Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 09:04:33 09/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 12, 1998 at 20:21:41, Dirk Frickenschmidt wrote: >>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. Enjoying a program play is a heavy feeling for you ??????? What is sleeping with you wife on your scale ? An earthquake of emotions :-)) >I would understand fascination of some of them. I think it is up to me which feelings i have while watching soccer or watching computerchess. I have seen people behave like barbarians while applauding to box-fights, kick-boxing-fights and fights-without-rules where people fight and blood spreads arround and people die, live on television in US ! I have seen those "behaviour" of cheerleaders. Also when people let their dogs fight against each other until on dog is dead. I would say in relation to my harmless feelings while watching fritz5 lose against gandalf, this is verty civilized, meanwhile the other "fights" are pretty brutal and inhuman. Although they are inhuman, a majority of people in the US watch these wrestling and fights-without-rules on cable tv. What is more inhuman ? Me enjoying 2 programs play chess, where no blood and no dignity is lost, or these events ?! >And I would understand that you like some more than others. Your are really generous, amazingly generous. :-)) Geben sie Gedankenfreiheit sir. >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. thats the difference between us. For me computerchess is life. For you life is something else. For me emotions and ideals and values are not divided by topics, areas or walls. For you the moral is split into private-life, computerchess, religion, family, political-stuff. I cannot split my ethics. You seem to be able to do so. Your decision. I prefer mine. >Seeing programs play is no sort of bloody cock-fight or such silly stuff from my >point of view. You would have to explain why so many people like it when one person kills another person life on television by kicking him into his face until the head is full of blood and the person dies. "bloody cock-fight" you call MY hobby ? Pah - my hobby does not kill anybody, it does not make society any way a killing field. It is a competition. If you would have ever had any sports seriously you would understand better. >It's not cold war, not politics, not sport with living people, >but just computer chess: games between two interesting programs. For you it is only this. For me it is something different. You do your bread and circuse in your LIFE !! I do my bread and circuse in my hobby-area. You don't understand that i take this important. And i don't understand that you can share your ethics and ideals and believe you are NOT a part of the bread and circus that is done in your private-life. I accept the competition where it is, and see it as a normal thing. And therefore i enjoy to see my favourite team/program win. You don't take this serious, he ? >>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. of course-. You have the important feelings. And i have the unimportant feelings. I have no problems with that. Take your "important" feelings for you. I prefer to enjoy the unimportant things meanwhile... >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... Of course you don't have strong feelings in computerchess area. IMO this only shows you are shallow. Maybe you are computerschachophil instead of computerchess orientad. You like to swim ON the waves, i prefer to swim IN the water itself, and often i dive, long time. I would say: surf on the waves, but let me swim in the water. >>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? I just want to explain to you that I like to see assholes fall on the bottom. In the same way i like to see fritz5 losing a championship. I think anybody gets what he deserves. A liar will become a liar in the end. Sometimes it takes years. How can i be that tasteless. Of course YOU have the better language, the more polite and more sensible and adequate language. I will let you these areas too. I don't like to be polite. It is another form of double moral in my eyes. >>>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. Ed can say his opinion, i can say my opinion. This is allowed in a civilised area. Do you want to forbid this ?! I just want to send you best wishes from Uli, he reads CCC to and told me a few hours ago that he finds all this very amusing. The only thing he wonders is, that i still waste my time with talking with you. Maybe this explains you where YOU have developed over the years. Maybe. >>>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. I would advise you to read a litte in some of Fromm's books. maybe this would help you to get at least a percentage of arguing-culture ! >In my eyes you violated Ed's right to speak for himself by claiming that you >knew better what he really meant, That is your interpretation. I never said that Ed said. All i said is that i see your/moritz and enriques and the ssdf-behaviour (using the non-public fritz5 autoplayer and publishing these results) as a step into a direction that causes ed to be in zugzwang. In this situation he develops a fire-door-exit by not supporting the auto232 interface. So i see your and your friends behaviour as a contribution that caused trouble. And i said i wonder that somebody who is a REASON for the autoplayer-disaster (by supporting the methods, you transported them into public and cause more trouble!!) wonders about ed beeing forced to react !! BTW: i declined using this secret autoplayer many times, because i find it immoral to use it. I was offered the usage a few times , but alsways expressed that i don't like or want to be a part of the system / methods i don't see as fair. Of course you are free to behave different. > claiming that he was just not daring to say >it. Or have I misunderstood what you said? Maybe. I cannot imagine what you understand or not. I cannot transform my mind to your level. >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. Ed has a mouth. He can speak. Ed has a mind. He is clever. You have a mouth too. Thats all. I can say so far. >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. How responsible your "communication" is can be seen on your/moritz/enrique/mark's comments on my pgn-data. :-) Be careful that i don't treat you with your own level of values. Could be a shock for you to see in the mirrow. But - be sure - i will not split my ethics and also not strip friendships in public forum or forbid other people to have an opinion. This would be barbarish to me. >>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. Ok- that seems to be the level you need... Responsible communication !! >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? As i said: i interpretated ed's behaviour. I commented it. And you don't like my point of view and want to forbid me to talk about it here. I see this as an effort to forbid other people opinion. I am not interested how often you hit your grandmother. I am sure this is not the topic of this newsgroup, maybe - if she plays chess... >Of course you can think what you like. but not loud ?! :-) >But I am convinced that you have no right to tell the public what Ed really >thinks. I have not said i know what ed thinks. I said i think that his behaviour XYZ is a result of your behaviour XYZ. If you don't see the difference take a course into rhetorics. >He is an adult man well able to speak for himself. thats exantly my opinion. But you seem to think he needs your help to speak ! >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 ... I can claim in public my opinion. About him, about you. About anybody. When i have a different point of view about why something happened, i can post it. You cannot forbid me to post or to express my opinions. I have never tried to forbid you to post yours. I don't see why you try to do so. I can only imagine that you feel the need to do so. Please continue your work. It only shows where you have developed over the years. It only outs you. Continue it. I don't want to stop you from showing your "values". If you feel the need to do so... do it. >>? 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? Extreme religious people want to tell other people what to think, when to think, and which topics to think about. They also define morals and ethics. It seems that is exactly what you want to do in the moment, trying to define which values i shall follow. Which opinions i am allowed to have and when i am allowed to express them. I add this, because it has to do with the context we are talking about. Maybe your profession has made you used to behave like this. I know from my friend uli that he - as a teacher - also often behaves like a teacher in his private life and he holds speaches that take 45 minutes and he gets the opponent the feeling he gets remarks for his answers. Sometimes a profession can influence the way you interact in your private life. Is this new to you ?! >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. I don't discredit your religious status. I only want to point out that the one thing could have to do with the other thing. You don't get this, he ?! >So what do you hope to get as benefit from that low style??? Again: take you HIGH-style, let me my low style. I don't need your world. >>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. i don't devide world and computerchess. anything i do, i do it in the same serious or enjoying way. for me there is no difference between a good game of chess, a good wine, a nice evening with my friends or a kiss from a woman. Don't you get this straight ?! >b) and no, unexpectedly for you, I don't want to stop opinions. good. than this is clear. >c) but: I just don't like to see statements from you which in my eyes clearly >violate the rights of others. complain to the moderators then. >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. I have in no way attacked ed. In no way you, moritz, enrique, mark or whoever. It was YOU adressing to me. Bruce pointed this out. Have you overseen this ?! >Freedom of speech does not imply freedom of saying about others whatever you >like, however dirty it may be. I have not said any dirty thing about ed or you or others. Please quote the DIRTYNESS !! I will be amused to see how much crimes i have written about ed in this context. You become more and more funny dirk. I enjoy reading your posts more and more. I will send uli copies. Maybe he likes it too. >>>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. ok - than complain to the moderators dirk. >Again and again. complain again and again dirk. >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. when in a football stadion, people enjoy seeing germany playing against britain, and the one people shout: kill them !!! do you really think that the ones HATE the others ????? Oh man. what a holy world you live in. >>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?), I have not written anything "tasteless" about ed. Could you please quote the tasteless passage. I have the opinion the tasteless crime exists only as an interpretation in your mind and the TASTE comes from your own values... You should better stand your own projections... > including bad allusions. That's your special version of "freedom >of speech"? oh man. >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? You have all right to talk to anybody. But no right to call your own projections (dirt, mud-throwing, tasteless, bad allusions, bild-zeitung-stil) as my actions. Keep that differenciated if you can. try. it will maybe change you life. >And if I am allowed, should I show some more devotion? right. >How could I miss the point that communists don't have to bear critisism from >evangelical pastors, by human rights principles? right. Now you got it. > Even not if an evangelical >pastor is just reading and writing here because he has the same computer chess >hobby as you? you surf, i swim and dive. That seems to be the difference. You don't even invest feelings. I call these people schachophil. I don't know how to translate into english. But it means they talk the whole day about computerchess without beeing really deeply involved, also implies, emotionally involved. >I should have known that, really... > >:-))))) right. you should have know that. >>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? I would never use these kind of reference. I meant another thing that has to do with controlling other peoples ideas as commenting them as political correct or not. I searched something in the context of totalitarian or stuff like this. But i forgot the thread. But george orwell and ray bradbury come close to the point i referred. >So you finally begin to like Chris' and Rolfs bad style of calling others names, i have not called other people names. I said that more and more i get the feeling that i understand what chris and rolf meant. Is this an insult in your eyes ? Not in my. In my eyes this is again an opinion. An opinion you don't want to be outspoken here, he ?! Now you see how different people are. The one is feared about thoughts other people could have, and others not. >but you just don't dare to speak this silly form of name-calling out loud like >they did??? :-))) no. I don't like 3rd reich references, because what has happened in this time is imo so unique and mean that no relation is justified. Also i wanted to say something different than YOU had in mind. Again you only show which projections you see as a reason for my actions/words. What is more immoral ? The things you imply i would have thought in mind, or the things i write ? >Nice character, really... >Who would have thought that I finally begin to know you better after so many >years? yes -sometimes it takes years to understand somebody. >>>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. It is normal to speak with and about others dirk. Again: the dirtyness exists in your mind. I never said that Ed said xyz. It was the link in your own mind that thought i would say this and that. >I *do* respect your claim of free speech, as long as you don't massively violate >the rights of others. if you believe i do massively violate the rights of others, you should complain to the moderators instead of massively produce wasting off-topic posts here. >You wrote a sentence alluding to my religious status and profession. Right. How can i. This is of course forbidden. Forbidden forbidden forbidden. When will czub learn that it is forbidden to talk about someones job. Forbidden forbidden forbidden. haha :-) >You snipped that sentence here. Unbelievable ... i should be sent into prison for doing so. How could i snip into your holy sentences... >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. Not acceptable-. Setzen sechs ! Nicht versetzt. Exactly what i wanted to point out. You speak exactly like uli sometimes speak, forgetting that he is not at school and we are not his pupils. Now you get the point , he ? >If you would have written me an email questioning me about my religion I would >have answered you by email. Aha. Very logical dirk. >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. I have explained in this post above. >Anything else would be the continuation of terribly bad style. how can i continue posting in bad style. Is there a law of right-style ? Which book do i have to study for beeing a member here ?! Knigge ? Schweitzer ? Martin-Luther-King ?! >I hope you don't have some heavy problems conceding the same rights to others >you expect to be respected for yourself. of course not. >Regards >from Dirk Why do you sent me regards ? You ended the friendship in public. Please stop sending me regards. I am not interested in YOUR regards. Thanks. copy to uli gronemann and peter schreiner
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.