Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 16:23:20 04/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 05, 1998 at 18:25:00, Ed Schröder wrote: >>Posted by Fernando Villegas on April 05, 1998 at 16:33:30: > >>Hi Ed: >>Your post, as always, is a jewell of well pondered thought an >>equilibrium, but creates some new problems. You mentioned it: where is >>the threshold? I have read enterely the thread about the issue of the >>german magazines accused of being a liar and all the rest and althought >>there are here and there some expresions that can be dimed as maybe >>somewhat strong, there is nothing so extraordinarely harsh as to do an >>issue about it. In the dilemma between suffering flames and a cluster of >>rules stablishing directly or not how many times you can be harsh, I >>prefer the first thing. I don't care if anybody insult me. I can launch >>my own broadside. I am adult enough and I have a very hardened skin. I >>don't need to be protected by anybody and nobody needs it. Problem with >>rules is that at last they are enforced and the result is or nothing or >>an increasing lose of interesting people. First it was that german guy, >>rolf I believe, that was insultant, yes, but interesting to read in some >>of the topics he wrote about. And then was Chris W, one of the most >>witty guys that has written here. What's next? Maybe me because my bad >>joke about my suicide? There are already people talking of that. >>Ed, we can hold it. We can forgive or understand. All of us know that in >>the excitment of writting you write many times things you really don't >>think. And even if somebody is willing to persist in his attacks for >>many weeks, so what? Nobody is coerced to read nothing. But >>rules...,well, 1984 is not far ahead. >>Fernando > >CCC = RGCC - personal attacks. > >You can not set rules for this. It should be self-understood. > >It's the job of the FG to watch over this as we don't want a second >RGCC. That's all. That's our only goal. > >As for you suicide joke, I don't think many people had a good laugh >about it. But moderation? Come on... > >- Ed - Ed: There is -seems to me- a contradiction between recognizing there are not rules and then to say that the rol of FG is to watch over this. But if there are not rules, watching is done thorought what? Casuistic rules, the feeling of the moment? Of course to ask moderation is OK, but then I cannot see what else can be done without rules, or what can be done of good with rules. I suppose this is a matter of fact, FG exist, etc, but let me tell you I have perceived here and there -not from you- some hints of autocratic attitude, an slight smell of "if you do that once more, you will see what happens with your registration". What I want to say, Ed, is that we must be more moderate in asking moderation with the sword of FG in or out the sheath. Respect to my joke, nobody would know if translation was not done. It was kind of private joke for Enrique, unfortunately uncovered by a pious man. Anyway, I am sorry. Fernando
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.