day playing tit for tat. Likewise, I'd like to reserve the right to badmouth you at my leisure, without any threat of a prolonged ping-pong match.> I don't see why you insist on reserving the right to insult me to others. What difference does it make if it's insulting me directly or not? Insults are insults, ridicule is ridicule, and I believe that it's even worse to make fun of someone behind his back. Anyway, if you were to write insults about me without addressing them <plato> and I would respond without addressing <danielpi>, I fail to see what that could possibly achieve. That's why I never thought your "truce" offer was a very serious one, as mine have been. <It produces the same result, no?> No. If we want to put an end to these feuds, then we should be able to make the mature decision of agreeing not to insult each other in the future. Not to provoke each other in the future. We can just ignore each other or speak on more or less cordial terms to each other, either one is fine with me. But it doesn't achieve anything to allow insults so long as they're not addressed directly to the person. That's useless, IMO. |
|
| May-28-07 | | chessmoron: Although you live at your own house, maybe a rental service will do the trick like NETFLIX or BLOCKBUSTER...I don't know if they do service in Canada. |
|
| May-28-07 | | Plato: <danielpi: I find it neither disturbing nor unwarranted. I find it apropos, appropriate, and witty.> Well, <dp> I really wasn't interested in what *you* thought of it, since I figured you must have considered a death-wish against me to be appropriate, otherwise you wouldn't have posted it. I was more curious in what others thought. |
|
May-28-07
| | jessicafischerqueen: <Wilson> they don't have rental delivery in BC, but I'm sure they will eventually. I never even thought of that before, let alone heard it!! |
|
May-28-07
| | jessicafischerqueen: It's a great idea |
|
| May-28-07 | | Plato: <WBP> Thank you for your kind words. Incidentally, would you mind sharing your e-mail address? If you don't mind I'd like to send you an e-mail. |
|
| May-28-07 | | WBP: <Plato> <Thank you for your kind words. Incidentally, would you mind sharing your e-mail address? If you don't mind I'd like to send you an e-mail> Not at all. I'm not sure how this is done, though. Does one simply post it? <Jess> <Thank you for your kind words. Incidentally, would you mind sharing your e-mail address? If you don't mind I'd like to send you an e-mail> It was on <Danielpi's> forum one night--not too far back. Long one on religion. Lots of syntax/grammar/typo errors, the kind of thing <Eyal> would have had a field day reporting! <Jess> If you're sure about not being upset about posting, what follows is a parable of good hope and faith in the human condition. |
|
| May-28-07 | | Plato: <WBP> Yes, simply posting it will be fine, if you don't mind doing so. Thanks. |
|
| May-28-07 | | danielpi: <Plato><Anyway, if you were to write insults about me without addressing them <plato> and I would respond without addressing <danielpi>, I fail to see what that could possibly achieve. That's why I never thought your "truce" offer was a very serious one, as mine have been.> Well, that's why I promised:
<danielpi><If you mention me in a forum, I won't be there the next day playing tit for tat. Likewise, I'd like to reserve the right to badmouth you at my leisure, without any threat of a prolonged ping-pong match.> There's no point in the rules, if you're going to try to find some technicality to get around them. I actually don't plan to badmouth you to the wide and wooly world. There's hardly any good reason for that, and I'm not planning on running around slandering you on random forums for the sheer thrill of it. That would, methinks, reflect far more negatively on me than you, if it were to occur. That said, by way of analogy: while I don't plan to become a pornographer, I'm a big fan of preserving a pornographer's first amendment rights. It's the principle of the thing, really. And in the event that someone does bring the <Plato> topic to me, I think I would enjoy the free hand at describing, in excruciatingly verbose detail, exactly what I think of you, and I certainly wouldn't want a pact with a foe to interfere with my free discourse with friends. The problem is our discourse with one another. To say that the mere mention (however disparaging) of the other person is the root of the problem is inaccurate, and overly strong. Let's be accurate, eliminate the problem, and keep our discourse with others free and uncensored. |
|
May-28-07
 | | JointheArmy: <I am a <WWII> History buff, of all things, and I recently changed my forum "header.">
Your kidding. I'm a HUGE WWII buff. I know that better than chess. I was absolutely obsessed with it when I was a sophomore in high school a couple years ago. <Forum header>
I have the same header, and are you sure that tank is from WWII? The turret looks like its from WWII but its obviously not Russian since it doesn't have slanted armor like most models after the T-34, and its certainly not American if its from WWII since the Sherman was the workhorse and they didn't come out with any good tanks until 1945. It's not a Tiger since the front is missing a heavy machine gun and the rear has drop tanks on each side. It's too big for any Panzers even with an extended 76 mm. I'd be surprised if it is from WWII, if so its probably a version of a Panzer. Your correct that the plane is a Bf-109 judging by the body, but the nose looks different to me. Probably because my eyesight is horrible and I don't wear contacts or glasses. EDIT: The cockpit should be further up the tail as well. |
|
| May-28-07 | | danielpi: <Plato><Incidentally, would you mind sharing your e-mail address? If you don't mind I'd like to send you an e-mail> How mysterious.
<Jess> You can quote anything I say, in whatever context you like. I'm not ashamed of any quotes attributed to me- even if I never said or meant them! |
|
| May-28-07 | | Plato: <danielpi> I'm sorry but the terms of your "truce" still don't make any sense to me. It won't achieve anything. Look what happened here, or on the Carlsen or Smyslov forums. In those cases you didn't address me directly, but your insults were still at my expense. You were still ridiculing me to others, portraying me in a very negative way. It's just as bad to insult me without addressing it to <Plato> as it is to insult me directly. Both are insults, and in fact when you insult me "behind my back," so to speak, I consider it even worse. <It's the principle of the thing, really. And in the event that someone does bring the <Plato> topic to me, I think I would enjoy the free hand at describing, in excruciatingly verbose detail, exactly what I think of you> That's exactly what happened here. <Jess> mentioned me as a *friend* of hers, and you used that as an opportunity to slander me. I do not appreciate that, and when you go around insulting me to others it will just lead to further feuds, regardless of whether we're addressing our posts to the other or not. The mature decision, in my opinion, is to agree not to insult each other in the future. It is not difficult to stick to this, and it will save both of us time and frustration that would otherwise happen as a result of further feuds. However, if you don't want to "censor" yourself then you obviously don't have to agree to my truce offer. But if you do take the opportunity to insult me just because someone happens to bring me up, I will respond. And if I would insult you just because someone brings your name up (which I do not do), then it wouldn't surprise me in the least if you responded in your usual way. So as long as we don't insult each other in the future, feuds are avoided. I understand that wish to you reserve the right to insult me at will. So it is clear that the future cease-fires will last until you choose to end them. So be it. |
|
| May-28-07 | | Plato: <danielpi: How mysterious.> I promise it has absolutely nothing to do with maligning you, and <WBP> will be able to confirm that if you wish. I will never insult you behind your back. And again I would like to reiterate that if you're ever willing, I'd much prefer to be on at least polite terms with each other. Not friends -- I don't think either of us wants to be friends with the other, after what has transpired between us -- but at least we should be able to treat each other politely without resorting to insults and ridicule. |
|
| May-28-07 | | danielpi: <Plato><So it is clear that the future cease-fires will last until you choose to end them. So be it.> Fine by me. But just so that we're clear, I think that the cease-fire will end when you choose to address me. Sayonara for now, I guess. <Everyone Else> Plato's an ugly fugly. Muhaha! |
|
| May-28-07 | | WBP: <Plato> <I promise it has absolutely nothing to do with maligning you, and <WBP> will be able to confirm that if you wish> Yes, <Danielpi>, I assure you, I've no intention of entering this discussion in any fashion (i.e., taking sides, being privy to private gripes, etc.). If either of you--or anyone looking in--wishes to email me, my address is: WPotteratSantafe@Hotmail.com Again, best wishes to you both, Bill |
|
| May-28-07 | | Plato: <danielpi: But just so that we're clear, I think that the cease-fire will end when you choose to address me. > If I address you politely, as I have been doing, then there is no reason to consider the cease-fire over. But if you insult me then it will be clear, yet again, that you are reigniting former hostilities. The fact that you're not willing to agree for both of us to stop insulting each other in the future -- that speaks volumes about your intentions and maturity, in my opinion. Anyone can read my peace offer above (page 154) and <danielpi>'s response(s) and draw their own conclusions. And I think we can all distinguish between your "ugly fugly" comment and the kinds of insults that got this started and continued throughout this most recent exchange. I certainly hope that in the future you can refrain from maligning me, unlike the past three occasions. Time will tell. |
|
May-29-07
| | jessicafischerqueen: <Join the Army>
<Eyal> thought it might be a more modern tank also, but it doesn't look like it to me. All the <panzerkampfwagen> series had higher turrets, I spent a good time on the <German tank page> Anyhoo, thanks for the help!! |
|
| May-29-07 | | danielpi: <Plato> I consider the cease-fire over upon address. You have no reason to talk to me, and I have no reason to talk to you. The first person to break that silence is (in my view at least) the instigator. You're welcome to your own perspective. You want to call me immature? Fine. I'm immature. There you go. You're welcome to the prize, whatever that might be. Are you basking in the glory of a victory now, Mr. Maturity? I've made my views on censorship pretty clear. I haven't any intention of insulting you, but I don't like to feel that there's any "rule" forbidding me from it. Either you're deliberately misrepresenting my point of view, or else you fail to comprehend it- if it's the former, I suggest you cease the grandstanding, lest you seem like the latter. Ciao, ugly fugly.
|
|
May-29-07
| | jessicafischerqueen: <Bill> Just read your fable-- choking with laughter... You've GOT to post that at <Dom's place> as you know how much HE'D appreciate it. It's going to get buried in here.
Brilliant!! another good day for big laughs at CG.com. |
|
 |
|
ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 155 OF 801 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
