Author: Jay Rinde
Date: 08:42:08 11/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
This whole thread is Bob Hyatt's fault! He must have known when he posted his Stop Now that the Hyatt baiters would come down on him. If Bob said that 2+2=4 he would start an argument. I find it difficult to understand this fire storm. It's quite obvious what Bob meant, and what he said. The first post I read Bob did say that such posts were off-topic. But since I didn't read all the posts I can believe that some did not repeat it. Anyway, the whole thing is getting stupid! You get a bunch of USA haters spewing their venom that has nothing to do with computer chess and then they decide to jump on their favorite punching bad. jAY On November 20, 2000 at 10:18:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 20, 2000 at 01:30:45, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On November 20, 2000 at 00:38:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>1. The email was sent before my post. >>> >>>2. The thread kept going. I posted my "stop it" post at the front of the >>>thread to attract attention, rather than to confuse things by posting it past >>>the point where the thread had branched. There were several immediate follow- >>>ups to Thorstens nonsensical first post. If I had added my "stop" to the end >>>of one of those, it would have (IMHO) been confusing... stop the sub-thread >>>or stop the whole thread. >>> >>>3. The chronology went like this: >>> >>> (a) email to stop >>> >>> (b) STOP NOW post that you are pointing at. >>> >>> (c) a couple of other STOP NOW posts a day or two later. >>> >>>Mentally (a) and (b) happened close enough together than I didn't stop to >>>think that no one had seen (a). When I posted the second STOP NOW post, >>>I did consider this and added the off-topic explanation. >>> >>>In _any_ case, I would think it would be intuitively obvious to the most >>>casual of observers as to what I meant. The post was off topic. If your >>>dog craps in my yard, with me watching, and I say "stop that". I think you >>>would figure out what I meant. I wouldn't have to say "stop that dog from >>>crapping in my front yard." The "crap" would be pretty obvious. >> >>We are not mind readers. If you want to say, "Stop posting that, it is >>off-topic", you should say, "Stop posting that, it is off-topic", and not "Stop >>posting that, you don't know what you are talking about." > > >I didn't really expect anyone to read my mind. The post was directed >toward Thorsten. With a subject line anybody could understand. I would >think it pretty obvious that it was off topic, without my having to say >that. > > > >> >>If you had understood what Jeroen posted in response, you would have realized >>that he was objecting to the reason you gave, not to the fact that you told >>Thorsten to stop. > > >It wasn't obvious to me. By the time he posted, my other post citing the >obvious reason was already in the thread, I believe.... > > > >> >>>Politics is also pretty obvious. If someone says "you stupid sumbitch, >>>can't you read?" I would simply say "warning: shut up now." I would not >>>feel it necessary to add "you can't curse like that here..." Somethings I >>>consider _obvious_. I expect most (Jeroen included) to figure out what I >>>was responding to, and _why_. It was not confusing, IMHO. Particularly >>>after there were already posts demanding that the thread be deleted. Not to >>>mention moderator and personal email demanding the same thing. >>> >>>I suppose that if I _must_ live in a world where everything is taken so >>>literally, with no thought being devoted to "what is going on here?" then >>>I can live with that, and spell things out like I used to do when my kids >>>were 3 years old. I had hoped that CCC was a bit beyond the 3-year-old >>>comprehension level. Or, as I _really_ suspect, some _want_ to misinterpret >>>something, in order to make a small wave here or there. >> >>Bob: Stop posting that, you don't know what you are talking about. >> >>Others: Bob, that post was off-topic, and shouldn't have been posted, but you >>shouldn't tell people not to post just because you think they don't know what >>they are talking about. > >That is a nonsensical interpretation by anyone that would take it that way. >The post was obviously (a) off topic; (b) a troll. I saw it immediately after >it was posted. I chose to ignore it in CCC and sent an email to Thorsten. >Apparently he can't access his email, but the old address is still valid, so >that the email won't bounce, which means I couldn't know he didn't get it. >As others followed up, some rather violently, some bringing up Hitler, etc, >I then decided to post a "STOP NOW". I don't see why I should have to state >the obvious. "carry an umbrella" is pretty obvious, without having to say >"carry an umbrella because it is going to rain today." > > > >> >>Bob: I don't know why you are bothered, it was an off-topic post. >> >>Others: You told him not to talk about it because he didn't know what he was >>talking about. You should have told him that it was off-topic. > >Good argument, if this were a room full of 5 year olds. Here is the first >test: "Does _anybody_ actually think the US election recount in Florida is >a valid subject for the Computer Chess Club?" For those that _do_, then my >note needed more explanation. For those that don't? I rest my case... > > > > >> >>Bob: I didn't tell him he didn't know what he was talking about. I told him it >>was off-topic. Don't *you* think it was off-topic? >> >>Others: No, you told him to stop because he didn't know what he was talking >>about, not because it was off-topic. >> >>Bob: Of course I told him it was off-topic. Can't you read? >> >>Others: Bob, here is what happened. [ summary of entire thread, post by post ] >> >>Bob: I also sent email. You might be right if I hadn't sent email. >> >>Others: What does email have to do with it? >> >>Bob: I'm talking to three year olds. Do I have to spell it out? >> >>And you think that *we* are the ones who have a communication problem? Bob, the >>above sounds like a ludicrous account of what actually happened, but it's not >>that ludicrous, it's just a not very charitable accounting of what actually >>happened. >> >>http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?139458 >> >>Just go back to that post, step forward, and skip through a few posts with no >>real content, and you get the above, more or less. >> >>>I'd be willing to bet on the following two things: >>> >>>(1) everybody reading or seeing the thread _knew_ it was off topic and was >>>going to draw moderator attention; >> >>Of course everyone knew it was off-topic. >> >>>(2) everybody reading my response knew _exactly_ what it meant. And why it >>>said "STOP NOW". >> >>I think people can be excused for becoming confused when you tell someone to >>stop because they don't know what they are talking about, if what you meant to >>say is that the post was off-topic. > > >I still disagree with that. That is exactly the _second_ time I have asked >that a thread stop. The first I gave more reasons for. It was related to >computer chess, but it was a bickering discussion between two people, which >should have been handled in private. This one was _obviously_ off-topic. I >don't mind "stating the obvious" the next time this comes up, I assumed that >the reason was already obvious. Just look at the first few follow-ups to that >post. > > > > >> >>There have been a few times when you have discussed politics, and I have a >>pretty good idea what yours are. And everyone knows that when a political >>discussion happens, you get pretty fired up. If you want an example, and it can >>serve as an example, rather than as the root of a fifty-post war, take the death >>penalty. >> > >Yes, but we don't have _that_ discussion here. > > > >>Everyone who responded in this thread knows your views on the death penalty, and >>knows how you argue them. >> >>Regarding the election thing, there are some people who want to say we are a >>bunch of dumb shits because of this election thing, and everyone knows that you >>don't agree with that. >> >>The concern that I saw expressed here was that you might be cutting the >>discussion because you didn't agree with someone's position. > >As I said earlier, if anyone _really_ believes that, I have a bridge I would >like to sell them, as I am tired of maintaining it. It was far enough off-topic >that had another moderator said "Shut the F up" I would have immediately >understood what he meant/implied. > > > >> >>I don't think you did that, but perhaps others can be forgiven for having >>concerns about this, since you all but said that's what you were doing, very >>clearly, and with little hope for alternate interpretation? > >I think there is more to this than meets the eye. This could be interpreted >two ways: (1) this is off topic and Bob told him to stop it; (2) this is >off topic and Bob told him to stop it because it was off topic and the poster >didn't know what he was talking about; (3) this is off topic but Bob told >him to stop it because the poster didn't know what he was talking about. > >I think (3) is a real stretch. because the off-topic content should be _obvious_ >to anybody. > > > > >> >>>Everything is just about the detail of "is the crap brown, or is it dark-brown?" >>>Doesn't matter to me... it all stinks the same. And everything Thorsten had to >>>say in this thread was one color of crap or another. >> >>That it was off-topic is undeniable. That it's crap is a matter of opinion. It >>may be possible to say that an educated and unprejudiced person must conclude >>that it's crap. But one would hope that simply spouting crap here is not a >>reason for deleting stuff, as long as it's on-topic crap. If it's off-topic, it >>doesn't matter if it's crap or not. > > >in the above metaphor, "crap" is "off topic" and nothing else. Not >contentless, stupid, insipid, or anything. Just off topic. It doesn't >matter whether it is off-topic politics, off-topic religion, etc. > > > >> >>This has some up in the past, regarding the MChess killer book controversy a >>couple of years ago. Vincent said something about this, and a moderator >>proposed that his post be deleted, since the moderator was of the opinion that >>what Vincent said provably false (in the moderator's opinion). Another >>moderator agreed with that, right in the board, and I screamed really loud. >> >>I don't know if the stuff was deleted, but I've tried to find it a couple of >>times, and I can't find it in the archives. >> >>bruce >> >> >>bruce
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.