Author: James T. Walker
Date: 18:17:58 04/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2005 at 01:17:17, Andrew Walker wrote: >On April 20, 2005 at 07:53:29, James T. Walker wrote: > >>On April 19, 2005 at 21:25:55, Andrew Walker wrote: >> >>>On April 18, 2005 at 07:42:03, James T. Walker wrote: >>> >>>>On April 18, 2005 at 02:00:53, Andrew Walker wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 17, 2005 at 09:06:15, James T. Walker wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 14, 2005 at 22:54:03, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 14, 2005 at 19:04:25, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On April 14, 2005 at 16:53:16, James T. Walker wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On April 14, 2005 at 11:11:21, John Merlino wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On April 14, 2005 at 04:41:48, Blood wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>If anyone is interesting in need help with testing programs or engines i would >>>>>>>>>>>be interesting in helping anyone test engines or programs ! I have over 100 >>>>>>>>>>>freeware engines, shredder 7, shredder 7.04, shredder 8, shredder 9, junior 8 , >>>>>>>>>>>junior 9 , deep fritz 7 and deep fritz 8 , chessmaster 9000, chessmaster 8000, >>>>>>>>>>>junior 8 and junior 9, and lots other ches engines ! if anyone wants to test >>>>>>>>>>>engines or programs or even settings plz let me know buy eithering posting a >>>>>>>>>>>message here or email me at elguapodan@hotmail.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>While there is nothing specific in the above post that warrants moderation, >>>>>>>>>>something needs to be made very clear. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It is illegal to distribute professional engines. Other people may offer their >>>>>>>>>>settings for you to test with your own engines, but you are not allowed to give >>>>>>>>>>these engines to other people so they can perform their own testing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Any evidence of illegal distribution of engines will result in very strong >>>>>>>>>>action by the moderators. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>John Merlino (CCC Moderator) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>John your post/admonition seems completely uncalled for. I see no indication in >>>>>>>>>the original post that something illegal is about to happen or even >>>>>>>>>contemplated. >>>>>>>>>Jim >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I think the original post was handled appropriately by JM. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The moderators are unanimous. >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't care if 100 moderators are unanimous. It doesn't make them right. The >>>>>>moderators may be unanimous but threating someone before they have commited any >>>>>>offense is completely uncalled for. The only thing I see in the post is someone >>>>>>volunteering to test engines and saying that he has many engines to test >>>>>>against. Please tell me what is wrong with that. Maybe I'm too naive to see >>>>>>what's wrong here. >>>>>>Jim >>>>> >>>>>His comment was a general statement for all posters to note, not just the >>>>>original poster. There is no indication of admonition or stating >>>>>"something illegal is about to happen or even contemplated". In fact John states >>>>>"While there is nothing specific in the above post that warrants moderation" >>>>>How can you call this being threatening?? >>>>> >>>>>Andrew >>>> >>>> >>>>"Any evidence of illegal distribution of engines will result in very strong >>>>action by the moderators." >>>> >>>>The above ia a threat without provocation. It is completely unwarrented. If >>>>this is not a threat but simply an "Information announcement" then it should >>>>follow every post in this forum. There was no evidence of intent to do what the >>>>poster was warned not to do. >>> >>>That's exactly what John points out! >>> >>> If you can't see that then you need a reading >>>>comprehension course. >>> >>>Check your facts before resorting to insults. >>> >>>I suggest you try to comprehend John's post first! >>> >>>Reread mine and the previous posts. Neither John nor myself suggested the poster >>>was intending to act illegally. The warning is for everyone. If anyone does >>>use this forum for such activities they should be booted. >>> >>>>Also the quote you cite is moderation in itself while pretending not to be. If >>>>no moderation is warranted (and I think it was not) then why the post by a >>>>moderator? >>>>Jim >>> >>>He wasn't moderating, but making a general warning!! >>>If you still can't understand the moderators' reasoning, take it up with them. >>> >>>Andrew >> >>Hello Andrew, >>Just look at the title of John's post please. "MODERATION" is in capital >>letters. That's what attracted me to the post in the first place. That post is >>moderation in itself and in my opinion uncalled for since no offense was >>commited. I had ALREADY taken it up with the moderators and received an answer. >> I did not solicit your 2 cents. You jumped in with your opinion which in my >>opinion is wrong. If you can't see the "MODERATION" in the subject line and >>understand that the post itself is moderation then I can't help you. It is not >>a "general warning" when applied to a perticular poster concerning his >>particular post. Your understanding here is still lacking. Also I'm not >>concerned with my reading comprehension since my Mom says I'm pretty smart for >>my age. :) >>Jim > >Keep your pants on, on this forum anyone can respond to whatever they like, >and that's what happens! Please reread John's post, the warning was general and >that's the end of the matter. >I think it's time to end this nonsense, I'm leaving to a new thread. Good. You have said nothing constructive for the past several days. If you had any sense you would understand when you respond to a post by someone you are communicating directly with that person. A "general warning" is a new post not specifically pointed at anyone. I guess you have little understanding of how a forum such as this works. You just jump in with your idiotic 2 cents and can't admit you are wrong. Grow up.
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.