Author: CLiebert
Date: 01:33:50 07/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 2004 at 17:25:39, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 13, 2004 at 15:39:55, CLiebert wrote: > >>Annother suggestion for a challenge: I bet that you could write more often and >>much more longer postings than me. Ok? >> >>:-) >> >>Best >>Christian > > >This were a bet not a challenge. Why do you correct your offer? >You wrote an offer and I agreed. I was game so to speak because I want to help >Ed. I think that if i can show you - just you - without public, how such >misunderstandings grow, it's my hope that you could well reconsider the harsh >measures against Eduard in CSS. But you had an argument for opposing forces. Now >you believe like so many, that Ed can't behave. My view is different. Eduard is >extremely polite if he can have the safety that the mod team protects him >against unfair attacks or insults. I don't say that it would be bad if he could >handle such difficulties on his own. But to twist history as if HE himself would >provoke such anger, this is wrong and I can prove it - for all examples you >might show me. Of course I dont know secret material. But I am pretty sure that >you cant have something convincing against Eduard, because I've talked with him >and I know exactly where such misunderstandings start up. > >Chr., what is the reason for your lack of trust? What do you risk? Is it really >worth to keep Eduard out of the group so that you can call him names? Why is >that your choice? Like JRang I ask you too, have you no heart, did you never >hear of human charity? > >Please stay to your offer and give me your alleged proof for the misbehaviour. >I'm not asking for personal advantages but I do it for someone who's so loving >chess. And Ed wants to tell others what he has actually discovered. Give him a >fair chance! Dont look back into the past but help him to enjoy the present. > >Thanks. >R. Ok, also im Ernst und ganz unter uns (in deutsch - interessiert eh keinen hier!): Ich finde es ausgesprochen "Nett" das Du hier den Gutachter geben und richten willst, Rolf. Ein "Richter" sollte aber (1) unbefangen und unvoreingenommen sein und zudem (2) über "Aktenkenntnis" verfügen. Auch sollte ein Richter als Person (3) über jeden Zweifel erhaben und integer sein. Auch (2) ist nicht der Fall bzgl. zig Telefonate und Mails in der Sache. (Mit zB mehrfachen Demonstrationen guten Willens unsererseits; Pseudoaccounts). Die stete Wiederholung von Verschwörungs- und Manipulationstheorien hier im CCC mag für (3) genannt sein, über (1) brauchen wir nicht zu reden ;-)) Das im Moment auch wenig Besserung zu erwarten ist zeigte zuletzt die Reaktion im FCP. Da ging "eine Person" wie von der Tarantel gestochen hoch und meinte dem Moderator die Zuteilung der PWs erklären zu müssen. D.h. auch hier wurden die Forumsregeln einmal mehr mißachtet weil das eindeutig nicht in die Belange der betr. Person fällt. Btw hatte die Geschichte einen ganz anderen Hintergrund den er überhaupt nicht geschnallt hat, F. war da Recht clever. Ein Schach sozusagen ... Wer um die Ecke gedacht hat, hätte nicht töricht protestiert, ... Pfiffige Leute beindrucken mich mehr als Verbal-Randalierer ;-) Bye, die nä. Ausgabe ruft ;-) Chr.
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.