Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 04:31:30 02/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
>Thanks so much. > >For me real names were important. I always hated the hypocrisy of those who >called themselves Karin's Dad and who then censored people. > >I knew that your nick wasn't real. And I take it as a serious case of >desinformation. If my identity was important to the content of my post i could understand this, but since it did not, i must admit i find this a wee bit strange :) however i respect that you feel this way. >Then, you must not exaggerate my comment on "we", you are right, I use it too. >But I saw it being misused in your message. And I still hold it. Misused how exactly? i was referring to the fact that hopefully i am not making this forum up and others actually posts here ;) Example, the reporter ask the bypasser what happened when the police arrested the two people demontrating and the bypasser answers: "we were standing there minding our own business..." "we" about people he have never met before, but felt a connection with. >You are not honest, starting with name, and also with your hidden lobbyism for >the show&money side. I discovered it and commented. Well Rolf (if that is indeed your real name, for all i know it could be Fritz:) You are censoring me by saying: "You are not honest, starting with name, and also with your hidden lobbyism for the show&money side. I discovered it and commented." You say this as if it was true and you end this post with: "In case you are not lobbying and you wrote only your very personal opinion I am certainly sorry if you felt unfairly attacked" That's the point i did not feel attacked, i was attacked as i was not lobbying, but you let it be up to my feelings to decide, instead of saying "if i attacked you unfairly...". >My own name was always the same. Only in two cases I used a nick because of the >censorship of the forum. NB I never used my nick for personal attacks. It was as >a persoal experiment because under Rolf many light weight readers always tended >to see the 22 y. old Rolf of rgcc in 1996/7. How widespread lightweights are >could be seen when you imagine that at the time I wrote under my real name, had >my official term of job in my email address and still people took me for a kid. >That was really an interesting experience too. When you meet someone in "real" life you get to know them on a personal level and at a certain point you have no doubt that they are who they claim to be, (not that i have personally ever wondered) on the internet it is a different story, you have people using aliases, only their first name etc, but the fact is that unless someone here is a public figure, there is no way of knowing if they really exits or not, no matter how "real" their name sounds. I lived in Spain for 2 years and got Spanish friends who quickly came up with the nickname Jonas Cohonas and it has stuck ever since, i have never tried to hide my real name and have on several occations gladly passed it on in this forum, when someone asked. I tell you this, because it seems very important to you that the person you have a discussion with is has a "real" identity, for future reference you are welcome to mail me with any questions you might have, i welcome free speech as much as you do. >Finally - since that time in the mid nineties I know that massive commercial >interests, although comparably small in CC, govern the scene in public >discussion sites. This leads to a shift exactly into the direction of the inner >logic of such an article you wrote. Instead of free exchange of ideas and also >opinions, what I always prefered, we saw a typical peer group behaviour. >Critical questios or ideas were imediately defamated as illoyal and dangerous >for the whole group. Today I am happy to be a member of this American group, >because only here it seems possible to exert the right of free speech. In all >German fora you must accept the heat ifyou ask questions about the specifically >false product, because it's from theother side or could influence the marketing >and stuff like that. > >I for one always relied on the power of my own arguments and ideas. I don't get >into depressio if people do't understand or like me. That is a normal effect. I >don't like those who - under legend that they just put their very personal >opinions - just ract on the critical situation in the group and try to support >the criticized side. Your position is simply weak, tosay the least. Because all >ideas or theories we post here are just questionable messages. Not "facts" as >you tried to insinuate. What you tried is the proposal that lays should step >back and wait util "experts" start talking. And that is the problem. Because our >experts, i chess, who are interested in such CC, are engaged for the show. What >should they have to say? Ashley, Seirawan talked so much in 97 but also then >they never really cared for the top question of the event in combination with >Kasparov's "problems". I have all the transcripts of their stage appearances. >It's all on the level where they hurt nobody. Well, that is exactly the deal. We >have always the same picture. People confuse critic with rejection and contempt, >which is big nonsense. It is simply weired that CC is ot smarter. We have too >many uneducated lays who are button&features experts like the kids who play all >night long for the World Championships in Doom or whatelse. But we have few who >have learned the tolerance of a free exchange. >Even here I am unable to persuade people how important the debate about >"allowed" features in CC could be for as possible tournament chess >participation. Imediately people think that I want to handicap CC. But again >here I could survive after a short debate. Which is impossible in German lobby >groups. > >I case you are not lobbying and you wrote only your very persoal opinion I am >certainly sorryif you feeled unfairly attacked. But I only tried to describe the >situation during such a show event. > >Rolf Tueschen I can assure you that i am not lobbying and that i was simply expressing my opinions. I did not FEEL attacked, only thing i have a problem with is that you make me out to be "preaching", "ordering", "lobbying", you are the first person on the internet i have come across who see's using a nickname is dishonest and "a serious case of desinformation" :) You should keep in mind that for me to be speaking "for one side" requires me to believe that there is "another side" however like i said, i think you are seing ghosts and by that i am saying i disagree with you, i am not saying that you are wrong, i am saying that i THINK you are wrong. You put a second header saying "Business deals NOT Conspiracies" when i wrote my original post, i was only referring to those people actually using the term conspiracy, not those trying to look past their own paranoia. Truth is simply this, i got tired of some people using the term conspiracy in relation to these matches and spoke out, no hidden agenda. Regards Jonas
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.