From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: TO THE GM'S AT CHESS CHOW/CHESS LI
Date: 14 Dec 92 09:17:57 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <DUBACH1.92Dec13185244@husc10.harvard.edu>, dubach1@husc10.harvard.edu (joev dubach) writes:
> In article <1992Dec13.154655.465@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> [Lots of stuff deleted]
> 
>>And if he plays outside of the rules, an still stomps them into the ground, as
>>he has been doing? 
> 
> Um, sorry, the only GM he's been stomping into the ground lately is Spassky.

And which GMs have stomped HIM into the ground?


> 
>>Then the title best college basketball team has no meaning as well?
> 
> No, actually, it doesn't.  Haven't you ever heard a coach say, "Any
> team can beat any other team on any day"?

Sure, a trite cliche, much like, "On any given day, any given woman can be
had."
 
Good luck getting the homecoming queen sport!


> 
>>Who was the last person to beat Fischer?
> Spassky, game 26.

Hmmm, I thought that was part of a tournament--but as Spassky beat
Fischer that time, I guess it is proof positive that Spassky is a better 
player than Fischer!


> 
>>Well, from someone who has taken the original issue and tried to twist into a
>>sepearte unrelated issue, you appear to have not progressed very far...
>>
>>Now, let me state it clearly, as Mr. Wedding has been repeatedly calling for
>>others to do:
>>
>>"What basis are the GMs using for saying that Fischer is not as good as he
>>was?"
> 
> Look, the only person who's been doing any repeated calling around
> here is you, and frankly, I'm sick of it.  

Then use the famous kill file bucko. No one is forcing you to read this,
and I hope no one forced you to reply.
						Mr. Wedding has, after
> retracting his original, inflammatory remarks, posted some interesting 
> questions.  He is, to the best of my knowledge, waiting for replies on
> these questions.  

And he will be waiting a LONG time.

			The fact that you have nothing better to do with
> your time than post insubstantive replies repeatedly does not address
> anything of importance. 

Pointing out that people like you are desperately trying to avoid
the issues IS of importance. It keeps the debate focused away
from irrelevant tripe.
 
			  If somebody makes a post which you believe to
> be off-topic, _do not reply to it_.  

Oh, and I am not supposed to remind them that they are missing the issues?
Good idea.
					If somebody asks you questions
> which you refuse to answer on the basis that they are off-topic, _do
> not reply to them_.  

Why? Are you reading this at 110 baud, so it takes more than .25 seconds
to skip  message? Maybe we should send you our projected posts via
snail-mail for your approval?


			Right now, 80% of your posts are wasted
> bandwidth, beating the same dead horse.

If you really believed that, why did you beat it more?


> 
> Joev
> --
> _____________________________________________________
> DDDDDDDDD   JJJJJJ      | Joev Dubach
>      D      J     J     | dubach1@husc.harvard.edu
>      D      J     J     | 249 North Mail Center
> D    D      J     J     | Harvard University
> DDDDD    *  JJJJJJ  *   | Cambridge, MA 02138

Oh, I am sorry, you are from Harvard. Maybe you'd prefer just to
buy my silence?

DMC