Author: Robin Smith
Date: 06:56:01 09/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2003 at 03:45:34, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On September 09, 2003 at 03:02:06, Robin Smith wrote:
>
>>On September 09, 2003 at 02:37:45, Roger D Davis wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>Jeroen,
>>>
>>>You said, "from the discussion I can conclude that the legal status of such a
>>>program is unclear." In other words, it's questionnable...which is the wording
>>>of #5 of the charter... That means you have to support the moderator.
>>>
>>>Roger
>>
>>Roger,
>>
>>Supporting a moderator's ban of postings, and supporting a moderator's
>>accusations of piracy ("if you are using deadking, you are using illegal
>>software", "deadking is illegal software", etc.), are two different things. I
>>use deadking with my legal copy of Chessmaseter, and I took offense at these
>>statements. I don't enjoy, in essence, being called a thief for using something
>>I paid for. Why is this so hard to understand?
>
>Consider it from this perspective:
>
>"Here is a key which will unlock any porshe car door and start the engine.
>Please use it only if you lost your key and not to steal a porshe."
>
>It would be a useful thing to have if you are a porshe owner and lost your key.
>But it would probably not be a real good idea to give such a thing away
>willy-nilly.
If that were all Mike did I would agree with you. He also said anyone who owns
such a key is breaking the law. This is incorrect, and I called him on it.
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.