Chris resignation
Fernando Villegas Darroui
I cannot but to fully agree with Jeff. Chris is one of the most amusing
contributors to this group to the poinnt that many times I come here
just to see if there is some article writen by him. His wit and style
guarantee that if any time he stop writing ches programs, he can win a
lot more writing in a humour & politics & anything magazine. The same I
can say for Moreland, Hyatt and even KK, that is the most accurate
examiner I have ever known. So, silence against wranglers is the best
politics and more than enought. Chris, don't go and don't forget to
tell when your CST is ready.
Fernando
brucemo
I gotta comment on the stream of "Don't go Chris" messages that I have
been seeing.
A post that says "I'm leaving for good" seems to me to be similar to a
suicide note. The suicide's fantasy is to be able to see what happens
after they are reported dead -- to hear everyone express how much they
will be missed, to see their note gone over for clues to deeper meanings
in life, to watch everyone turn on the person who the note blames as being
the "last straw".
In my opinion a better way of dealing with a suicide is a simple, "That
sure was a stupid thing to do".
Fortunately, unlike the real thing, suicide-posts are reversible.
My suggestion to those contemplating suicide-posting is:
1) If you want to post something useful, post it.
2) If you don't want to post anything, don't post anything.
There needn't be any dramatic posts about why you are not going to post.
bruce
Don Fong
In article <32D49D...@nwlink.com>, brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>I gotta comment on the stream of "Don't go Chris" messages that I have
>been seeing.
>My suggestion to those contemplating suicide-posting is:
>
>1) If you want to post something useful, post it.
>2) If you don't want to post anything, don't post anything.
>
>There needn't be any dramatic posts about why you are not going to post.
Bruce, your rules 1 and 2 are right. but i suspect the real
point of the "suicide" posts is attempted manipulation/censorship.
i'm sorry that some of the most interesting posters have
apparently quit, but hey --- usenet is no place for prima donnas.
most of the quitters seem to be leaving because someone else will not
shut up. it's a form of attempted censorship. ``be silent or i will
punish you by withholding my interesting contributions.''
to me, that kind of thinking represents a misunderstanding of
the way usenet works. of course, no one is under any obligation to
contribute interesting material. but to use that as a threat is a
kind of blackmail. it is also ineffective, because the offending party
is usually someone who did not really appreciate those contributions
in the first place. because it punishes the wrong party.
folks, forget this tactic. it doesn't work. if you don't want
to see the posts of a particular someone, then use your killfile.
or if you don't want ANYONE to hear what that someone has to say?
that is not your right, even if that someone is a miscreant or an idiot.
look, there are a lot of idiots in the world. there is no way for
usenet to eliminate them. if you can't bear to coexist with them,
then you have a big problem, bigger than just usenet. it's like
saying you're not going to the library anymore because there is
a bad book.
having said all that, i also think there could be good reasons for
quitting (other than the ones stated). usenet can be a huge time drain.
not everyone finds it worthwhile. i wouldn't argue if Chris or Ed
(or Bob) just said ``I don't have time for this anymore.'' newsgroups
can be an addictive time waster, like TV.
--
don fong ``i still want the peace dividend'' http://got.net/~dfong/
Stheno
I think this is just a big joke on Chris' part. He's actually gone on
holiday and decided to throw that resignation out to take you all for a
ride.
heehee Good one Chris. You'll have a good laugh yourself when you get
back.
Richard
mclane
brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>My suggestion to those contemplating suicide-posting is:
>1) If you want to post something useful, post it.
>2) If you don't want to post anything, don't post anything.
>There needn't be any dramatic posts about why you are not going to post.
>bruce
Ah come one, you don't really want give definitions WHEN somebody has
to post WHAT ?!
If somebody wants to let us know about his suicide, he has the right
to do it.
If you don't want to read it, don't read it-.
BTW: I don't think that chris is the guy who will commit suicide.
I'll wait for some other guys to do that. But not for chris-.
mclane
df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) wrote:
> Bruce, your rules 1 and 2 are right. but i suspect the real
>point of the "suicide" posts is attempted manipulation/censorship.
Read Computerschach and Spiele or ICCA journal. There you will find
best examples of manipulation and censorship.
I don't think that chris is a manipulator. I have seen people really
manipulate. Chris has no reasons for doing that. He don't need to
manipulate. He don't has to make money out of computerchess.
He does it for fun. He has other sources that finance this life.
> i'm sorry that some of the most interesting posters have
>apparently quit, but hey --- usenet is no place for prima donnas.
You will find out that the prima-donnas very often have reached the
power-positions YET. Chris has no power. It is not his target to get
power. He is no prima-donna.
>most of the quitters seem to be leaving because someone else will not
>shut up. it's a form of attempted censorship. ``be silent or i will
>punish you by withholding my interesting contributions.'
I understand your point. With other guys you are maybe right. But not
with chris.
> to me, that kind of thinking represents a misunderstanding of
>the way usenet works. of course, no one is under any obligation to
>contribute interesting material. but to use that as a threat is a
>kind of blackmail.
Here I agree.
> it is also ineffective, because the offending party
>is usually someone who did not really appreciate those contributions
>in the first place. because it punishes the wrong party.
> folks, forget this tactic. it doesn't work. if you don't want
>to see the posts of a particular someone, then use your killfile.
>or if you don't want ANYONE to hear what that someone has to say?
>that is not your right, even if that someone is a miscreant or an idiot.
> look, there are a lot of idiots in the world. there is no way for
>usenet to eliminate them. if you can't bear to coexist with them,
>then you have a big problem, bigger than just usenet. it's like
>saying you're not going to the library anymore because there is
>a bad book.
Right.
> having said all that, i also think there could be good reasons for
>quitting (other than the ones stated). usenet can be a huge time drain.
>not everyone finds it worthwhile. i wouldn't argue if Chris or Ed
>(or Bob) just said ``I don't have time for this anymore.'' newsgroups
>can be an addictive time waster, like TV.
Aeh - how about computerchess. Isn't computerchess a strange hobby ?!
I think the best function of usenet is communication and friendship
and that we can share in a big community and NOBODY can censorship us
or separate people in ignorance.
In the moment the net is controlled and censorshipped by the same
corrupt people who now control the print-media and television, the
whole net is lost and it is really wasted time.
brucemo
Fernando Villegas Darroui wrote:
>
> Bruce:
> It is a pity that a man of your acumen has done so a funny but
> mistaken comparison between going out from here and commiting suicide,
> specially if you more or less imply that we have here the kind of
> histerical suicides that are threated, but not commited. You can think
I think it's no more respectable to do it than to threaten to do it, so I
didn't draw this distinction.
> -and I do also- that maybe Chris and another has gone too far and that the
> supossed heavy fire was not that heavy, but remember: always the shit that
> others receive can be seen with an olimpic smile IF you are not going to
> be hitted with it. In any case, good or bad, they have his reasons and if
When I write a post I expect all sorts of considered reactions to it. People
either agree with me or disagree with me. If they disagree with me, and I was
wrong, fine, I'm embarassed, but this is not the fault of the person who is
disagreeing with me. When I disagree with the disagreement it's also no big
deal, because everyone's doing the best job they can. When they agree with
me, cool, that's gravy.
There are also people who write heavily awful responses. I've been the target
of some of it, some of the arguments I've been in have gotten personal. It is
very unpleasant when this happens, but if you think you are doing the best job
you can, why should this bother you to a terrible degree?
Ok, so perhaps it does bother you, no big deal, everyone is entitled to be
bothered by whatever bothers them, but what good does it do to resign at all,
much less to resign and write a note to that effect? This course detracts
from the whole community. Instead, just let the person be bashed down by
weight of public perception, and if you can't stand to watch the process, put
them in a kill-file.
Remember that in any newsgroup there is always at least one rude jerk active
at any given time. This seems to be axiomatic. These people can't be allowed
to run the show. Ignore them, fight with them, insult them, whatever you
want, but don't let them DEFINE the whole newsgroup. They are not what
r.g.c.c. is about.
> it is so and his exit is a real damage to this newsgroup, I think that is
> preferable to be part of a chorus of petitioners singing the song "Don't
> go, Chris! than shoot another bullet saying "this is people that want to
> see how relatives cry during the ceremony". The resilience to fire, even
> friendly fire, is not the same in all us and I tend to believe that those
> guys more inclined to witty and sarcastic comments are the more sensible
> to the "riposte". Maybe is the case with Chris. So what? What's the pain
> and difficulty and the problem to accept all that and ask the friend to
> reconsider?
I hope that everyone who posts useful stuff will please keep doing so. And of
course I include Chris in this group.
bruce
Fernando Villegas Darroui
Bruce:
It is a pity that a man of your acumen has done so a funny but
mistaken comparison between going out from here and commiting suicide,
specially if you more or less imply that we have here the kind of
histerical suicides that are threated, but not commited. You can think
supossed heavy fire was not that heavy, but remember: always the shit that
others receive can be seen with an olimpic smile IF you are not going to
be hitted with it. In any case, good or bad, they have his reasons and if
Bill Newton
>I gotta comment on the stream of "Don't go Chris" messages that I have
>been seeing.
>
>suicide note. The suicide's fantasy is to be able to see what happens
>after they are reported dead -- to hear everyone express how much they
>will be missed, to see their note gone over for clues to deeper meanings
>in life, to watch everyone turn on the person who the note blames as being
>the "last straw".
Fascinating stuff! are you a Doctor of Philosophy: ? a Psychiatrist? a
Sage ? :-)
Seriously though, I've never looked at the matter in the way you
describe, and writing as the person 'blamed' in Chris's 'farewell' post,
I'm intrigued by the way you view the situation.
Incidentally I can vouch for the accuracy of your comment quoted above,
as in addition to the 'dont go' messages, several members of the
Newsgroup simply took Chris's final comments about me as the gospel
truth, and flamed me as being responsible for his departure!
(I have put my side of the story very briefly elsewhere in this
Newsgroup.)
>
>In my opinion a better way of dealing with a suicide is a simple, "That
>sure was a stupid thing to do".
>
>Fortunately, unlike the real thing, suicide-posts are reversible.
Happily they are, I hope Chris will take your comment on board and
choose to resume normal posting to the group.
I've a feeling he will eventually, it must be so difficult for him to
read this group ( I bet you he still does!) yet feel obliged to remain
silent when there is likely so much he would like to comment on.
So come on back Chris, you're more than welcome!
>My suggestion to those contemplating suicide-posting is:
>
>1) If you want to post something useful, post it.
>2) If you don't want to post anything, don't post anything.
>
>There needn't be any dramatic posts about why you are not going to post.
Right On, I couldn't agree more!
Pondering upon the scenario you paint I suddenly realise that I have
never seen a 'suicide farewell posting' from, well shall we say 'lesser
known personalities': THEY, simply STOP posting when THEY wish to,
without making announcements. Food for thought I think.
I was originally puzzled as to the unexpected 'farewell' posting to the
group made by Chris, but thanks to your comments I feel I now understand
matters more clearly.
Hopefully we ALL live and learn :-)
Regards.
--
Bill Newton
Robert Hyatt
Fernando Villegas Darroui (fern...@reuna.cl) wrote:
: Bruce:
: It is a pity that a man of your acumen has done so a funny but
: mistaken comparison between going out from here and commiting suicide,
: specially if you more or less imply that we have here the kind of
: histerical suicides that are threated, but not commited. You can think
: -and I do also- that maybe Chris and another has gone too far and that the
: supossed heavy fire was not that heavy, but remember: always the shit that
: be hitted with it. In any case, good or bad, they have his reasons and if
: preferable to be part of a chorus of petitioners singing the song "Don't
: go, Chris! than shoot another bullet saying "this is people that want to
: see how relatives cry during the ceremony". The resilience to fire, even
: friendly fire, is not the same in all us and I tend to believe that those
: guys more inclined to witty and sarcastic comments are the more sensible
: to the "riposte". Maybe is the case with Chris. So what? What's the pain
: and difficulty and the problem to accept all that and ask the friend to
: reconsider?
I think all Bruce was saying is that if *anyone* wants to leave the newsgroup,
for any reason, the right way to leave is to simply leave. Not write a legacy
document, or take one last parting shot at someone. A "legacy document" means
should you change your mind, you can look foolish if the document was full of
statements you'd now like to recant...
I hope no one leaves, personally, although I'd like to see the name-calling
and such eliminated as much as possible... I can't think of anyone here that
I agree with all the time, but I also can't think of anyone here that I don't
ever agree with either... I'll take the disagreements, because the agreements
sometimes produce useful results..
lensp...@aol.com
In article <32D5AE...@ix.netcom.com>, Stheno <rls...@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
I kinda figured it was like Ed's "resignation". I think they just needed
to get back to work on their programs, and quit wasting time reading
newsgroups... dB^)
mclane
Bill Newton <not...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Hopefully we ALL live and learn :-)
>Regards.
In my opinon you and Chris have a misunderstanding due to whatever.
You should be able to clear it.
Than we can live better. Here. There. Everywhere.
>--
>Bill Newton