Author: Peter Davison
Date: 09:31:13 10/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2000 at 20:35:33, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >On October 07, 2000 at 07:20:03, Andrew Williams wrote: > >>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 > >Hello Andrew, > >I have already posted on the same subject some weeks ago and asked "Peter >Davison" to try to be constructive or else... Now, I believe that the time of >the "else" has arrived... I find the implication of a moderator statement such as the aove one to be horrific. Particularly so when I understand the moderator in question to be a Professor of Linguistics. Someone who education presumably included reading Kafka. Professor Vidanovic, I understand that you find me personally, or my posts, to be distasteful. That is your privilege. I understand that you dislike my defending of Sarah Bird's position, which was that she was insulted by Dr Hyatt. I understand that you dislike it, for whatever reason, but I also understand that no charter was in any way broken my me. I understand also that you _know_ that no charter was broken. Why do you now threaten me with "or else", which I take to be some kind of ban, not for what I post, but for what I do NOT post? A truly Kafkaesque position. One can get a rather good idea about his (not) having >something to offer by perusing the Oxford Software forum (I keep forgetting the >name of the place) where there were only two or three posters I believe. Your assertion, and the assertion by ex-moderator Williams to this effect are gratuitous insults to which I do not intend to respond. Had >P.T. had anything to offer, that forum would have flourished, right? > >*** Djordje
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.