Author: Peter Skinner
Date: 15:10:02 02/12/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 12, 2006 at 18:04:48, M Hurd wrote: >On February 12, 2006 at 13:32:33, Peter Skinner wrote: > >>This is nothing more than a flagrant attempt in polling users about possible >>commercial payment possibilities for your program, and as such I am removing the >>thread. >> >>As per the charter: >> >>Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and >>post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response >>messages: >> >> 1. Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess >> 2. Are not abusive in nature >> 3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others >> 4. Are not flagrant commercial exhortations >> 5. Are not of questionable legal status. >> >>What about rule #4 do you not understand? >> >>Peter > > >Hello Peter > >Why did you not just simply have removed the entire thread including (Vasiks >original post) and sent him an e-mail explaining why, perhaps with a post here >as per your above but without the unnecessary sarcastic remark [What about rule >#4 do you not understand?] > >Although you might be fed up with the number of rybka posts here, an emotional >outburst coming from a moderator does not seem the most proffesional way to >conduct ones self. It sends the wrong message to the rest of the members. > >Regards > >Mike When I asked "What about rule #4 do you not understand?", I was asking a question. Possibly he didn't understand it.. maybe it is not clear enough. One would think with the thread below, it was clear as to my thoughts on the commercial advertising happening here.. then this thread pops up.. You are the one that believes I stated it sarcastically.. while I might have been pissed off, I was still asking a question that I have not received an answer on. Peter
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.