I wasn't suggesting anything - I was simply asserting the fact that I call the judge over if my opponent spends over 2 minutes on a play.
We were not having a discussion of when you call judges during your games, Steve.
You are right, we were not. But we weren't talking about my game in particular either, as you claim. I was talking about what I do when my opponent takes a long time in general, and it should have been absolutely clear by the words I used.
The conclusion in your syllogism follows. But the statements from your previous post do not. Here is what you said:
It suggests that you intentionally and knowingly broke the rules in tournament play.
It suggests that you played in a way you would consider unacceptable of an opponent.
Neither of those follow logically from your little syllogism. And becuase I'm like that, I'll explain to you why.
The first is that you say my post suggets that I knowingly broke the rules in tournament play. This assumes that I call a judge only when my opponent intentionally and knowingly breaks the rules. That is false. I call the judge when I suspect that my opponent might be in a position to stall and ask that the judge monitor to ensure that they do not take too long. Second, it doesn't follow that I consider taking 2 minutes unacceptable. The core problem is that your assuming that I think my opponent has done something wrong if I call the judge. I'm surprised that as a tournament player you aren't aware of the fact that the reasons you call the judge aren't usually the narrow. Calling the judge is something I do frequently and very rarely is it because I think my opponent is intentionally cheating.
I think the biggest problem is that assumption that just becuase I do something, I think that that is the only universally acceptable response. In probably over half the situations where I call a judge, I do not think it is strictly necessary to do so. Sad that I had to spend so much time clearing up something so simple if people would just read and not "jump the gun."
