Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 14:45:47 04/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 11, 2001 at 15:21:07, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >On April 11, 2001 at 14:59:56, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On April 11, 2001 at 12:36:34, Paul Doire wrote: >> >>> >>>One thing is for certain in this forum, if you take the time to run your >>>own tourneys or tests, and then take the time to post your results here at this >>>forum for everyones benefit, it is certain that someone will ridicule your >>>efforts, and many times many more than one person. >> >>Are you sure that criticism == ridicule? I think you are mistaken. >> >>>This is a public forum and is not RUN by a certain few who think their opinion >>>is actual fact. I know as someone who has posted here a number of times in the >>>last year (that is the length of my experience with this forum)that this can be >>>an extraordinarily unfriendly place, and a definite deterrent to any new >>>posters. >> >>That much is certainly true, but this forum is far friendlier than most internet >>forums -- for example news:rec.games.chess.computer springs to mind. >> >>>I read this everyday and I can't believe the rude, arrogant answers >>>and comments which unfortunately are commonplace. I believe that is why you see >>>the same names time after time and very rarely see any new posts from new people >>>that last for any length of time. The goal here is apparently to railroad >>>everyone out of "Dodge". >> >>If someone disagrees, that is as much a part of discussion as being able to >>propose a controversial opinion. Do you assume that because someone disagrees >>that they want you to leave? If someone runs away from that, then they are the >>lowest form of coward. >> >>>This is the sad part of computer chess, although it is one of my hobbies, it >>>sickens me to see the fragile egos of so many speaking so loudly that newcomers >>>will surely find a friendlier place to discuss computer chess. >> >>Friendlier? How friendly a forum is -- is purely a function of its members. If >>one thousand people simultaneously shout someone down for being rude, then >>chances are good that person will stop being rude. Of couse, the rude person >>may have been the only one in the cluster who was right, so the silence may have >>come at great cost. In addition, there are formal guidelines to control our >>behavior within acceptable limits. >> >>To sterilize the forum in such a way that nobody is allowed to say anything >>negative is such a bad idea that if it ever happened, it would be a tragedy. >> >>On the other, other hand -- you do have a good point. We can be contrary and >>still be civil about it. On the other, other, other hand -- we should not >>become offended at every contrary remark. A wise man once said, "The taking of >>offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid one." >> >>>I am glad that my interest is the same as those that frequent this place,but I >>>am equally glad that my personality is not the same as the ruthless, arrogant >>>bastards that blow everyone off this board. >> >>This (the above) is the epitomy of rutheless arrogance. In fact, it is one of >>the most ruthless and arrogant statements I have ever read on this board. On >>the other hand, I don't think it is so horrible that it ought to be censored, >>even though you have accused some large fraction of the readership in the most >>negative way. >> >>>This forum will always be the "Little Club" it is for there is no foresight >>>about how to grow this into something as large and wonderful as this could be. >> >>If you know how to make a better one, I suggest that you do it. If you know how >>to improve this one, then please offer the suggestions. >> >>>I have a new word for those who like to blast all off the board, >>>it is.......FRIENDLY. >> >>Friendly is a good idea. >> >>>You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Learn a lesson. >> >>The acutal quotation from Poor Richard's Almanac is: "You can catch more flies >>with a teaspoon of sugar than with a gallon of vinegar." >> >>Now, does this mean that people should never disagree with you? Does this mean >>that you should become offended because someone has a contrary opinion? >> >>Posting to USENET (anywhere on USENET) means that you should grow a 2 inch thick >>skin. >> >>IMO-YMMV > >To disagree and being rude is two different things and i read paul's post as >being about the rudeness that seems to prevail here at times and not the fact >that, when you voice your opinions people will either agree or disagree, but >when you disagree then do it in a polite way and dont be rude. I found paul's >post to very relevant and i did not take offence to any of his points. > >"I am glad that my interest is the same as those that frequent this place,but I >am equally glad that my personality is not the same as the ruthless, arrogant >bastards that blow everyone off this board."(paul) > >>"This (the above) is the epitomy of rutheless arrogance. In fact, it is one of >>the most ruthless and arrogant statements I have ever read on this board. On >>the other hand, I don't think it is so horrible that it ought to be censored, >>even though you have accused some large fraction of the readership in the most >>negative way."(dan) > >If you read the last part in paul's statement, it is only directed to people >here, few or many i don't know, who only voice their opinion in a negative way >and i see nothing arrogant or ruthless in pointing that out, it seems like >someone has to make it a point since some people here cannot see that for >themselves. > >Regards >Jonas This forum solves these kind of problems, not by telling the one to shut up but by ignoring. I am also a person who shouts once in a while just to get the atention I think I deserve. Friendly greetings Marc
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.