Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:29:22 07/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2002 at 18:44:07, David Dory wrote: >"Walking behind the cow" has NOTHING to do with physical walking. You know it, I >know it, and it is NOT an insult. I do it regularly, although sometimes it's a >darn TURTLE I'm unable to keep pace with! :) Now, Mr. Dory, I think we have changed enough messages. You are for me nobody I know under this name. I could not find _any_ computerchess related post from you. 1. you are not serious in my eyes because you don't get it where the offense does come from if someone is using such metaphors intentiously. It's impolite against a foreigner and more so disgustful against a physically handicapped. 2. please stop that patronizing behaviour. It is not ok according to the charta of this forum. Because computerchess is the topic and _not_ how I should deal with insults coming from US Americans. >You can not expect Americans to speak differently to you - because you're a >non-native speaker. We don't know how - have not had that experiece like you do >in Europe. Idiom's, allegories, metaphors, analogies, etc., will ALL be used in >our posts - because they're built into a lifetime of using English and not >erasily torn out. This shows clearly that you are either very inexperienced or intentiously misunderstanding me. The point isn't the _use_ of it. The point is the behaviour afterwards. Get it? Let me teach you a lesson! If such metaphors must be used by all means in direct communications with foreigners US Americans should _not_ play innocent or better naive when a foreigner, in this case a physically handicapped, takes this as offensive or insulting. Then, at this moment you had the possibility to demonstrate if you have a minimum knowledge and education of the respect for human dignity. If you then however raise your voice and become even more insultive or cynical, then, only then we have seen the proof for my statement. You get it now? Using metaphors isn't insultive as such. But I knew that for over 40 years. You should not try to teach me such trivialities. It's insulting as such. On this trivial level you also tried to teach me how I should take the DB2 problems. At first you twist my standpoint (allegedly trying to prove that they cheated) and then telling me to stop it. But my standpoint is a scientifical one. And I'm trying to analyse questions and problems and not proving guesses or theories. Now, something personal to you, the higher your own education and position in science might be, the bigger becomes the wrong of your (then intentiously) misleading "advices". Because then you must know how honest my questions and how correct my conclusions e.g. that the DB2 team is itself responsible for possible impossibilities. If you are a beginner or very young indeed, then please forget it what I wrote here, because then you might not be able to understand what I was talking about. > >If I were to go to a German chess forum, I would face EXACTLY these same >problems. The posters there wouldn't change the way they write just because a >limited language reader would be reading it. Here we can see another evidence for intentious misuse by misquoting. The question was never how the natives are talking in general. Of course they don't adapt to a few visitors but the visitors should try to adapt to the native idiomatic. The problem is how a native US or German should react _if_ a misunderstanding has already occured. And for me it's quite clear, almost trivial, that as a native I have the responsibility to solve the conflict because I know the reason for the trouble and also the possible solution. Because I know that all these details are well known for educated people all around the globe I know for sure that you are intentiously misusing the charta here for personal attacks. Some readers may think that this verdict is unfair because Mr. Dory could be very young and therefore uneducated and nobody should be bashed for his roots. However, experience shows you when someone has some agenda outside of science. Believing in a higher moral alone often is enough for the picture. Someone with such a belief and good abilities to convince people will often betray his agenda with certain mistakes in basic logic, which the average scientist would never make. The only agenda a _scientist_ could have is the searching for the "truth". Truth however depending on several contempory factors. (Very telling is the attitude of a scientist who begins to hide or suppress opinions or data!) From my side all is said, Mr. Dory, therefore you may have the final statement. Rolf Tueschen
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.