Author: Will Singleton
Date: 12:14:25 07/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2002 at 13:52:27, Russell Reagan wrote: >On July 19, 2002 at 13:20:30, Will Singleton wrote: > >>Russell, that was out of line. Both those fellows are stalwart computer chess >>people, with a lot to offer. They simply commented on Kevin's rather bizarre >>self destruction. > >I could care less about what things these people may have done in the past. If I >something great for computer chess does that give me the right to say whatever >I'd like or to be negative towards someone who just recieved 30 hate emails for >his good natured efforts? They claim that they would love to see a computer >chess event come to North America and I find that very hard to believe since the >only person in North America who is willing to do what it takes to organize an >event was essentially run out of town by Euros sending hate mail, and they have >nothing but negative things to say to him. Clearly Kevin isn't too happy with >the situation right now and these "stalwart" people who have done so much for >computer chess are doing absolutely nothing but continuing to torment Kevin, >offering nothing but negativity. They have no positive advice to offer. They >claim to be for computer chess as a whole, but their actions say otherwise. > >It really irritates me when just because people have put up a website or written >an open source chess program or done something else for the computer chess >community that everyone thinks that person is now allowed to do and say whatever >they want. Kevin did nothing wrong as far as I can tell, and if he isn't willing >to take hate mail, that's perfectly fine. There's no reason to degrade the man >and tell him how he can't get the job done and how he has no credibility. Wow, >these guys are really people we should be standing behind. Kicking a man when >he's down. Yeah, great guys Andrew and Mogens are. Nice to see they have someone >to defend them. What other "defense" for their negative words do you have >besides them being "stalwarts"? A stalwart (as I know the definition) is a >person who supports the cause, period. They seem to be doing no more than >picking on a guy who was trying to do something good. That's not a stalwart in >my opinion. Maybe your standards are blurred because they have done good things >in the past. > >I see a guy who is willing to do great things for computer chess in North >America, regardless of whether he is qualified, he is trying which is more than >anyone else is doing. I see numerous people getting excited about even the >chance of this happening (including myself), and then it looks like it's not >going to happen and these guys have nothing better to do than continue to pile >on the bad attitude that obviously drove Kevin away in the first place. If you >think there's nothing wrong with that, then I think there's something wrong with >you. I for one am not going to sit by and let a bunch of stalwarts of yore pick >on the one guy who has, as far as I can remember, tried to organize a major >computer chess event in North America. > >Look at it this way. Kevin brought excitement and hope to me personally. He >didn't do anything for Mogens or Andrew who could attend several computer chess >events a year if they wanted to. They aren't bringing anything constructive to >the conversation, and so I'm wondering why they are even saying anything? It >doesn't concern them a great deal, and so if they aren't going to say anything >nice or positive, I'd prefer they just keep their negative thoughts to >themselves. If they want to help and want to explain to Kevin how he did >something wrong, there are appropriate ways of doing that, and that would be >great if they had advice to offer. They seem to just be complaining offering up >information that Kevin probably doesn't really care to hear at this point. >Things like how he has no credibility and such, after he recieved hate mail >calling him a cock sucker and being told how this guy would make sure his event >would be ruined. Unless you think it's ok to kick a man while he's down, stop >defending Mogens and Andrew. I think it's as simple as that. If I'm missing >something, please feel free to tell me what I'm missing and maybe I'll change my >tone. I didn't start the negative vibe though. That came from the "stalwarts". > >Russell Russell, Well, sir, you are missing the main point. This Kevin fellow, whoever he is, was pulling our collective legs. If computer chess is important to you, you should be concerned about that. No one was kicking anyone. They just used their experience and judgement to discern a problem, which you missed. It's usually a good idea to put your trust in folks that have a good track record. No charge. Will
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.