Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:27:58 04/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 07, 2003 at 11:52:17, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On April 07, 2003 at 08:51:33, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>In a German forum I read the following reflection by Bruce Moreland, quote by >>heart: >> >>- or do you think that I, Bruce M., am responsible for the whole agitation in >>CCC, and NOT Chrilly D., the author of the private email? >> >> >>My answer is as follows: >> >>Yes, it is Bruce alone, who is responsible. 100% clear. >> >>[Repetitorium >> >>there's one single variation when it could have been necessary for Bruce to >>either or all together >> >>a making public the essentials of the email >> >>b deciding not to go to Graz >> >>c contascting a lawyer or other legal authorities >> >>d contact the same persons of c but on Chrilly's side >> >> >>if, and only if, the private emails contained a personally directed death threat >>against Bruce himself. Since that is not the case, the whole event is basically >>a very strange publication of private emails into CCC.] >> >> >> >>Rolf Tueschen >> >>P.S. In the same thread in CSS I read a statement of Prof. Althofer (Univ. of >>Jena) who said that someone with full power over his mental equipment would >>never have sent such private emails as those from Chrilly Donninger. I strongly >>disagree. And Althofer gives the arguments himself. He was even unable to only >>look at the pictures and stories about this war in the TV news so that he >>decided to ignore his TV for a couple of days, but Althofer has no understanding >>for someone who argues against this war itself. Isn't that inconsistent? Of >>course it is. And exactly in the same trap there is Bruce right now. > >You've posted this kind of stuff like ten times, and have essentially taken over >the thread. Untrue! But it's true that I am the poster of reference as far as the political art propaganda is concerned. You did not even understand why I used the term political art. But it is exactly the aspect that makes the difference between evil spam, personal threats or idiotic vulgarism. It's not all these three possibilities. Because it's typical political art propaganda. A famous chapter of political propaganda. Comparable to what exists in the USA and Europe alike. > >I quoted from emails I received, so that people could understand the content. I >did not reproduce the emails in whole, and I didn't post the images. Correct. But we all saw the pictures on the internet and in special we saw them in CTF links. >I didn't >even say who had sent the emails. Yes, but you combined the publication with your decision not to go to Graz and at that moment this question was almost answered. Who's beginning to split hairs, Bruce? >On the 27th I received another email, >essentially stating that the author hoped that the pictures would be distributed >further. Bruce this is the typical hybris of an artist. Who wished that his oeuvres were forgotten in cupboards? > >If someone sends you an email, you are not bound by some legal and moral code to >refuse to reveal, even under threat of torture, that someone sent you an email. I tend to agree but in your case the main ethical problem is your lack of knowledge of art and politcal propaganda. You tried to change the whole problem into a political crime which is WRONG. Since you - as a usually very accepted author - had imediately hundreds of disciples, the whole debate ran out of control. You succeeded in painting Chrilly Donninger [a surely higher educated chess programmer than you] as kind of madman who simply lacked of respect for you. And exactly this is wrong. I called it Chrilly's outcry! But here not the argument is important but the usual standing someone has. I am proud to be in a minority position in that case because otherwise I were forced to doubt my own class - if everybody would want to be my disciple. Actually the problem is not one of intelligence. If that would be the case you and also the named Professor would be extremely qualified. But this here is about wisdom which enforces the minority position by definition. Wisdom is comined with class and stamina, also civil courage. But most important the self confidence to feel fine in a minority of one or two position. The whole topic reminds of the censorship against Russell in the USA. He's one of my idols. Perhaps he wasn't always right, but he had it what I described above. The basic mistake in your handling was the reduction of the problem to an institutional political CC question. Your contacting the CC organization... Bruce, you must not like the postcards, you must not accept them but you can't begin to examine if you can censor them! That is completely against your usual class. Exactly this was the reason for me to participate in this thread. Because I see you as the most talented US chess programmer (almost Wch in slow mode and already Blitz champ), as a talented writer and as a man with civil courage as I could see in my own case couple of months ago. I like you and it almost breaks my heart to see you going in such a direction now. Let me try to explain my motivation for CTF too. I have absolutely _no_ political agenda. My only interest in such questions is the ethical logic and the internal consistance of an applied logic. Nothing else. I already knew since long that both accusations against Saddam were a fake because simply not probable. 1) Al Qaida and 2) Mass destruction weapons. And in that view I think it's a simple war crime to murder so many civilians in Iraq. And the consequences will be terrible, also for your country. Visible only in a couple of years. I hope that you will remember your old German correspondent of the year 2003. BTW also Ed and a couple of others have a similar position. Also Chrilly. Unfortuately not Bruce. Perhaps you are too young. All the best to you, Rolf > >You are not doing anyone any good by repeating this stuff constantly. > >bruce
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.