No, it's not a slanderous attack. Look up the meaning of slander if you don't believe me.
I know what slanderous means. Clearly not.
Insulting other members qualifies as this. I present this statement as proof.
No, it's not a slanderous attack. Look up the meaning of slander if you don't believe me.
I know what slanderous means. Clearly not.
Insulting other members qualifies as this. I present this statement as proof.
Slander: a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
No, it's not a slanderous attack. Look up the meaning of slander if you don't believe me.
I know what slanderous means. Clearly not.
Insulting other members qualifies as this. I present this statement as proof.
Slander: a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
I bolded the part that was missing from what you were calling a slanderous attack.
No, it's not a slanderous attack. Look up the meaning of slander if you don't believe me.
I know what slanderous means. Clearly not.
Insulting other members qualifies as this. I present this statement as proof.
Slander: a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
I bolded the part that was missing from what you were calling a slanderous attack.
It's not based on anything at all except his own anger.
I posted analysis, I checked with Rybka, and I even reviewed the game with others.
Everything is on my side. No player here has posted a refutation.
When they do, I'll shut up.
Could you provide the variation? This isnt a complicated position by any means, I didnt have to use fritz to say that white is winning, I said it because I assumed you wouldnt trust my word.
But apparently you don't trust fritz word either. It's your money, I guess.
White wins in 100 moves with accurate endgame play.
You're a 1700. Remember that.
One slip and the position is even.
White gets a 0.80 advantage
I'll play ball.
Post a screenshot of rybka showing 0.80 advantage at the position after qh5.
Assuming of course that you werent lying in order to start a conflict because you're a sad attention craving kid.
Well?
Could you provide the variation? This isnt a complicated position by any means, I didnt have to use fritz to say that white is winning, I said it because I assumed you wouldnt trust my word.
But apparently you don't trust fritz word either. It's your money, I guess.
White wins in 100 moves with accurate endgame play.
You're a 1700. Remember that.
One slip and the position is even.
White gets a 0.80 advantage
I'll play ball.
Post a screenshot of rybka showing 0.80 advantage at the position after qh5.
Assuming of course that you werent lying in order to start a conflict because you're a sad attention craving kid.
Well?
How would I take a screen shot?
Printscreen, snipping tool, fraps, whatever. I know you're not the smartest egg in the box but I'm sure you can work it out.
He did not tell any lies. He never claimed to be giving anything but his own opinion. Therefore what he said was not false and not slander.
Continuing to say he was slandering you would be slandering him, by constrast. You would be maliciously defaming him for something he didn't do.
He did not tell any lies. He never claimed to be giving anything but his own opinion. Therefore what he said was not false and not slander.
Continuing to say he was slandering you would be slandering him, by constrast. You would be maliciously defaming him for something he didn't do.
The rules state not to attack other users.
Stop trying to justify it with your own opinions.
He did not tell any lies. He never claimed to be giving anything but his own opinion. Therefore what he said was not false and not slander.
Continuing to say he was slandering you would be slandering him, by constrast. You would be maliciously defaming him for something he didn't do.
The rules state not to attack other users.
Stop trying to justify it with your own opinions.
I am not justifying it or claiming it was not a personal attack. All I am saying is that it was not a slanderous attack.
He did not tell any lies. He never claimed to be giving anything but his own opinion. Therefore what he said was not false and not slander.
Continuing to say he was slandering you would be slandering him, by constrast. You would be maliciously defaming him for something he didn't do.
The rules state not to attack other users.
Stop trying to justify it with your own opinions.
I am not justifying it or claiming it was not a personal attack. All I am saying is that it was not a slanderous attack.
It's based on an opinion.
Helzeth has yet to post a refutation.
Actually, you know what. I like the idea of you getting banned more than you being reasoned out of your idiotic retardation trip.
I already pmed you the list of all the people who reported you.
..the list is growing ;)
He did not tell any lies. He never claimed to be giving anything but his own opinion. Therefore what he said was not false and not slander.
Continuing to say he was slandering you would be slandering him, by constrast. You would be maliciously defaming him for something he didn't do.
The rules state not to attack other users.
Stop trying to justify it with your own opinions.
I am not justifying it or claiming it was not a personal attack. All I am saying is that it was not a slanderous attack.
It's based on an opinion.
Helzeth has yet to post a refutation.
The two things you just said were unrelated to my post. They are also things that I don't care about.
Actually, you know what. I like the idea of you getting banned more than you being reasoned out of your idiotic retardation trip.
I already pmed you the list of all the people who reported you.
..the list is growing ;)
You are on quite the "idiotic retardation trip" yourself...
Actually, you know what. I like the idea of you getting banned more than you being reasoned out of your idiotic retardation trip.
I already pmed you the list of all the people who reported you.
..the list is growing ;)
What's with the insults?
I haven't broken a single rule.
He did not tell any lies. He never claimed to be giving anything but his own opinion. Therefore what he said was not false and not slander.
Continuing to say he was slandering you would be slandering him, by constrast. You would be maliciously defaming him for something he didn't do.
The rules state not to attack other users.
Stop trying to justify it with your own opinions.
I am not justifying it or claiming it was not a personal attack. All I am saying is that it was not a slanderous attack.
It's based on an opinion.
Helzeth has yet to post a refutation.
The two things you just said were unrelated to my post. They are also things that I don't care about.
An opinion is slanderous if it is not related to the truth.
Being an expert in chess does not mean that person is intelligent anymore than being a track star makes you a genius.
But it is related to truth. His opinion is based on what you posted.
The second thing you said is true but unrelated. I like mangos.
But it is related to truth. His opinion is based on what you posted.
The second thing you said is true but unrelated. I like mangos.
It is related. Don't blame your poor reading comprehension on someone else.
There is no truth in a statement if you just say it.
Calling the sky "red" doesn't make it "red."
Like I said, chess has nothing to do with intelligence.
The best players are child prodigies.
No, it's not a slanderous attack. Look up the meaning of slander if you don't believe me.
I know what slanderous means.
Insulting other members qualifies as this.