Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 12:50:33 11/09/97
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 1997 at 14:35:02, Ernst A. Heinz wrote: >On November 08, 1997 at 16:30:50, Chris Whittington wrote: > >> >>On November 08, 1997 at 14:14:23, Ernst A. Heinz wrote: >> >>>On November 08, 1997 at 03:13:57, Chris Whittington wrote: >>> >>>>Well, as long as you guys want to carry a load of ad hominem baggage >>>>around you'll be unable to debate this topic. Carry on with the old >>>>regime and its dinosaur ways, then. Have no modem next year. Keep the >>>>amateur / professional distinction. Drive away some programmers over >>>>$1000. Fine. >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>Some of us can. $10,000 worth of professors can't. But you can't debate >>>>this issue, apparently. >>> >>>Chris, >>> >>>I think you are the only one who apparently seems to be unable to >>>discuss >>>these matters honestly and without pouring unfounded accusations or >>>flaming >>>sarcasm all over the place. >> >>Since I'm the only one 'discussing' them; and the only counter points >>are personal ad hominems - your use of the words "honest .... " etc. are >>without foundation. >> >>Point your comments in better directions, or 180 degrees round. >> >>Look there was no modem communications, right ? This was a bloody >>shambles as we say here. >> >>Also at issue is the expense vis a vis the $1000 entrance fee. >> >>If you'ld like me to list the accidents, I'll do so. I say accident >>proneness means bad organisation and that general renewal is required. >> >>But please carry on your diversionary tactics for a while longer .... >> >>Or maybe you want to carry on with sloppily organised tournaments where >>loads of stuff goes wrong, various things get fixed at the last minute, >>various things don't get fixed at all and Marie Antionette-ish let them >>eat cake, sorry canapes, seems to rule ... >> >>Chris Whittington >> >>> >>>=Ernst= > >Chris, > >you are not *discussing* anything -- you rather state your preordained >opinion >about certain matters in a very aggressive and flamingly sarcastic way >without >offering *objective* evidence. This seems to be your typical style which >makes >it quite hard for many people to communicate with you -- myself >included. Reams more ad hominem. You can debate it if you (a) want and (b) try. > >As long as the objective evidence about the "wrongdoings" of the ICCA is >missing, you are not "discussing" but simply "flaming around" in my >opinion. >I just cannot take arguments without a thorough foundation seriously. > >I completely agree with you that all of us should worry about expense >control. >But before I convict someone guilty Who should be guitly ? You read more than there is. I actually think its an issue of out-of-touchness, loosely paraphrased as dinosaur-ish or Marie Antoinette-ish 'let them eat canapes'. Officers got too far away from the action. This isn't guilt, is it ? > I want to see according evidence -- >detailed and objective. Your blur about knowing how much this and that >costs >is just blur unless you can prove that it really applies in this case. I can't find out the exact figures. you know that. I can add up likely amounts. back of envelope; but even that seems not on for you. Would $5000 be too much to be unable to do the modem ? Or $7000, or $???? how much ? > >As for the missing Internet connection, I already conceded this to be a >serious organizational flaw. But I still do not know who can really be >made >responsible for it. Do you know it for sure or -- as usual -- only by >heresay >or your own speculative guesses? When you applied to go, and got accepted; when I applied to go, got accepted and paid my $1000; my (and your) contract was with the icca. The icca may then sub stuff out to local organisers, but the icca are the guys who are ultimately responsible to the competitors to get it right. If one of their sub-contractors screws up, then they (the icca) need to fix it, especially since they had 7 days to fix it in. They can't say "nothing to do with us guv, it was those sub-contractors fault". Imagine you but a program, the CD's don;t work, manufacture fault, Microsoft, or whoever, say "not our fault guv, it was them packers", go and talk to the packers about it .... ? No, your deal is with Microsoft, they are in overall responsibility. Now if the modem was out Saturday, Sunday, but the profs went out on Monday and dealt with it, fair enough. But this wasn't what happened, was it ? So where's the speculation ? Where's the guesses ? This was a management failure that wasn't fixed, that could have been fixed, that was important to have been fixed. Chris Whittington > >=Ernst=
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.