Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:37:43 02/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 06, 2003 at 07:31:30, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >>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. Thanks for the friendliness, but since I know that the identity is very important in the context of your message, I still have doubts also after this actual message. I will show exactly where you simply come over dishonestly. You say that you had enough of some who talk about conspiracy in connection to the show event BUT - and that is now the important part - NOWHERE you prove your case. Nowhere I read why the event is _sound_. I mean it's a show event and you want to teach US [sic!] that all is koscher although it's a fact that K got 500000 no matter of the result. That fact PROVES already that we can't have a seious competition, and in fact we haven't one. And that is NOT a question of conspiracy, no, the gamescores give us the necessary answer. Clear, you, and even great analysts prefer to NOT talk about such unnecessary details, LOL. > >>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 ;) Misused how? No, not comparable to the French Revolution! Beware. It is dishonest in that sense that you are anonymously supporting the money/business/show event side. You have an agenda, consciously or unconsciously. No big deal of course. But I am not the Attorney General either! :) > >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 can save a lot of energy here if you simply accepted that I know a bit about spin doctors. BTW you can see the spin doctors also in the case against Saddam. There you can learn about killer arguments and fake help arguments. Why not talking about the gamescores instead of your concern? What concern do you have? For whom??? IFor us here? It makes no sense whatsoever. Yes, one sense, lobbying the show side. But why? We are here a critical and thinking forum, no?? Or is that here a lobby forum? I don't think so because then we would also allow plain commercials, but we don't! > >>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:) Sorry, sir, my name is NOT Rolf. My name is Rolf Tueschen and although there are three or four Rolf Tueschen in Germany, I am clear and open about my idetity. I'm not here with Roy Tex. No, excuse me I don't believe you. >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." Please! I censored you? You are a German in the end and that could make things much clearer. Because in Germany people in CC all have a party membership. All in the ChessBase camp even the indipendants... Over several corners connected together. > >You say this as if it was true Oh, yes, usually I do express what I see as correct, I'm not a spin doctor who must also be able to talk about known untruths. Just look at Wag the Dog, kit is all there. >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...". How dishonest again: I will explain that one. You argue now as if it was already an attack, unfair attack, when I argued exactly into the lack of substantiated arguments. The point is that you simply give no argument in your long first message. You don't talk about the games, you simply preach = warn and that is typical spin doctor work. You simply want to shift from the games to staying silent in a debate club, how dishonest such an idea. > >>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. Please, you stop that. It is again not honest. You are here in a club who has a charta. And that charta enforces the use of correct names. But exactly those out of business who usually have three computers or more, they play the game of the spin doctors. Clear enough? Of course they can't always say, hi, I'm 'Fred Friedel' [just an example] again or such. Because people would read the messages in a different way if they knew, uhm, the man from ChessBase again, or Kasparov's manager again. Of course he wats us to believe such and such... So a very basic spin is this one. Also practice in real life. I have a whole team and always when I want to influence the people, I use my buddies for a strategic war cheat. All that is psychology! > >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. You have a delusion. I am NOT interested in you personally. I am NOT interested in your name. All I wanted to support that you argue with arguments and NOT insinuations and general defamations. I want to make clear that it's very much a defamation if people, who write why they think that the show event is a hoax, are discriminated in such a way, you showed here. > >>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" :) No, please, how coquettish... :) I have nothing against your nicks. I have something against your innocence you pretend. Look at these games and then you understand what people mean with their critic. > >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. How can you say that, I don't see ghosts! You are not a ghoast, but all know that you were hiding behind a nick and that you have an agenda. > >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. You are tired? I thought you were a neutral observer? Tired? That is a typical expression of spin doctors. Because they must always be on alert. But YOU, why don't you just go to bed if you are tired? :) When I stated that I had no interests against you, I meant that you are a sympathetic author like all others. So, if I may cause you grief with my bad language, don't feel insulted. Thank you. Rolf Tueschen > >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.