General
10 Sep 05
11 Sep 05
Originally posted by shavixmiras you ought to realize by your own posts on this matter you know that no1 doesn't consider the TOS sacrosanct, especially the part about forum speech.
Oh pray tell...how, if not insulting (or abusive or otherwise objectionable), how should I interpret: "You pathetic fool"?
See?
If there are nuances in this, then there are also nuances in alleged engine use.
11 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by shavixmirSo if i sign up for the military but i dont read the papers, then I can complain and disobey when i am given an order?
If Russ terminated my account for whatever reason I could and I would complain dude.
I didn't agree to anything. I didn't even read what I signed. Why? BECAUSE IT'S A BLOODY CHESS SITE!!!
So go back to your facistic little life-style of ingnorance and doing whatever you're told whenever you're told and stop bothering me and anyone else with an inkling of rationality about them.
11 Sep 05
Originally posted by Starryknight14Rules and regulations.
So if i sign up for the military but i dont read the papers, then I can complain and disobey when i am given an order? PS i totally agree with the last part.
You just carry on doing what other people want you to, and live a happy life.
How witty of you, by the way, to insert words into the "quote" box...
It does make me wonder though. If you're so full of the: "Do what you are told" and the "if you sign something obey it" how on earth you can so blatantly BREAK the TOS you so OBVIOUSLY signed to get on this site?
Let me remind you of that which you signed:
Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
Well, it certainly looks like you've broken Verse 6.3 of the gospel according to St. Marauder on at least 3 points there...
Funny isn't it? How you can get your knickers in a twist about somebody else breaking the TOS, yet you yourself seem so untouched by breaking the laws you agree with.
Your hypocrisy is sickening. You are filth and should be destroyed like the vermin you are.
11 Sep 05
Originally posted by frogstompHe sure did.
Arrakis did say: "No need to follow this game anymore. Black OBVIOUSLY used Fritz to play this game! "
and you were White. weren't you?
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=27838&page=14
He also said 'The evidence therefore SUGGESTS that White might be using a chess program... but it PROVES that Black is! '
Who was white again?
D
11 Sep 05
Originally posted by RagnorakReport me to the Game Mods; since you are constantly accusing me of cheating in a GAME I LOST.
He sure did.
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=27838&page=14
He also said 'The evidence therefore SUGGESTS that White might be using a chess program... but it PROVES that Black is! '
Who was white again?
D
I invite anyone to read the thread in question. Arrakis also said this:
To set to rest the analysis I did of the game posted (and I do not know who the player playing Black was). Black matched with Fritz on all moves as a first choice except 3 moves. Those 3 moves were 2nd choice. White (No1) matched on all but 6 moves for first choice, some of his moves not matching at all.
To be precise, Arrakis analyzed 21 non-database moves; I did not match to Fritz's first choice in his analysis on 6 of them. Several of my "matches" that Ragnorak is relying on were Fritz's second choices, but were serious errors that turned the game in IM favor, notably moves 23 and 26th. This has been covered in that thread and in the last few pages of the "Engine Users Named" thread in the Clan Forum. Ragnorak's constant and deliberate attempt to misconstrue the analysis into something resembling "proof" of engine use is a blatant and disgusting lie. That he is a pitiful liar is obvious; according to him I used an engine in a game where I made several clear errors including a game losing blunder on move 58 which was a whopping 5.67 pawn difference from Fritz's first choice.
The Game Mods have this game; if they conclude, as Ragnorak apparently has, that it constitutes overwhelming evidence of engine use on my part then I'll be banned. I'm waiting.
11 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderLOL. Its almost as if I'm reading the transcipt of a lawyer trying to fool a jury with loaded language and falsisms.
Ragnorak's constant and deliberate attempt to misconstrue the analysis into something resembling "proof" of engine use is a blatant and disgusting lie. That he is a pitiful liar is obvious;
My initial post was not to accuse you of cheating. You brought my name up first saying that I had cooked my analysis. I posted the results of my analysis, your analysis and Arrakis' analysis to show that out of three different people's analysis, yours was the one that was different, ie: possible cooked.
From past experience, I know that we could keep this up for ever, so I'm going to leave you to it. I'm just glad that more people than me are seeing through your lies, and see you for the roach that you are.
D
