Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:02:18 11/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 2000 at 06:26:47, Derek Bingley wrote: >On November 01, 2000 at 13:51:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 01, 2000 at 12:32:49, Derek Bingley wrote: >> >>>On October 31, 2000 at 15:07:29, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>> >>>>On October 30, 2000 at 19:00:36, leonid wrote: >>>>>I don't know who is making that much money here but the place is more that >>>>>useful. I received few times responses from the author of Rebel. I tried to find >>>>>those responses for a while. In other occasions it was Bob Hyatt that helped me, >>>>>and so like. Nobody did any money on me, I assure you. I gained a >>>>>lot, this I know as fact. >>>>> >>>>>Leonid. >>>> >>>>i have nothing against people like ed, bob, bruce, amir, and and and >>>>posts here. we know who they are. we know ed is pro rebel, amir pro >>>>junior, bruce pro ferret and bob pro crafty. >>>> >>>>we can also find typical patterns for others. i do especially like programs >>>>who play creative chess. therefore i am pro mchess, pro cstal, pro this and pro >>>>that. i am using my own name here. so anybody knows: oh - thats typical for >>>>thorsten, he is against fritz and pro gambit-tiger, cause he especially >>>>likes the attacking style and of gambit-tiger, or the positional style >>>>of shredder, or the way ferret did it against fritz in paderborn, or the way >>>>gandalf did it against tiger in paderborn, or or or or. >>>> >>>>we can all find patterns to evaluate things. >>>> >>>>but the problem is when somebody is only "Josef" and nobody here >>>>knows : is he real ?! >>>>and later josef says many things, can we be sure he is really josef ?! >>>> >>>>i could e.g. do the following: i take an account with the name Mark smith. >>>>then i do post a lot negative stuff about chess base. >>>>to damage chessbases name here. >>>>nobody knows if mark smith exists. and he damages chessbase. >>>>if i would work for millennium-company, i could make an account as >>>>uri avneri and post lots of negative stuff against chessbase, against rebel >>>>and against cstal. >>>>if i would be working for chessbase, i could daily log in into ccc and call my >>>>anon e.g. Gerhard Sonntag and post a lot of negative stuff about shredder, >>>>rebel, gambit-tiger, cstal... >>>> >>>>i could very easy manipulate the tenor of this forum PRO or AGAINST >>>>a product. >>>> >>>>nobody could find out , or ? >>> >>>I am replying to your post since it makes important points which are in danger >>>of being overlooked. >>> >>>> >>>>if i have a bigger company, i could pay 1 or 2 guys to make PRO >>>>posts for MY products and NEGATIVE posts against opponents products and >>>>also negative posts against the supporters of opponent products. >>> >>>I've lurked here for a time, and I see many posts with an obvious agenda as >>>above. >>> >>>> >>>>Even Mr. Steven Schwartz could pay some people, and let them post here >>>>under wrong name and make positive posts about products , he has to sell >>>>because he has too much in stocks. >>> >>>Do we know that this action does not happen? >>> >>>> >>>>i mean: the manipulation possibilities are not limited. >>>>and all because people post under wrong name. >>> >>>I concur. Manipulation possibilities are unlimited here. There is money to be >>>made and thus motivation for manipulation. There is status to be won or lost and >>>thus motivation for manipulation. >>> >>>> >>>>IMO it should not be allowed to post under wrong name. >>>>or strange names (KarinsDad) because nobody knows about these people. >>> >>>My lurking told me that only Mr Schwartz was aware of the identity of this >>>person. That's all right, then? But why should Mr Schwartz be above any >>>suspicion of manipulation. He has as much incentive as any other commercial >>>person. Not that I suggest he does it, of course. >>> >>>> >>>>in a group in reality, you normally ask somebody after a while, if he >>>>is not introduced to you, hello: and who are you ? and maybe he tells you. >>>>if not, you normally ask somebody else: who is this guy over there ? >>>>but in internet ? >>>> >>>>i don't like the possibilities to manipulate opinions. >>>>IMO many threads here look as if some names are not real and could be >>>>payed people to attack people. >>>> >>> >>>Or just somehow interested in manipulations for any reason. >>> >>>> >>>>i would like to talk freely with anybody, if he is in charge for what >>>>he is doing. this makes it important to KNOW who he is. >>> >>>I concur. I wonder why nobody felt it necessary to respond to Mr Czub's post. >>> >>>Derek Bingley (2100 Rating) >> >> >>Perhaps because many of us know Steve well enough to realize that such >>suggestions are nonsense? > >The above is the argument of snake oil salesmen or the purveyors of dodgy >investments to old ladies. > >The remedy being checks and balances. Doesn't the presidemt of the united states >even have watchdogs over him and a constitution to abide to? Total power has a >tendency to corrupt. Not, of course, that I suggest Steve to be corrupt. Simply >that placing him into a position where he is able to freely manipulate can't be >good for him. > >> >>As far as manipulations go, this seems to be about the 10th incarnation you >>have used here. Do _you_ have an agenda? Is it _constructive_?? > >Yes. My agenda is to restore freedom of expression. imo you are an enemy of >freedom of expression. imo you are concerned too much with your own ego and >status and are prepared to go to any length to protect these. This behaviour of >yours is not conducive to free dialog and additionally holds back development in >computer chess by chasing off alternative viewpoints. > > > If it is, >>then why the need for an anonymous id? > >You may take it anyway you wish. Either it isn't or because you personally use >your censorship powers to delete all effective criticism. Either the critics >will go away or they will continue to fight you. Some do one, some the other. > > Chris... I do not delete criticizm. I have deleted one thread since I have been moderator. My name was _not_ mentioned in that thread one time. Your accusations are just as they always have been, namely incorrect and self- serving. Such a claim is known as a strawman argument. I leave it to you to produce _any_ evidence that I have deleted _any_ post that mentioned my name, my program, or anything remotely related to me. Ball is in your court. Back up your claim or go back to your own forum. >> >>I personally dislike the concept of using anonymous postings to avoid any >>sort of repercussion. > >I personally dislike the concept of using censorship to maintain a fake status >and ego. I personally dislike you. But that hasn't caused me to ask for your ouster. So again, show _one_ example where I have used the power of moderator deletion to maintain a fake status and/or ego. Time to put up or shut up... if you know what I mean. > >> I say what I mean, most of the time. > >Like Humpty-Dumpty, your words mean just whatever you want them to mean. No more >and no less. > >I suspect this is the point at which you will need to use one of the other >moderators to delete this account. No. Your account likely will be deleted. Because your original account was deleted when you posted your password here in public. And CCC has a (now) distinct policy that forbids anonymous/fake handles. You are only here to disrupt. You tried your own forum. If failed. Yet you are still convinced that _your_ approach to things is the right approach. I wonder who _really_ has the big ego problem??? > > >Kind regards, > >Derek Bingley > > > > > And anybody >>can verify that I am who I say I am. Whether that makes what I say any >>more valuable or not is another issue. But it does lend _credibility_ to >>it. >> >>In another 5 years this anonymous nonsense will be history. >> >>thank goodness.
This page took 0.01 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.