Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 10:24:07 11/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
You are not Chessfun, so I will try to explain what is wrong with your chain of arguments and I am serious if I say that you are 100% wrong. You are absolutely wrong. Why? Here is the proof. You presented a couple of what you call "cocky" statements or wordings. And you conclude that he was anything but humble - so, this is your discovery, the flamings from the members, partially too in the aftermath, was justified. I say no, this is impossible to claim! It's really indecent to even think of such an argumentation. Here is now the real explanation. Just like you are forbidden to call a general speech "insults" if there are no insults at all, because then you must find different definitions but you cant simply use "insults" to make your point, just like that you are forbidden, unless you dont want to betray your audience, to view just one side of a communication. This is unallow and very wrong! It's a completely false methodology. If you analyse communication you must always analyse both sides. One time the sender here and the one who receives and then the other way round. And then you can make your conclusions. Now several people, at least Sune and me and also Anthony from ZAPPA, criticised that the one side, the members here, almost all in a row, insulted the single newcomer with all kind of tricks. They couldn't meet his chess content but they concentrated on ad hominems to imbalance his apparently naively assumed right that he could post in CCC and publish his opinions and theories. Members here decided that this were not kosher if they didn't know good enough who this unknown A.S. were. From there you have the imballance. a) members who insult and question the right to post opinions of an individual and b) the newcomer who did never insult but who argued in a ironic style with also taking himself for good in a simply, one cant deny it, superior manner, and then at the same time with giving thoughtful feedback related to the aggressive assaults of the members This went on till the end. Nobody from the members did EVER meet the psychological feedback but they found always new insults and then Steen began to debate his own role in commenting that he had a thick skin etc., always wanting to direct the critic in direction of the members if ever from there he could expect insight - but he waited for good. THen we have the bated between Steen and the mods where he just asked why they had deleted his posts. He got no explanation. How? If there were no insults, but the mods had to react because members had complained. The general level of intellectual logical reasoning was very low among the members who in particular couldn't differentiate between the meaning of the absolute verdict about a "weak" player and the relative judgement about a "weak" player in relation to that what this player had argued and in comparing that quality with the judgment of real master and better. Steen did NEVER say that what Uri had said was absolute nonsense and Uri were a dumb, bad and weak player. Never. But he had seen that Uri had made such a gross mistake in criticising Rg8 which was a good move. For him Uri was therefore a relative "weak" player. He did NOT deny Uri the right to have 2000 Elo. But it was clear that in his view 2000 cant be understood as extremely, normally or notably strong. Since HE was speaking on a level of a real knowie. Once he made the ironical comment that the next day the GM had given the verdict he already had given the day before, so that he must have made a time-travel somehow because how he could have made a GM commentary... Here we see again the need to a) hide and confuse his real status and b) at least to mention a bit his apparent class. Of course members might argue that no REAL master would play such silly games but then everybody should try to explain how - if ever it was Nigel - he could have justified his anonymous cooperation on that special day in commenting the K vs Hydra game,when his Fischer games he claimed having played made such an uproar in the whole chess scene. Of course he now understood, that he must stay anonymous by all means, no matter what happened. From the beginning of his appearance A.S. was commenting on the troll danger in such a forum. With that he was realising that even if he would have given a few details and say about Short, that then trolls could really begin their job because how could one PROVE online that one were Short even it were the case? No way to prove it. So that trolls could confuse and worsen the situation in any case if he remained anononymous or half-anonymous. And that must be a real threat to the identity of such VIP. They have almost no chance to behave normally among people who go automatically on tangents in the presence of VIP. Just as novelists or politicians get anonymous postal letters in RL in a chess scene VIP get again anonymously silly hate and belittling postings. Thus far it didn't develop but for me the seemingly naive "questions" bout ranking etc were insultive, at least belittling and indecent, from Swaminathan. Just for now. Perhaps I forgot something and would add it.
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.