Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:25:34 02/13/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2006 at 06:58:25, Roger Brown 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 > > > > >> >>"Talk about leading people by the nose...." >>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?485889 >> >>Verb 1. lead by the nose - conceal one's true motives from especially by >>elaborately feigning good intentions so as to gain an end; "He bamboozled his >>professors into thinking that he knew the subject well" >> >>bamboozle, play false, pull the wool over someone's eyes, snow, hoodwink >>deceive, lead astray, betray - cause someone to believe an untruth; "The >>insurance company deceived me when they told me they were covering my house" >>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lead+by+the+nose >> >>Since this isn't a description of Rybka's play, it is a statement of the >>author's intentions and therefore of character. Reads like a personal attack to >>me. >> >> Albert > > > > > > >Hello Albert, > >I qouted the relevant section up top. > >I assume that your post is referring to other matters. > >So if I understand you, were I to insult someone somewhere else, even when I did >not specifically insult them *here* then that would be the index against which >my current action would be judged? > >Is that a reasonable approach outside of a court of law? > >Heaven forbid that all my posts should be used asgainst me.... > >Stuart mentioned that Vas had been treated badly in Peter's post quoted above. > >I cannot see it. The reference to other post confuses the issue in my opinion. > >Later. It is clear that vas had been treated badly. Even if his post is against the charter the right action is simply to delete it and not to generate a thread about it that is only to insult vasik. Note that the charter is not clear and there are people who disagree that it is against the charter. If the target is to explain the intention of 4 in the charter then it is possible to delete the thread and post something that explain it without mentioning rybka and only explaining type of posts that are deleted by the moderation. Uri
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.