Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:26:50 09/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2003 at 09:56:01, Robin Smith wrote:
>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.
Yes. That may be a bit over the top.
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.