Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:19:17 07/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2004 at 04:33:50, CLiebert wrote: >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. Please, don't insult me. Of course I wouldn't be judge in this case. That could be well you. That is not my business. You didn't understand my claim. I repeat, from all I know from E., from his thought process, I am _sure_, I'm certain, that he's innocent at least in the direction you want to insinuate. This is what I wanted to demonstrate to you in *private*. I didn't intend to prove that he did never make any mistakes. But in thos cases where he was banned in CSS I am sure I can prove that it wasn't him who started the mess. For me the moderation board was responsible because it had intentiously allowed anonymous writers to confuse E. That he had let himself confuse that is also a mistake but you can't create a grenuine failure on his side. That is what I could prove in all cases. And you are free to deny this proving - for obvious reasons, because you had to admit mistakes of yourself and your CSS team members. > >Ein "Richter" sollte aber >(1) unbefangen und unvoreingenommen sein und zudem Of course I'm not neutral like a judge. I am an expert and I "know" the one from the internet communication. Of course not in real life. But to pretend that I'm therefore cheating the evidence, that is your idea apparently. Because this is how you are used to think. I did neither want to be a so called expert-judge. No, all I wanted was to demonstrate to one of the many important judges in CSS that E. is innocent and a harmless chess lover. >(2) über "Aktenkenntnis" >verfügen. Auch sollte ein Richter als Person Again, I have original data from communication with him. Of course I don't know YOUR data material but this is exactly what I hoped to get from you. It's rather ridiculous how you argue. You deny me access to your material and then are happy to dump me because I have no idea what your material really is. Don't ask me how this is called in laws. >(3) über jeden Zweifel erhaben und integer sein. I tried to show you in helping another human being in getting back your respect that you then also could begin to reflect what my character could be like. You know, now you base your verdict on prejudices, but I can prove you that these prejudices are all wrong. That wouldn't be the worst result of a conversation you just denied. > >Auch (2) ist nicht der Fall bzgl. zig Telefonate und Mails in der Sache. >(Mit zB mehrfachen Demonstrationen guten Willens unsererseits; Pseudoaccounts). Don't jump up and down too early. I have data material enough to prove how E. was confused. I repeat. It's also a fact that someone let himself be confused. But the driving force behind such a development wasn't the confused himself. If you know what I mean! But this is also no news because human communication is always disturbed by such misunderstandings. This is exactly what I was trying to exolain to you - finally to make you a better, that is a more knowledgable - human being. Because you don't even see how odd you appear with your wooden-like illogicisms. What I respect is your motivation to at least listen also to people who normally are declared out of bounds. But the negative side is your irrational defense-mechanism if you smell that you could be shown wrong, and I tell you that you are damned wrong here with Eduard. BTW, I must add this, I do NOT claim that you, and your collegues never had "good will" and intentions. But my claim is that you didn't understand how to handle such a case, that looks so difficult at first sight, but which is easy if you have the necessary education. Yes, you were "good" many times in his case, but - good is often not enough. Because we're not talking about a clean laboratory situation. If you let anonymous posters do their destructive work you cannot claim of "being good all the time" because the tolerating of evil-willing anonymous freaks is a clear violation of your own Charta! Is that, if I could prove that, enough to persuade you of your false conclusion in respect of your point (3)? How would you yourself define what you are doing there? You really want to claim innocence? And why many people say that your board can't stand the heat if ChessBase is being discussed? Why are so many people no longer writing in CSS? Is it because you are so "good" and I distribute "conspiracy stories"? You bet! >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. Who's this "one person"? E.? You cannot mean me, I suppose because the last I could write there was about the pain and death of Jan Louwman. It's long time ago. > >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 ;-) Yes, we are all the same. We like veritable spin doctors, people who can pick us by our nose and mislead us. But we can't tolerate a human chessplayer who has the hobby to prove chesscomputer programs dumb in certain chosen situations. Then we get nervous. We warn him and then we ban him, so that our products or that of the neighboured company of our own [!!!] chief commentator & editor of the CSS journal are protected. We do that without any evil intentions to destroy the hobby for a more or less naive and innocent chess addict. We go farther. We simply diagnose him as *mad* and that can explain AND excuse what we've done to him. Yes, human charity is a plant you can seldom discover in your thought system, Chr.. Because you are also fighting for a proper place after you landed there Chessicon Valley of Computerchess <ggg> and other dreams failed to succeed. It's always a race about the survival of the fittest, you are correct. And in the meantime before you are deleted yourself you must show how *strong* you are. Well done, Christian [!!] Liebert. > >Bye, die nä. Ausgabe ruft ;-) >Chr. Yes, but how long this is possibly your job? Thanks, for having written so many thoughts and confessions about your good and bad intentions. Good luck for your own future. BTW you can send me a copy of the photo of 1998 or 9 in paderborn? I want to look at me with your eyes... :)
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.