Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:50:54 07/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 29, 2002 at 11:04:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >It was not a threat. It was a statement. Care to guess whether "Elvis" >or "Rolf" generates the most email complaints to me? And if you start >demanding that I/We react to your single complaint, what do we do when we >get several about you? What you should do? And I am allowed to give you advice? Ok, then. If, after careful reading, you discover that I insulted or atacked someone in personally abusive manner, intentiously, just do do harm to someone - this is what Pordzik did - _then_ you should contact me and warn me seriously or ban me or whatever. But I know for sure that this won't happen, because I do not do this. I do not insult. I may have weak English, but I do never insult someone. I always try to argue. If you however follow the way of simply counting complaints that are not based on facts, then of course you might say, oh, these science reports or questions of Rolf are a real pain for our readers. What should we do to sacrifice someone to satisfy the lower instincts of our readers. - But I'm sure nobody wil complain without facts and hard evidence like me here in the Pordzikcase. So, I still don't get the difference between statement and threat here. Because the above should be trivial and since I do not misbehave, I see no danger for me. Of course it might happen that language leads me into false directions. Then it would be nice if I could get a fast feedback. If that happens once in a while, it shouldn't disturb too much. > >_that_ was what I meant. You demand tighter controls, the noose may well be >around your neck at the same time and you might be hoisting yourself up the >tree unintentionally... No Bob. I do not demand tighter controls. I wished you would read the text of the messages in question. Nothing more nothing less. Now if steered underground asasinate is no personal character assassination, then it must be my weak English again. Where is the problem? The point is that you did never say the steered underground assassinate would be no insult, but it's as if you wanted to teach me to let it be... Or...! This is worse than direct violence because it's something like double bind. Something very dangerous. And surely not meant with the charta here in CCC. > >That was the only point... > I hope I could show you the different aspects. So maybe 1 point, but 10 aspects, minor points. Pity that you didn't comment on the other big points. Rolf Tueschen
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.