Author: Derek Bingley
Date: 10:33:04 11/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 2000 at 11:02:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. > > The way you got rid of Hans Gerber was by challenges to his identity. Unable to refute his arguments, you took the cowards way out and got him banned. Clear is that you try and keep your finger off the trigger and get someone else to do the dirty work, but your signature is all over it, as everyone knows. Since you like to try and deal with your problems with these ad hominam accusations, "Chris" was banned by you five months after he quit posting. Long time back and very boring now. "Chris" didn't post a thing for five months, but you banned him. Or not. You tell fibs about it. "Chris" complained about your action, so you banned him again for complaining, or for "posting while banned", according to one of your cronies, even though he wasn't banned, or had quit, depending on which Humpty-Dumpty version of the truth you were currently spinning. I believe that you have invented two new offences of "posting while Chris", or "posting while Rolf", despite the fact neither of these were banned in the first place, or were banned, or quit, or again, whichever Humpty-Dumpty version of your truth is in for the day. Obviously you think you can get away with whatever you want on Bob's 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. > > $10,000. Are you man enough? > > >> >>> 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. Go on then. That will save you from the $10,000 problem. I shall be proud to be banned. By the moderation committee consistign of the Jehovah's Witness, the apologist for ethnic cleansing, and Hyatt. Go right ahead. Make my day. 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??? > We all have ego prolems, I'm sure. Just that yours is the size of a small planet. No room for any other egos on planet Hyatt. Kind regards, Derek Bingley > > > >> >> >>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 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.