Author: margolies,marc
Date: 22:35:59 12/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
I am bothered when some one-- especially an esteemed person while making an otherwise cogent argument-- will demand others to read the rules without explicitly citing which rules to read and why. It appears more off-the-cuff and angry than it should. Therefore, even when truthful, such a demand fails to persuade, particularly when such remarks are married to flames about the regulars who post here. I am left wondering about the writer's motivation if he does not wish to persuade his audience. Does the writer's energies comprise castigation of dissent? If that is so, this challenges his judgement as an arbiter of the appropriate behavior of others as well. I do applaud your effort to keep the dialog open, if that is what I see here. Should we all see the Graz situation as a problem, the most effective role that an arbiter might enjoy presently involves designing a rule-based remedy for future events if necessary. Defending the earlier standing judgement, (in lieu of the former) is a case-weakening move because it calls into question the legitimacy of the ruling, therefore it leaves spectators of this charged argument open to the notion that the result of the Graz Tournament is reversed-engineered until it is correct.
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.