Author: Dan Ellwein
Date: 07:40:11 10/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2000 at 09:23:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 13, 2000 at 05:39:07, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>On October 13, 2000 at 05:23:53, Thorsten Czub wrote: >> >>>Would you please enlighten me, concerning the reason why you relate >>>a topic of this forum to a jugoslavien dictator and fascist ? >> >>If you actually read his entanglement of moderator dictatorship and democracy it >>seems rather obvious. >> >>"He was to elected to to do it and as long _he_ is the moderator others should >>do, what he says. That implies my understanding of democraty..." >> >>That's not how it works. > > > >Oh but it is. We elected a disgrace for president of the US. We have had to >"live" with that decision until next month when elections are held here. >However, as I have said on more than one occasion, I'm pretty easy to get rid >of. Although I _really_ have a hard time understanding why this particular >thread exists... If asking someone to use _accurate_ subjects is a >transgression on someone's freedom of speech, somehow it sure eludes me exactly >how this is true. > >Some would say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." They ought to study the >law of entropy. Intelligent people discover that things _do_ need tweaking >from time to time. The US constitution has been amended more than once to >refine it. Legislatures pass _new_ laws each year to close loopholes or make >something written in the past clearer. I don't see how "please use a reasonable >subject line" turns this into a kindergarden or anything else. > > > > >> >>>I see no reason to do so, despite the fact that you want to provoke >>>or hurt people. >> >>No, it's purely for educational reasons. >> >>>It is off-topic and does not need to be talked or related in a >>>computerchess-forum. maybe you should better post this stuff >>>in your "Almighty Forum Dedicated to Everything", but not here. >> >>If you're unhappy about the message I posted then there's moderator e-mail. >>Don't forget to include Oliver's as well. >> >>Mogens. > > >I don't see this as a moderator issue. I see three possible things that can >be done here: > >1. we have a poll question, or a discussion, on whether we should be able to >use _any_ subject line we want, whether it is related to the content of the >post or not, whether it is misleading or not, etc. If most don't agree with >my position, I don't mind changing, although I would be surprised if most >disagree. > >2. elect someone else in three months. And if I am nominated again, don't vote >for me. that gets rid of the "Bob" problem completely. > >3. Ask me to resign. Since I didn't really want to be a moderator in the first >place, I would be willing to resign _now_ if enough believe it appropriate. > don't resign... over-all you are doin' a pretty good job... we all have our strengths and weaknesses (just like chess programs)... i think, we, as reasonable folks... can learn to get along with one another... we can all learn from the proverb that says, 'a soft answer turns away wrath...' pilgrimdan >In this case, I don't believe "tempest in a teapot" or "mountain out of a mole >hill" comes even _close_ to describing what has happened. I don't buy this >nonsense of "are you talking as a moderator or as a member." At present, I am >_both_. Or do I also have to handle "are you talking as a chess programmer or >as a computer chess lover?" "are you talking as a faculty member or as a >computer chess hobbiest?" > >I am talking as Bob, which is any (or all) of the above... plus other things >as well. I would hope it is obvious that there is no personal issue of any >kind. Just a simple request that would (IMHO) _definitely_ make this place a >"bit better".
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.