Author: allan johnson
Date: 00:43:53 11/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 1999 at 23:38:50, odell hall wrote: >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. Odell At first I sympathised with your situation but if you are going to resort to abuse and insults you'll lose it quickly .Unfortunately I don't think that worries you a great deal.That would be a pity .While I don't expect you to apologise I think you should acknowledge that your post was open to criticism.Once you do this I think the problem will dissipate and you can getn on with entertaining people with your entertaining observations on computer chess. Cheers Rabbits mam fast losing 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.