Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 10:28:40 04/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 12, 2000 at 12:41:18, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On April 12, 2000 at 10:40:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>So you "handle" 100 e-mails per day. What does this matter? Does that somehow >>>make writing a short e-mail really hard? >>It means (a) I am busy and (b) you had already read the thing and responded, >>so it was obvious you had seen it. I couldn't imagine _anybody_ not knowing >>that posting private email is wrong. > >Okay, maybe you ARE busy. I don't know how fast you type, but personally, I >could get the point across in about a minute. It's not that complicated. But if >you don't have a minute to spare in your entire day, fine. (Although I find this >hard to believe, because you seem to have more than enough time to argue with >me. Or is arguing with me a really high priority for you?) > >As for part B, this still makes no sense. Just because I read and respond to a >post doesn't mean it was the correct response. In fact, you supposedly knew it >was the INcorrect response. So regardless of your disbelief at how stupid I am, >you still knew it was the incorrect response, and you did jack s*** about it. > >>>So I read and responded to it. But you say you knew I was making a mistake. >>>What's to keep you from e-mailing the moderators and saying, "hey, you're making >>>a mistake." The mistake could easily have been corrected with your input, but >>>you obviously elected to complain about bad decisions instead. >>Didn't someone post a response to you that said just that? Again, I don't >>'duplicate' if I can help it, as it wastes time. > >No. Only Bruce responded, and he basically urged me not to delete the thread. > >(I guess Bruce didn't know that posting private e-mail is wrong either, huh? Too >bad you didn't help us all out.) > >-Tom I didn't think that the content of the original post was abusive, and I don't like the idea that something will be judged as untrue and deleted on that basis. I would have been confused about what to do about the email because it isn't clear if the email was a private email published without permission, an open letter, or a private email published with permission of the author. But Bob suggested deleting it, then figuring out what it was, and inviting him to repost it if he had authority to do so. In hindsight that seems like a very good idea. I expressed an opinion about some stuff, but this is your six months, and as far as I'm concerned you can do whatever you want as long as you don't turn the place into an off-topic orgy, a free-fire random violence zone, or a Soviet gulag. So far, you seem to be well away from these extremes, and people seem to be pretty happy, so no complaints from me. You and Bob hate each other, and that's the root of this argument, and it's not a very good root for any argument. If you would discuss the underlying stuff off-line, rather than fighting these Vietnam/Angola/Afghanistan style proxy wars over moderation decisions and arcane hardware issues, maybe that would help. bruce
This page took 0 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.