General
07 Nov 22
12 Nov 22
@kevin-eleven saidYou’re circling the drain again.
You're the one who couldn't bring himself to defend his own wife.
@divegeester saidBecause you won't stand up for your own wife?
You’re circling the drain again.
@kevin-eleven saidWhich one of your malicious thoughts would you like to discuss first; “undermining the faith of someone who has lost a child”, or defending family members against online disinhibited ne'er-do-wells?
Because you won't stand up for your own wife?
@divegeester saidAgitated attempts at deflection noted.
Which one of your malicious thoughts would you like to discuss first; “undermining the faith of someone who has lost a child”, or defending family members against online disinhibited ne'er-do-wells?
@divegeester saida) Why didn't you defend your own wife the other night?
Deflection from what?
b) Why do you try to undermine the faith of someone whose child has died?
12 Nov 22
@kevin-eleven saidOk, I’ll play with you Kevin.
a) Why didn't you defend your own wife the other night?
b) Why do you try to undermine the faith of someone whose child has died?
a) my wife was in no need of defending.
b) I don’t.
@kevin-eleven saidYou've been here long enough to know that there are several things that are off limits here:
It could be said that lack of necessity is no reason not to do something.
It could also be said that your second statement was either an unprovable categorical assertion or a passive-aggressive attempt to control me with an appeal to my consideration of your sensibilities.
However, I do understand the general principle re: forum etiquette that you were trying to ge ...[text shortened]... ple of forum etiquette, it seems that you stood up for @divegeester's wife more than he himself did.
1. disparaging relatives of members who are not themselves members and cannot defend themselves here.
2. disparaging members on account of addiction, whether they are still addicted or dry (narcotics, alcohol, etc.).
3. disparaging members who have served time or are still serving time in prison on account of their criminal record.
4. disparaging members who are handicapped on account of their handicap.
This is not a complete list, but you get the idea.
Really, this should go without saying. But apparently somebody had to say it.
@divegeester saidAm always irked by that. Chess players should encourage each other in this regard.
@moonbus
5) Disparaging people because of their chess rating
@divegeester saidAgreed. TU from me, dive.
@moonbus
5) Disparaging people because of their chess rating
@moonbus saidAnytime that gooster calls me names, I will remind him of his chess rating. You can take that one to the bank.
Agreed. TU from me, dive.
You don't call someone a moron when your own rating is under 1000!
Would it be more proper for me to tell him the cognitive side of the brain was sick? π
-VR
@very-rusty saidI think you have more options than linking such a dig to a player's rating. (Not everybody with a rating below 1000 is a moron). By all means fire something back, but it's generally accepted poor etiquette to berate someone's family or chess ability. (Both being cheap shots).
Anytime that gooster calls me names, I will remind him of his chess rating. You can take that one to the bank.
You don't call someone a moron when your own rating is under 1000!
Would it be more proper for me to tell him the cognitive side of the brain was sick? π
-VR
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThanks for the advice, but the gooster knows what is coming when he calls me names.
I think you have more options than linking such a dig to a player's rating. (Not everybody with a rating below 1000 is a moron). By all means fire something back, but it's generally accepted poor etiquette to berate someone's family or chess ability. (Both being cheap shots).
I don't want to disappoint him! π
BTW: I am not calling everyone with a 1000 or below a 1000 rating a moron just one person who enjoys calling me one. π An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth, it is in the Bible! π
-VR