Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 10:37:11 08/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 2004 at 05:25:43, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On August 27, 2004 at 03:54:45, Odd Gunnar Malin wrote: > >>On August 26, 2004 at 23:19:49, Thomas Mayer wrote: >> >>>something I may add: maybe you make a page somewhere about WHO has donated, but >>>please do not add WHAT he has paid... 5 bucks from someone might be definitely >>>not the same thing then 5 bucks from another one... >> >>I fully support this. A list of supporters of this forum could encourage other >>to support, but adding the amount is too difficult because some comes from a low >>income country, are retired etc. A dollar isn't the same for everybody. >> >>Odd Gunnar > > >All true, but perhaps the information could also show if there's a correlation >between quality of messages and donation quantity. BTW I still think that with >25$ bank costs for each invoice it would be better if the real top guys who are >still in juice (say like Fernando) should solve the problem and not 20 people >with each 5 $$. Thats kind of ridiculous. I dont understand Steve at all. 25$ bank costs for each invoice. Is that true? For bank transfer from europe? I am really not familar with such issues. > >I would also have wanted to read something about the store business. In the end >the few users of CCC have to support people who are simply working in a >diminishing area. Ok, i guess America's Largest Chess Store, ICD Corp. is not yet a joint stock company. Did you read "Feel the Love"? http://www.icdchess.com/lovefile.html >Who's buying books or chess pieces anymore? Good chess books are always selled well. I guess for pieces there are enough chess clubs around. I even guess the relative sales volume of books and pieces is actually growing compared to software or dedicated chess computers. > >I must also mention (seems to me that people dont know this) that the tech of >this site is awfully unspectacular compares even to usenet, where you can really >"work" with the threads, here the few features look a bit outdated. Is that only >my view? > >However the final point now is crucial. > >Without mentioning the details let me describe what is now possibly going on. In >computerchess (like all fields which have a principal overlap through the >internet) we have two paradigms at least. The commercial offer and the so-called >"free" variation. Of course the latter is the gravedigger of the first. Now if I >want to criticise bad excuses for fraud, let's name it for what it is, I have to >argue against Bob with his social school bent, because even such "evil" >occupation with Crafty is basically occupation with Crafty and computerchess. >That is incredible for the business branch which lives only if there is a >minimum of a working copyright. But if I criticise someone who's joking with >such a mess and basically supported the fraud with his neglegent control >(because he was the boss of the webpage) I am told here by some moderator that I >can tell all that to the guy in HIS forum but not here. But the guy himself can >write here in CCC what he wants, if it's really odd he simply changes into >German. > >No, for such a practice I don't want to pay, only to let me be moderated by >biased mods, like here from the "free" part of CC. > >Something is hiding unter the blankets somehow. Why Steve didn't address such >topics is beyond my intellectual standard. Seems that your intellectual standard is just too high ;-)
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.