Author: James Robertson
Date: 16:48:50 11/18/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 1998 at 15:49:29, Albert Silver wrote: >On November 18, 1998 at 12:44:47, James Robertson wrote: > >>>>>>Perhaps (just maybe) the people here are decent. Ever thought of that? >>>>>> >>>>>>James >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>That's a pretty strong statement. You are saying that anyone who is neither >>>>>shocked nor agrees with KK isn't a decent person. Can't say that I agree >>>>>with >>>>>that sweeping generalization. >>>> >>>>I don't care what you think about KK's other observations about the >>>>programs, >>> >>>Nor do I ask you to. You state that a decent person is defined as someone who >>>agrees with KK, and therefore those who don't aren't. You may not have meant to >>>say this intentionally, but that's what your post states. Do you really >>>believe >>>that? >> >>Stop putting words in my mouth!!! > >I really wasn't. When Bruce questioned this complaint and you riposted that >perhaps members here are decent, this implied that decent people would question >this (I don't) and therefore those who didn't were not decent. When I first >responded, I thought this was deliberate but after reading your responses I can >see that you probably weren't aware of this. Probably, but I couldn't be >certain, which is why I asked. > >>>A decent person is defined as someone who >>agrees with ME, not Komputer Korner!! :) > >:) > >>No seriously, I did not make that defenition at all. For centuries decency has >>been defined as the ability to avoid wrong. > >Hmmm.... Without going into a long drawn out discussion on what is decency. >Decency is essentially a standard of what is proper. That definition may have >changed little over the centuries, but what is considered proper HAS changed >considerably. This is just about the whole crux of the matter, isn't it? How do we define what is proper? So far everyone has managed to avoid the word "moral", because then religion is brought up, and at that point the discussion is over. Because no headway can be made with posts like "You should change religions" I have tried to change your views by saying stuff like "viewing violent or lude acts desensitise us to them". But, in the end, I guess it all comes down to religion. >Perhaps I have also become somewhat desensitized, but still, I >don't believe that just because I am not offended by the program I have ceased >to be decent. On a side note, you can always throw my pseudo on ICC at me: >AlmostDecent (though I conceived it around my ability and not my moral >integrity) > >> >>> >>>>but I do agree with KK that one should avoid vulgarity and nudity in a >>program. >>> >>>Fine, but when did vulgarity and nudity become defined as bugs? If he >>>presented >>>this opinion in a review, that's one thing, but when included in a list of >>>bug-laden software as a bug, then I disagree. >>> >>> Albert Silver >> >>Read KK's list again; it isn't just about bugs. Here it is, and many of his >>complaints have NOTHING to do with bugs. A very dull and dreary GUI or a >>stolen >>engine are not "bugs". >> > >You are quite right. While I was addressing the issue of your response to >Bruce's reply (just giving my 2 cents on the matter), I had not looked closely >enough to KK's latest Krash list. It has changed considerably as it used to be >about bugs or functional problems (hence the title "Krash list") in programs. >Now it has obviously gone beyond that. Perhaps if he had changed the title >Bruce wouldn't have commented. You mean Tom? Perhaps you are right, but (I am not speaking for everybody) people who want license will be just as outraged by someone if he lists ludeness as a flaw as they are when it is listed as a bug. >If KK reads this, then let me suggest a new title: > > Komputer Korner's Bottom of the Barrel list! > >In any case, it's been fun sparring with you. ;-) Yes; you too. But I don't see it as a game. James
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.