Author: Dirk Frickenschmidt
Date: 03:12:47 09/14/98
Hi Thorsten, I appeal to you because I still hope that things can be settled. It is no problem with me when you are just a bit polemical. And why not make jokes about different program evaluations of each of us. I have no problem with heated discussions and even not with some irony and sarcasms. I know I can be quite sarcastic myself. Contrary to what Chris Whittington with his constantly intrigant and offensive style tries to indicate to you on rgcc it is not my intention to escalate our conflict or get you out of CCC. Despite our conflicts I like it if you write about computerchess here, I like to see games from tournaments you perform, whatever... But I cannot accept the amount of agressive ad-hominems from you recently, where I think you simply step over the border too far and too often. So let me decribe to you by some examples from our thread what I at best will hardly can accept from you in a forum like CCC, finally proposing that you adress me in another way in the future: *** a) You repeatedly have been attacking my religious belief and profession in quite a contemptive way, without any resonable context to computerchess matters discussed: >>>I can claim whatever i want dirk. This is a free world. I hope you can do the >>>same. But i am not sure. You are a priest :-) When then I asked: >>Could you please explain what you want to say to me or to others by this >>sentence in the context of our computer chess discussion? you answered: >No - i will not. This would be off-topic. You can send an email and i will >explain you. but not in this forum... :-) In another post you adressed me with: >I can have any opinion about a topic i like. Do you want to forbid thoughts >Dirk ? It looks you have become really a extremist in your religion :-) Now you finally do explain what you mean by that, but again in the form of a direct personal attack on my religious belief, naming me as belonging to "extreme religious people" after having called me "an extremist in my religion" above: >Extreme religious people want to tell other people what to think, when to think, >and which topics to think about. They also define morals and ethics. >It seems that is exactly what you want to do in the moment, trying to define >which values i shall follow. Which opinions i am allowed to have and when i am >allowed to express them. >I add this, because it has to do with the context we are talking about. >Maybe your profession has made you used to behave like this. Of course I had made no effort to 'forbid thoughts' or tell you what to think. Instead ***b) I had asked you to respect what Ed Schroder had said about reasons for retiring the Rebel autoplayer and not to continue false allegations including me personally. Although Ed clearly corrected you on CCC and insisted that his decision was neither meant as anti-Chessbase measure nor as reaction to autoplayer-testing from Enrique or Moritz or me, you insisted that you knew Eds real reasons: >I see it different. Ed has to speak in another language. >I don't have to be diplomatic. And i will not be diplomatic. >Nobody can stop me from saying my opinion. Although Ed clarified: >Hi Thorsten, Can you explain what you are saying about Moritz and Enrique? >Let me state that my decision to remove auto232 is 100% based on the >fact that secret autoplayers are unfair competition. I have never said >otherwise so Enrique and Moritz can never be a part of my decision as you say. you insist to declare my (among others) autotesting as responsible for Eds decision to retire the autoplayer. When Enrique protested against this obviously false allegation, saying >You claimed Moritz and I were reasons for Ed to remove auto232 from Rebel 10. you replied: > Right. I said that in my opinion you and moritz and dirks behaviour >are a reason that rebel10 has no autoplayer-support. And a few lines later you unmistakably expressed that you seem to have fun in this kind of ad-hominem allegation: >I am looking forward how you will try to stop me >from telling whatever i want. :-))) *** c) in a totally unnecessary introduction of displaced political matters (the Clinton affair) into our computer chess discussion, you included gutter language in a way which at least I do not appreciate as part of my computer chess interest within CCC. I will not quote that here. But I think there is no need to misuse CCC discussions in such a way. *** d) even if meant as funny anwer in our debate about how emotional computer testing may be for you in contrast to me I don't want to read allusions to my private life within CCC like the following: > What is sleeping with you wife on your scale ? *** e) I also think offensive personal comments like the following should not become fashion on CCC: >Of course you don't have strong feelings in computerchess area. >IMO this only shows you are shallow. This is not just a little polemical aside at something I said, but a pejorative overall evaluation of my person for the only reason that I don't have as "strong feelings in computerchess" as you have. Not necessary to comment like that in my eyes. *** f) You even included a reference to former offensive remarks from Mr. Tueschen and Mr. Whittington in our discussion, indicating that you now begin appreciating these former offensive comments: >More and more i get the feeling rolf and chris are right >with naming your point of views ... how did they call it... >i forgot to whom rolf and chris related you with... >i will ask chris. maybe he remembers and can help me... Well some people here still remember the extremely offensive Tueschen and Whittington posts then. Tueschen had compared me to Eichmann, and Whittington had called me and other CCC founders "little Hitlers". On rgcc Whittington, who is still busy reading here, answered your nebulous rhetorical question from CCC quite quickly (within hours): >I believe little Hitler or Hitler would be what you were looking for ..... This is exactly what others will have read from your remark. Then suddenly you claimed on rgcc that you had not been thinking of these offensive remarks (well knowing the consequences for yourself in such a case), but of something else (nebulous). But perhaps you made a little fault claiming this. You had definitely written >i forgot *to* *whom* rolf and chris related you with... and not "to what". So from my view it can hardly be doubted that originally you alluded to the above offences and to nothing else. Even if readers here will have understood you exactly in that way, I still hope you have another explanation "to whom" rolf and chris realated me then... , although there were not so many people "to whom" they related me (and others). And you suddenly forgot the thread, as you now said... On rgcc you added an alternative comparison between me and people directly supporting forms of extreme dictatorship in George Orwell's "1984" and in "Fahrenheit 451". I don't think that this is much less offensive. I would not have mentioned these rgcc comments if they were not closely related to what you wrote here on ccc about me. *** g) After I wrote about computer chess testing: >>It's not cold war, not politics, not sport with living people, >>but just computer chess: games between two interesting programs. you now answered: >For you it is only this. For me it is something different. >You do your bread and circuse in your LIFE !! >I do my bread and circuse in my hobby-area. Again I don't exactly understand your expression that I "do bread and circus in my life". I just hope it is not meant as one more offensive remark. ***h) >I think it is not necessary for our computerchess discussions to add more pejorative ad-hominems like: >I just want to send you best wishes from Uli, he reads CCC to and >told me a few hours ago that he finds all this very amusing. >The only thing he wonders is, that i still waste my time with talking with you. >Maybe this explains you where YOU have developed over the years. >Maybe. Some of the rest is debatable, but in some I don't find much sense. For example: >copy to uli gronemann and peter schreiner Do you want to impress me or other readers here on CCC by trying to indicate that you enclose others in mocking about my posts while being proud of your own offensive comments? What would that be good for? I also don't find the strange personification of programs in conjunction with more drastic pejorative language very helpful for discussing computerchess matters, when you for example write: >I just want to explain to you that I like to see assholes fall on the bottom. >In the same way i like to see fritz5 losing a championship. >I think anybody gets what he deserves. A liar will become a liar in the end. >Sometimes it takes years. Fritz5 is no person as far as I am informed. A comparison with an a*hole and and a liar on one side and a computer program on the other again is not what I expect most from a forum like CCC. So why should CCC readers have to read hateful personalizing in an extreme and offensive way even in regard to programs? *** Conclusion:*** As long as we both post in this forum, it will be probably inevitable that you comment or contradict what I write sometimes and the other way round. I see no problem in that at all. I would rather find it very articifial if we were not able to adress each other like anyone else here. And you can be sure that I will not overreact to little polemical asides or jokes from your side as long they they don't become clearly recognizable efforts to hit me or others in a way not longer compatible with the fairness which is fundamental for a well functioning newsgroup CCC. So I politely ask you not to continue anwering to me in the style I mentioned above. I insist that this means violating my (and others') rights not to suffer agressive ad-hominems in CCC, however heated the discussion about topics may be. It is not easy for me to ask for one more new effort from you to change your agressive posting, after you already heavily (and completely unprovoked by me) have violated my rights here just a short time before. I hope to meet you on-topic and without aggressive or even offensive ad hominems next time in CCC. I will not continue our particular thread from which I cited because it ended in such a not at all enjoyable way. Regards from Dirk
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.