Computer Chess Club Archives

Search

Messages

Subject: Re: Now it's clear that Ritter Rost's post is not a fake

Author: Tom Kerrigan

Date: 11:00:13 04/11/00

Go up one level in this thread

On April 11, 2000 at 09:54:00, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>>>Not a problem.  Didn't vote for you this time.  Thought you were too young
>>>and hot-headed to be a moderator.  Nothing has changed that opinion yet...
>>You seem to be ignoring the fact that moderation is a team effort here.
>No I'm not.  When a police officer sees something obviously illegal under
>way, he takes care of it first, and then asks questions to see if his initial

You're still absolutely ignoring the fact that it wasn't "obviously illegal."

NOBODY (except you, of course) thought it was obviously illegal. Everybody
thought RR = Ossi.

Your pathetic explanation for why it's obviously illegal is that Ossi would have
said, "Here's an e-mail I wrote..."

I've already explained why this is silly. But think about it another way. When
you write a post here, do you precede it with, "Here's a post I'm writing..."?
No, obviously not. You hope that the reader will see your name at the top and at
the bottom and can make the assumption that YOU wrote the post. What's different
in the RR situation? You see Ossi's name at the bottom and a fake name at the
top. What's to imply that Ossi isn't using the fake name? Now, I assume you
don't speak German and you might not recognize the name as fake; this makes my
judgement (although eventually proven wrong) better than yours in this case.

Here's another thing to think about. When you quote a message on CCC, doesn't it
get preceded with "On ... Tom Kerrigan wrote:" so as to save you some typing? If
you quote something, the obvious course of action is to attribute the quote.
This wasn't done in RR's post.

Now, if you can think of some OTHER reason why RR's post was "obviously
illegal," I'm sure everybody would like to hear it.

With regard to the name calling, I'm thinking of something you said:

>>>Not a problem.  Didn't vote for you this time.  Thought you were too young
>>>and hot-headed to be a moderator.  Nothing has changed that opinion yet...

I assumed that you meant my handling of this situation was immature and
hot-headed. But if you just wanted to call me names, fine.

-Tom

• Re: Now it's clear that Ritter Rost's post is not a fake Bertil Eklund 14:30:10 04/11/00
  • Re: Now it's clear that Ritter Rost's post is not a fake Dave Gomboc 08:50:02 04/12/00
  • Re: Now it's clear that Ritter Rost's post is not a fake Tom Kerrigan 14:48:23 04/11/00
• Re: Now it's clear that Ritter Rost's post is not a fake Robert Hyatt 14:02:49 04/11/00
  • Re: Now it's clear that Ritter Rost's post is not a fake Tom Kerrigan 14:45:59 04/11/00
    • Re: Now it's clear that Ritter Rost's post is not a fake Robert Hyatt 19:09:06 04/11/00
      • Re: Now it's clear that Ritter Rost's post is not a fake Tom Kerrigan 21:24:34 04/11/00
        • Re: Now it's clear that Ritter Rost's post is not a fake Robert Hyatt 07:40:19 04/12/00
          • Re: Now it's clear that Ritter Rost's post is not a fake Tom Kerrigan 09:41:18 04/12/00
            • Re: Now it's clear that Ritter Rost's post is not a fake Bruce Moreland 10:28:40 04/12/00
      • Re: Now it's clear that Ritter Rost's post is not a fake Mogens Larsen 20:05:59 04/11/00
        • Re: Now it's clear that Ritter Rost's post is not a fake Dan Ellwein 04:10:12 04/12/00
          • Re: Now it's clear that Ritter Rost's post is not a fake Tom Kerrigan 10:05:39 04/12/00
            • Now it's clear that this horse has been beaten to death. KarinsDad 11:57:16 04/12/00

This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.