Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 04:20:03 10/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2000 at 12:48:02, Peter Davison wrote: >On October 06, 2000 at 11:32:44, Paulo Soares wrote: > >>On October 06, 2000 at 07:47:14, Peter Davison wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>In the extensive thread: "Once again Dr. Hyatt is right on--He is a >>>dispassionate observer", Bob Hyatt is asked: >>> >>>> >>>>Then why bother replying since you make it clear you are not interested >>>>in anything other than _insults_ when anyone questions anything. >>>> >>>>Sarah. >>> >>>Bob Hyatt replies in the relevent thread: >>> >>>"Again, back up to the beginning. I didn't insult _anybody_." >>> >>>"This shows your ignorance." >>> >>>"Please don't make statements where you know exactly _nothing_ about the topic >>>you are talking about." >>> >>>"Consider your psychic abilities on a par with the rest of your comments. IE >>>worthless." >>> >>>"thanks for sharing nothing new..." >>> >>>"Then do you get a kick out of posting "ho hum" non-news?" >>> >>> >>> >>>In Bob's Forum, can Bob do whatever he wants? >> >>You seem to be a guerrilla fighter in CCC. When the opportunity appears you >>appear and tries to explode bombs in strategic places. The tactics of doing >>guerrilla already proved to be inefficient over the world. >>An advice: you will reach your objectives in a much more efficient way if you >>come back to CCC with your true name and to answer to the posts in the rigth >>moment. On this way your bombs won't hurt people that nothing has to do with >>your fight, and you will be doing what likes, changing ideas about computer >>chess in the best forum in the world about the subject. > >Interesting points you raise. I am aware that I'm capable of making 'changing >ideas' posts on computer chess, but haven't done so for some time. I could >argue, arrogantly, that computer chess is still catching up on my 'changing >ideas' posts from two or three years ago, but still hasn't got there yet. > >You are right when you say this could be a very good forum. But, at the moment, >and for some time, it has suffered from structural and personality problems >which prevent it from so being. At this poing a great cry goes up from the >residents who claim it is just fine, but they forget those who left, who raise >now no voice. They also forget the people who could be posting at a much higher >level, but who don't and just stick to the easy stuff. > >This board really does not work in the way it was designed to do, could do, or >even as well as rgcc in 1995-97. It really is a pale imitation of what it could >be. > >Surpisingly enough, I do have motivation and ideas for improving the forum. > I don't think you have any useful ideas at all. A few months ago you came back using your real name, then after a few days you posted your username and password, saying that the standard of debate wasn't high enough for you, or some such nonsense. I don't understand how one minute you can decide you don't want to participate (as suggested by posting username and password) and the next minute you want us to listen to your "ideas for improving the forum" because *you* suddenly feel motivated to "help" us. I don't think you have anything to offer. I believe that you don't like CCC because it functions perfectly well without your input. Andrew
This page took 0.02 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.