Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 08:52:33 11/16/97
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 1997 at 05:54:11, Keith Ian Price wrote: >In my response to Fernando's question about Rolf's "execution", I stated >that Rolf had copied Ed's posts here to rgcc in order to continue >ranting about Ed apologizing. Rolf, in rgcc, posted that this was not >true, and since Ed's post about Aegon, which was quoted in Rolf's post, >still has not shown up on my news server, I was about to post this reply >as evidence that he did copy Ed's post to rgcc. Before I did, I checked >Deja News and found that Ed had posted the exact same post on rgcc, that >he did here. Therefore, I want to correct my statement that he copied >Ed's posts to rgcc. My incorrect assumption was based on the fact that >Ed had said he would no longer post to rgcc, and my news server's >incomplete listing of posts. > >This brings me to the question: What is the material that Rolf is >supposed to have copied to rgcc? I had assumed it was this post, but now >I do not know. When I originally saw the notice that Rolf's access had >been rescinded, I was going to protest that his expulsion was unfair, >since, although he continued his usual style in rgcc, he had been very >careful to avoid any such posting in CCC. Even the posts relating to >CSTal's miss of the draw here did not contain the insinuations he added >in rgcc, and therefore were not inflammatory. In other words, IMO, Rolf >had been very careful to follow the rules laid down in the access >agreement here. But when I saw the reason given that he had copied CCC >posts to rgcc, and I also thought he had, I didn't protest as strongly >as I would have otherwise. So, I would like to know what he copied from >here to rgcc. > >Now the request: If he didn't copy any posts from here to rgcc, He's been copying zillions of posts. He certainly used information that was ONLY on CCC, concerning the CSTal-Virtual game in paris, to launch suggestions on rgcc that Thorsten had thrown the game and cheated for money. These suggestions are now expanded by Herr T to include cheating for sexual favours. BTW I know it was only on CCC, because the only reports from Paris were coming from Thorsten's phone, and were being written onto this newsgroup only, written either by myself or by Ingo. > I would >request that his access be re-instated for as long as he is willing to >follow the rules. You're serious ? Just which set of rules is he going to follow ? Is there a set of rules on earth he would follow ? And you would expect him to be believed and trusted ? You've been reading rgcc recently ? Once it was a news group, and now ? And due to whom ? I think there is precisely zero chance of Herr Tueschen getting his rights to read and/or write to CCC back, unless and until he learns how to behave like a member of the human race, and for a sustained period, and demonstrates it. >The rules did not state that one could lose access for >insults posted in rgcc, and while I admit that it may be hard to ignore >his posts there for some of the founders here, I think that it is unwise >to expel him if he has followed the rules. We could, I suppose, have spent 10 years trying to create a set of rules to cover all eventualities and possible manic behaviours. But we didn't. We created a small rule set, and relied on the democratic intelligence of the founding group of ccc to deal with instances of Tueschenesque insanity. What you imply with your question is that we could have written a computer program. This program would have as its data all possible Tueschenesque insanities. We then publish this program and its data. Every time a Tueschenism takes place we feed it to the program. The program than delivers its verdict. But life isn't like this, is it ? Its more complex. And Tueschen's objective, anyway, was to skirt on the edge of the ccc declared rule system, while running riot on rgcc. He wanted to get himself thrown off for some 'marginal' activity. We had a long debate about what we would do, if anything. There was disagreement, based on rule sets / infringement or otherwise, whether Tueschen was in any way likely to ever behave in a human manner, issues of personal freedom and so on. The decision, and it was an opposed decision, although reached by a substantial majority of the founding group was that Tueschen had rendered himself beyond all reasonable human behaviour levels, that he was not going to change, and that he was going to continue. The decision was that we, the founding group,were no longer prepared to tolerate him reading or writing to ccc for a moment longer. As time passes, and as I occasionally skim-read the zero-content disaster zone known as rgcc (made a disaster zone by herr T), I become increasingly convinced that the decision was the correct one. Chris Whittington > >Sorry, if this is off-topic, but it's not far off. > >kp
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.