J.D. Walker wrote:
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.

To follow up, I found this in the newsgroup faq:

"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."

Point taken...
--

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

Please don't crosspost.

J.D. Walker wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
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.

To follow up, I found this in the newsgroup faq:

"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."

Point taken...


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/