Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 12:29:10 06/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 11, 2004 at 10:33:03, Mike S. wrote: >On June 10, 2004 at 20:56:32, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>(...) I will prefer to read-only you in future. > >This will probably be better; btw. I'm considering to finally discontinue >reading/writing CCC anyway due to bad benefit/time expenditure ratio (giving >various tips for newbies etc. then and when has turned out not to be a >sufficient motivation to participate). > >For the other readers, I just want to add that there have been made a lot of >wrong statements about the CSS Forum and how critical postings are treated >there. In fact we encourage all computerchess fans to issue their opinions and >critizism about all aspects of computerchess - but in a way that makes sense >(i.e. based with data when required), and in a civilised way. > >Notice that if it was true what is claimed here, the same critical postings >which raised this whole talk, just would never have appeared. But the could be >posted and raised the discussion subsequently (about how to critizise a test >suite, and lately simply about a specific test position). The only difference to >a perfectly normal message board conversation was, that there was some tension >because earlier, one poster was repeatedly trying to push an opinion of test >suites being useless in general without providing enough data to base this >opinion at, yet. But that happened in the message board's public, readable for >anyone. If there had been the censorship Rolf always claimes there is, nobody >would have ever seen that except the poster himself, and that discussion >wouldn't exist. But it exists, proving that there was no censorship. It was just >a discussion a bit rougher than usual, maybe (rougher for our mellow standards >:-)). > >I guess a majority of the audience knows Rolf anyway :-) I ask those who don't >know CSS not just to trust what a few persons always like to tell about it, >campaign-like. > >You can always build your own first-hand opinion if you're interested: >http://www.computerschach.de/ >http://www.computerschach.de/forum/ >(mostly in german language) > > >To put it in a nutshell (admitedly a bit exaggerated): Osama Bin Laden writes a >letter to the editor of the New York Times discussing garbage collection issues, >and later protests against censorship because his "normal letter" is never >published... :-)) > >Regards, >M.Scheidl Perhaps I'm the only living former CSS-forum member for two years under the name of "Schachfan" who _undoubtedly_ (because provenly by the whole postings in the archives) did NEVER, even once, was involved in a NOT civilized debate. Fred Friedel, the famous anchorman and spiritus rector of ChessBase and likewise CSS journal, did always know who Schachfan was. The truth is that the rest of the moderation team did NOT know it. Therefore campaigns were started against Schachfan. Under anonymity of course. That campaign then was defined as a disturbance of the peace of the forum and it was argued that I, the Schachfan was the cause! Don't you get the nonsense? Out of practical reasons it was proposed that I would stop posting to be able to calm the campaigners. It was the redactional leader of CSS, Steinwender, himself, who felt personally cheated by suddenly learning that Schachfan, the extremely polite writer, was me. That was a shock because before that he had written friendly emails to me as the alleged *woman* Sonja so and so, I think it was 'Neumann', who he believed I was. Because of that "cheat" he was disapointed and wrote a sarcastical good-bye advising me to write my dissertation about the succeeded cheat in a German forum for 2 years without nobody discovering my true identity. It is very telling that now suddenly my allegedly uncivilized postings should be the reason for my being censored. If they had been so uncivilized I am sure that the readership in CSS had detected me from older prejudices. But the insult to Dieter St. was exactly that I had written absolutely _polite_ messages in hundreds over two years and nobody had discovered me. It was Ed Schroder, certainly NOT fluent in German, who directly knew right from the start who Schachfan really was. He concluded it from the typical topics I was concerned of. Certainly I wasn't occupied in insults and misbehaviour, but only computerchess and its neighbor fields! Excuse me, Mike S., it is simply not sound how you are trying to defend CSS. I tell you something: I am certainly no buddy of Thorsten Czub, but now I can truly understand, what he had told us about ChessBase and CSS (Computer, Schach & Spiele). It's about **power, **manipulations, **defamations, **falsehood. Thorsten may be exaggerating, but I am the living example for all the mentioned wrongness. You don't like critics, that's the truth. And this is a desaster because you have a monopol in Germany and perhaps in the whole World. It's my hope that now the freeware database AGENDA and its freeware chessprograms will reduce your power so that a free debate in computerchess will be possible again, just like it is possible here in CCC. Democracy will beat autoritarian systems for sure! History has taught us that lesson. I will miss your detailed and engaged, substantiated, smart messages also directed to my address, but I will be able to read you, because a monopolist can't hide and write in a closet cellar. People like the two of us will see each other again in old friendship. Believe me. Until then! Rolf aka Schachfan
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.