Author: Bella Freud
Date: 07:58:39 11/14/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 1999 at 10:06:54, Fernando Villegas wrote: >I will try to explain you what I think is the cause. >First, consciously or not, some people sooner or later realize that although >"giving" has great approval in theory, it produces severe punishment to the >giver. To give is like to put yourself at the will of people. You gave >something? Then it was because it was not valuable. You gave something? Then you >are looking some egotiscal goal thorught distorted ways. You gave someting? >Obviously it was so because you was not capable of geting money from it. And in >any case what you gave is worthless. If not so, they think, you should ask >something. Second and finally, as my granfather said after he gave something to >anybody, "I hope the guy forget because nothing worst that people that thinks >ows something to you and cannot pay. They will hate you..." >I have experienced in my own field every one of those rewards. Nobody love you >or appreciate you more because of your gifts. Well, there are some that does, >but most people does not. And so, as much is so easy not to give, so natural, >what is the purpose to follow the wrong track? >Sorry, so it is human nature. >Fernando No. This is not human nature. It is the nature of a particular type of human. I think it is the attitude of the distrustful who feel they have lost in the lottery of life. Most obviously it occurs with the proletarian readers of the tabloid press. Those who love to build up their heroes and then see them crushed, whether these be footballers, pop-stars, film stars. Nobody allowed, in this system, to rise above the mass. At the bourgeois end of the scale criticism occurs, but in a different way. Book critics, theatre critics, can damn a production with ease and style. You will remember "running the emotional scale from a to b"; but then you will also remember Nicole Kidman described as "pure theatrical viagra" in her recent London showing. She must have glowed when she read that. Top "critics" are thus able to condemn and praise in fine style. Here, I see only condemnations. Anything new or creative or 'given', as you put it, will be cruelly dismembered with destruction or war-winning as the only aim. You have here no top critics. No style. Read for example the utter destruction with faint praise and zero interest of the only neural net chess program (ALEXS) ever attempted, the review still standing as an exercise in sloppy and disinterested laziness, condemning to oblivion one man's efforts to be different, even if his user interface was less than friendly to the low-attention span end-user. Your grandfather was certainly right. You are part right. "There are some that does". Find the "some that does". I doubt you'll find them here. Bella
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.