Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:27:26 09/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2000 at 08:00:36, Peter Davison wrote: >On September 09, 2000 at 07:13:49, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: > >>On September 09, 2000 at 06:17:37, Peter Davison wrote: >> >>>On September 08, 2000 at 18:46:18, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>> >>>>On September 08, 2000 at 17:55:59, Eelco de Groot wrote: >>>> >>>>>You are still here then! I'm glad about that. I only recently found out in >>>>>Mogens' excellent forum at his http://home1.stofanet.dk/Moq/ that Thorsten was >>>>>suspended from here months ago. I'm sure it was not entirely without some >>>>>provocation on Thorsten's part but I can't remember there having been any notice >>>>>about his suspension. At least the last time the author of CSTal was suspended - >>>>>at least the last time that I know of.. - Andrew Williams told us why. >>>>>Provocative as he can be I would like to see Thorsten come back sometime. By the >>>>>way I actually thought for a while Martin Hasse was Thorsten but Chessfun seemed >>>>>to know better. These aliases *can* be rather confusing, you know. I wish we >>>>>could do without them entirely. Don't you agree? >>>> >>>>You could try comparing the e-mail of say Christian Pike here and the one for >>>>Thorsten Czub at my forum and look for similarities. When that is said, I hope >>>>they would consider lifting the suspension, >>> >>>AFAIK Thorsten has been banned so many times now (three or more?) for nothing >>>more than having strong opinions and holding to them. Worse, the first ban on >>>Thorsten looked more like an ambush on him than anything else. >>> >>>Thorsten's initial reaction to his ban was to say ok, I'll be back in a few >>>months. But, gradually, as the ban count mounted, his attitude changed away from >>>feeling cooperative here. I think now he just takes the view that the 'powers >>>that be' here are just plain stupid. >>> >>>And why 'lift the suspension'? You know perfectly well that if he returned it >>>would only be a matter of time before the calls to ban him (whoever and wherever >>>they come from) would start again. He'ld be banned aagin. >>> >>>Its a systemic problem. Something is wrong with this place. Thorsten is one of >>>the stars of computer chess. Your group keeps throwing him off. Ban those with >>>strong opinions and what do you get? A place with no opinions. Or a place with >>>one opinion. Stupid. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>if there really is one, so that all >>>>this alias business could be reduced, at least to a certain extent. I don't see >>>>the point as it's easy to circumvent with very little ingenuity. So what if >>>>someone wants to ramble about pawns, beans, prawns or zero-sum games. There's no >>>>obligation to read every post. >>>> >>>>Mogens. >> >> >>There is always a thin red line marking the boundary between strong opinions and >>obsessive emotions and/or intolerance of certain programs or people. > >There is NOT always this line. Many people have strong opinions without being >either obsessive or intolerant. Give me someone with a strong opinion who will >hold to it and argue for it, anytime. And, pray tell me, what else is a forum >for than the expression, dissection of strong opinions? Or do you only want weak >opinions? Or no opinions? Or one opinion? > >> I believe >>that Thorsten has crossed that line lots of times. To have the mind excessively >>preoccupied with a single emotion or topic, the way Thorsten's mind seems to be >>working, is difficult to accomodate in a forum of this type. > >I think you do Thorsten a serious injustice. Surely he has a very strong >negative view on ChessBase and Friedel. Is it not allowed to express this view? >What if Thorsten's view is actually correct? Or partially correct? Did you >consider that? And, if it is not correct, then why not deal with it with >dialectics? Why censor him? > >It is hardly that Thorsten is filling every post and available thread with >anti-Friedel polemic. He does (did) react on some threads. Counter argue with >him on these threads. Tell him he is dumb, if that is what you think. Advise >people to ignore him if you want. But why censor him? > >And then, for you personally, it is a sensitive political issue. You are >responsible for this 'thin red line' at the moment. I remember two details on >you. Your first post ever to this ng, some years ago, and I remember it well, >lost in the archives though it now will be, was a furious attack on Thorsten. Do >you remember this? > >The second detail is that you appear connected to ChessBase is some way. Is this >right? > >For me this means that you may be personally predisposed to react on Thorsten >with dislike, and that you cooperate with an organisation is very threatened by >Thorsten's comments. If so, this hardly makes you an impartial Tommy Atkins in >the Thin Red Line, does it? > >> >>I do hope that you too will realise the existence of this thin red line that >>enables a decent exchange of ideas. >> > >I think this red line stops the decent exchange of ideas, and creates more >intolerance and hatred. It encouranges secret complaints against other posters. >It encourages small groups to try and ambush posters they don't like (as >happened on Thorsten's first banning). > >This site was not set up to prevent strong opinions. It was not actually set up >to outlaw personal attacks, although that is now the idea that prevails. > >The fundamental reason for this site was to prevent stalking attacks. Where one >poster was endlessly harrassed by the same person, over and over, day after day, >week after week, whatever they said, whatever the topic was about. This was >mostly Tueschen on Ed Schroder, and lesser, Newton on Chris W. That was the >reason for the site. Personal flames were not intended to be prevented, stalking >was. Please don't forget _the_ reason: Rolf. I don't think Thorsten stalked anyone, other than he has an obvious dislike for ChessBase and anything related to it. I have my own prejudices about various companies, and to me, that seems _perfectly_ normal. Just ask a Macintosh lover what he thinks about PC's... What a Ford lover thinks about GM. Etc. I happen to think that Thorsten and you both have a lot to offer. Thorsten is too much like me, in some respects. He will stick to his guns, and not back down one inch if he thinks he is right. I'd certainly rather have someone like that than someone whose opinion changes with the weather... However, this topic is drifting way off from Computer Chess. So far as I know, at the present time, Thorsten is welcome to return to CCC. I would personally ask that he 'takes it a bit easy' on the ChessBase issue. I would certainly enjoy chatting with him here again, personally... In _your_ case, I would also like to see you post here again. I am not aware of any 'ban' on your presence, so why not sign up under your real name, take part in real arguments/discussions, and liven the place up a bit, _without_ resorting to open warfare?? > >Thorsten is not a stalker. Thorsten is more inclined to find himself being >stalked. Did you consider the stalkers may have changed their tactics and become >'mass' complainers via moderator email instead? There are _always_ moderator email complaints flowing around. Perhaps it is possible to handle things a little calmer after CCC has been up and operating for an extended period of time. Growing pains are difficult. But the pain goes down with maturity... I think the stereotype of CCC has changed quite a bit over the past couple of years... for the better... > >>*** Djordje
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.