Author: Zheng Zhixian
Date: 05:56:36 12/07/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 2005 at 19:57:36, Fernando Villegas wrote: >I am frankly amazed of everything you have said. I'm amazed that you are amazed. Self insight is indeed the hardest thing to achieve. Even for one who sets himself up as an objective commenter of the world and the mostly foolish people in it, is not immune to being blind to his own flaws. >By example, that I am reveling >in my importance. From where did you deduce or perceive such a thing? So if I >have an opinion expressed, perhaps in strong terms, as many does, then it means >I am feeling great and over important? There are opinions and there are opinions. In your opinion, people who disagree with you is 'myoptic' and 'sanctinmous' and all besides. Is that correct? But If anyone else says that of you it's a personal attack, or maybe a misunderstanding. It can't be that they are right ? And as for my point about your super size ego, it's preety much obvious from the way you negatively label people who disagree with you. On a more scientific note, you can easily see that by looking at the proportions of threads you start as a percentage of your posts. Yours is pretty much higher than norm. That's one of the reasons why I noticed you BTW, since you are essentially an attention seeker, and a very good one at that. And it gets worse if you look at the content of the threads you start. People start threads to draw attention to themselves yes, but most are content to talk about their tests about computer chess in general ,what they are doing etc but not you, that's not enough. Your threads are meant to lampoon others, to lecture others. Deny that if you dare. In other words your threads and posts are all 'meta discussions'. Are you here to discuss computer chess, or are you here to comment on the foolishness and myopia of people in general? Only someone who has a super sized ego will even think of setting himself up in such a position. Rolf used Steen as a jumping board to show how foolish the forum as a whole is. But at least he was pointing to a real phenomena which had some basis in fact, Steen was indeed causing an uproar in the forum. And people were upset. You use a small thread abour Rybka where one or two people responded, and created a myth that everyone on the board was hypocritical. And as it turned out, that was hardly a fact, since a lot of other people did email to help, before it was clear Rybka was special. That's typical of your posting style really, make up facts or interprete them in a biased way and use it to lecture people. Like for example, talking about how chess programs were so weak in the early CC days, that clubplayers prayed for stronger opponents! In fact your posting characteristics fit that of trolls, you are a big attention seeker. The difference if any between a troll and you, is that you are usually sincere about what you say despite the joking manner. And yes you want to draw a reaction (which you admit in the above thread) too like most trolls, but I think you do believe in what you say, while a troll will say anything just to get a reaction. >No logical, just an speculation nurtured by bad will from your part. Yes, everything is about me. 'Bad will', misunderstanding, lack of logic, right now you might probably be wondering why I'm so myoptic? And the Fernado himself does not engage in speculation about intentions about people posting in a thread about Rybka. >Then you say I am one of those trying to say the last word. >What does it means? >In a debate it is in the nature of the thing to discuss your point until you >feel you are satisfied in a way or another. It is also in the nature of >politeness to answer what the other guy say. I know there are some people here >and in CFT that simple does not answer; in a sudden they leave you hanging in >the middle of everything and the impression they give is that they feel too much >important and superior to continue debating with you. You are right, of course everyone naturally wants to win an argument. But there are others who go way beyond that, who continue on and on, even when it's obvious it's a waste of time since neither side will budge. BTW you are hardly unique in this. >I am not one of those. Fernando, I bet you don't like it, when other people start labelling you yes? Even when it's barely negative.Now think about how others feel when you label them in far worse terms. But that's different, because you are right? I feel the other guy deserves an answer. And I am >interested in make my point clear. That's the reason I write all this without >even an atom of hope you will agre in nothing. Exactly, my point if you think that I have 'no atom of hope' that I will understand this, why are you replying? Any sensible person who thinks he can make no headway will stop. Or realise it's not worth arguing. Is it really so important what a stranger on the net thinks of you? Someone with a strong ego, would say yes, he needs to defend his honor. I too have no atom of hope as you put it that you will come to realise what I say is not just because of 'bad will' or 'misunderstanding' or whatever you come up with just to avoid admitting that what I say reflects the truth. Or at least parts of it. I have no hope at all you will go away, learning something important about yourself from this. >Because it seems you see anything I do as a show of self importance, lecturing, etc. Then you say -because you does not accept nothing- that when I tend to lose my patience is because I believe to be one of the few that know it all and that I am one "who under the guise of jokes think they are the ones blessed with the >vision..." >Why you say "under the guise"? Take a look at the title of this thread in which you started for example. It *is* a narcisistic reflection. Knowing this you named it as such to head off criticism. How can someone critise you for that, if you admit it , right? That a typical ploy you use. >Why do you interpret a joke or jokingly manner as a guise? Because it is later borne out when you are challenged seriously. You get all fluffed up to defend your honor. Heck you even admit that often you get angry at people for being myoptic or not seeing the truth (as you see it). Which is surprising come to think of it. A survey of your posts will show it seems that on the surface at least you are always joking. At best you get serious, but never show your anger. Natural Conclusion drawn, you are usually angry when others disagree, but you have learnt to hide it under the surface with jokes. >How do you know? It's a common debating technique to ask 'how do you know' to confuse the issue, because when it comes down to it, no-one can be 100% sure what is happening. Not even in science. Much less in this area. And yet, often the person making this arguement, can be happily found in another thread interpreting comments anyway he sees fit and using it as a means to lecture others. Here's an example People making joking about the name small fish, is now a hypocrite for example because the intent logically is to dimiss the claim.It can't be he's just joking because the meaning of the name naturally draws such jokes. And yes, said person will also happily claim he is not consistent. Yet another defense mechanism against critism. >There are you again, doing interpretations from the point of view of the worst >light posible to do the job. A funny comment comming from you. You next to Rolf , are one of the masters of presenting and using selective interpretations to label others. Being someone in the media field might have something to do with that. Though of course it's less fun when you are the subject isn't it? >This is not a sychological game: it is an obsession. Yes, when others do it to you it's an obsession. But when you do it to members of CCC, it's just a harmless game. :) You read any of my words or >acts in such a nasty manner. If I joke, is "under the guise of it" and then you >guess the "real intent" under the jokes. And so and so. That is the nature of interpretition and it can be subject to revision. You are one of the masters of it yourself, but that doesn't mean you are the only one who has the skill to do it. Besides the fact is at times you accidently reveal your true motivies on here and on CTF Boasts about playing psychological games. Admissions of the anger you feel towards people you label myoptic and sanctimonous. Talks about foolishness of people in general... Etc.. I can get the exact quotes if you like, but I'm sure you know what I'm referring to. >For me it is very clear: for some reason simply you does not like me at all. Yes, I do not like you at all. And the reason is obvious, I have already stated them. And it is dislike based on concrete reasons. It does not make such resons illusionary. People can fully accept that you have the problems I say you have and still don't mind. >am disagreable for you. I bother you. So, then, in YOUR vision, I masquerade >under the jokes, I lecture people, I do not grasp concepts, etc. Yes in my vision. And that evidently is a problem for you. Why? Can't take the heat when your weapons are turned towards you? YOUR vision is the only right one? BTW I don't think you don't grasp conceptS (as opposed to one concept), I think you are however having problems when people pay you back in your own coin. >Ok, so it be. You have right to like or dislike people. Sometimes it happens >someone dislike us just because. Not just 'because'. For concrete and real reasons already mentioned. > OK, but do not confound your organic, elemental >dislike with a mighty reading of the Bible and correctness. I lay no claim to 100% correctness. I do think my points are roughly on the mark. Just like you do with your critisims of others. Even YOU don't lay claim to bible correctness I suspect. >Read your own posts, Zheng, and cath the tone. I'm well aware of my posts. It takes serious effort to craft such posts in such strong harsh language for me. And I have already said I freely admit I'm using the exact same weapons as you. But sometimes you have to fight fire with fire to let the fire user get a taste of his own medicine. Mixing metaphors! Besides for me to encourage you to look at your own posts, obviously I look at mine. But Are you aware of yours? Do you look at the tone of yours? Or are you so sure of the correctness of your points that you feel free to call other myotic, or their interestes trival , just because you don't share them? Are you so wrapped up in your own view point and ego that just because you are joking (at least so you tell yourself), it isn't an insult to others? That It is your intent alone that counts and what others perceive doesn't matter? That in the name of the pyschological game you admit you play, you aren't unwittingly indulging in your superority complex? This is where I bail out of this thread. You can interprete it as me being too superior and arrogant to engage further with you if you like, it doesn't matter to me. For me it's simply a recognition that it is pointless to carry on further, if it's a waste of time. After all it's *my* interpretion and intent of my actions alone that counts, just as a insult is actually a joke because you intended it as one. :)
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.