Author: Hermano Ecuadoriano
Date: 10:09:23 03/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 28, 2001 at 10:25:57, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >On March 28, 2001 at 08:29:40, Hermano Ecuadoriano wrote: > >>I'm posting this here because it is relevant to the election. >>I'm posting it now because this is the time for preemptive complaints. >>I permit myself to post it here because the person who started the >>thread properly included the word [Moderation]. >> >>The issue being whether or not political ranting should be permitted, >>on March 23, 2001 at 14:43:02, one of the moderator candidates wrote, >>in another thread: >> >>snip >>>I see nothing offensive in it. >>>It may be against your own ideas, (and mine, for that matter), but it is not >>>offensive in a general sense. It is rather biased, but everyone should be >>>entitled to his/her own opinion. >>snip >> >>I think the above demonstrates a lack of understanding, and that the >>failure of the principle that it implies, in practice, can be observed >>in other discussion groups. >> >>Being "entitled" to hold an opinion does not equal being "entitled" to post >>it here. Thus, to begin with, the reply begs the question. >> >>I asked him (in effect) whether or not it is his opinion that we have >>an "entitlement" to rant about politics, religion, sexuality, race, etc., >>[begin italics] in this discussion group [end italics]. >>Since he is a moderator candidate, I think he should answer. >>The answer must be no of course. The reasons are objective in that the >>consequences can be observed in other discussion groups. And THAT is why >>the post in question should have been deleted. >> >>I'm not just picking on him: this seems very obvious to me, and it is >>terrifying that so many intelligent and thoughtful people can't >>understand it, as though they had never thought about it. > > >Hullo, > >I think that the answer was quite well-embedded in your question. Thorsten's >post was at least marginally related to computer chess, therefore it should have >been allowed, as it was. Had he been ranting about other topics you listed >above, I would have deleted it without any compunction. (He does rant >occasionally and usually manages with only a yellow card, so to speak...) > >Therefore, me dear Ecuadorian bro', I see no petitio principii in my post that >you apperently picked out for a nugget of intellectual exercise. However, I >must applaud the manner in which you executed it -- reminds me of a colleague of >mine whose style I appreciate. > >Might you be one of the Oxonians that I was privileged to get to know through a >mutual friend, playing backgammon in Amsterdam, in a shady Dunantstraat >houselet, for small stakes (a Heineken or two per game)? > >*** Djordje Now I count myself among the unfortunate, because no, I am not the one you remember kindly. I admit that moderation will always involve a big component of judgement. But I wish the reasoning given were in terms of a rule or principle, and not the [begin italics] mere [end italics] offense taken by a moderator or by another member. There are very good reasons to strive for this ideal, and sometimes I highlight the subject just to probe whether or not the whole world has forgotten or changed its mind. Best Wishes.
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.