Author: jonathon smith
Date: 10:32:34 01/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2000 at 12:48:39, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On January 27, 2000 at 06:08:56, jonathon smith wrote: > >>ChrisW is waiting for Bruce to come to the other necessary conclusion that a >>belief in freedom of speech is only valid if you are prepared to argue it for >>those that you strongly dislike and who have opinions that you strongly disagree >>with. > >I think that there is a good chance that Chris wouldn't last very long here, but >the circumstances of that ban disturbed me and I wanted to give him a chance to >mess up and go out by the numbers, or to not mess up and stay. > >Not everyone wants to listen to this kind of stuff all day long, so I wanted to >put a neat package around the whole situation, and allow it to be described as >an accident, a flawed logical construction, or (at least resort) as an act of >obvious vindictiveness, if that is what it turned out to be. I figured that if >I could do that, I could send a few pieces of email, quote a few posts, and >there would be an obvious course of action, you'd be back, and one or more >people would start yet another a big thread about impeaching me. > >The Blatchford eruption diminished my enthusiasm. That account went out by the >numbers, and could logically be determined to be Chris, since the last "Foxy >Times" post was nearly simultaneously posted by Chris in r.g.c.c. > >I figured, fine, he wants to do that, he can sit tight for a while. > >Now we come to the point of my post. I don't give a damn about Chris' computer >chess viewpoints. He wants to argue about slow search versus fast search, or >using the eval function to guide the search, or speculation, or any of that >stuff, I'm not remotely bothered. It would never occur to me to do anything >other than *encourage* that, certainly I would have no interest in persecuting >someone for that. > >What I object to are personal assaults on *people*, and these seem to go along >with the package. Personal attacks, sheer hatred and public humiliations go along with computer chess, egos and wierd people, as a brief glance at this board, or rgcc before shows. For example when I posted a few days ago to this board, I (or ChrisW) was called "schizo" by Enrique and a suggestion that I (or ChrisW) take my "prozac and triptazine" was made by Hyatt. As far as I am aware, ChrisW, who was presumably the target, does not suffer from schizophrenia and has never even seen such pills as Hyatt describes. ChrisW told me he thinks the comments made by the two of them reflect a greater malaise. That is to condemn people who disagree with them as mad, and then to make underhand, snide comments to that effect. He doubts they conspired together beforehand, they didn't need to, this is just how they tend to deal with difficulties. ChrisW says he notes the similarities with the decaying Soviet Union which also had a tendency to describe those that disagreed with the system as mad and sent them off to lunatic asylums. These kind of comments are incredibly rude, IMO. And they serve a wider purpose which is the slow drip-drip denigration and character assassination of those they dislike. ChrisW says he thinks the use of direct, data backed 'accusations' can be appropriate. It is important not to pick on weak people, but only to do this with your chosen-field 'equals' or people who can defend themselves. > >bruce
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.