Guy Macon wrote:
Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
samsloan wrote:

Have you read the decision?

The answer is obvious.

Sam Sloan
This is the first time you have ever replied to a criticism
of your crossposting. Dare I hope that you are now willing
to have a calm and rational discussion about your crossposting?

As I expected, no reply. Sam Sloan will not discuss this
with me because he knows that he is in the wrong.

As it turns out, I *did* read the UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
V. CABLEVISION LIGHTPATH decision. It contains two references
to "computer hackers", one reference to "a computerized
facility that provides an electronic communications service"
(what we non-lawyers would call an email server) and zero
references to chess or any other game.

Please explain to me what you believe to be obvious; what
does any of this have to do with computers playing chess?

As I expected, no reply. Sam Sloan will not answer my question
because he can't answer my question. He was hoping that just
saying "the answer is obvious" would fool everyone into not
noticing that he has no reason for posting legal briefs having
nothing to do with chess into it to a newsgroup dedicated to
computer chess.

Once again for the record, I have expressed no opinion
about guilt or innocence in the underlying case.


Mr. Macon,

I do not know if the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup has a strict
charter or not, or how it reads. Do you know? Could you post it?

On the other side, like it or not, Sam is involved in a lawsuit that
certainly involves computers, system administrators, the Internet,
Internet security experts, Internet impersonation and defamation as well
as many chess and chess politics aspects. His use of a particular legal
citation, while not directly related, bears on his case.

If one were to estimate the difference between Sam's case being
dismissed with prejudice with the alternative that he wins in every
respect there are undoubtedly many aspects of interest related to chess
and computers.

However, if you can produce the newsgroup's charter, and it is explicit
in which ways chess and computers are to be discussed, you may have a
point. Personally, I would be happy if the lawsuit topic were confined
to the politics group, but I see Sam's point.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

J.D. Walker wrote:

I do not know if the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup has a strict
charter or not, or how it reads. Do you know? Could you post it?

No need. The fact that post that have nothing to do with computer
chess are off-topic in rec.games.chess.computer is well established
by the construction of the name of the newsgroup. The naming system
is part of what makes Usenet Usenet.

That being said, the charter agrees:

CHARTER:

The rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup will provide a place to
disseminate reports, discussions and analysis of game servers, where
chess games can be played in real time, similar to playing games of
chess via telephone; information and discussion about databases, games
collections, chess-playing software, and other computer programs of a
similar nature, either offered for sale, or in the state of development.

On the other side, like it or not, Sam is involved in a lawsuit that
certainly involves computers, system administrators, the Internet,
Internet security experts, Internet impersonation and defamation as well
as many chess and chess politics aspects.

You appear to have misunderstood how Usenet newsgroup names work.

"rec.games.chess.computer" means:

rec = having to do with recreation.

games = having to do with games, a subset of recreation.

chess = having to do with chess, a subset of games.

computer = having to do with computer chess, a subset of chess.

A newsgroup that was about all of chess and all of computers
would use the construct chess-computer, not chess.computer.

His lawsuit has nothing to do with computer chess. The fact that
it relates to both computers and chess does not change the fact
that it has nothing to do with computers playing chess.

If one were to estimate the difference between Sam's case being
dismissed with prejudice with the alternative that he wins in every
respect there are undoubtedly many aspects of interest related to chess
and computers.

rec.games.chess.computer is a newsgroup dedicated to chess computers,
not chess and computers.

However, if you can produce the newsgroup's charter, and it is explicit
in which ways chess and computers are to be discussed, you may have a
point. Personally, I would be happy if the lawsuit topic were confined
to the politics group, but I see Sam's point.

I don't see how. He has never tried to make a point. Despite
repeated requests, he refuses to discuss his crossposting behavior.

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Guy Macon wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:

I do not know if the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup has a strict
charter or not, or how it reads. Do you know? Could you post it?

No need. The fact that post that have nothing to do with computer
chess are off-topic in rec.games.chess.computer is well established
by the construction of the name of the newsgroup. The naming system
is part of what makes Usenet Usenet.

That being said, the charter agrees:

CHARTER:

The rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup will provide a place to
disseminate reports, discussions and analysis of game servers, where
chess games can be played in real time, similar to playing games of
chess via telephone; information and discussion about databases, games
collections, chess-playing software, and other computer programs of a
similar nature, either offered for sale, or in the state of development.

On the other side, like it or not, Sam is involved in a lawsuit that
certainly involves computers, system administrators, the Internet,
Internet security experts, Internet impersonation and defamation as well
as many chess and chess politics aspects.

You appear to have misunderstood how Usenet newsgroup names work.

"rec.games.chess.computer" means:

rec = having to do with recreation.

games = having to do with games, a subset of recreation.

chess = having to do with chess, a subset of games.

computer = having to do with computer chess, a subset of chess.

A newsgroup that was about all of chess and all of computers
would use the construct chess-computer, not chess.computer.

His lawsuit has nothing to do with computer chess. The fact that
it relates to both computers and chess does not change the fact
that it has nothing to do with computers playing chess.

If one were to estimate the difference between Sam's case being
dismissed with prejudice with the alternative that he wins in every
respect there are undoubtedly many aspects of interest related to chess
and computers.

rec.games.chess.computer is a newsgroup dedicated to chess computers,
not chess and computers.

However, if you can produce the newsgroup's charter, and it is explicit
in which ways chess and computers are to be discussed, you may have a
point. Personally, I would be happy if the lawsuit topic were confined
to the politics group, but I see Sam's point.

I don't see how. He has never tried to make a point. Despite
repeated requests, he refuses to discuss his crossposting behavior.


Mr. Macon,

My point in responding to this at all was to encourage the discussion
that you were bemoaning the lack of. Now that three of us have reviewed
the group charter, and you have explained your view of the Usenet naming
hierarchy, I am content. What else can be done?

I will restate my preference for the record: "Personally, I would be
happy if the lawsuit topic were confined to the politics group..."

Have a nice day!
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.