Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 05:28:43 02/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2003 at 07:13:55, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 15, 2003 at 03:18:31, Jonas Cohonas wrote: > >>Very off topic in the meantime, so I will give my last message. You are funny. I >>>like your messages but you have a general habit to teach me. > > >Just because you are so nice here a little test. I write what I would also write >to a scientist, but you [in the role of the author of the quoted message!] can't >be one, because of the many mistakes. Of course you could be someone else with a >specific agenda. Then you will take offense although your role game is _your_ >game without that I had a way to understand it. So, I prefer to take "you" >naively as a layman. Always being aware that sort of expert could well be >behind. Here is what I would write to a very talented kid. Note if it would be a >scientist, "Jonas" would not have made so many mistakes. Here we go. > > > >> >>Just suggestions Rolf, not orders. > > >Funny again, you teach me. But suggestions of that level are bit naive and if >the intention of ordering wouldn't exist behind you _then_ would have renounced >to give it at all. > > > >>I am not trying to teach you anything, teaching you would imply that i am right >>in what i say, but i am not sure that i am, i have pointed this out before. > > >Yes, you have many points. One was that I should adopt a better self-reflection >about my intentions and the possibly best methods to get people into attention >mode. I told you that I had no direct interests for such an optimalization mode. >Instead of doing some research on that information you present a false >interpretation of teaching. Because teachers do teach and they could well teach >even if they were aware that they could teach 1) different stuff and 2) in >different ways. BTW the best teacher is completely aware of this. But to my >surprise you say that if you are not sure then you can't teach at all, what you >in fact always did although you write that this were impossible... > >Therefore the repeated use of the term "funny". > > > >> >>>That is normally >>>the job of a lay psychologist. [Real psychologists dont do that.] >> >>See previous comment. >> >>>All what you say is important for all kind of spin doctors. >> >>There you go again with the spindoctor, do you honestly think that is what i am >>doing? > >Here we have the next misunderstanding. It's pointing to a general weakness. The >meaning of my very simple phrase is: I [Rolf] say that what you [Jonas] tell me >"something that is important" "for a spin doctor". And here below I continue >"I'm not such a spin doctor." If I wanted to know if I had a GM as opponent or a >dumb computer then a3 and h3 [DJ sensational moves] would give me the necessary >informations. > > > > >> >>>But I am not such a >>>species. I am a totally free "scientist" in such talks. Also, I don't want to >>>persuade people. You have no understanding for me. None. This is a pity. Do you >>>believe that a guy like Walser looks what people think or expect? Did you never >>>reflect such positions? I write the best that I can! And the rest is to others. >>>Most debates go about misunderstandings. Or when I had asked questions - since I >>>am a lay in CC! But when I talk about statistics or other topics, I have enough >>>knowledge. >>> >>>From 1996 on, from my first contact in rgcc, I always met people who start to >>>tell me how I should behave, don't you find that crazy? Is that a CC deficiency? >> >>Maybe there is something in your behaviour that you might need to look at, given >>that general response you just discribed. > >Nope. It is something else. Guess what? I am not so easily confused. While you >seem to talk about something you only know from hear-say. > > > > >> >>>I am psychologist but I would never do that. >> >>I thought you were a scientist :) > > >If I ever needed a proof then this is it. You must go back to START again. But I >won't tell you the solution this time. > > > > >> >>>Next point. Wider, more. Would you say that I get no reactions? :) >> >>No, but you would probably have more people wanting to "get" you point/s. > >Spin doctor problems again. Not mine. Your logic is "Lower your level!" This is >another delusion. Because this way they would no longer get my points. I am >happy when people admit that they got something of a different view from my >messages. That is the signal to me that I'm doing fine. > > > > >> >>>And then! People I have enough who talk with me, but I would seek for real >>>experts. And they are perhaps not here. I mean real scientists. Bob is the only >>>one I know. >> >>>Could we now end this very personal debate? It has a disadvantage because I >>>don't know you. >> >>Well i don't know you either, but i am fine with this debate, however if it >>makes you uncomfortable to discus on a personal level, then by all means let's >>drop it. > >You underestimate irony. > > > >> >>BTW just stating the obvious, it is through personal relations you get to know >>someone. > >Yes. If you were a woman then I could perhaps lose my mind. I needed more >details. :) > >Rolf Tueschen Well atleast you have your sense of humor, but this is the part of the conversation where you sky rocket into another dimension, hope you will come back with your senses too. I guess i have learned my lesson now, having a conversation with you is impossible. Jonas
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.