Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 15:48:26 09/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2003 at 03:53:11, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >On September 09, 2003 at 02:37:45, Roger D Davis wrote: > > >>You said, "from the discussion I can conclude that the legal status of such a >>program is unclear." In other words, it's questionnable... > > >No, questionable isn't unclear. > >Questionable refers to things with a dubious character. Unclear refers to a >situation in which is simply not clear what the status exactly is. > >The charter tells us that dubious, shady things shouldn't be promoted or posted >here, not things of which it is not clear what the legal status is. > >For the record, I didn't speak out about the status of the aforementioned >program, I spoke out about the way Mike tried to force the outcome of an ongoing >discussion. > >If the ongoing discussion is about the desirability to discuss and link to >illigal programs, the charter is clear. If the ongoing discussion is about the >fact _if_ something is illegal or not, and doubts are numerous, the charter >isn't clear - and so a moderator should be restrictive in mixing and threatening >to delete or end a discussion. > >That was at least _my_ point. And Mike disagreed with my assessement. And I >disagree with his disagreement of my disagreement with him. You see? > >J. I think the charter is clear. Questionable doesn't refer to dubious, but simply to what is unclear. User agreements are intended to avoid legal entanglements. They are necessarily conservative in their approach. Better to be too restrictive than end up in court. Accordingly, the request is that users avoid treading on areas where there is some probability of producing legal entanglements. Roger
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.