Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:39:06 11/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 2002 at 12:55:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On November 11, 2002 at 12:46:30, Gerd Isenberg wrote: > >You probably didn't read the last 30 postings of that person here >where he insults me a lot. I just drop 1 line and he >starts another war. > >So i may not drop 1 line, but he may? When someone posts something that causes complaints, then we as moderators are bound to act in some fashion. It is what we were elected to do. I know that _none_ of us read everything posted here. And even if we _do_ read every thing that gets posted, I (and I assume the others) rarely take issue unless a member complains. So it takes a complain to get the ball rolling. have you complained? > >I do not see the logics. Of course you don't. But that doesn't mean there are none. Your comment about Skinner and an event in Canada came out of the clear blue sky. No provocation, no nothing. Just bam. Take that. And it caused complaints. Again, stop doing it and you have no problems here. Keep causing the complaints and that might not be the case. > >then i comment with hard facts on promises and statements done regarding >the subject without saying that i want to kill that person nor saying that >i want to kick him back to europe where he belongs. And your hard facts had _nothing_ to do with the thread, just a personal attack. No one said Skinner was even considering organizing an event in Canada, or anywhere else for that. That makes your "hard facts" irrelevant to the original insulting comment you made. It was simply better to leave that unsaid since it was not an issue. > >online even more cruel words were used by the person in question. > >Do you see the logics of that? > >Cursing against me is legal, just dropping 1 line against the person in >question is not? It goes like this. You hit me. You better be ready for a response. And if we end up in court, the key word is "provoked response". In the case that caused the complaint, _you_ hit first. yes, his response was worded strongly. But you have made that same statement about him in the past so I simply gave him the benefit of the doubt since (a) no one complained about him (yet) and (b) he was _responding_ to a provoking post you wrote. The difference is that _you_ posted _first_. had your post been thought out and then not submitted, he wouldn't have responded. Cause and effect, and all that... > >I did *not* start the escalation cycle. Just read all the postings of >the person in question. I read the one that caused the complaint. The first insult in _that_ thread was written by you. Therefore you are the originator for the complaints in that thread. That is the issue here. > >First he attacks my program, when i do not react he starts attacking me. And you don't attack programs? "crafty has a rude/primitif(sic)/etc evaluation." and so forth? So you can do it but he can't? But again, nobody complained about any of the program remarks, so I don't pay attention. I know who I want to read and who I don't, so unless someone complains, I don't see _much_ of the garbage here because I can recognize what is good and what is likely not, from the subject and the author. > >We have a statement here: "a lunatic can cause more harm than 100 wise men >can fix". That's what happens here IMHO. Yes. We just disagree on who the "lunatic" is, unfortunately. > >Wiseley as i am (or not) i did not react onto all these postings. > >Where do i see the protests against *these* postings? > >If you treat people, treat them fair. > >I didn't say i want to kill someone. I didn't post i want to kick someone >back to europe. I didn't lie about facts. > No, but you _did_ insult him first in the current argument. And it was off-the-wall, unrelated to anything, simply a personal insult and nothing more. >Here things get measured in 2 ways it seems to me. > >Is that fair? > So far as I am concerned, yes. But I don't see anything wrong with that approach. I don't call Skinner my friend or my enemy. Just someone that I have had discussions with here many times without any negative remarks from either of us. That is a mark in his favor. You, on the other hand, have negative discussions with most _everybody_ here at one point or another. That is _not_ a mark in your favor. You started the war. He responded. Those _are_ two different ways to measure/group things, and they are appropriate IMHO. >>Vincent, >>i have great respect for you and your knowledge, and i would prefere to further >>read your computer chess related statements here. >> >>You started the escalation cycle and now you are harmed: >> >>>Tournaments in Edmonton organized by Peter Skinner i can't take >>>serious though. >> >>Which obviously hurts Peter Skinner, even if his reply was too crude IMHO. >>But that's the way escalation gets it own dymanic. >>We all are more or less conceitedness and vulnerable. >> >>Bob statements: >> >>"I'm interested in who starts what" >>"I don't care what you are referring to" >> >>implies indeed some contradiction, but is it worth to point that out? >> >>Cheers, >>Gerd
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.