Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 17:53:31 09/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 08, 2003 at 20:40:07, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >I have followed the discussion, and I have no particularly relevant opinion >about programs like this deadking. > >But from the discussion I can conclude that the legal status of such a program >is unclear. As a result you changed your opinion to "Let's ban these subjects >because most people here don't like these kind of subjects". This has nothing to >do with violating the charter, but with catering the majority (or maybe a >minority - who knows) of posters. > >So from your own observation you can't conlude that it violates the charter, and >given the many responses it's also hardly clear that these subjects are indeed >unwanted here. > >Suddenly you leave the discussion, make a new top post and state that the >subject is violating the charter. > >You may understand that although I have no thoughts about deadking, I _do_ have >some thoughts about your way of handling this. > >Your claim of upholding the charter simply doesn't cause the subject to violate >the charter. > > >J. I disagree with your analysis. I always believed that deadking was in some way shape or form illegal or of questionable legal status that violated the charter. That was the genisis of my obecjtion from the get go- although I never aticiapated it would be such a lengthly thread and I would have to reach a point to even explain that logic. That has taken a turn when I was informed it was a patch not modify code. Evan as a patch, I still believe it is of questionable legal status and your argument has not convinced me otherwise.
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.