Author: Bernhard Bauer
Date: 02:13:22 06/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 2003 at 04:51:34, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On June 25, 2003 at 04:39:49, Bernhard Bauer wrote: > >>On June 25, 2003 at 04:04:22, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On June 25, 2003 at 02:50:50, Bernhard Bauer wrote: >>> >>>>On June 24, 2003 at 10:42:02, Mike S. wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 24, 2003 at 09:25:09, Bernhard Bauer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>(...) It's amusing to see those guys removing each different opinion from >>>>>>their forum trying to stop any discussion here. >>>>> >>>>>Diese freche Verleumdung werde ich mir merken. >>>> >>>>Wieso ist diese Bemerkung frech? >>>>Frech ist das Verhalten gewisser deutscher Forenbetreiber. Ihre Aroganz und ihr >>>>undemokratisches Verhalten finde ich widerlich. Wenn ihnen etwas nicht gefällt >>>>wird der thread sofort geschlossen. Ende der Diskussion. Keine weiteren Beiträge >>>>sind mehr möglich. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Außerdem, welche Diskussion? Ist das hier eine Diskussion? >>>> >>>>Das hier ist das Ergebnis der Aroganz bestimmter deutscher Forenbetreiber. Da in >>>>ihren Foren Kritik unerwünscht und teilweise auch unmöglich ist, wird hier in >>>>CCC darüber diskutiert. Wir haben hier sozusagen eine Metadiskussion. >>>> >>>>>Das ist der übliche >>>>>Verleumdungsexzeß gegen CSS, also etwas ganz normales in der Computerschachszene >>>>>wie es von einigen Leuten mit Ausdauer betrieben wird, und im CCC am leichtesten >>>>>ist, weil sich die dauernd welchselnden Moderatoren schon sprachbedingt nicht >>>>>leicht auskennen können. >>>> >>>>Alles, was von der Meinung der herrschenden Forenbetreiber abweicht ist für euch >>>>der "übliche Verleumdungsexzeß". >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Ich wußte bisher nicht, daß Bernhard Bauer auch dazu gehört und sich auf dieses >>>>>entsetzlich niedrige Niveau begibt. >>>> >>>>Lieber Computerschachfreund, ich habe mich keineswegs auf ein niedriges Niveau >>>>begeben. Vielleicht verwechselst du etwas. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Aber keine Sorge, es gibt viel zu viele zufriedene Leser und kreative >>>> >>>>Wieso gibt es viel zu viele zufriedene Leser von CSS? >>>>Willst du, daß es weniger werden? >>>> >>>>>vernünftige CSS-Forumsteilnehmer, die über solche Späße nur noch müde lächeln >>>>>können oder sie hoffentlich völlig ignorieren können, als daß uns das wirklich >>>>>schaden könnte. >>>>> >>>>>Da könnt ihr tippen bis euch die Fingernägel abfallen: CSS ist unzerstörbar >>>>>:-))) >>>> >>>>Hast du vielleicht einen zuviel hinter die Binde gekippt? Oder ist das ganz >>>>einfach Größenwahn? >>>> >>>>Bitte lerne auch vollständig zu zittieren und nicht nur einen Satz >>>>herauszugreifen. >>>> >>>>Mit freundlichen Grüßen >>>>Bernhard >>> >>> >>>Mike wrote with irony, I thought that this was clear. To be sure he added a >>>triple smiley, so everybody must see. But, Bernhard, with the general critic I >>>agree with you. In CSS forum they exaggerate their deletions. But believe me, >>>what FQ does in his FCPs is worse. With much more humiliating nonsense. What we >>>observe is a forced misbehaviour if you want to protect something but have not >>>enough smartness to judge the actual danger in context. Your personality defines >>>your acting in the end. What a surprise! But therefore it is so important to >>>attract many different types so that you have internal debates in the team. >>>Otherwise you end as a comical figure in great King's ornament. It is useless >>>trying to explain that to FQ - I tried it several times. Again, CSS forum is NOT >>>the worst in Germany! And Mike is one of very few who have style and smartness. >>>But also for him the defense of CSS here might be too much. >>> >>>Rolf >> >>Hi Rolf, >> >>Mike has style and smartness? Then he should show it and not write this way. >>He is acting like a pope. Same holds for FQ. Hasn't you been a pope too some >>years ago? rgcc comes to mind. >>regards >>Bernhard > >You are a bit superficial with my role as Pope. Of course I was because Chris >Whittington had given me that title. - But that was also something you seem to >have no feeling for. At least I never took it literally! If you know what I >mean. How could you oversee that? > >Mike is writing in defense of CSS and sure he exaggerated a bit but he added >threeple smileys. :) > >FQ is a different category. He is very engaged but he's not smart. You know the >old saying: a smart one can always fake stupidiness, but that doesn't work the >other way round. His intentional irony is almost always reveiling his lack of >understanding. He's a bit too much depending of his temper. It goes from deep >depression to manical excitement. In special in the latter period he can be >disturbing. Just look at his messages before he was stopped in CSS. NB I would >never stop him as he's a really motivated guy. But dont give him too much power >then he runs amok and claims being King and such, he likes bathing trunks... :) > >Rolf It's not a good idea to give power to Mike, FQ, or you. BTW, I'm, not going to discuss FQ's behavior with you. If Mike is defending CSS or anything, I don't care as long as he is atacking people. I don't count the smileys. Fact remains that several german fora have removed both, contributions and members without any reasonable cause. Your role as a pope was a bad one. Bernhard
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.