Author: Dirk Frickenschmidt
Date: 14:54:08 11/16/97
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Keith, you certainly don't intend it, but you are doing a quite a bad service to all of us a) beginning again with a discussion that has been finished without *any* *single* new argument neither in your posts nor in any other lately. *All* of these arguments have been discussed before Mr. Tueschens exclusion. I tell you beacuse you can't know this. b) helping a person that is violating any sensible communication right now like all the time before (and you could well read his still CCC-related crap in rgcc very well just now - in part as Tueschen, in part as a coward "Anonymus") I can only speak for myself. I for one will *never* accept a person like Tueschen as a member here who a) used exclusive CCC-material from Paris *not* for posting results but for his sick and dumb cheating suspicions concerning exactly the person (Thorsten Czub) who was so nice to invest time and money for phoning the results and "life" reports to us here. This is *heavy* *misuse* of CCC material on rgcc. Not just posting games or scores. And I feel deep contempt and disgust for this behaviour of Mr. Tueschen. *If* it were only that. b) I also do not accept to read *lies* and other sick stuff about me and other founding members of CCC within rgcc from someone who wants to be a member in CCC. If anyone else does this - and again I'm completely indifferent to possible 1000pages lawbooks which might cover all possible cases of Tueschen misbehaviour - I will ask the others to exclude him at once as well. Here we come to the point: *No* other member of CCC caused such a debate. *No* other member of CCC had an even slightly comparable performance of unacceptable behaviour on rgcc. This is only possible in rgcc because Mr Tueschen understood that this is a communication anarchy well suited for his sick goals. So the two cases I have been talking about were anything else than a hasty decision. Finally: You complained about missing "laws" when throwing him out. Now look. We had one week to formulate a small ouline of what CCC is good for and how it should work. You are not serious demanding we should write a thousnad pages lawbook first before we let Tueschen in and cover the hundreds of facets of bad style he has already showed and will show in the future? So we discussed the case in all due length and depth and decided. And this is just how I think we should act in the future. Vote and name the reasons. If after doing both someone doesn't understand or like the reasons I am ready to tell them once more like I do here. I would not like to discuss the whole thing over again for weeks in here, because I don't see *any* reason for doing so. But I don't have the impression that you wanted to make a long off-topic of it and answered you willingly. For the case this does not come to a good end I would have to ask the other moderators to stop this thread. In this case I am ready to answer any of your further questions by e-mail, but not longer here. We are more interested in computer chess here. P.S. For Mr Tueschen, the posting of this page to rgcc (from coward "Anonymus" again I presume) will probably add to bringing some clearness about what he did and how we think about it to rgcc readers - like other posts before. So I think Mr. Tueschen is finally desperately trying to do us a special service for getting back in to CCC ;-)
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.