Author: Chessfun
Date: 20:51:50 11/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2005 at 23:20:21, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On November 27, 2005 at 22:21:12, Chessfun wrote: > >>On November 27, 2005 at 20:07:12, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On November 27, 2005 at 15:23:33, Chessfun wrote: >>> >>>>On November 27, 2005 at 11:06:28, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>Just for the record and to you as a challenge: >>>>> >>>>>I asked Graham, the other moderator, to show me insults by A.S., then he replied >>>>>that they were all deleted. Then I repeated my question and begged him to show >>>>>me one single piece of evidence. He couldn't! And he explained that chessplayers >>>>>are known to be a bit eccentric and such. Steen hadn't had real insults in his >>>>>messages at all! But it was his special speech that was taken as insulting by >>>>>the members. >>>> >>>>Here is a bit of his "Special Speech" for you. >>>> >>>>"If you look here- >>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?463395 >>>>you will find a weak player beating Fruit 2.2.1." >>>> >>>>Sarah. >>> >>> >>>Thanks, I've read that, but couldn't find the insult. Would you please lead me >>>to the center of the insult in this message? I'm no native speaker, olease dont >>>forget that. Thanks. >> >>Ok let's see how to make it clearer. >> >>If you look at this post you will see a WEAK player beat Fruit 2.2.1. If you >>managed to follow the link you will see a post from Uri Blass. >> >>Therefore Uri Blass is a weak player. >> >>Sarah. > >Yes. Now I understood, thank you. I had already a little exchange with Uri, not >knowing this piece of evidence. I couldn't understand why Uri, as someone a bit >disappointed, told me I'm a strong player, stronger than most in tournaments. In >the meantime someone wrote Uri had something in the 2000 Elo. So if we take all >this together it's not something I would insinuate an insult against Uri. > >Sarah, > >let me describe what A.S. probably had in mind. But at first remember please >that A.S. called himself also a patzer! That is a typical chess understatement, >but a patzer literally is weaker than a weak player. I want to explain that such >vocabulary is not made for a mathematical scale from zero idiot up to super >duper GM. - Rolf no offence meant but speculation as to what someone else may have or may have not meant is pointless. Just like you speculating it was Short and me Whittington. >And more - to your displeasement and also mine A.S. stayed anonymous. We can >like it or not, but we should realise that if he wants to do that, that he then >is forced to use a couple of confusioning statements. So in that case you dont >even know if he meant it seriously or tongue in cheek! I am not at all bothered that the poster stayed anonymous, to my way of thinking shows even more that he was who I thought he was. >And that is then a question of education, if you, or anyone else, takes such a >game as an insult or as a joke. It's like a poker session. You believe it or >not. I want to explain that you cant define as the only possibility that he was >seriously insulting Uri as a weak player or if he wanted to say "folks yo >claimed that no weak player could beat FRUIT, but look here, here is a weak >player who did it". That claim that no weak player could beat Fruit wasn't made. So there was no real need for him to make the statement. I think you should go back and read the thread before commenting further. >If we understand the statement this way, it's clear that the >argument wasn't against Uri in the first place, but Uri was just an example that >could (logically correct) refutate the thesis of the members. If you make the >claim that nobody weak could, then I'll show you someone weak who did it. Again saying something without having read the whole thread which is provided by the link in my first post only shows to me that you are simply trying to make a claim in defence of something that there is no defence for. >It becomes even funnier if then the members and also Uri claim that he isnt weak >at all. Honestly I dont know what weak is if not 2000 Elo. There was a time when >a tournament beginner automatically got at least 2200 Elo to have at least the >chance to make some calculations. 2000 ELO isn't weak and I would say the choice of the word weak is aimed at the specific individual. Again though since a lot of this persons posts have now rightly been deleted I don't even see the point in continuing about the person. >I'm even more surprised that Uri claims not being weak with 2000 because I am >comparable with him You have a 2000 ELO rating? how did you get this rating? >It is still beyond my mind why we here in this fine environment couldn't keep a >minimum of politness towards either a good player or someone who wanted to be >funny. First I would say there is nothing which proves this was a good player and second I would add, how did or do you know he wanted to be funny? >What was at stake that so many insulted this man so viciously. Because >EVEN if he had used a somewhat spicy speech it wasnt justified to call him >loudmouth or indicating him into the psychiatric realm. Rolf again you failed as you noted originally when coming here to CCC to post your A.S. speculations to have even read his posts. Some of those posts have now been deleted and now you term them "spicy speech" is this a more advanced term than you used earlier "special speech"? >To you I must admit that now your message was very friendly, calm and patient, >without any nitpicks and I want to thank you. As usual Rolf I am always friendly and happy to help people out. >Had you personally the impression that Steen became a >danger to you having fun and so on? It would be such a pity for all of us. Danger to me LOL, I thought he was pretty funny actually to use your earlier term. I don't think he meant to be, guess I just found him that way. >I want to thank you that I got the chance to write this message mostly inspired >through your surprising message, when I had hoped I would now see the first real >insults. I had hoped you would say something alone the lines of: "I appeal to you that you tolerate that a real "master" (I wont give away his identity) has the right to call weak opinions what they are. That doesnt mean and cant be confused with - that he insults all his correspondants. But a little freedom he should have." Then we could have danced all the way back to step one. Sarah.
This page took 0.01 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.