Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Where Blatchford insinuations should end

Author: Dirk Frickenschmidt

Date: 14:40:07 09/26/98

Go up one level in this thread

On September 25, 1998 at 12:49:20, Bruce Moreland wrote:

Hi Bruce,

I don't mind at all if Chris Whittington on rgcc or now with the help of his
twin in language and style, "Steve Blatchford" :-), is continuing his efforts of
intriguing and playing "divide et impera" games.

But I *do* mind if abusive hints that someone ending his friendship with
Thorsten in public (which only I did, and I know: in big anger and probably in a
way too bathetic, though substantially inevitable) are connected with general
allegations of "baiting and goading". If now you agree in this thread that you
think that Thorsten "was partially baited and goaded", and this even speaking of
people of whom you think they more or less accused him of cheating in his summer
tournament, you will porbably understand that I am not willing to be counted in
one of the two allegated groups in any possible way.

a) concerning allegations of "baiting and goading".
In my case it was *provably* exactly the other way round, namely that Thorsten
Czub without *any* provocation (I had just wished him all the best for his
summer tournament) first denounced me here, and in some following threads
attacked me repeatedly in a quite personal offensive way, without me doing the
like with him.

b) concerning allegations of calling Thorsten more or less cheating with his
summer tournament.
Again exactly the opposite is true. I *provably* defended him against cheating
insinuations, and did this several times and despite our conflicts.

So I insist that hints at my person within CCC are not connected with neboulous
insinuations of this kind.

Conclusions towards Mr. Blatchford:

1. I want to be named if adressed, or left out.
2. I only accept proved or at least evident allegations.
   I certgainly don't accept personal insinuations turning provable facts
   into the opposite for cheap, offensive reasons.

Not to misunderstand me:
I don't think it was *your* intention to connect unclear insinuations with my
name. I just think this impression could very fast occur in this thread and is
obviously intended to do so by "Steve Blatchford" and/or Chris Whittington.

Now I have to insist that a person like "Steve Blatchford" should not be
confirmed here in CCC in such a generalizing and misunderstandable way while
writing some crap hinting especially at me (if you want to read more of the like
compare rgcc with Chris Whittington's efforts of jumping at me in similar
language, style and kind of insinuations).

Mr. "Blatchford" continued his insinuations in another thread in CCC in a way
which I regard as obvious case for moderation meanwhile (I'm terribly sorry to
have to say that, because I don't like the idea at all to see more work for you
moderators while you have *much* too much to do right now than just normal

Bruce, believe me: I'm not much inclined to believe in conspiration theories.

But I must admit that in some recent cases I simply asked myself: Are some old,
well known 'friends' with all kinds of names :-))) desperately trying to put CCC
into chaos by making it unmoderable right now? If so I propose we all keep cool
(I will try to do so despite my protest) and don't give easily recognizable
efforts of this kind too much of a chance...

Kind regards
from Dirk

>On September 25, 1998 at 06:05:23, Steve Blatchford wrote:
>>On September 24, 1998 at 20:27:47, Don Dailey wrote:
>>>Of course we considered this. We looked
>>>at many angles.  We are convinced that Thorsten was partially baited
>>>and goaded.
>>If Thorsten was "partially baited and goaded", do you think that the "baiters
>>and goaders" did not realise the likely effect of the "baiting and goading" ?
>I saw a few threads start that looked like Thorsten traps to me.  The
>possibility that there might be some deliberate effort to trap him going on was
>taken into account.
>>The "baiters and goaders" were Thorsten's erstwhile friends. One of them had
>>recently made an end to his friendship with Thorsten in a most humiliating and
>>public way.
>>That little piece of hatred went right to the top of the mountain to end its
>>Resulting in "peace and quiet" for a while. Soldiers go back to their private
>>email groups.
>>Then, later, little pin-pricks from the "baiters and goaders" seemed designed
>>for maximum impact. They were from "friends", they were collective, they implied
>>cheating, they deliberately used language that allowed 100 escape routes.
>Initially there were several strange posts which were effectively cheating
>accusations against Thorsten.  These were seen for what they were, at the time.
>>When Thorsten reacted (you were surprised ?), they seized on his terminology and
>>wouldn't let go. They demanded his expulsion by the moderators. As the
>>moderators vacillated they threatened the existence of the CCC by their own
>You weren't involved in our discussions so I don't think you know how we reacted
>to this.
>>>The problem is that Thorsten is the easiest one on the
>>>group to bait and that in itself caused a lot of problems.
>>Were the "baiters and goaders" so stupid that they didn't know this ?
>>Were the "baiters and goaders" acting random, or did they get the result they
>>set out for ?
>>>Do you think we are stupid?
>>Do you think you've been used ?
>I think the attempt may have been made, but the possibility of this was
>recognized by us at the time, that is one reason this episode took so long.  I
>think that if success is measured by the end result, then they got what they
>I think your interpretation of events is simplistic.

This page took 0.21 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.