Author: Dirk Frickenschmidt
Date: 17:21:41 09/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 12, 1998 at 15:56:38, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On September 12, 1998 at 10:25:45, Dirk Frickenschmidt wrote: >>I always hope to see programs at their best. *Any* program. >>So what in heaven do you enjoy??? > >I like to see the stupid fritz lose. It is a pleasure to me. >Especially when the opponent is a strong and intelligent program like diep, >eugen, gandalf... it makes fun to watch it. e.g. it made fun to watch france >beeing world champion in soccer. I was for france. And against the other nations >when they played vs. france. I enjoyed seeing them lose. Other nice teams, it >was a sad thing to see them lose. I like the loss of the german team. They were >weak. Their trainer was weak. So it was ok that they lost. I enjoyed this. >I did not enjoyed the british team losing, and not denmark team. This was a >pity. I enjoyed seeing the american team losing against the moslems... this was >really a pleasure. Also germany vs. usa was really nice. >Don't you enjoy when a team you don't like loses ? I didn't know that you have that heavy feelings about little computer programs. I would understand fascination of some of them. And I would understand that you like some more than others. (While still keeping enough sense of reality to acknowledge proved playing strentgh of programs you don't like. To give you an example: I never liked the passive counter style of Genius. But at the same time I have a lot of respect seeing how good it is and how well programmed by Richard Lang. Taste and clear judgement are two different things, not to to be mixed up too easy). What I do not at all understand and share are the extremely strong positive and negative feelings you fix to computer chess programs, comparing their play to matters of serious political matters and human sports and whatever. Seeing programs play is no sort of bloody cock-fight or such silly stuff from my point of view. It's not cold war, not politics, not sport with living people, but just computer chess: games between two interesting programs. >I think this is pretty human. I think all human beeings do this. Maybe you do. I cannot speak for others, by I for one only have such feelings (and probably even then in a slightly other way) if it concerns important human issues. I think computer chess programs are not developed for raising strong feelings of love or hatred. At least I don't use them in that way... >E.g. i enjoy watchin clinton now. He lied, and he misused his power. >He betrayed. So - throw him out. I enjoy that he is the first president who >falls over his prick ! nice gambit, the prick-gambit !! You want to win a prize for the most tasteless gutter language in CCC or what is this good for? Do we still talk about computer chess on CCC or is this the introduction of lousy rgcc habits? >>Do you think Ed is not capable or willing to say *his* opinion speaking out >>clearly what *he* means?? > >I think ed is capable of anything. You have not answered my question. >>And I guess he has any right to speak for himself >right. He has the right. And i don't take him this right. Yes, you did. In my eyes you violated Ed's right to speak for himself by claiming that you knew better what he really meant, claiming that he was just not daring to say it. Or have I misunderstood what you said? If you meant it like that, what could Ed do against what you impute? I regard that as dirty style: Making some gossip with unproven imputations Those you speak about are more or less helpless against such imputations. This is how rainbow press works: Throw enough at somebody to be sure something will cling to the target(s). But this surely is not how responsible human communication works. In my eyes you violate the rights of others with this kind of practice. >>and to be >>protected from questionable interpretations of his words or decisions, to which >>he does not agree. > >I can have any opinion about a topic i like. Do you want to forbid thoughts Dirk Imagine: No Thorsten, I don't want to forbid thoughts. I even don't beat my grandmother. Really, Thorsten: how low do you want or need the level of arguing? You don't think you get away with such silly counterattacks instead of serious reasoning? Of course you can think what you like. But I am convinced that you have no right to tell the public what Ed really thinks. He is an adult man well able to speak for himself. And you have no right to claim in public that he means the opposite of what he says. This is only one example. I could name more from your way of dealing with others on CCC during quite a while ... Now the following is the simple alphabet of human rights: they are not just about what *you* would really like to do or say in any moment just as yopu please. They are as well about what others do not want to suffer from you and do not have to accept from you. These are two sides of this coin. One side missing, no coin. Claiming only rights for yourself: no rights remain for anyone. It is not too hard to understand if you have some good will. >? It looks you have become really a extremist in your religion :-) Once more: what are these kinds of allusions to my religion good for? Do they help discussing our copmputer chess topic? Or are they just cheap ways of trying to hurt me without arguments? You are old enough to know that trying to discredit one's religious status (and this in a nebulous and unqualified way) is no more acceptable as means to discuss completely other topics than sexual or racial discrimination would be. So what do you hope to get as benefit from that low style??? >Do you want people to stop to have an opinion about the world dirk ? a) We don't talk about the world, but about computerchess here. b) and no, unexpectedly for you, I don't want to stop opinions. c) but: I just don't like to see statements from you which in my eyes clearly violate the rights of others. Just like you don't like others to urge their "free opinion" that you may have cheated about Fritz openings. In both cases this is no good way of dealing with each other. >>Yes, I'm glad this is a free world with a bit more than just *your* rights. > >Freedom of speech Dirk. Freedom of speech does not imply freedom of saying about others whatever you like, however dirty it may be. >>You simply have to respect the rights and claims of others as well. > >Right. And what is my sin ? That you don't like my opinion ? See above: from my view you clearly violate the rights of others. Again and again. The way you talk about persons and institutions sometimes is lower rainbow press level: full of suspicion and hateful evaluations. Nobody deserves that anybody speaks about him in such an unqualified and respectless way. >>Freedom only makes sense in connection with trying to do justice to others and > >you will not judge me dirk. I am not a member of your church. >I am communist. You can judge your members. Not me. Really funny: - *you* have any right to talk in respectless and in part tasteless way about others, (SSDF, Chessbase, Enrique, Moritz and me, now Ed, have I forgotten some recent cases?), including bad allusions. That's your special version of "freedom of speech"? - *But*: soon as I dare to critisize you for that I become your "judge"? And this while implying that I "judge" members of my church? And seriously trying to make me and others beleive that I should have no right to critisize you and your behaviour here? Oh, excuse me, how could I forget you are a communist and no member of my church. So I probably have no right to talk with you at all, I guess? And if I am allowed, should I show some more devotion? How could I miss the point that communists don't have to bear critisism from evangelical pastors, by human rights principles? Even not if an evangelical pastor is just reading and writing here because he has the same computer chess hobby as you? I should have known that, really... :-))))) >More and more i get the feeling rolf and chris are right with naming your point >of views ... how did they call it... i forgot to whom rolf and chris related you >with... i will ask chris. maybe he remembers and can help me... Chris quickly read your post here and on rgcc equally quickly proposed little Hitler. Is that approriate for your purposes or are you waiting for Rolf Tueschen to add more proposals? So you finally begin to like Chris' and Rolfs bad style of calling others names, but you just don't dare to speak this silly form of name-calling out loud like they did??? :-))) Nice character, really... Who would have thought that I finally begin to know you better after so many years? >>to respect their justified claims, too. No matter if it's Ed, Chessbase, the >>SSDF people or whoever... > >You don't respect my claims ? Or what do you want to tell me ? I don't respect any claims of you to speak about others like you sometimes did and do. I *do* respect your claim of free speech, as long as you don't massively violate the rights of others. You wrote a sentence alluding to my religious status and profession. You snipped that sentence here. I had asked: >>Could you please explain what you want to say to me or to others by this >>sentence in the context of our computer chess discussion? > >No - i will not. This would be off-topic. You can send an email and i will >explain you. but not in this forum... :-) > Not acceptable. If you would have written me an email questioning me about my religion I would have answered you by email. But you made an offtopic allusion about my religion here in public (why did you snip it in your answer?). So it seems to me I have any right to demand that you explain it here in public as well. Anything else would be the continuation of terribly bad style. I hope you don't have some heavy problems conceding the same rights to others you expect to be respected for yourself. Regards from Dirk
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.