Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 00:10:02 05/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 18, 2001 at 12:25:46, Larry Proffer wrote: >On May 18, 2001 at 10:13:04, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: > >>On May 18, 2001 at 09:33:26, Larry Proffer wrote: >> >>>I said there was a pattern, not that this specific case was necessarily part of >>>it. >> >>I wasn't talking about fuzzy logic or AI's. It's far more straightforward. >> >>I was talking about your respons to Melvin Schwartz message, who was complaining >>about lack of support in his individual case, in which you replied to that >>specific message of him with: >> >> >> >>>>Subject: The trashing gets predictable after a while >>>> >>>>There are certain companies that, whenever they launch something new, find >>>>themselves on the receiving end of 'complaints' about their 'customer support' >>>>or whatever. >>>> >>>>Always the same companies. >>>> >>>>Same thing everytime. >>>> >>>>Since I obviously suffer from an advanced form of paranoia may I please be >>>>forgiven in advance for suggesting that there are 'dirty tricks' going on. >> >> >>It's obvious for the posters who responded that your message is not interpreted >>in terms like fuzzy logic or AI-varia, but as being a finger pointed at the >>poster complaining dishonestly. >> >>That's all. >> >>J. > >But then it was "obvious" to you earlier from your comment > >"Basically Bruce can't claim that he "seems real enough" but you can claim he's >maybe part of a pattern of users who file fake complaints to get free upgrades >for a cracked program." > >that the post was about "getting free upgrades or cracks" and "he's part of a >pattern" and I'm apparently telling Bruce what he can and can't claim. None of >which were remotely true. > >a) "cracks" were introduced by you. > >b) "he" isn't part of anything. His *comments* fitted a pattern. This doesn't >mean his comments are on the pattern agenda. People can say stuff that fits, yet >not be on the pattern-agenda. > >c) I never tell people what they can and can't say. > > >I mean this, you mean that, I mean this, you mean that. > >If you want to talk whether or not there are dirty tricks, fine, I'll discuss >it. > >Otherwise enough. Okay, so the idea is that some other computer chess company (is there more than one other one these days?) may assign someone to check out Ed's new stuff and bitch about it and his support, in order to try to wreck his sales by showing that Ed's company sucks. This is pretty violent, but the computer chess world is full of goofs, so I can imagine a parallel universe where this happens. No problem. I wonder if this tactic would achieve anything? Someone complains, Ed responds, and some unknown number of people have learned that a new version of Rebel or Tiger or whatever is out, and that if you complain in CCC about the product or its support, the author of the program responds. This doesn't sound terribly effective to me, and unless Ed responds by drooling like an idiot, a few people get a few more "nice Ed" neurons going on in their brains. I think a more likely explanation for customer support grousing around the time a new product comes out is that a bunch of people buy it and some have a problem getting it to work. But that's not fun enough. I should be able to do better than that. Maybe Chessbase is a front company for the CIA, or for the phone company. Supposedly a copy of Fritz burned up with Mir re-entered the atmosphere. Maybe it didn't burn up -- the whole re-entry thing was just a cover. Maybe it's still out there, WATCHING us. Thorsten, if you are reading this, it is watching you ESPECIALLY. bruce
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.