Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 20:25:29 07/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 31, 2001 at 23:02:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 31, 2001 at 13:03:31, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On July 31, 2001 at 10:48:47, Detlef Pordzik wrote: >> >>>Oh - you could have participated, Bob...:-)) >>>by paying doubled price - as they tried to drag Ed into this direction, too. >>> >>>To summarize the rest : >>>a) you're totally right - quite naturally >>>b) we can notice ( here too, now ) : >>>Industry rules - nothin' else. >> >>I don't have any objection to that rule. I was one of the people who suggested >>the "author must be present" rule. I got tired of flying my ass half-way around >>the world to end up sitting across a table from someone who can't find the "take >>back" command, because the real author is "too busy" or "too important" to >>attend. > > >I don't personally like the way that sounds. I teach classes year-round here. >I believe that I have an obligation to teach those classes, rather than running >off for 1.5-2 weeks to play chess. > >The old ACM events and old WCCC events were 4 or 5 rounds, and were played on >3 consecutive days including a weekend. I never missed one. But I can't miss >2 weeks of classes during a 9 week term. Either "too busy" or "too important" >doesn't describe my situation. "too dedicated to the students that are paying >tuition" is more like it... Apparently I stuck my foot in it. I will contact you via email and explain in more detail. bruce >>The event is much less fun for everyone if principle authors don't show up. >> >>bruce > > >That is another issue. two weeks is too long. 3-4 days would cause a lot more >people to attend.
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.