Author: Daniel Kang
Date: 11:35:34 11/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 2000 at 12:10:16, Ratko V Tomic wrote: >> Whether the simile had a factual basis is irrelevant to that: >> 1) it is off-topic > >That implies we need to ban use of any metaphors at all, since metaphors >by their nature compare things from different realms. For example, should we >require these kind of metaphors be only of the sort "CM 8000 beats CT2 like >Hiarcs 7.32 Sargon 3", so that both halves of the metaphor are always "on >topic," the computer chess? Comparisons from different realms are not necessarily off-topic, but if I remember correctly, you were the one who pointed out that this particular use of simile was a social commentary. There's a difference in point of emphasis here. If you think "like a red-headed stepchild" adds anything concrete to the description of CM8000 beating GT, then feel free to point out. Unless you believe winning at chess is analogous to beating a child, a view that is about as offensive as saying all Russians should be beaten to death, this comparison makes no sense. In fact it's fairly clear that being compared to a "red-headed stepchild" was an insult to GT. >>2) it involves a topic of sensitive nature. > >The "sensitive nature" is in the eyes of the beholder. Having lived once in a >communist country, these kinds of calls for censorship are "topic of sensitive >nature" for me. So whose "sensitivities" are we going to count and how much per >"sensitivity" in case various "sensitivities" conflict? Maybe your "sensitivity" >ought to be given the final say -- would that "solution" be agreeable with you? But calls for censorship are not off-topic, are they? You do understand that the charter of this forum explicitly allows for moderation, don't you? Your view of censorship is certain not a matter of concern. >>They are censored because they stir lengthy, emotional, off-topic discussions >>that are contrary to the spirit of this message board >The rules of the forum moderation, especially while being aggressively applied, >are certainly a relevant topic. It was precisely the politically colored >moderation and the rationales offered for it which caused this whole commotion. There was no moderation done. Most of what you're saying in this thread has nothing to do with the rules of the forum and everything to do with your belief system. In fact I don't think there would be anything at all to moderate, if we were to follow your views. Then we're back the rgcc mayhem of years before. There's absolutely no reason for this forum's existence, imo, if it wasn't for the need for moderation. Dan.
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.