Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 08:06:55 09/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2002 at 10:30:33, Chessfun wrote: >Here are a couple of comments for you. >Funny how Fritz 7 always seems to lose game one's huh, could it be that it's >always unlucky in those first rounds? naturally only you would know why or how >you have so many round 1's and Fritz seems to lose tham all....LOL do you speak english ? or is this the dialect of an ET aboriginy ? sorry. i don't understand your english. fritz plays so many 1st rounds, because the autoplayer often stops after 1 game. this gives fritz an advantage because when you start another match, fritz has again WHITE. maybe you can write down your comments again in english that is understandable for foreigners. >My comment was neither direct to you or at you ;-), so how does that put your >comment on what I choose to do on topic?, since it was a direct personal attack? i wonder why you comment about coffee in a thread i began with posting chess data, IMO your comment had nothing to do with computerchess. there was no chess nor computerchess related data in your comment other than stalking. >No because you choose to comment on what and how I post. >Since "I" exercise restraint and "UN" biased comment and simply post statistics >rather than biased opinions, which apparently you can't seem to do. Even when >you try, your anti CB rhetoric can't be prevented from showing. i have no idea why you always defend chessbase, even when it is not attacked. it seems to be your UNbiased comments are not that unbiased as you want to suggest. fritz leads the ssdf-list. posting PGN data is not an attack against chessbase. so i wonder why you need the feeling to defend them. maybe you are closely connected to them? more than your unbiased comments would suggest ? shall i test against the weakeast program in the ssdf-list, only that you can spare your coffee-statement stalking ? >I guess they must have hurt you really bad huh ;-) as usual you do not come with ANY computerchess related comment. it's completely unimportant whom you hurt or not. this is a computerchess newsgroup. i do post pgn data and a few sentences where chessbase is not mentioned nor any comment about fritz very weak result, and instead talking about the computerchess related stuff you come with strange comments about off topic stuff. you stalk ! thats obvious. if you want to talk about your coffee - i would better choose a forum that talks about coffee. CCC is IMO not about coffee. And not about your prejudices about chessbase and not about your prejudices about something else. >How's that for a start? > >Sarah. i think the following books would help you as a good beginning, sarah: "I Know You Really Love Me": A Psychiatrist’s Journal of Erotomania, Stalking and Obsessive Love by psychiatrist and stalking expert, Doreen Orion, MD. Almost all of this web site’s information and all of its case histories are taken from this book, which Gavin de Becker, America’s leading security expert called, "remarkable" and the Rocky Mountain News called, "extraordinary." or the following: Cyber-Stalking: Obsessional Pursuit and the Digital Criminal by Wayne Petherick Introduction Though the legal recognition of stalking is a recent evolution, the behaviour that is involved is by no means a product of the 20th century. It is known though that criminal behaviour is incredibly adaptive to new technologies, with credit card, mobile phone and computer fraud as examples. It is also acknowledged that stalking has now taken an on-line form, colloquially referred to as cyber-stalking. As the personal computer and the Internet bring the world into our homes, they provide access to a vast amount of information, and provide forums for individuals from all over the world to meet one another in a relatively anonymous environment. One example of these forums is the chat room where people from hundreds of countries may gather and meet, trade information and files, and chat about a range of topics from music to sex. Though this has bred a large number of international relationships, most of which prove harmless, it does present the possibility that ones on-line personality may become the target of unwanted attention. Cyberstalking, which is simply an extension of the physical form of stalking, is where the electronic mediums such as the Internet are used to pursue, harass or contact another in an unsolicited fashion. Most often, given the vast distances that the Internet spans, this behaviour will never manifest itself in the physical sense but this does not mean that the pursuit is any less distressing. There are a wide variety of means by which individuals may seek out and harass individuals even though they may not share the same geographic borders, and this may present a range of physical, emotional, and psychological consequences to the victim. It is the purpose of this paper to examine the wider phenomenon of stalking and to cover issues relating to legal and behavioural classifications, and to examine the incidence and prevalence of stalking. Some of the measures that may be employed by individuals in protecting their on-line identity will also be addressed. Given the ability of individuals to ‘mask’ their identity when using the Internet, linking the harassment to one particular individual may prove difficult, providing law enforcement with a challenge if prosecution should become an option. Programs that mask ones IP (Internet Protocol) address and anonymous remailers are merely two examples that hinder the identification of the digital location from which communications originate. This is important when considering that many statutes require that the threat be real. Lisa Rosier, of the Queensland Police Service who was trained by the Los Angeles Police Department states: “If a person is making these threats from the US, then there is little chance that the threat can be carried out” (The Australian, 1998). Rosier also points out that the psychological torment may still be very real, even in the absence of a distinct physical threat. One of the things that investigators may have in their favour is that such ‘pure’ cyberstalking, that which occurs entirely on the Internet, is rare (Casey, 1999) and as such will cross the virtual and extend into the physical. There is a definite gap between the legal statutes and the electronic world. Of the US states that have anti-stalking laws, only seven contain language that deal with stalking by computer (Jenson, 1996; Meloy, 1998). Examples of the differences in behaviour between the physical and virtual realm include hand delivering a letter (be it threat or otherwise) and e-mailing it to the victim. Other on-line examples may be e-mail bombs, threatening, degrading or demeaning communications, and assuming your on-line persona in places you frequent, such as chat rooms, for the purpose of posting personal details about you or your life. One such case in which the latter was a problem will be covered in the coming sections. While it is important to consider legal issues relating to stalking, they often fail to take into account the behavioural diversity evidenced in the act. For the investigator or concerned net-user, information relating to the behaviour often exhibited by a stalker will be important, as this may provide insight into possible motivations behind the offender. The next section will provide such explanations of stalking, from a motivational point of view, in the form of stalking typologies. A typology is broadly defined as the clustering together of individuals based upon shared characteristics. A summary shall also cover topical issues relating to the etiology, or causes of stalking. Erotomanic: These cases differ from Love Obsessional in that they possess the delusion that the target of the behaviour is in love with them (lowest incidence in the Zona and Threat Management Unit study (Geberth, 1992). Research would indicate that perpetrators are more likely to be female, with the majority of victims being older males of higher social status. Further broken into two categories of primary (or pure) erotomania where no other significant disorders are present, and secondary erotomania where the disorder is the result of another significant, dominant pathology. It is important to note that stalking, exactly like any other crime, behaviour, or clinical disorder exists on a continuum of severity. The stalking may be so subtle that the victim may not even know that it is happening, or the perpetrator may have a genuine belief that “if they would just get to know me, they would like me”, with no malicious intent desired. Many cases of stalking do not even rise to extreme levels of violence or harassment (Meloy, 1998). The severity of any act must be assessed on an individual basis, and a careful assessment made as to the likelihood that any activity would pass beyond a non-criminal threshold.
This page took 0.03 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.