Author: Dan Ellwein
Date: 09:51:22 09/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2000 at 11:27:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... > > Bob well said... reminds me of the verse that says... when i was a child i thought as a child... when i became a man i put away childish things... PilgrimDan > > >> >>>*** 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.