Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 07:12:33 01/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2003 at 02:40:01, Sune Fischer wrote: >On January 13, 2003 at 21:57:06, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On January 13, 2003 at 18:25:01, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On January 13, 2003 at 15:30:50, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>Am I really the only one who finds it inappropriate to badmouth other CCC >>>members in the third person, as though they weren't reading it? >>> >>>There is a rule of thumb, "if you can't find anything nice to say about people, >>>don't say anything". :) >>> >>>-S. >> >>Excuse me but you have missed or misunderstood the reason for the little >>exchange between Bob and me. >>The facts and also his verdict could not be denied. >>But then I had enough of the continual automatism and wanted to _solve_ >>something. > >That's very noble of you, but I doubt you will smooth the waters by calling >people childish. Listen please, Sune, I already stated that you were wrong, absolutely wrong. But ok, you want to learn a lesson. Ok, let's do it. You are wrong, when you write that I called someone childish.What I did was the following. I judged, like Bob BTW, who omitted the word but invented stronger expressions to charecterize it, that the _behaviour_ of V. was quite strange. He contradicted himself without noticing or without even taking care of. That is in my books something very young children do. And that such a behaviour is childish then, is not an attack against V. but just a very normal general judgement. V. himself had often the habit to call people ready for the hospital, but I would never do that. Understand? I concentrate on the facts. Not hidden characteristics. Or even illnesses. > >>Please re-read the whole thread. The facts can't be denied. >>And they >>are ridiculous enough to justify a bit of "badmouthing" to say the least, > >Since when did two wrongs make a right? Ok, you want to continue. Ok then. Here it is not the question of making something a right but to understand that certain weaknesses in reasoning, or let's call them faults, that these faults are unacceptable in a somewhat scientific surrounding. This is so clear and also self-understood, that you can't change that into a taboo or such. You can't say that it should not be allowed to state the truth because it could hurt someone special. Because then we could also say Goodnight to such a group. If all kind of nonsense could be distributed and the following day the contrary of yesterday's nonsense. Again good eval but for completely wrong reasons, Sune! A common weakness in computer chess? > >>also >>because the facts are in itself _insulting_ enough, > >So you felt you have to state these "facts". No, nowhere until now I did state them. They are known. Bob insisted on these facts. And they can't be denied. My point was another one. I saw that with stating these facts V. could not be invited to think over his whole presentation. But I see you are drifting apart farther and farther. I see that you want to make some point but there is no context > >>if you know what I mean. >>There's a rule of thumb, "if you don't understand what people are talking about, >>don't say anything". :) > >Of course not, who would ever do a thing like that?? We all, included me, so here we agree. :) > >>BTW I had a lot of nice things to say about Vincent, which was the reason for my >>defending attempt to try the improbable. > >Why _say_ anything about Vincent, why _say_ anything about anyone here? >You should feel free to disagree with _what_ they say, but don't do personal >attacks, please, it has never been on-topic and it never will be. Don't try to teach me something you didn't understand. I disagreed with the position of Bob. But not because he was wrong on the facts. But because he had no perspective for the reasons of the factual nonsense behaviour of V. And since this was almost an automatism I tried to give some new interpretations. And surely that was NOT doing personal attacks, on the contrary. Your own behaviour now is clearly without understanding and solely personally meant. Against me. But like the other time you missed the real point. I didn't attack or accuse someone but tried to differentiate the possible reactions. The objective - here documented! - facts in CCC can't be defined as sacrosanctus so that nobody could comment. And these facts indeed speak their own language. Clearly not to everybody! You simply miss the point that V.'s written behaviour IS so personal that therefore it seems as a personal reaction if one comments on what he has written. And _everybody_ would normally react like Bob! At that point I tried to defend the facts with a - admittedly - very difficult interpretation. But this was neither a personal attack. It was a desperate try to perform a mission impossible. And you seem to be happy that it might be impossible, although you argue for a plus of understanding. If you know what I mean. You have the last word. I can't further comment because you already have shown such a lack of differentiated understanding that I would do harm to the whole case if I began now to primarily defend my own position. My own emotional state here is completely uninteresting. I still hope I could show you how wrong you are with your insinuations that I couldhave planned something _against_ V. Alas, I doubt that I could succeed. Bye for now. I will respond only next time and in a new topic. Perhaps we could then have a better mutual understanding? How about that? Kind regards, Rolf Tueschen > >>Mission impossible. > >?? > >>Last but not least, because we're in a computerchess talk: you resemble the >>computer progs who show the correct eval for wrong reasons! All your phrasing is >>correct but in this particular case it's the wrong remedy. > >Maybe you are right about that, but this ongoing psycobable on the character >flaws of CCC members is not productive. > >>And your clever >>mottos don't work here since the case is already almost fatally dead. Then you >>can't remain passive. So I showed up with a possible solution. The rest should >>remain private. Thank you for your understanding. But don't be surprised if next >>time I'll simply answer "Shut up!" in time pressure or such some. I just learned >>the expression in CTF from a kid... :) > >Yes, tell me to shut up, that might finally get the moderators attention... ;) > >-S. >>Rolf Tueschen
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.