Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 12:31:36 04/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 14, 2002 at 15:15:27, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On April 14, 2002 at 14:55:48, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On April 14, 2002 at 14:45:23, John Merlino wrote: >> >>I find this case just too obvious. He's not only asking >>for a flamewar this Lagerhausen, even worse, he started >>one. > >I agree that his posting was inflammatory, but the only >one decides whether there is a flamewar or not is YOU. I decided to ask for removal of the posting, so it is obvious i didn't want to start one. >Even worse, if you feel it is a personal attack, DO NOT EVER >reply. The other people who read it can make up their own >mind whether Thomas has an argument or whether he is insulting you. That's nonsense. Mental ill persons like Marc van Hal i try to ignore replying onto postings from (even though sometimes he has a point), idem for this crazy nazi complexed person who wrote at the time in rgcc, but i assume for now Lagershausen is not mental ill. Ignoring those is not a good idea. >Do you think Thomas insulting you will make people get a different >opinion about you or about Thomas? I know for myself it would be >the latter. (but I don't think he insulted you) >If someone posts 'Diep sucks', *do* *not* reply. We can make up our If i understood well, Chessbase usually sues persons who make such statements. They probably were tempted to sue Schroeder BV again for posting just a testset where fritz was compared with gandalf in an unfair way, but in the end i am not sure whether they sued. Without wanting to make chessbase black here, because i also have had courtcases already, and so has *anyone* in computerchess who is making statements in the press and/or having a commercial program. I am not a guy who starts courtcases soon, but knowing i already pay an expensive lawyer, and knowing chessbase and others have probably an even bigger bill, THAT is the way in which most companies deal with personal insults, even *testresults* they do not like. >own mind wheter it's right or not. I can assure you all posters >you might care about on this board will only make a conclusion >about the person that posted it, and not about Diep. I would consider sueing such a person if i have his adress. Having nowadays some legal experience and a 100% win history of courtcases i have no problems with that anymore. Note i have this 100% case win because i didn't start any courtcase myself so far, though i am about to start one (not for a CCC issue by the way). Anyway i hope my point is made. Courtcases is what is a very common way to proof issues. If you don't win a case completely then in europe the nice thing is that the other side is completely bankrupt because of lawyer costs. Legal insurance is worth nothing as i found out. Those lawyers suck ass. I remember Ossi Weiner started a courtcase against Chessbits already for posting a result from shredder which he didn't like (this was nearly a year before the 5 other courtcases which happened later after the world champs). An in my eyes insane way to deal with people, but i hope you get my point. >>I explained my point > >But you only did so _after_ Thomas made his complaint. We both know Uri 100% sure would reply to this thread in defense of Nunn's testset. If i say A then most likely uri sees non-A :) So there was not a hair on my body doubting i had to write more explanation. With or without Lagershausen that text would have been exactly the same. I had expected by the way them to REMOVE the posting, so i didn't even count on many reading it. Obviously this has nothing to do with the casus. >I would assume that after your explanation Thomas no longer >feels your statement was worthless because it was unfounded. > >He might not agree with the arguments, but he can no longer >complain about the lack of them. > >>I can understand why, but if a reaction to a posting in this >>area is just intended to start a reaction from my side which >>has *nothing* to do with computerchess, then it's obvious >>it is off-topic. >> >>A moderator SHOULD understand that!!! > >I assume his post was a request to you for founding your >statement. If you want to read more into it, don't. Some people >aren't very good at stating things in a subtle way. I know a >FIDE Master that wrote a strong chessprogram that isn't, either. > >-- >GCP
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.