Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 09:04:46 11/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2002 at 21:52:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 13, 2002 at 18:49:57, Marc van Hal wrote: > >>On November 13, 2002 at 17:53:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On November 13, 2002 at 17:10:27, Marc van Hal wrote: >>> >>>>On November 13, 2002 at 15:59:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 13, 2002 at 14:11:53, Marc van Hal wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 13, 2002 at 13:39:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On November 13, 2002 at 11:37:50, Marc van Hal wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On November 13, 2002 at 11:27:49, Marc van Hal wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On November 13, 2002 at 11:17:39, Peter Berger wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Are you talking about this one? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?264591 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>yes >>>>>>>>>Why is it not on it's original place? >>>>>>>>>Like you see you get misunderstandings in this way >>>>>>>>>Marc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I forgot to mention the harasment it can give for both both party's >>>>>>>>For the poster who later on finds the posting after he behaved himself like a >>>>>>>>fool . >>>>>>>>And the moderation where is getting trowed at without good reasons. >>>>>>>>(Only trying to hide my mistake he he but in fact it's treu.) >>>>>>>>Ok an other apolegy for the moderation anyways. >>>>>>>>Marc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Notice there was no "moderation" involved here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It is a simple "user error". Your messages are still there... You just need to >>>>>>>extend >>>>>>>the filter interval to see them again. >>>>>> >>>>>>Was there something wrong with my apology? >>>>> >>>>>I am not sure what you mean. I simply answered your question directly... >>>>> >>>>>>Again this is typicaly a programmer eror >>>>>>Thinking if I know it everyone knows it. >>>>> >>>>>This has been the way CCC works since it was started. In fact, it is the way >>>>>_all_ >>>>>of these message-boards work... >>>>> >>>>>>Gues what your almost always wrong when you think like this >>>>> >>>>>+I+ didn't make a mistake that I know of. :) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>There is no manual so it is definitly not a user mistake. >>>>> >>>>>It _was_ a user error. You said that a post had been deleted. It had not. You >>>>>just didn't know how to see it after it was more than 36 hours old. But that >>>>>doesn't make it not a user error... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>(Talking about crystal balls and Marjuhana he he) >>>>>>In fact you once told me you made the same kind of erors yourself! >>>>>>But I still didn't knew about the time filters. >>>>>>I do know it now so if I repeat this eror then it's a user mistake! >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>It's a mistake, regardless. IE what happens if you run thru a small town and >>>>>don't >>>>>notice that single 40kph speed limit? You see the blue lights, you get a >>>>>ticket, and >>>>>you probably pay more attention the next time. But it was still a mistake. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>The diference between this and my postings is you need to know the trafic rules >>>>before driving a car. >>>> >>>>And how stupid it is you need to know the law >>>>(But not even a Judge are a lawer knows all the rules of the law) >>>> >>>>This rule doesn't count for programs. >>>> >>>>All Trafic rules are written in a book. >>>>But there is not a manual on how this forum works. >>> >>>Actually there is. This forum uses a normal message-board facility that is used >>>by >>>many different places. And it is documented. Just not here and not in plain >>>sight... >>>Unfortunately... >>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------ >>An other reference to the law is. >>It must be available for everyone. >>And they also should be informed where to get this knowledge. >>This is the rule lawers and judges use all the time. >>Ok knowledge about previous cases do help a lot too. >>To become a great lawer or judge. >\ > > >Actually that is not true. The classic judicial quote is "ignorance is >no defense". IE just because you don't _know_ that a law exists, breaking it >is still a criminal offense. ------------------------------------------------------------------ This sentence is used when you break a rule of the law While you didn't knew about it. While you could have know it. This was not the case here. Ok in very clasical times this happened but we call that now a corupt law system Like in the Dukes of Hazard where the same man was lawer judge prosecuter and executer at the same time. ----------------------------------------------------------- >But, a better quote here would be "don't accuse until you are sure." IE we >didn't remove _anything_ as moderators. We are not "out of control" as >moderators. We had nothing to do with your problem whatsoever yet we were >certainly accused of having done something... > > >>But that's an other story. >>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>>>That is why I said (Cristal balls and Marjuhana) >>>> >>>>I also could have written with a wet finger. >>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>It would have sounded better if you asked "why can't I see my old posts" rather >>>>>than "who >>>>>deleted them..." >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>When your wondering what happened with your post your corect. >>>>>Ok it also treu if your not sure if your only wondering if it perhaps might have been a hostile action your corect too. >>>>And I was to aggresive. >>>>Thats what you get if you become a litle paranoia he he. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Regards >>>>>>Marc
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.