Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 00:08:54 04/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 2003 at 23:03:52, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>On April 04, 2003 at 21:12:41, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>
>>On April 02, 2003 at 22:33:09, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>>
>>>On April 02, 2003 at 17:56:31, Amir Ban wrote:
>>>
>>>>I read it, but I don't understand why you are not going. Let's see, will you:
>>>>
>>>>- Be aiding evil acts ?
>>>>- Do something unpatriotic ?
>>>>- Identify with views you don't support ?
>>>>- Appear to endorse the jerk ?
>>>>
>>>>None of this seems to apply. It's not like going to Berlin 1936 or even Moscow
>>>>1980.
>>>>
>>>>The only issue that I understand is worrying that you'll be met with hostility.
>>>>I think it's reasonable to ask the ICGA to ensure this doesn't happen. After all
>>>>the President is British (and Jewish).
>>>>
>>>>Your agenda should be:
>>>>
>>>>1. Win the war
>>>>2. Try to win Graz
>>>
>>>This is fair, but I don't feel that it is appropriate for me to go. I don't
>>>want to accept hospitality from someone who would send something like that in
>>>email.
>>>
>>>It is hard to bother an American with symbols. The swastika doesn't mean that
>>>much to us, for instance, we don't have a visceral reaction to it. A burning
>>>American flag means something to some people, but it means very little to a lot
>>>of people, for instance me.
>>>
>>>Soldiers are something different. We had Vietnam, and everyone here knows how
>>>much the returning soldiers were hurt by people who spit at them and so on. So
>>>now, no matter what people believe about any particular war, everyone here has
>>>figured out that the troops are off limits. If you criticize, you go top down,
>>>not the other way.
>>>
>>>I can't think of anything you could send an American that would offend them
>>>more. Really. If any American has an idea, please let me know.
>>>
>>>It goes beyond this though. There is genuine animosity underlying this. I
>>>don't want to accept the hospitality of someone who hates Americans and feels
>>>compelled to express it this way. How do you accept hospitality from someone
>>>who makes it clear to you that he hates you? This is not just a vaguely
>>>unpleasant post, or something like that. This was an email so off the wall that
>>>I thought it might be a forged-header "Here is a special program, you are the
>>>first to see it, I hope you are liking it very much" virus thing.
>>>
>>>Perhaps the sender meant it as an anti-war email. But I took it as a hate post,
>>>and I think most Americans would also take it this way.
>>>
>>>Beyond all of this is something very concrete that affects someone other than
>>>myself. I have received an email that essentially expresses the hope that a
>>>specific basically innocent person will undergo torture and death, which seems
>>>rather likely at this point. How can I receive this and have anything to do
>>>with the person who sent it?
>>>
>>>Finally, let's talk about the person who sent the email. He sent more of these,
>>>with little stir. Maybe an angry email back. If I had ignored this, if I had
>>>argued with him about the war, if I had called him an asshole, or in some other
>>>way had reacted as *he* planned, he would feel like he had done the right thing.
>>> He would feel good about having done this. If I do this instead, perhaps at
>>>some point he will regret that he sent this material. He may feel bad about
>>>having done this. That's a step in the right direction.
>>>
>>>Let him learn that there are consequences when you do this kind of thing.
>>>
>>>bruce
>>
>>
>>While the first email sent to you alone is bad enough, sending you a second,
>>even more objectionable email after you expressed your displeasure with
>>receiving the first shows very poor judgement on the part of the sender.
>>
>>You could consider doing the following things:
>
>without saying i agree or disagree. let's look objective from lawyer viewpoints:
>
>a) typical dumb american reaction let me go into details
>
>>1. Check if in your jurisdiction, there is something that limits freedom of
>>expression ("speech" in the USA) where the primary purpose of such expression is
>>to espouse hatred.
>
>lawyer costs in USA, but in the end they will tell you they do not know because
>to sue such persons you need to sue someone in his own hometown.
>
>>2. If so, file a formal complaint with your local police.
>
>austrian police will laugh at you for something like that and judge you as the
>typical american, confirming their ideas about them.
>
>>3. Check if in the sender's jurisdiction, there is something similar.
>
>yeah you can start a courtcase in the town where the person lives.
>his village is like 200 people so you probably need to go to the nearest
>'canton'.
>
>Then the next question is what court you try to sue someone.
>
>That means in the meantime you already pay triple lawyer costs, because
>in europe (and i assume in austria it isn't much diff from netherlands here):
> a) under european law in general courtcases without paying lawyers is
>forbidden
> b) you need a laywer to start a courtcase
>
>Then after $5000 lawyer costs you will find out that actually in europe winning
>a courtcase is very difficult. Basically you can win a courtcase if the sued
>person doesn't defend himself. Amazingly enough many do not do that indeed. They
>do not show up.
>
>But this person would show up with a lawyer.
>
>>4. If so, file a formal complaint with his local police.
>
>You repeat yourself here. That's already adresses above. They will laugh in
>austria for that.
>
>>5. File a formal complaint with the sender's employer. (Even in a university,
>>there are practical limits to an academic's freedom of expression.)
>
>Chessbase will say they have nothing to do with this and they better do so as
>they got some economical interests:
>
>Imagine Brutus wins its own tournament and then plays kasparov. Then chessbase,
>good in marketing, will sell perhaps 50000 cards of brutus.
>
>50k cards x 500 euro = 25 million euro = about 25 million dollar
>
>Of course that is not the profit. Profit is a small part of it.
>Perhaps only 45% of it.
>
>The reason why it is so important to let brutus win the world champs is because
>possible profit from it winning is much more than Fritz in this case as each
>unit sells for more than average.
>
>Not the world title will be so much taking care of the sales, but the resulting
>match against kasparov would.
>
>>6. I hope you are able to at least receive a formal apology with a commitment
>>that such an act will not be performed by the sender again. Of course, you
>>could try to press for considerably more than that, depending on how badly
>>you've been offended.
>
>I bet in germany they are cheering that one program which possibly could win
>from Brutus is out of the competition now.
>
>>Dave
>
>Now you're back to reality i hope again.
>
>Best regards,
>Vincent
This is all crazy and I'll have nothing to do with it, ever.
bruce
This page took 0.01 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.