Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 18:54:32 06/01/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 1998 at 20:07:50, Don Dailey wrote: >My point isn't whether you are right or wrong, I just believe the >burden of proof is on you. If I accused you of child molestation, >this would be such as serious accusation that I SHOULD be required >to present very strong evidence. I could not say, "well, I think >I saw him talking to a little boy the other day." Saying, or >implying that Fritz is cheating should require proof, or >powerful evidence. I don't mean absolute proof which I agree is >almost a myth, but the type of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) >that would stand up before judges. If you would abuse me of child molestation, I would not talk to you anymore. Do you really want to relate this with the discussion about computerchess ? Ok - if you want, i cannot stop you. But it is a very extreme example. It seems you can only discuss with using extreme examples like this. My sin is not that i accused somebody of such a high crime. Oh man. It seems discussions with americans are really complicate. Sorry. But i fail to differenciate here. Relations of this kind have only the effect that they increas my amount of prejudices towards your culture. >I view the burden to be on you because SSDF has been trusted and >is a reputable organization. If this changes (and I see you are >working very hard to change it) then perhaps the burden of >proof will shift to those who believe Fritz is not weak. There is no burden of proof. In a discussion NOBODY is forced to prove anything. Discussions - about whatever topic - do not force somebody to prove something. I don't know where you learned how to discuss. But I believe you missed something. I don't think the ssdf is a scientific organisation. They play for fun. The list is not accurate since their testing methods are inaccurate and ever was. Reputation is not a one-way-street. It is not a title you get and nobody can take it. When you study their output , their comments about their own work, they have done much contraproductive work that destroyed enough of the "reputation". >Again, it's not impossible that they are cheating and I'm >not saying there is no possible way, I'm only saying you >need to demonstrate this convincingly. Wrong. I cannot prove. I am in germany. I don't have this autoplayer. This is no court trial. It is a discussion. If you want to change this, please, feel free to do so. I have never seen a discussion where people behaved like you. I refute to argue since it makes no sense. I can only answer polemic: go on the streets , take your gun and shoot somebody else. This here is not an american western movie. this is a public forum. If you want to force somebody to do something, please feel free to do so. But I am from europe. And here we don't force to do anybody. And we discuss different. We let the other side show their point of view and thats all. Nobody shouts for EVIDENCE. Nobody behaves like a judge in a court trial or relate such a trivial topic with child molesting. Its ridicolous.- Take your robocop and your holywood and go somewhere else. Learn how to discuss civilized. Without shooting the people having different opinion. The burden of proof ! Unbelievable ! What is this - a court trial ? You watched too much petrocelli or whatever. In an open discussion people tell their opinion. And nobody plays the referee or the judge like you try to do so. > Just by making the >accusation you try to shift the burden of proof to others Oh man. The burden of proof. You behave like US invading Haiti to save the souls of the inhabitants. Why don't you invade in jakarta ? Because it was communistic before and the dictator was PLACED with the help of the cia ? Please learn that US is not the SOLDIER for the whole world. Your job is not to judge about good/bad or burden pf proof or whatever. Invasions , wherever you "help" people with doing it , is not always seen as set people free. I have sometimes the feeling you have to invade and rescue all the people in the world in all kinds of countries because you have no civilisation on your own or feel unable to generate senseful point of views without invasions. Would you please stop to invade this forum ? >and if they don't respond you scream foul! If someone >accused me of being a child molester, I would not feel >obligated to disprove them, it would be their job to >prove I was. Again : i find your "example" very out of range. My asnwer to your post is therefore also very out of range. If you believe your EXAMPLE makes your point of view more on-topic, please believe so. >I could accuse you of cheating if I wanted to. I could >make a note of everthing you do, cherry pick any event >that looks in the least like evidence and proclaim it >widely enough to the world that a few people might believe. >If you chose to ignore my groundless claim then I could >berate you for not refuting my claim. I could then proclaim >loudly that you have failed time and time again to refute >me, therefore you must be guilty. I have suddenly made >you the one that must defend yourself, although I was the >one that behaved improperly. Nice trick huh? It's like >the jilted girlfriend who cry's rape to get back at someone. Again - I am impressed about the examples. I can only guess you have seen to many of your cultural-US-movies. I find it disgusting to have to discuss with you about child moletsting or raping or whatever. Please concentrate on computerchess. Otherwise it only damages YOUR reputation. Its unbelievable. >How can an innocent person defend against this when most of >the damage is done by the accusation itself? That is why >I feel so strongly about this kind of thing. Making an >accusation should be done with great soberness. If you don't know about STREITKULTUR i cannot teach you what it means. Sorry. Obviously it has nothing to do with child-molesting or raping girls.
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.