Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 10:47:45 11/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 2000 at 13:33:04, Derek Bingley wrote: >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. That's a self-serving and meaningless account of what happened. >>>>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? Is it a matter of virility? :) >>>> 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. The usual charmer... >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. Some more justified than others? >Just that yours is the size of a small planet. No room for any other egos on >planet Hyatt. > > >Kind regards, You don't mean that either. Pure empty, self-serving rhetoric. Enrique >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.