Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:14:57 02/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2000 at 21:49:34, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On February 07, 2000 at 21:09:47, KarinsDad wrote: > >>Hi Thorsten, > >>I had a long message that I spent about 30 minutes on and Karin came over and >>hit the Escape key. Does anyone know how to recover what you typed after that is >>done in IE? > >stupid computers... > >>In any case, the bottom line of what I said is that I think there is a double >>standard for you between content and personal stuff, regardless of your denials >>in your previous message. > >>When you know it is Chris, I have never seen an unfriendly word (or even a >>disagreement for that matter) from you to him. When you did not know it was >>Chris (when it was Herman Hesse), you were so venomous to him that many of those >>posts were deleted. > >sound very natural to me. >as i said: even when somebody is my best friend, it can happen that >i do attack him like hell. >depends on the topic. Here is an important question: Chris formed a new 'chess forum'. Why, then, does he want to come _here_ and raise all of this hell, over and over and over, making personal comments here and in r.g.c.c, etc? When he has his _own_ forum where he can discuss what he wants to, when he wants to, and how he wants to. IE perhaps I like to play 9-ball on the local pool table. And everybody else wants to play 8-ball. I go buy my own table, but rather than playing 9-ball on it, I go to the local pool table and raise hell because nobody wants to play 9-ball with me. I don't get it... I'm pretty sure I don't _want_ to get it... >of course i am a human beeing, and social-stuff does influence me too. >if chris would threaten another computerchess-company or magazin >with a law suit he would get hottest answers from me. >look - i do even have very hot arguments with my girl friend, >but thats the normal thing. >therefore, especially therefore it is important that the argument, the >hot discussions or the points are NOT personal. >it's about life. if somebody is not discussing or arguing, it's not anymore >alive. of course i have friends i do argue more and others i do argue less. >i do have a friend called uli. often when we "discuss" on telephone or >when we do computerchess, or watch an event or wherever we meet and others >are near us they believe we kill us. we have very heavy arguments. >but this is what i am used to. he is a teacher and teachers and other >dictators are my favourite opponents. but he is one of my best friends. >and i have met them via computerchess. he read about me in a magazin, >and one day gave me a call. bernd e.g. cannot stand to see us discuss this way. >he says we are killing each other with words. and bernd is a strong chess >player. i thought he is used to battles. >i like this. philosophy is one of my favourite topics. and it lives from >having different point of views. but it is not about killing people. >it's not about world-wars. philosophy is about different ideas about how >anything works. and i am used to this. > >> I even recall him posting things such as "I did not mean to >>offend or insult you. I respect you a lot." (since he knew it was you and did >>not mean to antagonize you) and you blasted him in response (the phrase that >>comes to mind is that "you treated him like dirt"). > > >:-))) so i really like him :-))) > >but what's the problem, are we still friends ? >so what ? how can it be than ? >because different point of views has nothing to do with >beeing friends or not. > >>This means that you do differentiate betweens friends and others, and you do >>treat them differently. > >of course i do treat friends different than not friends. >anybody does this, or. what i said was: i do differenciate between >points and persons ! >and if one of my friends is e.g. scientologist i would fight him all my life. >but not him. his ideas. > > >>Not based on content, but on who they are and your >>impression of them, regardless of what you say. > >look, if one of my friends or my enemies does something i call immoral, >i make a line. and when he steps over the line, he will get my reaction. >but the opponent is a human beeing. i do not hate him for what he is. >only for what he does. >hatred is an ill feeling. you hate somebody when you are not in balance. >when you are in danger. hatred shows you: you are wrong. >in the moment you understood about the points, you get better >and there is no hatred anymore. and than you see the human-beeing again >in the other guy. >so if you would take anything personal, and would hate anybody who is >against you, really, you would be permanent ill ! >you would be unable to live ! >therefore when jesus said you shall love your enemy, he just wanted to help >you to get healthy. >this life is about information. as long as you exchange information, with >friends or with enemies, you love and you live. >prejudices are NOT exchanging. conservatism. all the values that say: >let anything the way it is. don't change. >this is against life. against love. >so if somebody has prejudices, but does not tell anybody, he will never >change his prejudices! therefore speak out your prejudices. >discuss about them. exchange ideas and information. discuss with your enemy. >language is the vehicle to exchange information. exchanging >means learning. and exchanging information is the reason all the universe has >been done. we are big machines. and the only target we have is to exchange >and to collect information. and why ? because it makes us wiser. >if we have double-morals, and do NOT tell the other about what we think, >if you smile at him and wish him death because you hate him, than you >will not be able to learn. you will not change your prejudices. you will >not love and be healthy but you will hatred, get paranoid and be unhealthy. > >Is written in the bible: love your enemy and you get wise. because if you >love enemy, you exchange information, you talk and discuss. >if you hate him, you do not talk, you do not exchange information, only >you hate him. > >>And I do not mind you defending a friend. We need more of that in this world. >>But, defending abusive actions from a friend seems like a mis-service to him. > >which abusive actions do you mean i have not criticized ? > >>JMO. I do not wish to get into a "fight" over it. > >word fights are important. people fighting in words will not kill themselves >in real life. only if creatures have stopped discussing with each other, >they will shoot each other. only if kids have not learned to use words, >they will use weapons instead. word has much power. >it was designed to discuss about. prejudice is not the problem, but not >talking about prejudices. beeing different is not the problem but not >talking about beeing different. > > >>KarinsDad :) >> >>PS. I agree that a lot of programmers here fight for no good reason. I sometimes >>do not understand it. > >yes . we should change this. we have words to express. we don't need >to kill each other anymore. programmers can kill themselves on the chess board. >but should have a drink together in peace and in a social group, sitting arround >and sharing good moments. > >that was always the best from those events like paris, paderborn and aegon. >that we shared the company of others. and learned by talking with each >other. about their culture. their ideas. their programs. this was it. >this was the reason i have done it. if this dies out, i get lost and have >to replace computerchess with another vehicle to behave social. > >i guess most of us want the same. i always wonder why we fight so much, >although we only want to be accepted by friends, other group members. >this is the computerchess world. this is ours. we only have to accept it. >all the others want the same.
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.