Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 10:24:30 02/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 06, 2003 at 09:37:43, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 You really do need help, i have already told you what my motifs for posting what i did, believe it or not, you obviously don't not only believe what i say, but seem to think i am dishonest, based on the fact that part of my handle here is a nickname?? come on whatever it is get it checked... I never suggested you where interested in my person as you put it, i just wanted you to know the option to ask me was there, since you shoot first and ask questions later. 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.