Author: Peter Davison
Date: 07:43:16 09/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 08, 2000 at 09:21:07, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On September 08, 2000 at 08:08:24, Peter Davison wrote: > >>Who is "we"? > >Maybe all those who are not you? > >Mogens. Yes. Exactly so. And what can I deduce from your piece of absolute honesty? That "we", "you", "me", "who" is far more important here than any idea. In a forum, ideas are what count. Ideas are tossed around. The unwritten rules are that an idea is not responsible for the people that believe in it, an idea is not owned, an idea does not connect to the ego of its originator, the mouthpiece for an idea doesn't feel personally bad if the idea is somehow disproven. A club, on the other hand, is a place for relationships. Members enter clubs, make friends, find someone to send them emails, get less lonely, supposedly cooperate, although here the usual procedure is to provoke random personal zero-sum games as you yourself have shown recently with Villegas and Silver, presumably through boredom? Originally, this place was set up to be an ideas forum. An ideas forum attracts intellectuals, people with ideas. The "who" of it was supposedly irrelevant, one of the favourite expressions was "ad hominem". Now the "who" is supremely important. Ad hominem rules. Does it not? And the few guys with ideas and the courage to propound them? Gone. Every one. Apart from observing the sillyness, and there is a limit from what one can learn from watching soap opera repeats, there is nothing of interest here. The limited computer chess stuff could be on a FAQ. The kindergarden programmer group might as well be on an email list, or else refer to the non-existent FAQ or published sources. Is there any other benefit that couldn't be served by a chat room for the sad and lonely? So long.
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.