Author: odell hall
Date: 20:38:50 11/14/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 1999 at 22:33:36, KarinsDad wrote: >On November 14, 1999 at 19:54:22, odell hall wrote: > >[snip] > >> >> Your are absolutely correct, My post is not hard to understand at all, I have >>come to the conclusion that I have some enemies here, Every thing I say, even >>the smallest metaphor gets twisted and abused, Yet I am not abusive to anyone >>else's post. Having said this I see my time is up here at CCC. It seems that >>Kids and obnoxious posters have won the day. I wrote a innocent post trying to >>understand the reasons why very strong programs are not commericially availble >>(ferret and tiger). I was hopeing that I could get a intelligent post explaining >>the reasons why. Luckily I did get two (brucemoreland and David Johnson) Who >>explained why it is difficult to publish a program and some of the reasons why >>programmers choose not to do. I wrote back to david johnson thanking him for >>his insights. Then I get a barrage of garbage and insults from people who >>obviously did not read my post carefully. Like everyone else I am a computer >>chess addict,I enjoy some of the discussions here. I don't come here to be >>insulted, so please if you don't understand my post, either don't reply to it, >>or ask me specifically what it is you don't understand. > >Actually, your post was borderline controversial. Not that it was abusive, but >it indirectly pointed a finger at programmers. In fact, we got a complaint about >it very early on. However, being a programmer who doesn't yet share his program >with anyone, I could understand a programmer's feeling about your post. > >On the other hand, I wrote back to that complainer indicating that it was not >abusive, just annoying. And it may have been mostly annoying to a programmer >like myself. The reason: You were questioning mine and other programmer's >motives in what they did with their programs when in reality, you had no right >to do so (although you gave examples of Ferret and Tiger, you generalized about >all programs and hence, all programmers). This does not make you a bad person >nor does the response to your post indicate that you have enemies here. It means >that your approach was not the best and the subject was controversial. > So what is your point? Only write what people want to hear?? I am 100 % certain that there are many other people who would like the answer to the same question, why they cannot purchase a good chess program. If such a simple question is offensive than to hell with this group I don't want to be here anymore so you can revoke my passworld as of now. >It is unfortunate that some people feel the need to jump all over somebody else >in these types of circumstances. I thought David Blackman's (not Johnson's) >response to you was very good. However, not everyone responds to a controversial >message in such a thoughtful manner. My message was not controversial that's bullshit, it is controversial only to someone who feels that what I wrote is correct in reference to them. So if you are one of those programmers who don't want to market your program for some weird personal reason then you would be offended. I also made clear what programs I was referring to. Using basic reasoning and deduction you could get that much. When i said that most people would gladly buy the product, certainly i could not have been referring to every joe blow programmer. And even if I was so what? It's an opinion not a personal attack!! > >It's difficult to understand when we post that some people will take what we say >in a different manner in which it is meant. There is no stopping it. The real >problem is that the people who READ the posts are nearly as much to blame for >mis-interpretations as the posters. This is very apparent based on some of the >replies. If people would just take the time to more carefully write their posts >and others would take the time to attempt to make sure that they are not making >too strong of a response, the waves would be a little bit smaller. Here I disagree again, the only remotely offensive term i used was "criminal", but when read in the context of the entire post it is harmless. I even said myself that it was maybe to strong!! If i had malignant intentions would I have added this remark?? Let's be reasonable. > >KarinsDad :)
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.