Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:34:37 07/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 2002 at 21:50:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 28, 2002 at 14:38:46, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On July 28, 2002 at 12:59:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>> >>>I think it is a testament to the moderators past and present that you are >>>allowed to post here, _period_ after your nonsense in r.g.c.c... I suggest >>>that you simply stop your nonsense here and post reasonable stuff. If you >>>start to demand moderation policy changes, it is very possible that _you_ >>>will be the first recipient of those changes... >>> >> >>Look, I do not post nonsense IMO. Period. >> > > >Sorry to disagree, but a _lot_ of what you post is utter nonsens.e. > >For example... > >I tell you something can't be done. I explain why. I give you specific >reasons why it can't be done. > >How do you respond? > >By saying "it can be done, you guys just haven't taken the time to do it." No, I do not say that. What I say is, let's take a look with interdisciplinary help and find out what could be done in such dead-end situations. I find a remarkable fact that exactly you, Bob, who is just aiming at the factual truth of matters and who never showed any positive reactions when I spoke of the necessary meta debate and who bashed me just for the fact that I'm a CC newbie, that I'll always remain BTW, that you now try to define me as the one who simply would teach you that all what you did and said in CC were nonsense. Now this would be really crazy. But I have a totally different view. I know that you are the best of traditional CC, I would never dare to criticise you on that sector. The point is that I _only_ criticise when you are trying to confound the factual truth of over 40 years CC with the eternally possible no matter how hard ever tried with whatever energy! The latter is simply the ace in my sleeves! But not a forbidden trick, it's just science. Interdisciplinary. Wider focus. Meta level. Please do no longer bash me as if I had __ever__ told you that you did a bad job in your own field. I never did it and continually I repeated that I didn't. But perhaps for you this was just ramble. This is not my fault. > >You don't address _any_ issues I bring up. You don't attack any reasons that >I give as to why it can't be done.. You just ramble on and on about things that >are not even related to the discussion. Bob! Please! This is exactly what I could do! If something can't be solved _IN_ the defined region we must find solutions with _OUTSIDE_ help. Often brainstorming could be of great help. What you see as ramble is just talking on a meta level. Of course it's nothing you've ever heard because traditional CC did never talk about. But it would also be a big mistake if you interpreted me now as if I'd said that I would be the "fixed star" of the meta CC. What I only can do is showing the need of opening traditional CC to be able to solve certain problems. But even the solution itself is then not my business since I'm not an expert in CC. So, to sum up. If someone is happy inside CC. Without any problems whatsoever. Then he could easily ignore me. But thise who think that something isn't working - _altough_ the'd tried hard just to the limit all what's possibl in traditional CC - only these folks should start to think about me and my contributions. But perhaps I must deceive even these searchers because I'm alone writing about such things and I know that I know nothing! Perhaps my limits will motivate some to find better solutions. This is how it works. Why stigmatizing the minimal chance that something new could result? Why defining something as noise or ramble if it's by definition no talking about technologically daily questions? > >And _that_ is "utter nonsense"... > >You simply need to learn a few basic debating skills. Simply saying "is too" >is not convincing as an argument... I doubt that I ever said it. But you are absolutely correct. > > > > > > >>For me the most important is that I post absolutely peacefully. Now, if you >>think that I am still not in accordance to the charta here, I have no remedy >>against it. >> >>Here I do _not_ ask you to change moderators politics at all. But I never heard >>before that it can be possible here that posters could insult others the way >>Pordzik did it. > > >He simply stated a reminder for days gone past... The problem is that the >reminder was _not_ false... No, he talked about the actual job I had in his imagination. I quoted it for you already several times: steered underground assassinate for CSS, that is the mag of Friedel&Steinwender. Know what I mean? This is what I called character assassination. > > > > > > >> >>I repeat to you and you can take this also as my oath, that I did not, do not >>work for CSS as a "steered underground assassinative (!)" and I wished that you >>would agree that this is not good behaviour in CCC to post it. > >I didn't see that, I didn't receive any complaint about it, and I can only say >that I (as a moderator) do _not_ read every post here. If you have a complaint, >let us know via moderator. We will either take action or tell you why no >action is appropriate. But whining _in_ a thread is not going to get our >attention. Whining is you wording. The problem for me and many in CTF too was that I got automatic response that my invoice was successful, I speak of the autonatic moderator email, and the moderators didn't get the message. Many in CTF had the same prob. Talking about such technical details is not "whining" IMO. Excuase me. > > > >> >>Are you serious that such character assissantion by Pordzik is "nonsense" by >>_me_ when I contact you as a moderator? >> > >Since you haven't contacted me as a moderator, I can't speculate... The automatic response system said that email was sent to you = three moderators. > > > > >>You know what, I would even digest that pill, if you insist. You are in power >>here. I would like that you wrote this clear here that you won't accept a >>complaint from my side in this affaire. > >Did you see me say that? Or is this something that you want to imply now, >and then state as fact at some point in the future, as if saying it often >enough will make it true? No! I did never do such a nasty job. But here is what you had written: ">If you start to demand moderation policy changes, >it is very possible that _you_ >will be the first recipient of those changes..." This contains a clear threat. And therefore I state that I do NOT want to change politics here. What I want is the same good treatment everybody gets. Pordzik abused me personally with his personal attacks. And he should be allowed to do this. > > > >>Then I know it. Then I would take back >>my complaints against Pordzik and knew that in American English it wouldn't be >>character assassination if someone called someone steered underground >>assassinate. >> >>NB that I had to write on the topic because you couldn't certify the input of >>the emails I sent to CCC and that were admitted to be received automatically. >> >>Rolf Tueschen > > >I receive moderator email every day concerning new members. I have received >a few complaints in past weeks about various topics, so everything is working >on my end... As I said. In CTF the topic came up and then one of the mods explained that the automatic moderator email system should be down at times. What that means in effect must be clearer to you than me! Please do no longer think that I invent here mysty problems! 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.