Author: Peter Berger
Date: 15:21:33 11/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 26, 2000 at 17:58:04, Chessfun wrote: >On November 26, 2000 at 17:44:39, Peter Berger wrote: > >>On November 26, 2000 at 17:14:34, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On November 26, 2000 at 16:56:25, Severi Salminen wrote: >>> >>>>On November 26, 2000 at 16:34:07, Chessfun wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 26, 2000 at 14:09:20, Peter Kappler wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 26, 2000 at 13:34:17, Chessfun wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On November 26, 2000 at 12:55:41, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On November 26, 2000 at 04:24:46, Severi Salminen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Not to offed, but you could have posted your three messages of same topic into >>>>>>>>>>>same thread, not as three separate threads. These are not _that_ important >>>>>>>>>>>announcements... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Severi >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Is every message posted an important announcement?. >>>>>>>>>>Who makes the determination....you? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I don't get your point. Daniel posted 3 times something about his internet >>>>>>>>>problems. I think he should have posted them to the same thread. It would have >>>>>>>>>been easier to follow the progress of his problems. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>He can post as many new threads as he sees fit some here >>>>>>>>>>have expressed interest in watching his games and how he >>>>>>>>>>decides to post is his choice. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Well, just to inform you also, we have this thread system because we could >>>>>>>>>follow certain topics easier. It has nothing to do with interest to his matches. >>>>>>>>>It is the same if everybody wants to read them or nobody, it is just a matter of >>>>>>>>>makeing things clearer. Maybe this place needs some basic rules as many still >>>>>>>>>don't know simple basics of posting to a forum or NG... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Severi >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You are right that he should have posted this to one thread, but you aren't >>>>>>>>going to get a lot of support for the idea of "rules". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Shoulda/woulda/coulda. There are no rules that state he should post >>>>>>>to one thread. There are people who come here and post and have fun >>>>>>>doing it. Daniel I think is one of them, to expect that he should follow >>>>>>>more rules that don't even exist, after the recent blow-up over his headers >>>>>>>is unfair. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Sarah. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't think it's "unfair" to explain basic newsgroup etiquette to a poster, >>>>>>especially when it's done politely, as Severi did. >>>>>> >>>>>>Maybe there is some history here that I don't understand, but I think it's >>>>>>strange that you would take issue with such a simple request. >>>>>> >>>>>>--Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Had he left it after the first sentence I would have had no problem with it. >>>>> >>>>>Sarah. >>>> >>>>Had I left what? You didn't even answer to my 2 replies after your complaint >>>>about my advice to Daniel. And what is your problem with my advice? Please read >>>>my two replies - I don't want to repeat. With the netiquette I am talking in >>>>those messages this conversation would not be necessery... >>>> >>>>Severi >>> >>> >>> >>>Your advice sounded to much like a dictate. >>> >>>"as three separate threads. These are not _that_ important announcements.." >>> >>>You could have left it simply after threads, without your statement on >>>what is important. >>> >>>And this conversation wouldn't have been required had you limited your >>>comments to reasonable ones instead of acting like you are the allmighty. >>>Who are you to tell him that these are not _that_ important. >>> >>>Sarah. >> >>Sorry Sarah , I can't resist . >> >>So you think that Daniel losing connection to Internet as the cable of his >>telephone wasn't at the right place is _that_ an important message of public >>interest that it should be followed in multiple threads :-) ? > > >I don't think I said that. What I think don't matter, what matters IMO >is what Daniel thinks. It must be remembered that not all posters are >adults and should follow rules. We in society have different rules for >minors why shouldn't that also apply here. > > >>Netiquette and common sense are similar things IMHO ; and being critized isn't >>_that_ bad ( was my first experience in usenet , I learnt to adapt , at least a >>little , it didn't do permanent harm to me .. ) ; I agree with Severi that a >>little more of common usenet posting policy might sometimes help CCC a lot . > > >Yes, but you were not considered by society I assume as a minor. >Therefore society assumes you will not be damaged, it don't assume >the same with minors. > >Sarah. I understand your concern now . When I was twelve I started visiting my local chessclub at Friday nights every weekend and I was happy to be accepted by the adult members . As a kid I also didn't know about several unwritten adult-rules I weren't aware of ; adult club members were more tolerant with me than they would have been with other adults but at least they told me what was the expected behaviour ( like : " It is not appreciated if you comment on every opponent's move :-) !" ) . I still remember very well that I was eager to learn about these rules ,too , not only about he ones on the chessboard but also about the ones of club "society" . I would have been seriously offended if I had realized that people treated me like a little child by not telling me where they thought my behaviour could have been better . OK ; but now that is _really_ off-topic now :-) Greetings, pete PS : Not that I see any pattern that following usenet netiquette correlates with age at all ;-)
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.