Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: When not to delete a post

Author: SEAN EVANS

Date: 14:43:03 07/09/98

Go up one level in this thread


On July 08, 1998 at 18:03:50, SEAN EVANS wrote:

>The Asshole writes:

This is a reference to *me* it is an inside joke between Bruce Moreland and I,
that's it!  Mr. Ban called it "Sophisticated" (I blushed).

The balance of the post is "On Topic" and a friendly gesture to Bruce to help
him recall the thread he was thinking of!

No negative vibes or attacks in this post!

It appears Mr. Daley is having a problem defining what needs to be censored.
The following is a quote from a Judge attempting to define Pornography;

"I shall not today attempt to define the kinds of material to be embraced within
that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly
doing so.  But I know it when I see it."

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart,(Jocabellis v. State of Ohio)

I state again,

Your Friend In Computer Chess,

The Apostle Sean



>This is one of the emails in the thread you are referring to, what happened is
>Moritz Berger felt that Vincent Diepeveen was attacking his "Best Buddy"
>Schroeder in another thread about Rebel's Killer Books and he did not like that!
>
>No I do not think Mr. Diepeveen's post should have been destroyed by the
>Censors!
>
>In fact several Club Members and I concurred with the above statement and stated
>this in the Thread.
>
>Your friend in Computer Chess,
>
>The Apostle Sean
>
>
>
>
>Subject: Re: MODERATION, please
>From: Bruce Moreland
>E-mail: brucemo@seanet.com
>Message Number: 20763
>Date: June 17, 1998 at 02:21:01
>  In Reply to: Re: MODERATION, please
>  Message ID: 20742
>  Posted by: Vincent Diepeveen
>  At: diep@xs4all.nl
>  On: June 16, 1998 at 16:57:19
>
>
>On June 16, 1998 at 16:57:19, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>I'm not attacking Rebel for making the killerbook, i'm not even attacking
>>rebel. It's clear that it won from Diep this match. I just want YOU the audience
>>to know that book cooking is happening, and that the rebel book was again
>>a reaction on the killing cg5 book (cg5 book kills especially rebel8 book).
>
>I think I would like to understand where you are going with all of this,
>Vincent.  I'm confused because whenever I see threads like this my brain swells
>up and I can't understand or remember anything.
>
>You think Rebel is tuned against various things?
>
>You think Fritz is tuned against various things?
>
>It seems obvious that some programs are tuned against some other programs, for
>instance MChess has had a special book for a really long time, so it's not
>unprecedented for things to be tuned against other things.
>
>Do you think someone has acted improperly here, and if so, how can we discuss it
>in such a way that it doesn't degrade into a huge shrieking match?
>
>Is this just a new round of the old killer book discussion or is there more to
>this?
>
>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.