Author: KarinsDad
Date: 18:27:49 02/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2000 at 19:40:57, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On February 07, 2000 at 17:47:07, KarinsDad wrote: > >>You are entitled to your opinion. >> >>But one point: Chris has repeatedly called me a liar about my chess program and >>my techniques which on the surface sounds extremely similar to his. > > >has he, really. i don't remember. >you make a mistake. you do not differenciate between people and words. >words and discussions have the reason to >attack each other. people should not attack each other. Agreed. So why does he do it? And I am not attacking him with this question. I would really like to know what motivates him to be abusive to others. > >so when people call each other assholes or liars or whatever evil thing, >you should not take this personal, since the words criticize a point of view, >but not the fact that the other guy is a human beeing. I made an agreement when I signed up. So did all of us. I try to stick by the agreement. For some people, those words of agreement are only words. They mean nothing. > >e.g. i am often named that i am against chessbase or frederic friedel. >this is not true if you name it that shallow. > >i am and was against how chessbase operates, how their methods are, >and how frederic uses his intelligence and power he has with >his computer-schach and spiele to misinform the people and to manipulate. >so i am not against the people. not against the company itself. >but against the methods ! >this is IMO a big difference. Fair enough. > >when i see frederic i don't have to kill him. or when i say chessbase >doing something right (from my point of view) i don't have to attack them. >only if they do something that is against my point of view. Did you perceive my post (above) as an attack against Chris? >than i would have to "bite". >if no somebody identifies much with what he says and does all day long, >it can happen of course that he feels personally insulted by me. >so the problem is that he does not differenciate between words and actions >of people and the people themselves. > >frederic e.g. could come and ask me: what do you have against me ? >what do do you have against my company, against my magazin ? > >and this because he identifies with his things. > >but if he would not misuse his magazine , and if chessbase would be fairer >towards their concurrent-companies, i would not attack them. > >if bill gates would not like to kill all other companies , and work out >mafia-methods, i would not call him bad words. > >but - the person bill gates, i have no idea if he is nice or not. >i don't care. i do attack what he says and what his actions are. >not him as a person. > > >> Why is this? > >ask him ! i have no idea. I have asked him. He has blown me off. > > >>If anyone is against the ideas of others, it is Chris. Even (or maybe >>especially) when those ideas are similar to his own. > >you seem to mix up having a different point of view and beeing against >YOU. >i do often have a different point of view than chris, but i am not against >chris. you see the difference. Yes, I see it quite clearly. I am not against Chris either. I am against some of his actions. I asked him two weeks ago to sign up under his own name and post responsibly. He blew me off and then told the forum yesterday that I lied about it. I would not have asked him to sign up if I did not think he could contribute. > > >>It is easy to shout that one is persecuted and that there are in and out crowds, >>but it is hard to make people believe it when at the same time, one persecutes >>others. > >right. but why do so many people take anything personal. I think it is human nature. I think I have a thicker skin concerning myself than I do others, but I too "retaliate" when I see one person being abusive to another here on the forum. I do not like it and I do not think it should be allowed. > >when i say something against coca-cola or mc_donalds, do i really say something >against bruce moreland ????? isn't bruce moreland so much more >(for computerchess) than coca-cola ? or mc_donalds ? >i thought he is. and i thought he would understand that this is not against >him. > > >>Food for thought. > >yes. > In some ways, I think we agree more than we disagree. KarinsDda :)
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.