Author: Amir Ban
Date: 16:11:11 11/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 1998 at 17:35:36, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On November 10, 1998 at 05:06:49, Amir Ban wrote: >>>a tug of war is always shit. > >>>and anyone is a victim in a war. > > >>It's always a good idea when making this kind of remarks to make it clear that >>you are not representing the vendor (Ed & Rebel in this case). > >??? > >Sound much like: >"My demand is as follows: I herewith kindly ask Bruce Moreland to CEASE AND >DESIST any further use of my name (MORITZ BERGER) in connection with his >personal opinions or personal beliefs or speculations or whatever IN HIS >ROLE AS >A MODERATOR OF CCC or in discussions about CCC policies WITHOUT A DISCLAIMER >that he is speaking only for himself and not as a moderator of CCC. If he >makes >it clear that he wants to get at me for his very own, personal reasons >(which I >know nothing about), then of course he might say whatever he wants about me >in >every place suitable for this kind of statements. > >Thanks for your patience > >Moritz" > >do you want me to run through the world with a disclaimer on my forehead: >I am not the vendor ? :-)))) very funny. > >Ok - although i am not a vendor, i do have my own opinion. :-))) > >> I hope that >>everyone who read your post understood that. > >:-))))) > Oof ... It really seems like you don't get the issue here, so I will explain: There is an issue here that is between Ed and his customers. You post on it in a way and style that, if a Rebel customer had the wrong impression that you are representing the vendor, would probably make him very angry. Now you are entitled to your opinion, but I'm concerned here that not every reader of this newsgroup understands that you are not related to Ed, or that people read some things here without paying a lot of attention, and do not notice who wrote what, or if they do notice, two weeks later they may mix things up and remember only that someone, maybe Ed, yelled and snickered at them that they have to be victims of his war with Chessbase. I think Ed would not like that, because he depends on his customers for a living, and needs to handle them with sensitivity. Ok, maybe I worry too much, but you worry too little. A clear disclaimer that you are not the vendor is needed in such a post. >Do you have a disclaimer Amir ? >"I am not objective to the topic/the vendor because I am in business with them" >would be the fitting disclaimer for you, wouldn't it ? :-)) > This is an impertinent reply, but let's ignore this because you have a problem in understanding the subject. I'm not for or against anything, and the topic is irrelevant. I'm talking as the moderator here and I'm worried about commercial interests (Ed's in this case). You know, some people actually make a living through their customers and this is more than talk for them. Two months ago there was a similar thing when you started telling CSTal customers to go jump in a lake. I was dumbfounded and considered deleting those posts on the ground that they may damage Oxford business. I didn't then, because (1) I know that CSTal is not a serious business, and Oxford revenues come from other products (2) You are connected to Chris and I was not sure that you are NOT speaking for the vendor. Of course if a vendor wants to shout at his customers that's his own business. >>Customers may or may not care about the autoplayer feature, but they certainly >>won't appreciate being talked to in this way. > >??? > >I am not interested in customers. I am a customer of my own. > I know you are not interested, but other people are. >>>therefore i was so heavily against matthias wuellenweber declaring this war >>>to the programmers WITHOUT ANY NEED. >>> >>>if somebody throws 2 atomic-bombs on hiroshima / nagasaki, without ANY need, >>>one cannot say that this guy is a humanist, or is a peaceful guy. or wants to >>>give the world something. >>>the same with chessbase. their "decision" (to throw an atomic-bomb on sweden) >>>was not a nice gift to the world too. >> >>This is an awful parallel to draw here. If we allow this, why not the N-word ? >>Let's tone this down a few decibels. > >the important parallel was, that there was absolutely NO NEED to throw these >weapons. the country who throwed them had won the war anyway. >IF fritz is SOOOOO strong, that it would rank first in the ssdf-list, WHY these >methods ? WHY throwing the bomb ? And the bomb was thrown. And it it the target. >and the result was: much chaos and month of difficult discussions and and and. >IMO too much redundant time. chaos caused by whom ? humanists ? > >>Amir > >i see no problem in this relation. It was YOUR idea to use N-words. Please keep >this in mind for later discussions. I wrote this post as a moderator. I'm not debating or exchanging opinions with you here. I see a problem in your choice of images, and ask you to choose a more gentle style. Please keep this in mind if you want to continue being a member here. Amir
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.