Author: Detlef Pordzik
Date: 14:54:37 09/21/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 1998 at 20:40:19, Dirk Frickenschmidt wrote: >On September 20, 1998 at 17:51:05, Detlef Pordzik wrote: > >Hi Detlef, Hi Dirk, > >I snip my post completely because you do not refer to it in concrete, but rather >with the overall suspicion that it does not do justice to Thorsten Czub and >perhaps is not helpful to find a way to peace. > No, this wasn't my aim - to justice. I'll try to explain it a little more clearly, what my intention was - lendin' a hand from somebody outside of this dead end road ( me, myself ), where the combattants seem to have been stuck in, not more, but not less. And : with no measuring no judifying, no nothing, I haven't got the rights for. >At least I guess that this is in plain words what you want to tell me. >Correct me if I am wrong. Basically my intention was not to say " c'mon, forget n' forgive whatever might has been ", I ain't that unbalanced, instead : see above. Dunno, if this is a correction or not, maybe just a clarification of my - now senseless - aim; so it's academic anyway. >If it were my intention to just write a flame against Thorsten Czub, I would >have written that in plain words for sure. One can do things this + that way, both hit the same target; if one has the eyes and background to read, what you've wrote, it's kinda not so easy to assume a different purpose. >>A man, who polarizes, no doubts. > >From my view continuing primitive offensive style together with fundamentalist >thinking categories of belief and disbelief - belief not in religious matters, >but in "friend" and "enemy" concepts concerning chess programs, which are not >remotely worth thinking in such categories or hurting others for such crap -, is >much more a problem than just "polarizing", which can be said about some >intelligent forms of critisism as well. > Some of this bears true sights, I personally see myself unable to comment nor give away standards about communication rules as common advice. ( Especially not me...:-) ) >>A man, who got his personal failiures, just like you'n me. > >perfectly true while still not at all being a general excuse for any kind of >behaviour... Pardon me ? We ain't talkin' bout raping or something like this - there are things, only the good Lord may forgive - but weren't we debating on - maybe/ truely - disrespectful mailings ? Well - of course your native right to react so; and I don't wanna get inpolite or personal - but I feel the urge to express a comment kinda this way : ( annother traditional ) " Don't you blame an idea for what man makes out of it " Do you understand me ? And you're in person, not the one who sees himself able to pardon ? >>And most time the ghosts'll appear, you're shoutin' for - to use a German, >>traditional. >>But I'd like to take his part, a little - just from my very personal sight. > >Yes, ok with me. > >>I had close & very constructive contacts with the Author of the prog. Chris Wh., >>after our personal quarrel concerning the prog >>and I had basically the same with TC over the years, with several attacks >>against me personally., as well. > >I once had nice contacts with Mr. Whittington as well, until I had the pleasure >to meet some of his sides I had not known so well before. In the meantime I had >more than one opportunity to get extremely well acquainted to them ;-) I'm totally unable to comment this. I measure people by the way they meet me. And, to repeat - the discussion - if it was one - between Chris Wh. ( annother personality who polarizes ) and me was not of the kind one could call friendly, in the beginning. This changed, bit by bit, mail by mail, and ended in a both sided respect to the other's person + opinion up to this very day, and I stand my ground for this. The very same happened between TC and me - we know eachother for many years, as beein' in favour of NOVAG I was kinda " natural born enemy " for him, who supported and loved SAITEK in the past - we got in stronger debates every now + then; but, I repeat : the same person, who's now been logged off of CCC, very likely because of his own behaviour, was allways able - even if it took some time, to say " I'm sorry ". I think, this should be stated once, at least, too. >I just can say: he stepped over the border of what I personally can accept as >occasional struggle, very far, and I will not tolerate his offensive behaviour >towards all kinds of people (including me) and matters any longer. It seems - it did the trick by now. > >I wrote a long appeal to him here on CCC, describing in a very concrete form >what I do not find acceptable, after already having had some encounter with his >less friendly sides shortly before, him then being completely unprovoked by me. >His only reaction after my new appeal was his public claim to stop talking with >me. >Within days I now could easily add one more equally long list like this: with >things absoluteley incompatible with the non-offensive character demanded as >basical ground for CCC. > >Frankly, I have not seen any response from you to my "appeal to Thorsten". >Nor to lots of his recent offensive posts: no response to loads of simply >offensive (and not just "polarizing") stuff. Instead I now see something like a >polite, but in its direction quite clear "appeal to Dirk" from you. ;-) Forget this, Dirk. I haven't got the right to defend nor agress anybody - at least here, coram publico. I learnt English down in the streets - I know - but I know as well, that I can articulate quite precise. The only thing I really did, was to take TC's side " a little " - correct ? To tell the truth, it's not just that simple, that I'd never "appeal" to anyone on serious behalfs ( know what ? I'd phone the person up or mail him privatly ) instead - I didn't follow these long debates very steady, they were kinda all Greek to me. I nicely can believe, that my old chap went over imaginary borders every now + then, I know him well for this. But I don't nail things that high, you know, I ain't that thin skinned. It just ain't worthy the whole show......for MY understanding. >But to be clear: I deny *anybody* the right to treat people like Thorsten >*continually* does here on CCC in certain posts. If I am denying others the >right to treat people witout any respect and hurting them again and again, this >from my view has *much* more to do with my profession (which you allude to >further down) than any irenic dreams of a peace which last not least lives from >repressing and pushing away what is heavily going wrong, just to keep some >harmonic feelings. I haven't got the right for the least more than to " allude " - so take it, as it was meant, respect towards your privacy + life decisions, not the other way round, will you ! >I'm not interested any longer in shorttime excuses - missing even these in any >clearly recognizable form from Thorsten lately. >I am more interested in non-offensive posting on matters of computerchess over >longer period. That's so basical and self understanding - what else could one say ? >>One thing for sure, Dirk, and I ain't too sure, that you'd feel different, if >>you were in the same position : >> >>I personally still call S.E. b+c " my " prog - eventhough I was only peripheral >>involved in the eng. testing and helped a little to increase it; > >Sorry, I don't guess what S.E. b+c might be. Excuse me : SUPER EXPERT, vs b + vs c, produced by NOVAG, Hongkong. >But I still guess I wouldnd't call a program "our" program if I only helped >testing it intensively and were not really able to contribute some program >code... Well - opinion vs opinion - let it stand this way for good. Not worthy to debate on. >>TC was - as far as I know from Chris, THAT MUCH involved in the making of the >>prog - even if he didn't write the codes, that I kinda respect this " we, our " >>ect. > >I have a lot of respect for his testing. He did very much for the development of >this program. > >Still I regard continuing (and not just occasional) talking in "we" form about a >program from another programmer as slightly exaggerating, to say the least in a >polite way :-) Well, well - Dirk ! >See above: I could smile much more in a warmhearted context which I could >regognize, even with some rough tones from time to time. >Instead I have to recognize vain talking in connection with contemptive comments >about others and their issues... > >>And remember what we all should do - you personally under all circumstances >>( remembering your profession, or call it faith ) : >> >>who are you ( nicely : we ) to throw the 1st stone ?? > >I am not much interested in throwing any "first stone". >Please feel free to show me where I have really been throwing a "first" stone. Can't you recognize, that this was a common phrase - out of the Holy Bible, btw ? The only thing, I really feel free for here, is to be irritated by this one : "....not much interested in throwing any "first stone". Not - much - do you mean this ? >I am much more interested in stopping an arm which is obviously constantly (and >sometimes for extremely cheap reasons) throwing stones at all kinds of others >and their matters. >I am well able to give you lots of examples for the latter. No - it's history by now, I pity it, not specific, he may had stronger failiures, I didn't follow this, as I frankly stated, but I pity it in general. >>To the topic, if it was the one : CSTal - >>I bought it, I was a legal owner - and I disliked it - by various reasons. But >>this was a personal decision of mine, nothin' to speak about in general. >>Yet, absolutely true is : >>there WAS a " paris Vs " - came along with the prog itself as an add. eng. >>there was a " black + white .eng Vs " as well - quite a long time on the server. > >I am sorry this does not answer the simple and fundamental question: why is the >definitely best version which is available not on the server now, nor can it be >bought on disk or CD? And why can't anyone read some useful comment there, like >"CSTal Black is no version for playing with black, but for computer games, while >CSTal white should be used for games against humans"? Or even better rename the >versions to make the whole thing understandable to customers? I think I know the answer - but I ain't the one to answer this - it could only be clarified by the maker of the prog itself. > >All very simple and fundamental. But a problem with Chris Whittington/Thorsten >Czub or whomever? > >>IF you'd write a mail to them,, or phone Chris, you'd get your .eng Vs for >>sure ! > >I asked Chris which version to use, on rgcc. >I only got an agressive answer which had do do *nothing* with my question. >Others perhaps have better chances... I must believe this - I stand my ground, that I got 100 % different behaviour from both - TC AND CW - maybe it's just the bade vibe in total within RGCC I've detected personally for me ?? >Of course I can get the version. But most customers can't in any convenient and >usual way. What ? A simple, polite mail to this Co - c/o Mr. Whittington., personally, and I'd " bet one beer " - to speak with Vlastimil Hort - that the questioner wouldn't get dissappointed. >If he got a yellow card - which I don't know - then certainly not for his nice >attitude to "give it all - for our hobby". I guess, if he got a yellow card, >this probably had other reasons... ;-) Yeah - I read it often enough by now. >I had and have a high esteem for Thorsten's experience and insights concerning >computer chess - with the one exception where extreme feelings of love and >hatred govern his judgements. I am sorry that the latter is becoming quite a >habit more and more, sometimes shading the first to the degree of a total >eclipse... > >>So, why not smile a little - show this attitude with " the salt thing " - your >>letter was brilliant - but it contains them bad vibes wrapped in intelligent >>phrases, that just shouldn't be. > >It may well be that my letter still vibrated from some "extremely" bad >vibrations I had to read before, even if I tried to meet them with as much humor >as possible... :-) There was some humor in this mail - no doubts. For my personal opinion I'd never would have posted this in public, it repeated all the missbehaviour + failiures so explicit, that there was not the slightest chance for a peaceful solution, as the result of today shows. >Conclusion: >Elvis, believe me, I accept the questions you put to me in principle. Now - ain't that generous...:-)) ( Notice the smileys, elsewise you might take it as an insult ) >I just have some difficulties with them because I find them a bit unbalanced >concerning "rhyme and reason"... ;-) At least you are that fair to express it " I find " - and add a smiley, too. > >Being very clear in my answer and saying very directly what I don't like is not >meant offensive towards you in any possible way. >I just tried to answer your questions as good as I can. For heaven's sake, now - c'mon ! Why should you offend me ?, Nono - I don't take you as a nut - try to take my true intention out of this, our opinions exchange, that I - tried - to help a little to calm things down; and that can't be done by common appeals towards Dirk nor TC - for my understanding. By writing it, I knew the positions were allready of concrete n' steel, but I felt, I had to take a try on this anyway. >Kind regards >from Dirk Keep on rockin' ELVIS
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.