DxN wrote:
corrected, thanks
Sorry, didn't realise you were from Romania, thought you were American as you kept going on about freedom of speech.
Don't Criticize the chess.com Columnists... or else.
Sort:
I was just being ironical regarding the claimed "freedom of speech"
yes, i realised that, but just assumed you were American.
Vance917 wrote:
DylanAM wrote:
Let it roll off your back, even if others can't. Others may not take things lightly, but realize that the only thing under your control is how you respond.
Without weighing in on the merits (or lack thereof) of censorship, I will disagree with the general principle you articulate. If we all went along with the rules laid out in front of us, turned the other cheek without ever taking a stand and saying "enough", then we as a society would never have risen to the point at which 1) slavery is abolished; 2) women can vote; and 3) we no longer have to fear retribution from the church the way Galileo and Giordano Bruno did.
While chess.com posts are equivalent in principle to slavery, women's suffrage, and religious persecution, no one is actually being persecuted here. A post on an online chess website is being deleted. My point is that you should let this roll off your back, precisely because in proper perspective, you should not tie enough importance to this action. So what, someone deleted a post. No one's being persecuted.
That's your own opinion; it is not a supreme one; no opinions are. He can be irritated if he was arbitrarily disrespected. I would be!
selfmate wrote:
Believe me. I've seen real idiots post the most trivial and inane garbage on forum sites and then whine about "censorship" when their posts are deleted. Given that kind of background, I felt some embarrassment in putting up the same sort of complaint. But I don't think this is one of those cases. As far as I can tell, Silman was being arbitrary and just deleting something because he didn't like what it said. And that isn't right.
That's too bad, your instincts were correct. Your commentary was off topic so Silman deleted it. I have to wonder why that fact upsets you so much.
lol... what? If it were only because he didn't like it that would have been perfectly acceptable... it was his article... you think you're the king of the Internet or something? You're nuts.
But your post was off topic, so Silman was even more justified in doing so.
Silman is justified in doing so, but he is no doubt being arbitrarily disrespectful to any opinion that doesn't agree with him.
Perhaps you could argue selfmate was being a tad disrespectful too (I wouldn't say so though). Even so, if it's only disrespectful on the level of not obsequiously accepting everything a person says and wanting that fact recognized, that means that deleting the comment shows no better of a character.
It wasn't just "you're stupid." There was some substance to it and you know what I think annoyed him? Even if it was biased, hypocrisy is hard to tolerate, and why shouldn't it be brought up if Silman used this hypocrisy to critisize, publically (!) a member's logic. Isn't that a little mean and unjustified?
May 7, 2011
0
#69
Silman has the right to delete what he wants to delete - it is his article. We have the choice to support him here. I know there are those who argue the "free" argument, but all things considered, they are his blogs, and if he wishes to delete it, he can. But we don't have to support him, if we feel he is being unfair. Each customer here, paying or not (non-paying also equals potential future paying) has a right and a voice.
May 7, 2011
0
#70
"but all things considered, they are his blogs"
They're discussing Articles, not Blogs. I doubt there would be much backlash against a deleted blog comment. Article pages seem to fall a bit more in the public domain; maybe not as much as forum threads, but a lot more so than Blog entries.
May 7, 2011
0
#71
I personally don't agree with deleting the post, but I guess Silman has his rights...that being said, I think there is less respect for the discussion with him. But what is the most in this is that Silman has not responded after his initial response on this forum. He can do as he wishes, but I would think there would be less people wanting to discuss with him.
I assume chess.com doesn't want us paying customers to run him off 
Don't criticize the chess.com columnists or else they'll quit
How I hope Silman stays with the site - Not only will we have his fabulous articles to read but with any luck, some people will decide to leave.
Benkobaby +1 !
That's why I am important.
May 9, 2011
0
#77
Gambitking wrote:
BUT! Everyone makes mistakes--I understand this, and I don't carry a personal vendetta against Silman...
AND NEITHER DOES davidegpc!!! He has said so multiple times!
from one of david's post "Sorry but the topic was that Silman, arbitrarily because he cannot accept criticism, and mentally is still 8 years old,"
@Gambitking,
1.You stated that davidegps is not carrying a personal vendetta, than you may want to explain the quote just posted by kco on post #146
2.There were a lot of coherent arguments posted here. Truth is that nobody is deafer than the one who doesn't want to hear, so I don't see the point of any other argument you are not ready to listen
3.You and very few others have a different opinion than the rest of us regarding the censorship, which is OK with me, no problem. But, instead of trying to combat our opinion, you are combating us ... It seems very childish to me to assume and affirm that others "are not willing to take any risk" and "blindly follow whatever the administration says". Please let me understand your allegations correctly, whoever doesn't share your opinion is a chicken s***t who just want to be driven by the mighty admins ? Where and which are the claimed risks that you are facing, 'cause I really-really don't see them and who from the admins told us what to think ?
4.davidegps has all the rights to raise valid questions as long as he is changing his "8 years old" approach
May 9, 2011
0
#80
davidegpc wrote: Sorry but the topic was that Silman, arbitrarily because he cannot accept criticism, and mentally is still 8 years old, deleted some messages that he didn't like, probably because they showed he was wrong, and his ego cannot accept it.
So it is quite useless to quote Franklin, when the truth has been proven, that Silman did erase messages because he is not mature enough.
HAW! What a hypocrite! A few hours ago davidegpc blocked me as soon as he saw a post from me that he didn't like. He didn't have the ability to erase the post, but he acted immediately to prevent any more from me in his thread. It seems he expects Silman to operate under different rules than he keeps for himself. Davey doesn't seem to practice what he brays about! 
Too expensive for him!