Author: margolies,marc
Date: 20:36:52 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
First it is not a 'punishment' because it is a sanction that has a clear remedy. While you did not personalize your remark about an 'authoritarian frame of reference,' and I appreciate that, really (that we have civil discourse), it was a clear characterization of a point of view which I espoused in direct answer to my remarks. I suppose if by 'authoritarian', you are suggesting that it is a Tournament Commitee's responsibility to police the world championship tournament for the sake of honest performance, then I certainly agree with you. But were you suggesting something more sinister than that? On November 27, 2003 at 23:27:05, Roger D Davis wrote: >On November 27, 2003 at 23:22:32, margolies,marc wrote: > >>I resent being told that I have an 'authoritarian frame of reference.' Because I >>did not sign a stipulation agreeing to the rules of the tournament and spend a >>large amount of money to make a commitment to perform, that's what Fritz R. did. >>You may not like the participatory rules of this tournament. No one forced you >>to play, for example. >>Comparing enforced ostracism as retribution for non-compliance to involuntary >>incarceration seems abritrary to me. I once spent a weekend in jail for no >>particular reason and I know the difference. >> > >I didn't say you had an authoritarian frame of reference. My point was that the >punishment as it was administered seems to be as authoritarian as they could >make it. Then again, perhaps the charter gives them no latitude in what >punishment could be administered. > >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.