Matt Nemmers wrote:
The Historian wrote:

I unfortunately agree with you about Mr. Bibuld's fondness for
conspiracy theory, but I wouldn't consider your beating him at chess to
be "crushing him intellectually".

Maybe not, but you can't deny the brief feeling of superiority when you
checkmate someone or tip their king to yours in somber resignation.

I'm sorry, but I don't ever recall such feelings of superiority. Then
again, I don't play competatively for just that reason.

Besides, I think that rather supports
my point - as warped as you consider his views to be, you aren't
sickened by them.

Au contraire, mon frere. I *AM* sickened by MANY of ol' Jerry's views
and I think my posts in reply to many of his underscore that statement
rather nicely. Go back and check out our argument when Jerry said that
"anyone with a *.mil email address didn't deserve to live" or some such
bile.

Then I question why you want to play chess with the man.

I don't think you are getting my point, Matt. No one you've mentioned
is a child pornographer - or worse.

I understand that, but that's irrelevant to the point Bill made. The
point that, emotionally, it's harder to hate someone after you've
played chess with them. I understand that mentality and agree with it.

Matt, you are completely clueless, or willfully ignoring my point. I
suggest you and Bill Brock start searching he
http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/?engine=adwords!3475&keyword=%2Asex+offenders%2A&m atch_type=
for Bill's next match opponent. After all, chess is great unifier!

I don't know when you became the Official RGCP Moral Compass and
started dictating who can or should play who in a game of chess, Neil,

Oh, I'm not dictating, I'm criticizing people who call others
"kiddie-f*ckers" and show their contempt by playing chess for money
with them.

but I suggest you at least TRY to understand my original point before
dubbing ME "clueless."

Regards,

Matt