Rebuttal to Chris Whittington

47 views
Skip to first unread message

Ed Schroder

unread,
Mar 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/17/98
to schr...@xs4all.nl

We have long ago learned that r.g.c.c. can not be influenced in whatever
way to ensure civilized behavior, this was one of the reasons we have
founded CCC.

We assure all members of the CCC community that Chris Whittington will be
given no possibility to compromise or influence in any way the content and
policies of the CCC board.

Since we are not interested to answer Chris' statements here on r.g.c.c.
which we believe to be mostly untrue, slanderous and self-serving, we leave
it up to you (the r.g.c.c. community) to deal with those issues yourselves.
After all, this is the common ground on which this public newsgroup
operates. We might add that Chris Whittington himself chose to terminate a
private email discussion on the matter he now chooses to bring some months
later in public on r.g.c.c.

Rolf Tueschen and Chris Whittington might be on the other hand just two
contributors to r.g.c.c., which makes the concept of the CCC board seem
even more attractive, since both of them are not welcome there.

Respectfully

Moritz Berger
Ed Schroder
Enrique Irazoqui
Bob Hyatt
Thorsten Czub
Dirk Frickenschmidt
Peter Schreiner
Andreas Mader

bruce moreland

unread,
Mar 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/17/98
to

On 17 Mar 1998 08:33:15 GMT, Ed Schroder <in...@rebel.nl> wrote:

>Rolf Tueschen and Chris Whittington might be on the other hand just two
>contributors to r.g.c.c., which makes the concept of the CCC board seem
>even more attractive, since both of them are not welcome there.

You guys threw Chris off of CCC? Chris has posted some bad stuff
there a very long time ago, but at the time I thought you guys were
all OK with that. I haven't seen anything recent. So why did you
throw him off?

If I argue with one of you here, will I get thrown off of CCC?

bruce


Robert Hyatt

unread,
Mar 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/17/98
to

bruce moreland <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:

: bruce

No. Chris threw himself off. He raised holy hell until we relented and
kicked rolf off, if you remember. You were pissed enough that you bailed
out for a while. I almost did myself. But Chris kept pissin' and moanin'
and complaining and cursing and demanding and demeaning and defaming and
so forth, until "the majority" went along with him, and Rolf was kicked
out.

Then Chris decided to become a history revisionist and now wants Rolf back,
and he's raising hell about demanding this. He demanded, but no one else
was willing to undo the ban on Rolf, based on the tremendous quantity and
trashiness of the Rolf posts after the "ban". So Chris got even more pissed
that he couldn't bully us around the second time, and left of his own accord.

his account has been removed, and he's no longer included in our email
discussions about CCC or other topics. But *no* "we" didn't kick him out.
We did, to a man, ask him to reconsider and continue posting on CCC as well
as on r.g.c.c... he refused.

of course, now, he'll revise history once more and claim that he was "jackbooted"
off. However, I'll be happy to provide email excerpts (something I would normally
not do from an etiquette perspective) showing what went on.

You can argue with me as much as you like with no danger of any repurcussion...
I argued with Rolf for over a year without leaving in disgust nor trying to get
him kicked out. It does piss me immensely that Chris is the person that first
wants (a), then when he demands often enough and finally gets it, he then gets
pissed that he can undo (a) and have (b) instead. In short, I have no idea what
he wants, and don't care. I only hope he gets whatever it is so he will shut
up. He's supposedly a grown man, yet whines more than my kids ever did...


--
Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
hy...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170

Moritz Berger

unread,
Mar 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/17/98
to

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:01:19 GMT, bru...@seanet.com (bruce moreland)
wrote:

>If I argue with one of you here, will I get thrown off of CCC?

No, I will personally beat you with a baseball hat ;-)

Moritz

Dirk Frickenschmidt

unread,
Mar 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/17/98
to

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:01:19 GMT, bru...@seanet.com (bruce moreland)
wrote:

>On 17 Mar 1998 08:33:15 GMT, Ed Schroder <in...@rebel.nl> wrote:


>
>>Rolf Tueschen and Chris Whittington might be on the other hand just two
>>contributors to r.g.c.c., which makes the concept of the CCC board seem
>>even more attractive, since both of them are not welcome there.
>
>You guys threw Chris off of CCC? Chris has posted some bad stuff
>there a very long time ago, but at the time I thought you guys were
>all OK with that. I haven't seen anything recent. So why did you
>throw him off?
>

>If I argue with one of you here, will I get thrown off of CCC?
>

>bruce

Hi Bruce,

you seem to have missed some of the ongoing bad stuff here, and the
moderating issue on CCC before.

I will try to inform you as good as I can from my view, not concealing
that in my eyes Chris went *much* too far recently concerning more
than just one matter.

Resuming:

1. Chris got a yellow card for his behaviour on CCC, not rgcc, and
this only after several requests of people who wondered if he was
allowed to say things others were not allowed to, and after discussing
the thing long and slow without any haste in the founders group.

If you want information on this in detail, I will give it to you by
email, not accepting to discuss internal moderating matters of CCC on
rgcc (this may be other with Chris).

2. After receiving the yellow card (being written in quite a polite
tone to give him the chance to return to polite and on-topic posting
in CCC) Chris immediately started an outrageous campaign of bulk
emails with email adresses to the group members on one hand and at the
same time adding other adresses not belonging at all to the CCC group,
discussing his yellow card, and obviously enjoying to spread interna
from his quite special kind of view of the matter to others.

3. These emails, spread to others beyond the CCC as well, were full of
yellow press kind of gossip and allegations from Chris' side, finally
including to name us "little Hitlers" and prophecising the apocalypse
of CCC, predicting that only one (of us), whom he called "Stalin"
would be there at the end.

Later he named the one of us whom he regarded as Stalin while calling
us "little Hitlers", added the one word "sorry" and then declared here
on rgcc that he had already apologized to us for his calling us names.


This shurely was the most ascetic form of an apology I have ever seen.
:-)))

4. In the same thread concerning his yellow card Chris showed us a
"red card", this way topping our warning considerably :-).

He told us he would leave CCC and would not post there anymore,
saying e.g.:
>You bunch of tosspots gave me a fucking yellow card.
>There is no chance, ever, that I will post in CCC again.

Funny enough, he later on rgcc claimed to be still one of the founders
and to request influence on CCC. Correct me for not remembering the
exact words.

5. After calling us "little Hitlers" I told Chris in a group email (to
him and the other CCC-founders, nobody else) that I could deal with
such offending nonsense in private email, but that I would never
accept him calling me like that in public, adding "in The Times, on
BBC, on rgcc or CCC" to make my point clear.
In this case *I* would immediately ask the other founders and
moderators to throw him out of CCC.

As you may have noticed, Chris has posted from this mail here, trying
to raise the wrong impression that CCC as a whole had threatened him
and that this was to be regarded as some example of extreme censorship
and dictatorship.

As you also may have noticed from my answer to Chris here, I have not
changed my mind since then and do not share Chris' interpreation of my
post at all.

6. After a while the CCC founders group suddenly got more bulkmail
from Chris.
Surprisingly this time he asked us to join in a new crusade of his
against Mr. Tueschen, treating us like old friends while asking us to
help him against Mr. Tueschen.

I only quote from these group emails because Chris finds quoting from
such group emails everyday business and for that reason will shurely
not find anything wrong about being quoted himself this time.

>You are invited to read my posting entitled "true son of the nazis - Herr
>Rolf Tueschen" on rgcc.

>My theme is to turn Tueschen's pet words onto him, as projections.

>That his behavious is like the Nazis.
>That he is the Nazi.
>That Thorsten is his Jew.

>That he is the socially incompetent fachidiot.

>That he is robotic - the predictable, constant, endless repetitions of the
>same diatribes.

>As you will have observed, I'm out to nail him.

>Your support may be required. I recollect from the past many times where
>we've each stood by and just observed while one of our own minor enemies
>has been given his own brand of 'special' treatment. I'm guilty of watching
>him tear into Bob without any comment on my part, for example. Time to make
>another stand.

>Chris Whittington

In a following mail he became very poetic. Notice how he avoids any
kind of violent language at any price - in sharp contrast to people
who dare to use metaphors from baseball... :-)
>Blessed are the peacemakers (so long as they are backed up with armed
>force) (C) Tony Blair 1998 :)

>And it came to pass, in the land of ReGiCide, that Brave Sir Knight did
>sally forth from Castle Softworks in the Cottes-Wald, and did deliver the
>fearsome dragon a mighty blow.

For anyone not understanding the metaphors: Chris in his phantasy
chose to be "Brave Sir knight" and thought Mr. Tueschen could well
suit the role of the dragon getting "a mighty blow" by "Brave Sir
Knight".

I told Chris I would not help him, since I see no sense in such games.
So I wrote back amoung others:
>I would support you like I would support anyone who I think is
>more or less helpless in cases of violations he or she can't deal with.

>But else I'm no party soldier at all
>(unless perhaps in serious matters of faith).

>And rgcc is more kindergarden than serious...

>I'd rather give you the advice *not* to do what you plan to do.
>Tueschen's main goal is to get people involved, the deeper the better.

>I don't see any sense in taking revenge or something like this
>against someone like him.

>Contradict him where necessary, yes.
>Make ridicule of his hypocritical bathos, if required, yes.

>But better not get used to calling him names or getting fun
>in dreams of "destroying" him. These are exactly the kindergarden games
>he likes to play. This will not bother him, but rather change *you*.
>Everybody always pays with important parts of his/her own personality
>for an ongoing agressive status. And this without any success.

In another group email Chris described the success he believed to have
had on rgcc against Mr. Tueschen as follows:
>BTW despite all of your (the email group's) comments, I reckon he's quite
>badly wounded.

But don't anybody get Chris wrong. Of course there was nothing violent
about these wordings at all. As we were allowed to learn recently from
Chris:
>In my book violence, threats of violence are orders of magnitude worse than
>'nazi' verbiage.
>The conclusion is obvious.

The latter may well be ;-)

7. As an example for Chris' flexibility in changing his relationship
status I tried to count his position changes concerning Mr. Tueschen.

a) in old posts I still have I found some efforts of understanding Mr.
Tueschen

b) then I found outbursts like
>There are some perfectly sensible people on this group,
>and some of the above are occasionally capable of making
>some sort of sense too.
>so, Teuschen - go away and die

or even a thread from Chris named in this way:
>Teuschen doesn't know it's time for him to lay down and die

or
>Ok, die in Zwolle, then. At least I tried. You're beyond all hope.

c) at times it seems he was not wanting Mr. Tueschen to be excluded
from CCC

d) at other (or maybe nearly the same) times Chris was wanting Mr.
Tueschen to be excluded and was offending him in an unacceptable way
on CCC (!), making it hard for us other founders to defend his
violation as onetime outburst he was sorry for.

e) then again he was claiming on CCC we(!) all did wrong to Mr.
Tueschen and adding:
>I'm joining the Pope. At least he's in opposition to this kind of exclusive
>rank-closing and related twaddle. He's mad but he sees more and further
>than you all put together.

f) To our surprise it went the other way round again shortly after,
trying a "mighty blow" crusade against Mr. Tueschen as reported above

g) the he was joining the pope again and claiming to defend him
against so-called unjust exclusion from CCC.

Am I keeping track?
Any news from rgcc? ;-)

If I count right, these are seven changes of position concerning our
Tueschen debates here during about a year or less. I fear I will be
getting too old sooner or later to follow them all as quickly as they
seem to happen :-)

Not counting all the other problems Mr. Whittington caused for the
real function of CCC: to make on-topic debates about computer chess
possible without having to meet personal attacks on people or on CCC
as a whole all the time...

Not to be misunderstood: he made very valuable contributions as
programmer and computer chess entusiast both on rgcc and CCC, more
valuable than I or many others could ever contribute. This was the
reason why we hesitated so long to get into a conflict we hoped to
avoid.

Now finally, Bruce, just for the case you do not yet find your
question answered up to here (I will answer you details only by email
not to have another off-topic flame war here):

I am really not shure if after all these loads of unnecessary war
garbage from Mr. Tueschen, from the Dodo and finally Chris Whittington
joining quite a similar level of quality as the other two, we someday
might not keep the overview over the reasons why

a) we showed Chris a yellow card,
b) he showed us a red card naming us "little Hitlers"
c) he massively and consciously flooded CCC in a way I can only
interpret as unsound and malevolent efforts to get his prophecy of the
end of CCC fulfilled (still ridicoulously enough claiming Bob or
Enrique or any of us would have to stay in this stupid kind of debate
just because he whishes us to do so...)
d) we finally divorced from him not allowing him any more influence on
CCC and decided to return to *computer* *chess* there.

Ain't *that* a nice topic deserving your and my attention more than
any episodes of little Chris Whittington battles?

So after you asked me not to post unnecessary CCC stuff here and now
asked to get more of this stuff answered here :-)

I will be pleased to meet you in CCC about Ferret and other more
interesting topics...

And after already having ended another silly Whittington thread here
for myself recently (respecting your request among others), I do this
with this one too:
one long post once for all, and that's it!

Giving Mr. Whittington the oppurtuity for 34 last word posts or more
on the matter and myself sadly reducing any contacts to him to the
inevitable.



Kind regards
from Dirk

Robert Hyatt

unread,
Mar 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/18/98
to

Dirk Frickenschmidt <DFricke...@w-i-s.net> wrote:

: Giving Mr. Whittington the oppurtuity for 34 last word posts or more


: on the matter and myself sadly reducing any contacts to him to the
: inevitable.

Dirk... your memory matches what I recall perfectly. Flippity-floppity
over and over. And I agree totally. When he asked for help with Rolf a
week or so ago, I thought he'd finally come to his senses. It seems that
his prozac wore off or something. But one thing is for sure, these "mood
swings" have certainly left me dizzy... I can't keep up...


:
: Kind regards
: from Dirk

Chris Whittington

unread,
Mar 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/18/98
to


Ed Schroder <in...@rebel.nl> wrote in article
<6elcgb$jm7$1...@news2.xs4all.nl>...


> We have long ago learned that r.g.c.c. can not be influenced in whatever
> way to ensure civilized behavior, this was one of the reasons we have
> founded CCC.
>
> We assure all members of the CCC community that Chris Whittington will be
> given no possibility to compromise or influence in any way the content
and
> policies of the CCC board.
>
> Since we are not interested to answer Chris' statements here on r.g.c.c.
> which we believe to be mostly untrue, slanderous and self-serving, we
leave
> it up to you (the r.g.c.c. community) to deal with those issues
yourselves.
> After all, this is the common ground on which this public newsgroup
> operates. We might add that Chris Whittington himself chose to terminate
a
> private email discussion on the matter he now chooses to bring some
months
> later in public on r.g.c.c.
>

> Rolf Tueschen and Chris Whittington might be on the other hand just two
> contributors to r.g.c.c., which makes the concept of the CCC board seem
> even more attractive, since both of them are not welcome there.
>

> Respectfully
>
> Moritz Berger
> Ed Schroder
> Enrique Irazoqui
> Bob Hyatt
> Thorsten Czub


et tu Brute ?

Enrique Irazoqui

unread,
Mar 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/18/98
to

Chris Whittington escribió en mensaje
<01bd5247$dad6ae60$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>...
>
>et tu Brute ?


"Tu quoque, Brutus, fili mii?"

This is a most unforgivable misquotation.


Enrique


Dirk Frickenschmidt

unread,
Mar 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/18/98
to

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:30:10 GMT, DFricke...@w-i-s.net (Dirk
Frickenschmidt) wrote:

Correction of my sentence below:


c) he massively and consciously flooded CCC in a way I can only
interpret as unsound and malevolent efforts to get his prophecy of the
end of CCC fulfilled (still ridicoulously enough claiming Bob or
Enrique or any of us would have to stay in this stupid kind of debate
just because he whishes us to do so...)

I meant: he massively and consciously flooded *rgcc* in a way ...
(though even what I wrote is not just that far from reality)

Kind regards
from Dirk

Chris Whittington

unread,
Mar 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/18/98
to


Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article
<6emqen$rgs$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...


> bruce moreland <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
> : On 17 Mar 1998 08:33:15 GMT, Ed Schroder <in...@rebel.nl> wrote:
>
> :>Rolf Tueschen and Chris Whittington might be on the other hand just two
> :>contributors to r.g.c.c., which makes the concept of the CCC board seem
> :>even more attractive, since both of them are not welcome there.
>
> : You guys threw Chris off of CCC? Chris has posted some bad stuff
> : there a very long time ago, but at the time I thought you guys were
> : all OK with that. I haven't seen anything recent. So why did you
> : throw him off?
>
> : If I argue with one of you here, will I get thrown off of CCC?
>
> : bruce
>

> No. Chris threw himself off. He raised holy hell until we relented and
> kicked rolf off, if you remember. You were pissed enough that you bailed
> out for a while. I almost did myself. But Chris kept pissin' and
moanin'
> and complaining and cursing and demanding and demeaning and defaming and
> so forth, until "the majority" went along with him, and Rolf was kicked
> out.
>
> Then Chris decided to become a history revisionist and now wants Rolf
back,
> and he's raising hell about demanding this. He demanded, but no one else
> was willing to undo the ban on Rolf, based on the tremendous quantity and
> trashiness of the Rolf posts after the "ban". So Chris got even more
pissed
> that he couldn't bully us around the second time, and left of his own
accord.
>
> his account has been removed, and he's no longer included in our email
> discussions about CCC or other topics.
>
> But *no* "we" didn't kick him out.
>

This is a false statement.

There are two pieces of evidence that contradict:

1. My password access to the CCC server was cut yesterday afternoon GMT,
without prior notification, without warning. And to date, without any
notification. Since I never wrote to the CCC board since last year, but did
read occasionally, I call this being 'kicked out'.

2. For the other piece of evidence please check the textual content of
material sent to me by email within the last few days.

You've made at least one false statement. Not just false, but directly
misleading, deliberately misleading, and a direct 100% negation of reality.

So, that makes you a liar, unfortunately.


>
> We did, to a man, ask him to reconsider and continue posting on CCC as
well
> as on r.g.c.c... he refused.

Not on one yellow card. And not to be moderated by an individual who is
'with baseball-bats', compounds the language when challenged, thinks
baseball-bats have a "good ring", suggests 'I go suck on a baseball-bat'
and and and.

I asked your clique to reconsider Tueschen's ban. To enter into private
dialog to try and sort out the mess. Your clique refused.

>
> of course, now, he'll revise history once more and claim that he was
"jackbooted"
> off.

No need, the history is in place, in my email. I'll settle for your
expression 'kicked off'. It has a remarkably similar ring to it. Note no
need to put quotes round the "ring", because I mean it a different way to
your baseball bat.

> However, I'll be happy to provide email excerpts (something I would
normally
> not do from an etiquette perspective) showing what went on.

I formally forbid you to abuse any of my email. And I point out to you that
the flagrant, unpermitted use of emails, for attempted character
assassination purposes, suggested now by yourself and done by the priest of
morals Frickenschmidt, is not my way; and never has been.

In the case of the Frickenschmidt threat email, I posted it here in reponse
to a direct request for *public* clarification of evidence by *one of your
moderators* (who was on the cc list for that email).


Chris Whittington


>
> You can argue with me as much as you like with no danger of any
repurcussion...
> I argued with Rolf for over a year without leaving in disgust nor trying
to get
> him kicked out. It does piss me immensely that Chris is the person that
first
> wants (a), then when he demands often enough and finally gets it, he then
gets
> pissed that he can undo (a) and have (b) instead. In short, I have no
idea what
> he wants, and don't care. I only hope he gets whatever it is so he will
shut
> up. He's supposedly a grown man, yet whines more than my kids ever
did...
>
>

Robert Hyatt

unread,
Mar 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/18/98
to

Chris Whittington <chrisw[nospam]@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:


: Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article

Call it what you want. If you'd like, I will post your email "in total"
showing that *you* specifically wanted your password removed. We tried for
quite a while to convince you to not abandon CCC. You chose to not come
back. We then had a lengthy discussion about whether your ID should be
removed or not. After your recent outburst, "completing the transaction
as ordered" was deemed the appropriate action and your password was removed.

you didn't give us a "time limit" nor would you have the authority to do
so. You said "delete it". We did... albiet a month or whatever after you
took off. It was *your* decision to leave. It was *our* decision as to
when the account was actually deleted, after lots of discussion with Steve
at ICD and the other CCC folks involved...


: 2. For the other piece of evidence please check the textual content of


: material sent to me by email within the last few days.

: You've made at least one false statement. Not just false, but directly
: misleading, deliberately misleading, and a direct 100% negation of reality.


Then please produce it. I give you permission to post anything I have sent
to you in the past few days, so long as you post the *entire* message and not
try to snip and paste to make it fit your unknown purpose...

: So, that makes you a liar, unfortunately.


:>
:> We did, to a man, ask him to reconsider and continue posting on CCC as
: well
:> as on r.g.c.c... he refused.

: Not on one yellow card. And not to be moderated by an individual who is
: 'with baseball-bats', compounds the language when challenged, thinks
: baseball-bats have a "good ring", suggests 'I go suck on a baseball-bat'
: and and and.

There was no baseball bat discussion at the time you left. Please don't
try to take present-day comments, retro-fit them to an older circumstance,
and use that as justification. A month ago you didn't know I'd agree with
Elvis, nor did you know that Elvis would make his statement either. So
get off the "hindsight" bandwagon. It won't work...


: I asked your clique to reconsider Tueschen's ban. To enter into private


: dialog to try and sort out the mess. Your clique refused.

This is *not* *MY* clique. I only know a couple of the people involved
with CCC personally. Most I have never seen, never talked to on the phone,
and might never meet either personnaly or otherwise. Again, this is quite
funny because you were screaming loudly to get out of r.g.c.c and when the
CCC possibility at ICD came up, you were at the head of the line with things
like "lets move now, no need to wait to form a moderated newsgroup..." and
so forth. Then you piss everyone off, and, of course, it is *we* that are
the bad guys. You don't like Rolf, based on the private email you sent to
the CCC group last week, asking for our help in attacking him. You don't
like "us". Doesn't leave a hell of a lot of folks you do like, does it?

Oh yes... of course it is *all of us* that have the problem...

:>
:> of course, now, he'll revise history once more and claim that he was
: "jackbooted"
:> off.

: No need, the history is in place, in my email. I'll settle for your
: expression 'kicked off'. It has a remarkably similar ring to it. Note no
: need to put quotes round the "ring", because I mean it a different way to
: your baseball bat.

Fine... then here is how "history" should record this:

"Chris kicked himself off of CCC, because he reversed a long-standing
position of his own making, that of absolutely no chance of keeping
Rolf on CCC. He then decided this was wrong, and when no one would
bend a second time, he voluntarily and under his own power, "kicked
himself off" and asked that his password be removed. His request was
later granted."

Of course, *now* you no doubt want to start the "yes I said that but then
I changed my mind, but you guys went ahead and kicked me off anyway." you
seem to be able to change your mental direction more frequently than the
winds change here in the Southeastern US. And our wind directions change
frequently. But, generally, our opinions are less volatile.


:> However, I'll be happy to provide email excerpts (something I would


: normally
:> not do from an etiquette perspective) showing what went on.

: I formally forbid you to abuse any of my email. And I point out to you that
: the flagrant, unpermitted use of emails, for attempted character
: assassination purposes, suggested now by yourself and done by the priest of
: morals Frickenschmidt, is not my way; and never has been.

Of course not... you'd never do that, right?

But that's a moot point anyway, because I do *not* take part in any sort
of "character assassination purposes". I assume this means I can post
your stuff showing exactly what you have said, recanted, un-recanted,
un-un-recanted, un-un-un-recanted, and so forth?

: In the case of the Frickenschmidt threat email, I posted it here in reponse


: to a direct request for *public* clarification of evidence by *one of your
: moderators* (who was on the cc list for that email).


: Chris Whittington


bruce moreland

unread,
Mar 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/18/98
to

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:30:10 GMT, DFricke...@w-i-s.net (Dirk
Frickenschmidt) wrote:

>5. After calling us "little Hitlers" I told Chris in a group email (to
>him and the other CCC-founders, nobody else) that I could deal with
>such offending nonsense in private email, but that I would never
>accept him calling me like that in public, adding "in The Times, on
>BBC, on rgcc or CCC" to make my point clear.
>In this case *I* would immediately ask the other founders and
>moderators to throw him out of CCC.

This was an extremely unfortunate thing to say. It gives people
ammunition against you forever. I would hope that you guys don't
really think like this. Unfortunately, I think you do, because this
sort of thing was the reason Rolf was booted, without his ever having
said anything remotely bad on CCC.

I ask you to consider how awful this is, that someone who is in
control of one forum would monitor the behavior of people in other
places, and punish them for it.

When Chris was one of you guys, he was writing some really bad stuff
in CCC, about Rolf and about others, and he got away with it, while at
the same time Rolf was kicked out for having said something elsewhere
that happened to offend Chris. There seemed to be some undercurrent
of thought that it was especially egregious to attack a CCC "founder"
outside of CCC.

I quit your group at that time. This is not a coincidence.

But now you've suddenly kicked Chris out too, even though he has been
*silent* in CCC for months, because he has attacked *you*, outside of
CCC. So you did the same awful thing twice, apparently. I am an ally
of neither Chris nor Rolf, and I would be happy to see less of them,
but I disagree with how you accomplished this.

I don't know the whole story with Chris, so perhaps I am wrong, but I
do know the whole story with Rolf, and I do have your words above. It
apears me me that you guys need to get a clue about what it means to
fairly moderate a public forum. I don't like to have to say this kind
of thing, because it puts me in the company of a lot of people I don't
like, but you guys bring it on yourselves.

I used to enjoy spending time arguing here, but now I hate it, it is a
waste of time to bicker here all day long, many readers consider
anything of this sort to be offensive to have to deal with, it does
little if anything to contribute to computer chess, and I should be
spending the time with my daughter, who is in the other room watching
TV.

But I am hoping that you will understand what I am saying, and finally
be convinced by it, so there will be no more episodes like this in the
future, so less bandwidth will be wasted long-term.

bruce


Robert Hyatt

unread,
Mar 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/18/98
to

bruce moreland <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
: On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:30:10 GMT, DFricke...@w-i-s.net (Dirk
: Frickenschmidt) wrote:

:>5. After calling us "little Hitlers" I told Chris in a group email (to


:>him and the other CCC-founders, nobody else) that I could deal with
:>such offending nonsense in private email, but that I would never
:>accept him calling me like that in public, adding "in The Times, on
:>BBC, on rgcc or CCC" to make my point clear.
:>In this case *I* would immediately ask the other founders and
:>moderators to throw him out of CCC.

: This was an extremely unfortunate thing to say. It gives people


: ammunition against you forever. I would hope that you guys don't
: really think like this. Unfortunately, I think you do, because this
: sort of thing was the reason Rolf was booted, without his ever having
: said anything remotely bad on CCC.

: I ask you to consider how awful this is, that someone who is in
: control of one forum would monitor the behavior of people in other
: places, and punish them for it.

I was against kicking Rolf out from the point in time where Steve
joined the conversation, because he made good points. Up until that
point, I was neither pro nor con on the issue.

: When Chris was one of you guys, he was writing some really bad stuff


: in CCC, about Rolf and about others, and he got away with it, while at
: the same time Rolf was kicked out for having said something elsewhere
: that happened to offend Chris. There seemed to be some undercurrent
: of thought that it was especially egregious to attack a CCC "founder"
: outside of CCC.

: I quit your group at that time. This is not a coincidence.

: But now you've suddenly kicked Chris out too, even though he has been
: *silent* in CCC for months, because he has attacked *you*, outside of
: CCC. So you did the same awful thing twice, apparently. I am an ally
: of neither Chris nor Rolf, and I would be happy to see less of them,
: but I disagree with how you accomplished this.

I don't agree with your wording above. We didn't "suddenly kick Chris
out." He left in a huff a good while ago when he started his latest
restore Rolf or else tirade. We've had long email discussions about
whether to ignore his stuff and not remove his password in the hope he
would return. It was finally decided, after much email traffic, that
we should simply do what he asked and close that chapter on things.

But he was *not* kicked off... unless you accept the idea of
"self-kicked". he wasn't asked to leave. He *was* asked to stop
the continual personal attacks against a well-known chess programmer
that doesn't even post on CCC nor here. he took offense because he'd
like to do everything his way... even his "best friends" have tired
of his behavior...


: I don't know the whole story with Chris, so perhaps I am wrong, but I


: do know the whole story with Rolf, and I do have your words above. It
: apears me me that you guys need to get a clue about what it means to
: fairly moderate a public forum. I don't like to have to say this kind
: of thing, because it puts me in the company of a lot of people I don't
: like, but you guys bring it on yourselves.

It was wrong then when it was done. But it was a decision reached by
a majority of the group that started CCC. I did (and still do) feel
bound by decisions chosen by a majority. Otherwise democratic processes
won't ever get anywhere...


: I used to enjoy spending time arguing here, but now I hate it, it is a


: waste of time to bicker here all day long, many readers consider
: anything of this sort to be offensive to have to deal with, it does
: little if anything to contribute to computer chess, and I should be
: spending the time with my daughter, who is in the other room watching
: TV.

: But I am hoping that you will understand what I am saying, and finally
: be convinced by it, so there will be no more episodes like this in the
: future, so less bandwidth will be wasted long-term.

: bruce

I'd hope you are right.. However, I would say that to any rule there is
an exception. Rolf has proven himself to be a horrible exception. He
likes to insult, provide provably wrong statements, and then insist on
appologies from those he insulted. So even though the decision to kick
him off was wrong, the result was good. It wouldn't have been long before
he started ranting and got kicked off anyway, but I'd have preferred to
wait until that actually happened, rather than making the preemptive
decision we made..

Dirk Frickenschmidt

unread,
Mar 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/18/98
to

On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 17:03:24 GMT, "Chris Whittington"
<chrisw[nospam]@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote to Bob Hyatt:

>I formally forbid you to abuse any of my email. And I point out to you that
>the flagrant, unpermitted use of emails, for attempted character
>assassination purposes, suggested now by yourself and done by the priest of
>morals Frickenschmidt, is not my way; and never has been.

>In the case of the Frickenschmidt threat email, I posted it here in reponse


>to a direct request for *public* clarification of evidence by *one of your
>moderators* (who was on the cc list for that email).
>

>Chris Whittington

I really had hoped Mr. Whittington had avoided this further effort of
rewriting history completely at the expense of others.

Calling people names (little Hitlers, Stalin) or alluding to their
identity as Germans, as believers, or simply as people probably
identifying themselves with their profession (mine as evangelical
pastor, Bob's as professor) is something that may occur funny to Mr.
Tueschen in funny Tueschen posts, but I will *not* get used to it in
posts from people whom I can regard as well able to show some
responsability.

Now the facts:

1. *Nobody* *ever* asked Mr. Whittington to publish group email.
Enrique just had said (after some dark and negative CCC allusions from
Mr. Whittington):
>It is not the moment to play games. If you start saying something like this,
>you better make the whole story clear and public.
Nothing else. Nothing of group emails.

It would have easily been possible for Mr. Whittington to clarify who
and when and why had written to him something he disliked and the
content of which he had already described on rgcc.
No group email quoting was necessary for that at all!

Or to to walk into semantics as Mr Whittington prefers nowadays:
"make a *story* clear and public" is *not* the same as if Enrique had
said "please quote from our internal group emails on rgcc, please do
it although I have these mails all myself".

So Chris simply could have reminded Enrique of what and who he
referred to. Why in the world should Enrique have had a desire to
read a group email on rgcc he well had himself and just did not
remember he had???

But Mr. Whittington obivously and for quite obvious reasons found the
idea much more attractive

a) to post from an internal CCC-group-email of me on rgcc

b) to twist a simple request for clarification into a request for
quoting this group email when critisized for that

c) and finally to pretend with an attitude of malicious innocence,
that he had only done this on request of a CCC member!

He was forced to do so by Enrique, so to speak :-)))
So this time living well at Enriques expense???

Quite a silly excuse, really. ;-)


2. Even *if* he had gotten any such request - which he hasn't - he
could have well told himself that the *only* person who might have
allowed him to be quoted(!) at all, would have been the author of the
post, and *nobody* else.
Mr. Whittington could have easily asked me for doing so.


3. So the whole procedure Mr. Whittington chose is hard to accept for
me:

a) making some dark allusions about some sort of incredibly dictatoric
CCC threat to him on rgcc.

b) then adding that this had happened to him from "the chief
moderator" of CCC. After everybody wondered who this not existing
chief moderator could be and even Bob Hyatt felt attacked because he
was one of the two active moderators then, Mr. Whttington answered my
question, from where he got the idea for such a funny allusion aiming
at me, by saying something like "by intuition". Defaming CCC and me
personally based on pure "intuition" is not very welcome to me.

c) he then was quoting from group email as described, but without
adding my name, well knowing that the quest for the name of "who in
the world has written that" would have been the next fun going on in
rgcc.

In fact Mr. Tueschen's request for that name followed immediately. :-)

The only thing Mr. Whittinton probably had not expected was the fact
that this was combined with extremely hateful offences towards me
right from the start (this one thing being something not intended by
Mr. Whittington, as he wrote me and I believe him)

The whole setting gave rgcc mmbers the completely forged impression
that CCC members were busy hiding something scandalous, and that the
author of the post in question was trying to hide himself too.

In fact I as the author had dared not to be online too much for one or
two days and was quite surprised to suddenly find a group email post
of myself (from a while ago) quoted within rgcc - without my name
added - besides lots of email requests asking for clarification.


4. The whole story has a sad pre-history.

Some time ago Mr. Whittington already had taken another opportunity to
misuse an internal group email. And he knows since quite a while how
sour I already had been about that one.

He had sent one of those group mails Thorsten Czub had sent to some
friends (not to the public!) exactly to Mr. Tueschen (!!!).

It was not any mail. It was one where Thorsten frankly had spoken of
difficult times he had been going through, and it was great fun for
Mr. Tueschen to misuse this private information handed over from Mr.
Whittington to him the following days here on rgcc, as everyone here
could read.

Of course Mr. Tueschen, like anyone would have easily been able to
predict, used this private stuff as cannon fodder for drawing his
perfect and extremely malevolent clichees about Thorsten Czub once
more.

Mr. Whittington knew very well from an email from me how really upset
I had been that he had treated a friend like that. I told him my
regret that I had just alluded to this behaviour on CCC, but I also
added that I frankly still found it altogether unaccpetable.

I did so just to find out now that he was well able and willing to
perform nearly the same questionable procedure with me, not too long
after I had told him my personal strong dislike for this.

And in addition he now again excused himself as if his behaviour had
been a completely normal thing. When Thorsten told him:
>> It is bad style. Only tueschens behave like this.
Chris answered for example
>Rubbish.
And one argument from him was:
>1. Its group email.
As if quoting of group email were acceptable in contrast to quoting
pms. Concerning his other silly excuse see above.

So I decided to give him *for* *once* the opportunity to experience
for himself exactly what he seemed to find so normal doing to others.

And he considerably reduced my doubts of having the right to do so (I
still have them) in a case where the hypocracy he showed here on rgcc
was really growing extremely.

All his claims here stood in *very* sharp contrast to his behaviour
within our group as I had experienced all too well for quite a while.

Now after the negative group email experiences I had already
experienced with Mr. Whittington, you perhaps can imagine that I
hardly trusted my eyes having to read the following words to Bob from
him:


>I formally forbid you to abuse any of my email. And I point out to you that
>the flagrant, unpermitted use of emails, for attempted character
>assassination purposes, suggested now by yourself and done by the priest of
>morals Frickenschmidt, is not my way; and never has been.


Seems to me quite an interesting way of keeping reality flexible
enough for own purposes.

"Fascinating!" as Mr. Spock would say.

Kind regards
from Dirk

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Mar 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/18/98
to

Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:

>Rolf has proven himself to be a horrible exception. He
>likes to insult, provide provably wrong statements, and then insist on
>appologies from those he insulted.

Again, ten US $ for each example. All you wrote here is a lie. And in
addition it'S clear evidence for your own rotten mind status.

I did never insult someone who didn't cruelly insult me too. Formerly I
want to stress. Seek for counter examples. And 10 dollars will fly to
you...

BTW Bruce would still be a good mediator. When I say proxy, that must
NOT necessarily mean headless fool. I think Bruce should think if it's
worth to end the war.

And then this to you personally, grand ol' man from Alabam'

Did you ever understand what usenet meant? You can't understand having
fun, when still much younger than yourself????

Please lift for a moment your killer and read my post about usenet and
character assassination in real life. I really wished you could
understand the difference.

Bob, what became out of my idol of the first time on usenet. You always
in the same smooth kind, always exclusively answering the *least* drop
of possibly worthyful stuff from the last idiot, me included, and always
over looking simply all negative provoking stuff??

Bob, why did you change that?

Instead you let you integrate into a fascist censoring little clique of
very few people. Can't you see that you're there on the wrong paths? I
thought you were the GOD of cc. But shouldn't a GOD not try to balancre
when it comes to one-sided injustices?

Kicking ass and baseball batting. Is that your new pass time hobby??

Why not letting stuff like that for the youngsters?

BTW, as I recall, you have today a strange date. I wanted to confirm you
that I wish you also for this group some better events in future. If,
only if, you can control again you RAMBO mentality. Give it a try. I
wish you all the best.

BTW you also were on the wrong side in the Fritz5 threads. How come?


I see one explanation. You miss me a little bit...


I miss the Bob who were so lovely as Buddha himself.


Bob?

Dirk Frickenschmidt

unread,
Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98
to

On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:41:13 GMT, bru...@seanet.com (bruce moreland)
wrote:

Hi Bruce,

so you want my answer not by e-mail but in here. Ok with me.

>On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:30:10 GMT, DFricke...@w-i-s.net (Dirk
>Frickenschmidt) wrote:
>

>>5. After calling us "little Hitlers" I told Chris in a group email (to
>>him and the other CCC-founders, nobody else) that I could deal with
>>such offending nonsense in private email, but that I would never
>>accept him calling me like that in public, adding "in The Times, on
>>BBC, on rgcc or CCC" to make my point clear.
>>In this case *I* would immediately ask the other founders and
>>moderators to throw him out of CCC.

Now you judged:


>This was an extremely unfortunate thing to say.
>It gives people
>ammunition against you forever.

This would be so if I said something wrong.
Perhaps we can debate that and *then* each judge again.

> I would hope that you guys don't
>really think like this. Unfortunately, I think you do, because this
>sort of thing was the reason Rolf was booted, without his ever having
>said anything remotely bad on CCC.

As you noticed from Bob's vote "you guys" don't exist.

It may even be that I am the only one convinced of what I said above,
I'm not shure.

In sharp contrast to what sometimes is spread here, the CCC founders
are quite individualistic people, as you experienced yourself. My
impression is that everybody of them when it comes to voting is voting
for individual reasons, even if sharing some common arguments.

>I ask you to consider how awful this is, that someone who is in
>control of one forum would monitor the behavior of people in other
>places, and punish them for it.

I don't share your whole description of what is going on.

1. I personally am in no "control" of a forum. I have one vote in a
group of nine.

2. The group of nine is a bunch of individuals. Each of them votes as
he thinks, in every single case.
No blocks. No parties. This is my impression
I for one have as well agreed as disagreed with each of the group on
different matters.

3. I do not "monitor the behaviour of people in other places"

This is the main point in our debate.

This sounds as if I would try to usurp control over people's behaviour
*in* *general*, judging some things they do to be nice and others to
be bad.

In fact I am not interested in the behaviour of CCC or rgcc people in
general at all. To say it drastically:
I am completely indifferent to someone having a finger in his nose
while reading these posts.
I accept any opinions which are in sharp contrast to mine.
There is nothing in the way others write and think which I would like
to control.

With one exeption: Just like in real life I do not accept to be
violated by brute force or by being offended. I don't accept this in
cyberspace either.

The problem is that in cyberspace there most times is no democratic
structure at all despite some people claiming the contrary.
Democracy always and per definition is a structure with rights *and*
*duties*.

Something like rgcc in contrast to that is pure anarchy, nothing
democratic about it at all. Who shouts loudest and makes most trouble
gets most attention - even if negative. Who offends others simply gets
away with it. Who prefers to spam and offend others anonymously can
easily do that.

Other in a democracy: In *each* modern democracy by definition you
have a government making laws, judges who interpret the laws and guard
the rules by sanctions, and an executive performing necessary
sanctions.

Nothing or nearly nothing of that in cyberspace. Just netiquette.
From some.

So what do I do in the predemocratic structures of cyberspace which
perfectly fit the needs of spammers, brawlers, offenders, pubertating
people of all ages and exhibitionists?

In severe cases of abuse like in rgcc since some time I only can hope
for any form of moderation. Moderation should fit the minimum needs
required for self respect of all its members.

Now my point. Take an example.

President Clinton will probably *not* feel inclined to invite Mrs.
Willey to his next party into the White house. Now you could argue:
"But she did not say anything bad to or about him in the White House.
All they have from her there are nice and thankful letters.

So how can Mr. Clinton - this time really being in control of one
forum: the White House and presidential parties - how can he request
to "monitor the behaviour of others in other places"?
As long as Mrs. Willey goes on behaving so nice as in her former
letters to the White House, and only profits from a public book with
heavy accusations against Mr. Clinton otherwhere, far apart from the
White House, it would be completely undemocratic to leave her out in
further White House party invitations.

You see, as soon as it comes to real life, you notice how unacceptable
such separation of public areas would prove. Nobody would even
consider such a behaviour where he or she would deny any self-respect.

I request the same right for me in a moderated forum in cyberspace:
to be able to keep a minimum of self respect.

Nobody ever will force me to be in one *moderated* forum with someone
offending me as "little Hitler" or compare me to Eichmann or
whatsoever of this kind.

I simply say "No, Sir." Either the moderators kick him out.
Or I leave. It's really that simple for me.

In turn I am ready to accept the same duties and give everybody the
same respect, e.g. not calling him or her names in such an
unacceptable way.

Of course I will always prefer a moderated forum like CCC to a place
like rgcc long as it is like it is. Of course an unmoderated forum
where all could live without some calling others the worst names would
be best.

Even a moderated forum will work only as long as I will not be forced
to meet someone in CCC who calls me "little Hitler" or "fascist" or
comparable offending nonsense anywhere in public. If someone offends
me in public this concerns me not just in the place where the offence
took place. To claim this would be silly. Just like it is completely
self-evident in real life and nobody would even discuss the point,
neither in Germany nor in Sweden nor in America.


And frankly, I do not at all accept to be alluded to or decribed as
some sort of a non-democratic lunatic, striving for any sort of open
or hidden control over the everyday life of other people, for the
simple reason I just named.

Just contrary to that I regard my view as fundamental for any
functioning democratic order and am not in the mood to accept lessons
in democracy or on moderation matters concerning this, as long as I
cannot find anything unjustified in my claim not to be offended in the
way I experienced here by, and by those with whom I'd like to share a
club in cyberspace without such offenses.

>When Chris was one of you guys, he was writing some really bad stuff
>in CCC, about Rolf and about others, and he got away with it,

It was a pain for us. He apologized, and we accepted it only as a
one-time outburst compared to valuable on-topics from the same person.

But I agree that it was at least questionable if we were in danger of
creating double standards. I still think we are in that danger in
other cases as well and it will be neccessary to have an eye on this
permanently.
We are not perfect by far.
Just working on it :-)

>while at
>the same time Rolf was kicked out for having said something elsewhere
>that happened to offend Chris.

No, that was not the only reason.
But it raised the question we discuss here:

Is it acceptable for me to be in one club with someone who offends me
in public - especially in a forum where in part the same people
interested in computer chess as in CCC are reading and writing.

>There seemed to be some undercurrent
>of thought that it was especially egregious to attack a CCC "founder"
>outside of CCC.

I understand your point.

As if the founders (an expression which sounds much to 'big' in my
eyes anyway, but I have no other word for them) requested some extra
kind of dignity status for them.

In fact I would find something like that rather ridiculous and never
claim anything even coming near to that for me or others.

We are not living in a monarchy, and I'm quite glad we are not! :-)

My aim is defence against massive offenses for every CCC member, not
claiming an extra-status for anyone concerning this.

>I quit your group at that time. This is not a coincidence.

>But now you've suddenly kicked Chris out too, even though he has been
>*silent* in CCC for months, because he has attacked *you*, outside of
>CCC.

This sentence sounds as if you have read not much of my original post
apart from the passage above that disturbs you. My original post
tells you point by point how Chris' departure from CCC happened. You
could read from Bob that he remembers all that just like me. You can
ask me anytime if you find anything in it unclear, but I don't want to
repeat all of it again.

In fact Chris was not kicked out.
He requested his CCC account and password to be removed after
receiving the yellow card.
Steve Schwartz from ICD hesitated to remove it, still hoping like many
of us that Chris would return to CCC and the conflict could be
resolved.
After seeing what Chris did here on rgcc now we found it obvious that
this hope was a waste of time and asked Steve to remove the account.

>So you did the same awful thing twice, apparently. I am an ally
>of neither Chris nor Rolf, and I would be happy to see less of them,
>but I disagree with how you accomplished this.

I never would suspect you to be an ally of anyone just because you
don't share my point of view. I accept you disagree.
But this still hasn't changed my mind of what I said above.

>I don't know the whole story with Chris, so perhaps I am wrong, but I
>do know the whole story with Rolf, and I do have your words above. It
>apears me me that you guys need to get a clue about what it means to
>fairly moderate a public forum.

Again: please not "you guys" unless everybody of them is involved in
the discussion.

Please no lessons in democracy as long as we discuss the matter.
You would not like such a proposal from me for yourself either.

If you want to submit yourself to the pain and insist on discussing
moderating matters principally with the group, I could invite you to
an email discussion with all of us. Thus you would soon notice what I
claimed above: no "band" or "block" or whatever in CCC at all.
Only results of very individualistic and always in a way
unprofessional, always very long and time-consuming voting processes.
Frankly I cannot claim this form of discussion is fun. It's slow and
ineffective and goes on everybody's nerves.

>I don't like to have to say this kind
>of thing, because it puts me in the company of a lot of people I don't
>like, but you guys bring it on yourselves.

Right at the moment we talk about my view above.
No companies, no guys. Accepted?

>I used to enjoy spending time arguing here, but now I hate it, it is a
>waste of time to bicker here all day long, many readers consider
>anything of this sort to be offensive to have to deal with, it does
>little if anything to contribute to computer chess,

You write on CCC as well.
In spite of anything you don't like about it you probably will have to
admit that in sharp contrast to what is going on here in rgcc, in CCC
people are mostly discussing on topic and not offending, though some
discussions can become very controversial - like the Fritz and SSDF
debate there right now.

>and I should be
>spending the time with my daughter, who is in the other room watching
>TV.

Same with me. I hate to spend time on matters of how to behave.
I love doing something that makes sense or be with my sons and wife.
I often ask myself if that little bit of cyberspace computer chess
hobby is worth that. And probably my answer will be "no" some day
sooner or later. Rather sooner...


>But I am hoping that you will understand what I am saying, and finally
>be convinced by it, so there will be no more episodes like this in the
>future, so less bandwidth will be wasted long-term.

I offered you to continue this thread (begun by you this time) by
email. I accept that you prefer to discuss it here in public, but not
getting hints on bandwidth at the same time :-)

>bruce


Kind regards
from Dirk

nob...@nsm.htp.org

unread,
Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98
to

TheDoDo says:

On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:31:52 GMT DFricke...@w-i-s.net (Dirk Frickenschmidt) wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:41:13 GMT, bru...@seanet.com (bruce moreland)
>wrote:
>
>Hi Bruce,
>
>so you want my answer not by e-mail but in here. Ok with me.
>

<snip snip snip>

>
>Kind regards
>from Dirk


Dirk is our sot of God and "good man" of the herd.

Andreas Mader

unread,
Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98
to


Chris Whittington schrieb:

> Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article

> > However, I'll be happy to provide email excerpts (something I would
> normally
> > not do from an etiquette perspective) showing what went on.
>

> I formally forbid you to abuse any of my email.

Chis, you are the worst revisionist I have ever seen!

You rant and rave, call people names, lie, and then you try to make sure that
every prove of your revisionistic behaviour is not published. It was your wish
that your password is canceled. Period. It took long to do so, this is true,
but finally you got what you wanted - and what you deserve.


Andreas Mader

unread,
Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98
to


Rolf Tueschen schrieb:

> Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>
> >Rolf has proven himself to be a horrible exception. He
> >likes to insult, provide provably wrong statements, and then insist on
> >appologies from those he insulted.
>
> Again, ten US $ for each example. All you wrote here is a lie. And in
> addition it'S clear evidence for your own rotten mind status.
>

Rolf Tueschen wrote on 1997/12/16:

In the case of Czub these two
ideas poste on the net will surely not be sufficient to prove that he's
a neo-nazi. Therefore I never called him one.


Rolf Tueschen wrote on 1997/07/13 in a reply to Thorsten Czub:

No, you neo-nazi amoking madman, you won't cheat us again.


You can check Dejas, if you don't believe me.

Please send your 10$ to the Wiener Schachverlag, Kochgasse 8, 1080 Wien.
Maybe we donate it to a home for the mentally ill.

Thank you
Andreas


nob...@nsm.htp.org

unread,
Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98
to

TheDoDo says:


Will this impostor stand down and the real Robert Hyatt stand up!

Archetypical Alabama Bob retort. "Call it what you want." "I don't give
a damn." "Whatever you say jackass"

And all of this after engaging a thread with two or three replies.

When challenged and defeated, Alabama Bob resorts to either this phony
"whatever you say is meaningless" line or he pulls out the baseball bat
and toggles his killfiles.

Product of brutish and mechanical intellect.


Yours truly,

The real Robert Hyatt


Chris Whittington

unread,
Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98
to


Enrique Irazoqui <en...@intercom.es> wrote in article
<6eo62g$12i$1...@diana.bcn.ibernet.es>...

Is that the Latin correct ?

Much better. fili mii ? Does that mean my son ? Even better still.

Sorry, my O level Latin was over 35 years ago. There was no attempt at
misquoting; just the usual mistakes.

But you played too many language games, Enrique. So I stopped believing
you. Bad that. And no need for it either.

Chris Whittington


>
>
> Enrique
>
>
>
>

bruce moreland

unread,
Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98
to

On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:31:52 GMT, DFricke...@w-i-s.net (Dirk
Frickenschmidt) wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:41:13 GMT, bru...@seanet.com (bruce moreland)
>wrote:

>In sharp contrast to what sometimes is spread here, the CCC founders


>are quite individualistic people, as you experienced yourself. My
>impression is that everybody of them when it comes to voting is voting
>for individual reasons, even if sharing some common arguments.

Certainly. However, you posted the comment about Chris getting booted
with eight names attached. If you are going to put your names on
something, then take responsibility for it, don't claim that you
signed it even though you didn't agree with it. The whole point of
signing your name to something is so that it can be attributed to you,
the idea is not to put so many names on it that people have to search
through the list to figure out who actually agrees with what they
signed.

>President Clinton will probably *not* feel inclined to invite Mrs.
>Willey to his next party into the White house. Now you could argue:
>"But she did not say anything bad to or about him in the White House.
>All they have from her there are nice and thankful letters.

I will comment on this analogy in order to attempt once again to make
my point. It is perfectly fine for Bill Clinton to refuse to invite
any of these people to a party. But it is not alright for him to have
the IRS audit them, or the FBI try to find embarassing stuff about
them. See the difference?

People shouldn't be thrown out of CCC no matter what they do to you
personally *outside of CCC*. Things that happen outside of CCC should
be handled according to the rules of those places, and if there are no
rules in those places, this is a very frustrating thing, but this is
the way it is. I am frustrated by not being able to do anything about
these people either, but if I ran a web service that was open to the
whole public, it would never cross my mind to lock them out of it,
unless they proved to be a problem *there*.

>>When Chris was one of you guys, he was writing some really bad stuff
>>in CCC, about Rolf and about others, and he got away with it,
>It was a pain for us. He apologized, and we accepted it only as a
>one-time outburst compared to valuable on-topics from the same person.

This still makes me mad, even now. Chris told someone "fuck you",
directly, in CCC, without any provocation *in CCC*, and his "apology"
was an apology to *others* who might have been offended by his
language, and not to the person who he addressed directly. That is no
apology. The apology should have been to Rolf.

>This sentence sounds as if you have read not much of my original post
>apart from the passage above that disturbs you. My original post
>tells you point by point how Chris' departure from CCC happened. You
>could read from Bob that he remembers all that just like me. You can
>ask me anytime if you find anything in it unclear, but I don't want to
>repeat all of it again.
>
>In fact Chris was not kicked out.
>He requested his CCC account and password to be removed after
>receiving the yellow card.
>Steve Schwartz from ICD hesitated to remove it, still hoping like many
>of us that Chris would return to CCC and the conflict could be
>resolved.
>After seeing what Chris did here on rgcc now we found it obvious that
>this hope was a waste of time and asked Steve to remove the account.

I don't have perfect recall and I do make mistakes. Howver, here is
the relevent part of the post that Ed posted:

| We assure all members of the CCC community that Chris Whittington will be
| given no possibility to compromise or influence in any way the content and
| policies of the CCC board.

| Rolf Tueschen and Chris Whittington might be on the other hand just two


| contributors to r.g.c.c., which makes the concept of the CCC board seem
| even more attractive, since both of them are not welcome there.

This seems to be very clear. I read this as "Chris is kicked out".
Maybe he asked to have his account deleted, but this is not mentioned.
If someone else asked to have their account deleted, you probably
wouldn't post that in r.g.c.c. that they are no longer welcome. You'd
think that if someone asked to have their account deleted, and you
deleted it, that there'd be no problem with them getting a new one.
But I get the impression that there would be a serious problem with
Chris getting a new account, right?

Your post is an attempt to dance around some stuff. Fact is, you guys
as a group kicked Chris out of CCC. Maybe you used his asking for his
account to be deleted as a justification, but he is apparently not
welcome there now -- you say precisely this.

When I quit your group I also requested that my CCC account be
deleted. My request was ignored. I no longer wnat my account to be
deleted. Do I have to worry that you will suddenly decide to honor my
request, because of what I say here, and then not allow me to have a
new account?

>If you want to submit yourself to the pain and insist on discussing
>moderating matters principally with the group, I could invite you to
>an email discussion with all of us. Thus you would soon notice what I
>claimed above: no "band" or "block" or whatever in CCC at all.
>Only results of very individualistic and always in a way
>unprofessional, always very long and time-consuming voting processes.
>Frankly I cannot claim this form of discussion is fun. It's slow and
>ineffective and goes on everybody's nerves.

You guys do have process problems, that's for sure. Being a member of
your group was extremely frustrating. Group email is a very hard way
to carry on any sort of discussion, and I think this is part of the
reason you have made some bad decisions.

bruce


Robert Hyatt

unread,
Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98
to

bruce moreland <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
: On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:31:52 GMT, DFricke...@w-i-s.net (Dirk
: Frickenschmidt) wrote:

:>On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:41:13 GMT, bru...@seanet.com (bruce moreland)
:>wrote:

:>In sharp contrast to what sometimes is spread here, the CCC founders
:>are quite individualistic people, as you experienced yourself. My
:>impression is that everybody of them when it comes to voting is voting
:>for individual reasons, even if sharing some common arguments.

: Certainly. However, you posted the comment about Chris getting booted
: with eight names attached. If you are going to put your names on
: something, then take responsibility for it, don't claim that you
: signed it even though you didn't agree with it. The whole point of
: signing your name to something is so that it can be attributed to you,
: the idea is not to put so many names on it that people have to search
: through the list to figure out who actually agrees with what they
: signed.

I didn't see the above. I only saw a specific message from Dirk to
Chris... Did I overlook something? IE I didn't see anything other
than what Dirk mentioned, and didn't notice any names below it as it
was obviously a personal comment between he and Chris.

:>President Clinton will probably *not* feel inclined to invite Mrs.


:>Willey to his next party into the White house. Now you could argue:
:>"But she did not say anything bad to or about him in the White House.
:>All they have from her there are nice and thankful letters.

: I will comment on this analogy in order to attempt once again to make
: my point. It is perfectly fine for Bill Clinton to refuse to invite
: any of these people to a party. But it is not alright for him to have
: the IRS audit them, or the FBI try to find embarassing stuff about
: them. See the difference?

: People shouldn't be thrown out of CCC no matter what they do to you
: personally *outside of CCC*. Things that happen outside of CCC should
: be handled according to the rules of those places, and if there are no
: rules in those places, this is a very frustrating thing, but this is
: the way it is. I am frustrated by not being able to do anything about
: these people either, but if I ran a web service that was open to the
: whole public, it would never cross my mind to lock them out of it,
: unless they proved to be a problem *there*.

I can see both sides of this argument. However, from a personal
perspective, *I* also don't like to be called a "little Hitler" or
a "Stalin" or whatever. If someone used such language toward me, I'd
reserve the right to not invite him to any function I was responsible
for, and I'd probably attempt to avoid him whenever possible as well.

We founded CCC to eliminate personal attacks, although listening to some
here you'd never guess that. Dirk's request to kick Chris out never
became anything more than a comment directed toward Chris. If it had,
I doubt anyone would have voted for it, because we had already discussed
Chris at length the first time he started getting too personal *on* CCC.
And the decision was to not remove him. But from my point of view, CCC is
not a public club paid for by taxpayers money, and the members (or "board"
if you choose to think of the "founders" in that way) certainly have the
right to exclude anyone for any reason, just as I have the right to say
that someone can't come into my home, just because I don't like the way
they smell, for example. We've never exercised such a right, except for
the one time that Chris led the charge to kick Rolf out. The decision was
wrong. There's little doubt there.

:>>When Chris was one of you guys, he was writing some really bad stuff

Unknown. After his directly personal attacks here on me, I doubt I'd
be for this. I doubt I'd stand in the way of it, but I'd not be there
with my hand extended... fool me once, shame on you.. fool me twice,
shame on me. I won't be fooled by 'im again in this lifetime...

: Your post is an attempt to dance around some stuff. Fact is, you guys


: as a group kicked Chris out of CCC. Maybe you used his asking for his
: account to be deleted as a justification, but he is apparently not
: welcome there now -- you say precisely this.

: When I quit your group I also requested that my CCC account be
: deleted. My request was ignored. I no longer wnat my account to be
: deleted. Do I have to worry that you will suddenly decide to honor my
: request, because of what I say here, and then not allow me to have a
: new account?

reasonable question and point. But when you left, you simply "faded"
and kept doing what you do. Chris became vitrolic. *excessively*
vitrolic. *personally* vitrolic. I don't consider that acceptable.

The difference between the two is this:

You come to my house, raise hell, slam the door in leaving and say "Change
your locks, I won't be back"... I'll change 'em.

You come to my house, dislike the conversation and leave, saying I won't be
back, I'll leave that decision up to you.

Chris was offensive enough that no one would want him back. End of story.
You weren't offensive at all, and any contributions you make are in the spirit
of what we all started CCC for. It's as simple as that. Those that contribute
(or that just lurk) are welcome. Those that want to name-call, and shout
obscenities, and twist/distort statements simply don't fit in with the original
intent, and it won't be tolerated. Think of it as a country club where there's
no membership fee, but you do have certainly behaviorial standards to live by
in order to be able to visit...


:>If you want to submit yourself to the pain and insist on discussing


:>moderating matters principally with the group, I could invite you to
:>an email discussion with all of us. Thus you would soon notice what I
:>claimed above: no "band" or "block" or whatever in CCC at all.
:>Only results of very individualistic and always in a way
:>unprofessional, always very long and time-consuming voting processes.
:>Frankly I cannot claim this form of discussion is fun. It's slow and
:>ineffective and goes on everybody's nerves.

: You guys do have process problems, that's for sure. Being a member of
: your group was extremely frustrating. Group email is a very hard way
: to carry on any sort of discussion, and I think this is part of the
: reason you have made some bad decisions.

I only see one bad decision, and in retrospect it wasn't bad. IE how many
would rather see Rolf totally out of r.g.c.c... and how many would like to
see him stay. He doesn't contribute anything to the chess discussions. And
that's the charter of this newsgroup. So he was kicked out for the wrong
reason, I agree. But the action (looking back) would be hard to fault. He's
single-handedly doubled the volume of postings here while cutting the information
content in half...


: bruce

sil...@unisys.com.br

unread,
Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98
to

In article <6epcst$vcu$1...@news01.btx.dtag.de>,

TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>
> Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>
> >Rolf has proven himself to be a horrible exception. He
> >likes to insult, provide provably wrong statements, and then insist on
> >appologies from those he insulted.
>
> Again, ten US $ for each example. All you wrote here is a lie. And in
> addition it'S clear evidence for your own rotten mind status.
>
> I did never insult someone who didn't cruelly insult me too. Formerly I
> want to stress. Seek for counter examples. And 10 dollars will fly to
> you...

That's baloney, but keep your 10 dollars as I refuse to invest the time to
start flashing evidence as I don't feel it's worth it.

>
> BTW Bruce would still be a good mediator. When I say proxy, that must
> NOT necessarily mean headless fool. I think Bruce should think if it's
> worth to end the war.
>
> And then this to you personally, grand ol' man from Alabam'
>
> Did you ever understand what usenet meant? You can't understand having
> fun, when still much younger than yourself????

You know Rolf. The problem is that you seem to be the only one who thinks this
is fun, perhaps that's part of your problem with others, I can't say. Youth
isn't a very good excuse. When I hear someone ask that another person be
excused because they are young, the excesses you have mindlessly flaunted here
aren't usually what come to mind. Lack of tact (your posts don't fall into
that category), ignorance, speaking before thinking (you would have to be a
monstrously fast typist or a monstrously slow thinker to fall in that one here
on the Usenet), lack of manners, etc... those are what come to mind when I
think of excusing someone for being young (which would be a joke in itself). I
am young myself by all standards (except perhaps in the eyes of my newborn
nephew) but I don't use it as an excuse to not assume responsibility for my
words.

> Please lift for a moment your killer and read my post about usenet and


> character assassination in real life. I really wished you could
> understand the difference.
>
> Bob, what became out of my idol of the first time on usenet. You always
> in the same smooth kind, always exclusively answering the *least* drop
> of possibly worthyful stuff from the last idiot, me included, and always
> over looking simply all negative provoking stuff??

Of course Bob could say that this hasn't changed essentially, though to be
honest I've never noticed this trait in his postings. I'm not saying he's a
warmonger, but he'll bite back if he feels he was deliberately sleighted.
Still, this is beside the point. Even if he was the Gandhi you make him out to
be, why should he have to ignore or overlook any "negative provoking stuff"?
Especially from someone who claims to idolize him??

>
> Bob, why did you change that?
>
> Instead you let you integrate into a fascist censoring little clique of
> very few people. Can't you see that you're there on the wrong paths? I
> thought you were the GOD of cc. But shouldn't a GOD not try to balancre
> when it comes to one-sided injustices?
>
> Kicking ass and baseball batting. Is that your new pass time hobby??
>
> Why not letting stuff like that for the youngsters?
>
> BTW, as I recall, you have today a strange date. I wanted to confirm you
> that I wish you also for this group some better events in future. If,
> only if, you can control again you RAMBO mentality. Give it a try. I
> wish you all the best.
>
> BTW you also were on the wrong side in the Fritz5 threads. How come?
>
> I see one explanation. You miss me a little bit...
>
> I miss the Bob who were so lovely as Buddha himself.
>
> Bob?
>

> >--
> >Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
> >hy...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
> >(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
> >(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
>
>

I KNOW I am going to regret having reponded to this thread, but what's done is
done. To be honest Rolf, I classified you quite some time ago as being
disturbed (the words "raving lunatic" sometimes appearing in my mind when
watching the titles of some of the threads you initiated), but disturbed
doesn't mean stupid, and I believe that most, if not all, of what you post
consist of deliberate poses. In other words, I don't believe that any sleight
you claim was unintentional or misinterpreted actually was.

Albert Silver


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Dirk Frickenschmidt

unread,
Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98
to

On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 19:35:19 GMT, bru...@seanet.com (bruce moreland)
wrote:

Hi Bruce,

as I understand your post we probably will not agree on some matters
even after arguing. No problem with me, I hope for you not either...

I try to answer what you find unclear or questionable.

>On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:31:52 GMT, DFricke...@w-i-s.net (Dirk
>Frickenschmidt) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:41:13 GMT, bru...@seanet.com (bruce moreland)
>>wrote:
>
>>In sharp contrast to what sometimes is spread here, the CCC founders
>>are quite individualistic people, as you experienced yourself. My
>>impression is that everybody of them when it comes to voting is voting
>>for individual reasons, even if sharing some common arguments.
>
>Certainly. However, you posted the comment about Chris getting booted
>with eight names attached. If you are going to put your names on
>something, then take responsibility for it, don't claim that you
>signed it even though you didn't agree with it. The whole point of
>signing your name to something is so that it can be attributed to you,
>the idea is not to put so many names on it that people have to search
>through the list to figure out who actually agrees with what they
>signed.

I completely agree what was posted by Ed.
So I can't answer your question.

It's else with my statement of not accepting to be with someone on CCC
who srongly offends me in public there or anywhere else.

This was a group email from me to Chris.
Not part of any voting at all.

I think it is important not to mix up things after all the heat about
them...

>>President Clinton will probably *not* feel inclined to invite Mrs.
>>Willey to his next party into the White house. Now you could argue:
>>"But she did not say anything bad to or about him in the White House.
>>All they have from her there are nice and thankful letters.
>
>I will comment on this analogy in order to attempt once again to make
>my point. It is perfectly fine for Bill Clinton to refuse to invite
>any of these people to a party. But it is not alright for him to have
>the IRS audit them, or the FBI try to find embarassing stuff about
>them. See the difference?

Yes that is a big difference indeed!

It is that big that I cannot follow your idea concerning what you aim
at with that analogy?

Would you seriously say I or others from CCC would need or use any
kind of secret service like actions to note it or react to it *if*
(just as the example that was in question) someone called me or them
"little Hitlers" - or dozens of similar defaming expressions from Mr.
Tueschen - on rgcc?

No secret service like thing needed to note that, nor to react.

Or what do you see in my behaviour or the existence of CCC that could
fit such an analogy???

Please feel free to explain.

>People shouldn't be thrown out of CCC no matter what they do to you
>personally *outside of CCC*.

I have to see we disagree completely on that.

I respect you have another view.

But I accept "shopuldn't" in the sense of "from your view".

>Things that happen outside of CCC should
>be handled according to the rules of those places, and if there are no
>rules in those places, this is a very frustrating thing, but this is
>the way it is.

Seems like I used my example ( I could have used lots of others) in
vain. What you would like me to accept is not an accepted form of
dealing with sharp offences in the real world.

And frankly, I don't see *any* reason to make an exception with
cyberspace, just because some offenders find it great to avaoid *any*
responsibility for what they do by simply managing how to change
puiblic internet places for offending.

So I can't help but express it once more for me: not accepted.
For me respect for others and self-resepct belong together.
I will gladly make a new start with anyone seriously wanting one.

But I will *never* accept a behaviour like that of Mr. Tueschen or the
Dodo or recently Mr. Whittington by living side by side in a private
computer club with them.

And I'm luck I don't have to. Either my arguments are understood and
shared. Or I have the same freedom to quit and go my own way like you
once preferred.

>I am frustrated by not being able to do anything about
>these people either, but if I ran a web service that was open to the
>whole public, it would never cross my mind to lock them out of it,
>unless they proved to be a problem *there*.

I have expressed my other view on that above.
And I must insist that the openness of CCC as private club just
mirrors the opennes of those there and does not imply any right of
anyone to be there.

I consider us all like guests there and think we should prefer to
behave like good guests instead of discussing how far anybody could go
elsewhere in being offensive and still feel perfectly invited.

This reversal of perspective is quite strange from my point of view.

>>>When Chris was one of you guys, he was writing some really bad stuff
>>>in CCC, about Rolf and about others, and he got away with it,
>>It was a pain for us. He apologized, and we accepted it only as a
>>one-time outburst compared to valuable on-topics from the same person.
>
>This still makes me mad, even now. Chris told someone "fuck you",
>directly, in CCC, without any provocation *in CCC*, and his "apology"
>was an apology to *others* who might have been offended by his
>language, and not to the person who he addressed directly. That is no
>apology. The apology should have been to Rolf.

I agree and understood his apology in this way.
But I have to admit I'm not shure if Mr. Tueschen had a chance to
understand it in that way too then.

>>This sentence sounds as if you have read not much of my original post
>>apart from the passage above that disturbs you. My original post
>>tells you point by point how Chris' departure from CCC happened. You
>>could read from Bob that he remembers all that just like me. You can
>>ask me anytime if you find anything in it unclear, but I don't want to
>>repeat all of it again.
>>
>>In fact Chris was not kicked out.
>>He requested his CCC account and password to be removed after
>>receiving the yellow card.
>>Steve Schwartz from ICD hesitated to remove it, still hoping like many
>>of us that Chris would return to CCC and the conflict could be
>>resolved.
>>After seeing what Chris did here on rgcc now we found it obvious that
>>this hope was a waste of time and asked Steve to remove the account.
>
>I don't have perfect recall and I do make mistakes. Howver, here is
>the relevent part of the post that Ed posted:
>
>| We assure all members of the CCC community that Chris Whittington will be
>| given no possibility to compromise or influence in any way the content and
>| policies of the CCC board.
>
>| Rolf Tueschen and Chris Whittington might be on the other hand just two
>| contributors to r.g.c.c., which makes the concept of the CCC board seem
>| even more attractive, since both of them are not welcome there.
>
>This seems to be very clear. I read this as "Chris is kicked out".

You may do so, but I as one of those who signed this, has quite
another understanding of it.

Chris still claimed rights of a CCC founder after clearly and without
any doubt having kicked out himself.

After hesitating to remove his password - and Steve is such a nice guy
that he always hesitates longer than we others would expect - for
reasons of perhaps still solving the conflict (I already told you
that) Chris' recent behaviour here certainly was enough reason to get
a long decided thing done finally.

>Maybe he asked to have his account deleted, but this is not mentioned.

Critique accepted.
We probably took something known which was not too well known to
others and should have clarified this point as well.
Perhaps in one more group email thread? ;-)

>If someone else asked to have their account deleted, you probably
>wouldn't post that in r.g.c.c. that they are no longer welcome.

You are right.
Because I can hardly imagine others who would claim to be still
founders in task after having quitted CCC. :-)))



>You'd
>think that if someone asked to have their account deleted, and you
>deleted it, that there'd be no problem with them getting a new one.

Correct. Chris would have gotten a new one after his yellow card and
quitting himself.
We had just decided to even invite him to do so.

Then we noticed from his posts on rgcc that we would have make
complete fools of ourselves inviting someone back who acted like him.

>But I get the impression that there would be a serious problem with
>Chris getting a new account, right?

After all I have seen now, I would probably vote with a clear "No" now
and for the next time. I don't know about the others...

>Your post is an attempt to dance around some stuff. Fact is, you guys
>as a group kicked Chris out of CCC.

It was no fact, is no fact and will not become one by repeating it.

>Maybe you used his asking for his
>account to be deleted as a justification, but he is apparently not
>welcome there now -- you say precisely this.

This is not the same by far.

And it's not about splitting hair.
a) Chris got a yellow card.
b) He quit witout *ever* being kicked off.
c) He behaved like someone urgently requesting to be kicked off.
d) the founders put it clear that despite his claims he would not be
allowed any further influence on CCC and that possible chances of his
coming back were no more regarded as serious - from looking at his
side!

This is *way* other than kicking someone off in my eyes.



>When I quit your group I also requested that my CCC account be
>deleted. My request was ignored.

I am sorry for that and don't find it ok.

>I no longer wnat my account to be
>deleted. Do I have to worry that you will suddenly decide to honor my
>request, because of what I say here, and then not allow me to have a
>new account?

As far as I know you you are not on a way testing how far you can go?
So I see no reason for this question.

>>If you want to submit yourself to the pain and insist on discussing
>>moderating matters principally with the group, I could invite you to
>>an email discussion with all of us. Thus you would soon notice what I
>>claimed above: no "band" or "block" or whatever in CCC at all.
>>Only results of very individualistic and always in a way
>>unprofessional, always very long and time-consuming voting processes.
>>Frankly I cannot claim this form of discussion is fun. It's slow and
>>ineffective and goes on everybody's nerves.
>
>You guys do have process problems, that's for sure. Being a member of
>your group was extremely frustrating. Group email is a very hard way
>to carry on any sort of discussion, and I think this is part of the
>reason you have made some bad decisions.

Although not being as shure as you about "bad decisions" I regard this
as a problem too. Any solution?

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98
to

Andreas Mader <ma...@p6.gud.siemens.at> wrote:

>Rolf Tueschen schrieb:

>> Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Rolf has proven himself to be a horrible exception. He
>> >likes to insult, provide provably wrong statements, and then insist on
>> >appologies from those he insulted.
>>
>> Again, ten US $ for each example. All you wrote here is a lie. And in
>> addition it'S clear evidence for your own rotten mind status.
>>

>Rolf Tueschen wrote on 1997/12/16:

>In the case of Czub these two
>ideas poste on the net will surely not be sufficient to prove that he's
>a neo-nazi. Therefore I never called him one.

I started to call him a neo-nazi, interpretated as neo-nazi in mind,
from the moment on I had read the emailed confession ...

In multiple postings, all here in front of me in print and to search
in Dejas, he confessed his basically fascist, inhuman understanding.
Of course, and I knew this from the moment I could read him here in
the group, he wants to appear different. Well, that's a difficult
psychological problem that will surely not be solved here on usent. If
you have difficulties to accept the differentiation, Andreas I invite
you to read my little post about Character assassination, usenet and
real life.... Please comment either in public or email. I want to
learn something. Perhaps you understand all that much better because
you are longer online than me.

>Rolf Tueschen wrote on 1997/07/13 in a reply to Thorsten Czub:

>No, you neo-nazi amoking madman, you won't cheat us again.


>You can check Dejas, if you don't believe me.

>Please send your 10$ to the Wiener Schachverlag, Kochgasse 8, 1080 Wien.
>Maybe we donate it to a home for the mentally ill.

Good idea. YXou're welcome.

But I can unfortunatelly not send you the recompensation. For a simple
reason.

I already explained that last summer to Carl Tillotson, was it I
think.

And all depends on your weak English here. BTW mine is not much
better. But here you wont bust me. nother time I'm bustin you.

Andreas, you should really stop this crap. You are, I already
confirmed you, one of the real dinos of cc testing and all. Chapeau.
But dont take me with my 23 years as a little foolish schoolboy.

I explain here for you another time:

neo-nazi amoking madman did this or that.

Now as in our old gymnasiums, I hope you saw them from the inside, I
ask, 'subject'? Madman. What is it for a madman? Or wait. What does he
do? Well, he's amoking. He's an amoking madman.
Now, of what sort is he amoking. Is he an anti-atomic industrial
exploration one. NO. 1. he would be a madman then and 2. he would be
amoking, but he would be a nice guy I would always praise...
No, he's amoking in neo-nazi-like style. You got me?

Now in last summer I explained further. Is he therefore necessarily a
neo-nazi himself by force??

No, Andreas. Because we know of many misleaden boys in that movement.
Most of them are not able to understand what they're seeking for...

BTW the same with this guy here in his youth at 20.

But now he's a communist. :) At least in that party.

And now watch it carefully. For me at the time last year without
knowing of his past I defined that he mostely amoked in neo-nazi
style/manner. Period.

Now you might ask for evidence. And I tell you please read the little
exchanges he had with Rolf C. and R. Hyatt. It went to the killing of
Kohl, who really would give a good target, signing people in the
streets of Germany, letting Scientologists fight in bloody wars so
that they would be killed, to the most recent advice to me to seek
help from a vet who should give me a final dosis... BTW the same Hyatt
advised with the famous killer doctor Kevorkian in the USA. To Czub
Hyatt had also onetime written that he felt sorry that his parents (of
Czub) had not and now could nomore practice abortion with him...

You get the idea. Both Hyatt and the old time friend of yours are
fascists. Period.

But at the time you found your quoting here I did call NOBODY a nazi
or a neo-nazi. Period.


Please, andreas, It would be helpful for the whole mean war here on
rgcc, if you, as an elder statesman so to sperak would demonstrate to
newbies and seemingly very ill guys like me that you at least have
style and a concsience. I hope you won't follow The Hyatt who lost two
contests and still repeats the same old shit. No?!

Greetings across the Alpes, thank you

Rolf Tueschen

>Thank you
>Andreas


Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98
to

(Rolf Tueschen) wrote:

>He's an amoking madman.
>Now, of what sort is he amoking. Is he an anti-atomic industrial
>exploration one. NO. 1. he would be a madman then and 2. he would be
>amoking,

Correction:

a) he would be NO madman

b) he would NOT be amoking

> but he would be a nice guy I would always praise...
>No, he's amoking in neo-nazi-like style. You got me?


Excuse this typing error due to too high speed. :)

Believe it or not due to the different positions of the words in
German and English I often forget either that I did NOT already write
a negation or the other possibility that I already DID and then I
write it again and result is a stupid double negation ...

Or much simpler a typical "German" fault in English the use of to do
and then in the past form still the past form of the verbum.

Ok, that happens in highspeed typing with 2 fingers... Yes, in German
we write with two fingers. Didn't you know that?? Saves time to do
other things in between.


Rolf, The Timid Pope

PS.

I gave the correction above. And still it's a proof that I have given
up the hope that a thorough reader like Hyatt might come back in old
style and trying to understand the ideas one wanted to post in context
and not slave-like bound to the written text that is most of the time
confusing through false grammer and inappropiate wordings...

Above the logic of the final sentence, that "he would be a nice guy I
would aleways praise" is in context a proof that I had left out as
mistake the two negations. Otherwise it doesn't make sense. :)


bruce moreland

unread,
Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98
to

On 19 Mar 1998 20:37:43 GMT, Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:

>bruce moreland <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
>: On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:31:52 GMT, DFricke...@w-i-s.net (Dirk
>: Frickenschmidt) wrote:

>I didn't see the above. I only saw a specific message from Dirk to
>Chris... Did I overlook something? IE I didn't see anything other
>than what Dirk mentioned, and didn't notice any names below it as it
>was obviously a personal comment between he and Chris.

I was referring to the post at the root of this thread, where the
eight of you announced that Chris was not welcome in CCC.

>We founded CCC to eliminate personal attacks, although listening to some
>here you'd never guess that. Dirk's request to kick Chris out never
>became anything more than a comment directed toward Chris. If it had,
>I doubt anyone would have voted for it, because we had already discussed
>Chris at length the first time he started getting too personal *on* CCC.
>And the decision was to not remove him. But from my point of view, CCC is
>not a public club paid for by taxpayers money, and the members (or "board"
>if you choose to think of the "founders" in that way) certainly have the
>right to exclude anyone for any reason, just as I have the right to say
>that someone can't come into my home, just because I don't like the way
>they smell, for example. We've never exercised such a right, except for
>the one time that Chris led the charge to kick Rolf out. The decision was
>wrong. There's little doubt there.

You guys, as a group, didn't do much about Chris *when* he was doing
rude things on CCC.

But after he is silent for months, you kicked him out.

Part of the problem is that you don't even know that Chris was kicked
out. Take a look at the base post from Ed. Chris was kicked out.

You guys did the same thing to Chris that you did to Rolf. The same
mistake as last time.

>Unknown. After his directly personal attacks here on me, I doubt I'd
>be for this. I doubt I'd stand in the way of it, but I'd not be there
>with my hand extended... fool me once, shame on you.. fool me twice,
>shame on me. I won't be fooled by 'im again in this lifetime...

Why? All I am suggesting is that you base the CCC account privilege
upon behavior in CCC. This can't possibly disrupt CCC more than once
per bozo you let in. The first time Rolf or Chris or anyone acts up,
kick them out. Prior to that, why kick anyone out?

I know that Chris has said a lot of bad things to and about you here.
He's made me pretty mad at times. Other people have made me pretty
mad at times. Heck, other people have made Chris pretty mad at times.
Why not kick everyone out of CCC who has misbehaved here?

Because it's really weird to operate like this, that's why.

>Chris was offensive enough that no one would want him back. End of story.
>You weren't offensive at all, and any contributions you make are in the spirit
>of what we all started CCC for. It's as simple as that. Those that contribute
>(or that just lurk) are welcome. Those that want to name-call, and shout
>obscenities, and twist/distort statements simply don't fit in with the original
>intent, and it won't be tolerated. Think of it as a country club where there's
>no membership fee, but you do have certainly behaviorial standards to live by
>in order to be able to visit...

I haven't offended the majority of you guys, today, maybe. I had to
worry about it for a couple of seconds and this is a bad thing.

>I only see one bad decision, and in retrospect it wasn't bad. IE how many
>would rather see Rolf totally out of r.g.c.c... and how many would like to
>see him stay. He doesn't contribute anything to the chess discussions. And
>that's the charter of this newsgroup. So he was kicked out for the wrong
>reason, I agree. But the action (looking back) would be hard to fault. He's
>single-handedly doubled the volume of postings here while cutting the information
>content in half...

It doesn't all balance out when the right person gets nuked for the
wrong reasons. Maybe next time you won't get the right person.

bruce


Robert Hyatt

unread,
Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98
to

bruce moreland <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
: On 19 Mar 1998 20:37:43 GMT, Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:

:>bruce moreland <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
:>: On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:31:52 GMT, DFricke...@w-i-s.net (Dirk
:>: Frickenschmidt) wrote:

:>I didn't see the above. I only saw a specific message from Dirk to


:>Chris... Did I overlook something? IE I didn't see anything other
:>than what Dirk mentioned, and didn't notice any names below it as it
:>was obviously a personal comment between he and Chris.

: I was referring to the post at the root of this thread, where the


: eight of you announced that Chris was not welcome in CCC.

:>We founded CCC to eliminate personal attacks, although listening to some


:>here you'd never guess that. Dirk's request to kick Chris out never
:>became anything more than a comment directed toward Chris. If it had,
:>I doubt anyone would have voted for it, because we had already discussed
:>Chris at length the first time he started getting too personal *on* CCC.
:>And the decision was to not remove him. But from my point of view, CCC is
:>not a public club paid for by taxpayers money, and the members (or "board"
:>if you choose to think of the "founders" in that way) certainly have the
:>right to exclude anyone for any reason, just as I have the right to say
:>that someone can't come into my home, just because I don't like the way
:>they smell, for example. We've never exercised such a right, except for
:>the one time that Chris led the charge to kick Rolf out. The decision was
:>wrong. There's little doubt there.

: You guys, as a group, didn't do much about Chris *when* he was doing
: rude things on CCC.

: But after he is silent for months, you kicked him out.

Here, your info is sadly out of date. You would not believe the amount
of email traffic to/from him over the past couple of months. Everything
from direct attacks on some of us, to appeals for help him step up the
attack on Teuschen he was engaged in here, and so forth. So he wasn't
silent "for us" for months...

: Part of the problem is that you don't even know that Chris was kicked


: out. Take a look at the base post from Ed. Chris was kicked out.

: You guys did the same thing to Chris that you did to Rolf. The same
: mistake as last time.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Chris left. He wrote
email directly to Steve at ICD demanding that his account be removed.
More than once. If you call it a mistake, we'll have to agree to disagree
here. But I don't personally expect to condone obnoxious behavior on CCC.
If I don't measure up to that standard, I'd expect to either leave myself
or get kicked out. As I've said before, this is not a public forum where
everyone has the right to post, it is a private "club" where we invite
everyone to visit, so long as everyone (ourselves included) maintains a
professional decorum with respect to everyone else. Arguments are welcome,
as in the long discussion about fritz. But there were no personal attacks
included.

:>Unknown. After his directly personal attacks here on me, I doubt I'd


:>be for this. I doubt I'd stand in the way of it, but I'd not be there
:>with my hand extended... fool me once, shame on you.. fool me twice,
:>shame on me. I won't be fooled by 'im again in this lifetime...

: Why? All I am suggesting is that you base the CCC account privilege


: upon behavior in CCC. This can't possibly disrupt CCC more than once
: per bozo you let in. The first time Rolf or Chris or anyone acts up,
: kick them out. Prior to that, why kick anyone out?


Here's a question: You go to a basketball game, and notice someone drunk
and abusive. Game after game you see this same guy, cursing you, your
friends, and your acquaintences. Time after time. Would you invite him
to a meeting of the local chess club you and a few others had started? I
wouldn't... I feel it perfectly reasonable to look at someone's behavior
*anywhere* to decide if he is worthy of participating in something that is
not a "public" function.

And you are overlooking one *gross* oversight... Chris did *grossly*
misbehave in CCC, something you can verify for yourself. Go back to his
continual accusations about "book cooking." We, the group of moderators
(Enrique, Dirk and myself I think) sent him a private warning to cease the
personal remarks, after others had asked us to do this. All done privately,
no intention of kicking him out, just a warning to behave as was intended on
CCC. He went ballistic, started vicious personal attacks including calling
the three moderators "Stalin, Hitler and someone else that I forget now" and
he kept this up for an extended period of time.

So your info is grossly out of date. If you had not requested that we drop
you from the "founders email list" you'd have seen this first-hand. I'm sure
we can dredge up everything if you'd like to see it all...

I personally don't take issue with a single episode of bad behavior. But we
all oppose a bad "stream"..

: I know that Chris has said a lot of bad things to and about you here.


: He's made me pretty mad at times. Other people have made me pretty
: mad at times. Heck, other people have made Chris pretty mad at times.
: Why not kick everyone out of CCC who has misbehaved here?

Because he wasn't removed for what he did here. He did continue doing his
thing here, but that was *not* the root issue at all... He was removed
because *he* asked to be removed. For *no* other reason. We may have taken
too long. So what... it's hard to get a large group of people to agree to
anything, and we were trying to convince him to stop the attacks and come
back. He simply stepped the attacks up a level, but moved them to r.g.c.c.

I don't understand his appealing to us to attack Rolf on his behalf. That
may have even been a forgery it was so out of character. But he's never
denied it so I assume it wasn't...


: Because it's really weird to operate like this, that's why.


You need to get a little older, and join a local country club, or a YMCA,
or a local chess club or some such. And then wade in one day cursing everyone
you see, twisting their words and claiming they said things they didn't, and
so forth... and see how long you last there. Probably one day beyond the
first cursing episode will be the last...

:>Chris was offensive enough that no one would want him back. End of story.


:>You weren't offensive at all, and any contributions you make are in the spirit
:>of what we all started CCC for. It's as simple as that. Those that contribute
:>(or that just lurk) are welcome. Those that want to name-call, and shout
:>obscenities, and twist/distort statements simply don't fit in with the original
:>intent, and it won't be tolerated. Think of it as a country club where there's
:>no membership fee, but you do have certainly behaviorial standards to live by
:>in order to be able to visit...

: I haven't offended the majority of you guys, today, maybe. I had to


: worry about it for a couple of seconds and this is a bad thing.

As I have said, we all disagree at times. But I don't respond with a
F*** you, start calling you names, then go to r.g.c.c and post things you
sent me in private email, cutting and pasting to make your words suit my
agenda. None of that would be acceptable, whether you did it, I did it,
or whomever...


:>I only see one bad decision, and in retrospect it wasn't bad. IE how many


:>would rather see Rolf totally out of r.g.c.c... and how many would like to
:>see him stay. He doesn't contribute anything to the chess discussions. And
:>that's the charter of this newsgroup. So he was kicked out for the wrong
:>reason, I agree. But the action (looking back) would be hard to fault. He's
:>single-handedly doubled the volume of postings here while cutting the information
:>content in half...

: It doesn't all balance out when the right person gets nuked for the


: wrong reasons. Maybe next time you won't get the right person.

possibly, but in this case, we got the *right* person for the *right*
reason... you just haven't seen all the data. You did notice that he
finds it ok to post private email here whenever he wants? But he was
not happy at all when I suggested that I post the stream of emails he
sent "behind the scenes" because he probably doesn't want the content
made public... it is perfect justification for having his account
deleted, at his request... We finally got around to doing what he asked.

Cameron Hayne

unread,
Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98
to

In case anyone cares for another viewpoint, here's what I think
about this whole affair, which I've been following silently up to now.

Let's leave the behaviour of particular individuals and
what happened to particular individuals out of the discussion
for the moment. Instead, let's concentrate on what the policy
should be. Yes, you can run a private club and do whatever you
want - but what we are talking about here is what is the right
thing to do.

I share the opinion of Bruce Moreland that the criteria for
participation in CCC ought to be based solely on behaviour
within the confines of CCC. Bad behaviour outside of CCC
might make you dislike a person but it should not lead you
to throw them out. (Remember that I am talking about policy
- not about any particular individual or how people have been
treated in the past, so the facts about whether anyone has
or has not been thrown out are irrelevant.)

If one of my subordinates behaves badly at work, then I might
fire them, but if he or she behaves badly at a party outside of work,
I might dislike them intensely but I don't have the right to fire them.
Of course, I would be unlikely to hire someone whom I disliked.
Hence entrance criteria are often different from exit criteria.
I don't think you want to establish a private club where
participation is by invitation only as this would exclude some
people whose contributions you might value. In summary, I think
that CCC should be an open discussion forum where the only criterion
for participation is that the discussions remain focussed on
computer chess.

--
Cameron Hayne (ha...@crim.ca)
Centre de recherche informatique de Montreal

nob...@nsm.htp.org

unread,
Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98
to

On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 00:23:31 GMT DFricke...@w-i-s.net (Dirk Frickenschmidt) wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 19:35:19 GMT, bru...@seanet.com (bruce moreland)
>wrote:
>
>Hi Bruce,

[snip]

>
>But I will *never* accept a behaviour like that of Mr. Tueschen or the
>Dodo or recently Mr. Whittington by living side by side in a private
>computer club with them.


What behavior did TheDoDo engage in which would be unacceptable?

1) criticism of CCC?
2) criticism of Matthias/Chessbase for upgrade scam?
3) criticism of RH for gross mistatements of the law?
4) criticism of individuals who attack?
5) criticisms of you?

Why should any of that be unacceptable?


said TheDoDo


_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98
to

sil...@unisys.com.br wrote:

>I know I'm going to regret...

Albert, you really keep me in a double bind.

So I will surprise you by telling you that I read your post with
interest. But I will not go into details. Because real love needs
time.

Wait some more days and you will see something interesting. But I
think you already knew because why else after over a year and so on?
:)

Enrique Irazoqui

unread,
Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98
to

bruce moreland escribió en mensaje <3512048b...@news.seanet.com>...

>You guys, as a group, didn't do much about Chris *when* he was doing
>rude things on CCC.
>
>But after he is silent for months, you kicked him out.
>

>Part of the problem is that you don't even know that Chris was kicked
>out. Take a look at the base post from Ed. Chris was kicked out.
>
>You guys did the same thing to Chris that you did to Rolf. The same
>mistake as last time.


Regarding the practical consequences, the difference between "kicking Chris
out" and "accepting his resignation" is not significant. Chris did resign
from the group of founders and asked for his access to CCC to be removed.
Weeks later we, in the group, wanted to clarify his status in CCC. During
the discussion, we all read his postings in RGCC regarding CCC. Then we took
the decision of accepting his requests, which in practice meant kicking him
out. If we would have just accepted his requests, we would have notified him
by email. Since we posted our decision on RGCC, I guess we did both: accept
his request and kick him out.

As for Rolf's exclusion of CCC, as Bob says it was the right decision even
if for the wrong reason. In other words, in the moment we should have
handled this better, but in my personal view excluding Rolf from any forum
is a blessing for that forum. Remember that one of the reasons behind the
creation of CCC was precisely Rolf.

We should take this kind of decisions based only in what is posted on CCC.
At times, though, it is difficult to stay cool under a shower of insults. We
should, I know. Thankfully we had to discuss about this kind of things only
twice in this half a year. Not much fun, by the way.

CCC is a new forum. The group of founders does not have a set of rules for
CCC. We have two goals: the more on topic, the better; no personal attacks
are allowed. To achieve these goals we play it by ear. As a consequence we
may take decisions while offended by insults and we may make mistakes,
hopefully fewer and fewer. On the other hand, the only way of not making
mistakes is not doing anything at all. I sincerely believe that your
contribution would help us to take the right decisions. This you won't
achieve by staying out and being critical after the fact. I am sure you
would be more than welcome to join again the group of founders.

Enrique


Robert Hyatt

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

In article <01bd528f$34b1a420$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Whittington <chrisw[nospam]@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article
><6emqen$rgs$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...

>> bruce moreland <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
>> : On 17 Mar 1998 08:33:15 GMT, Ed Schroder <in...@rebel.nl> wrote:
>>
>> :>Rolf Tueschen and Chris Whittington might be on the other hand just two

>> :>contributors to r.g.c.c., which makes the concept of the CCC board seem
>> :>even more attractive, since both of them are not welcome there.
>>

Our timing was "slow". We have been discussing this for way over a
month or two or three. Since the day you declared that you were "leaving"
and wanted your password removed. We were slow. No doubt about it. But
you didn't put any sort of time limit on your exit, saying "I'm leaving
and want my password removed, but if it isn't removed in 14 days, then
I'm not leaving." You simply said "bye, remove it, *period*"

Several of us sent you emails asking you to reconsider. Within the
last two weeks Steve had asked our opinion of his trying to contact you
directly to get you to reconsider. I believe, if you would like to see
our voting, that the majority were agreeing.

ANd then you went ape here again, calling me a liar, calling Dirk a
liar, revising history to suit your goals, and so forth. We had another
discussion and decided "hell with it, he's not worth the trouble..." this
after you emailed each of us asking for help in attacking Rolf here...

So I don't call that being "kicked out". I call it a case of your "cutting
off your own nose to spite your face."

The actions leading to your exit were *not* only things you did here on
r.g.c.c... you accused ICCA folks of outright improper behavior without
one scintilla of evidence. Remember that discussion? First class airplane
fares, 5 star hotels and the like? Then on to the long diatribe about
opening book preparation (aka book cooking). This led to the famous
"yellow card" as you soccer fans called it. That led to your famous red-
card response followed by the demand that your password be removed... followed
by more and more of your vitrolic posts here. Ultimately resulting in the
message Ed posted here as your password was finally removed...

>
>2. For the other piece of evidence please check the textual content of
>material sent to me by email within the last few days.
>
>You've made at least one false statement. Not just false, but directly
>misleading, deliberately misleading, and a direct 100% negation of reality.
>

>So, that makes you a liar, unfortunately.
>

I'm still waiting for this...

>
>>
>> We did, to a man, ask him to reconsider and continue posting on CCC as
>well
>> as on r.g.c.c... he refused.
>
>Not on one yellow card. And not to be moderated by an individual who is
>'with baseball-bats', compounds the language when challenged, thinks
>baseball-bats have a "good ring", suggests 'I go suck on a baseball-bat'
>and and and.

very handy to use something that happened *months* after you left, to
justify your leaving. Do you have a problem with temporal relationships
and understanding cause and effect, and what comes before what???

Chris Whittington

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to


Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article

<6evf0s$tpg$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...


> In article <01bd528f$34b1a420$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,
> Chris Whittington <chrisw[nospam]@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Thanks for your response.

When I read Elvis's well written and persuasive post yesterday, I decided
he had it right; his was a 'stop' message.

So I put my next prepared weapon aside; and decided it was time to get up
out of the gutter. It can't do your side much good to be feeling partly
responsible for this; and I think what I think, and have said it, no point
in repeating.

Your further response, after the Elvis message, is a shame. But its not
going to provoke me into another escalation.

I would understand if you wanted to fight it out over the liar allegations.
The first one you have, no doubt you disagree, I haven't read any response
yet. The second is already made, and concerns your spin on the
'kicking-out' process. You've already disagreed. The third, we can slugfest
over, if you want. I've not revealed it. Not a lot of purpose, from my
point of view.

So, for me, the battle, if that's the right word, moves away from the
gutter fighting; and onto another level. In many ways, Bob Hyatt, you're
not involved on the level I have in mind.

So long.

Chris Whittington


Bill Newton

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

In article <hayne-ya02348000...@news.crim.ca>,
Cameron Hayne <ha...@crim.ca> writes

>If one of my subordinates behaves badly at work, then I might
>fire them, but if he or she behaves badly at a party outside of
>work, I might dislike them intensely but I don't have the right to
>fire them.

Well you do in the UK! Quite rightly so IMO.

Imagine being at a party away from work and one of your employee
'subordinates' for whatever reason, physically assaults you.

You think you still have to employ this aggressor?

Not in the UK you don't. Summary dismissal from their place of work
would be a formality.

>Of course, I would be unlikely to hire someone whom I disliked.
>Hence entrance criteria are often different from exit criteria.

What's like or dislike got to do with it? Anybody can become a
member of CCC simply by asking for a password. I did. True, I didn't
think much of the club's format and having visited it twice I never
went back. But I could if I wanted to, even though I have upset
several of the 'founders' in the past with my comments in RGCC.

As far as I am aware there is not a trace of favouritism in deciding
just whom can become a subscriber, in fact, unless I'm mistaken, all
subscription applications are processed via a robot.

But many RGCC folk have now recognised the fragility of the CCC
setup and no doubt smile quietly to themselves as they see the
vitriolic arguments now raging between CCC 'founders', published in
full colour within RGCC!

Even CCC devotees themselves must now wonder why on earth they
have to go to RGCC to make their point of view known. Well I
suppose it really is a bit odd when you consider that CCC censors
(moderators) currently arguing within RGCC , would in fact have to
strike a blue pencil through (censor) their 'own' comments were they
to try and post them into CCC. Think about it.

'Ironic' is the word that springs to my mind, although I know a
number of folk to whose mind the word 'comical' would spring!

Finally on this one; dont you have to smile when you read Dirk
Frickenscmidt's RGCC post's directed at Chris W? By eck Dirk, it must
hurt an awful lot to grit your teeth AND bite your tongue
simultaneously!

Let's move on a little. One, just one subscriber has been removed
against his wishes from the the CCC list. Who? Well we all know it's
Rolf dont we? As a matter of interest I've written to Rolf on several
issues in the past and we usually end up flinging mild insults at each
other. I quite like the guy's style, but I should quickly add that he
post's an awful lot of things that I totally disagree with. He's a bit of
a nut who livens things up on occasion as do all trolls, but too often
he goes right over the top in making wild unsubstantiated
allegations against too many good folk.

I honestly don't think ANYBODY should take Rolf seriously, least of
all the folk he attacks! Silence is the best response to Rolf's
outbursts, if in fact you truly wish him to cease them. If you wish to
respond to him, then do it with a non serious post, he can be quite
amusing at times, none more so than when he tries to be serious:)

Having said that, I think CCC were wrong to remove him, or anybody
else for that matter, from their subscribers list. But all they really
illustrate in taking that action against Rolf is that they're afraid of
him. Yes, afraid of nutty unsubstantiated ramblings that can do no
harm to anybody inasmuch as the street cred rating for them is zero.

Next issue. I am no lover of CCC, I think it smacks of censorship, but
from what I read in RGCC it seems Chris Whittington,(by his own
admission) asked for his subscription to be discontinued. This wish
was subsequently complied with by CCC. From what I gather they
were a little tardy in their action but nonetheless they complied
with Chris's request.What's wrong with that?

You know, had CCC 'refused' to remove Chris from their subscribers
list I suspect that he would have every right to jump up and down in
indignation. But they haven't have they? They have complied with
his request. No problem:)

It's very obvious that there's been a huge personality clash within
CCC created I suspect by Chris W constantly changing his opinions. I
must say that I have always seen Chris in this light ever since I
initially subscribed to RGCC.

Maybe some folk will recall that in the past I have consistently
challenged him over his ever changing mind. I first spotted his
inconsistent approach many moons ago when he was all 'for'
attending Jakarta.

Then he changed his mind and expected everybody else to change
theirs. When this proved not to be the case he started bad
mouthing them. That's his Modus Operandi, he endeavours to bully
people into changing their opinions into supporting 'his' point of
view.

A talented chess Programmer? Yes!

A modicum of common sense? No!

He always was, for me, an accident waiting to happen. It's
happened. His current input into RGCC is indicative, by it's erratic
content, that of somebody on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

>I don't think you want to establish a private club where
>participation is by invitation only as this would exclude some
>people whose contributions you might value.

Nor have they done, or ever sought to do this..

>In summary, I think
>that CCC should be an open discussion forum where the only
>criterion for participation is that the discussions remain focussed
>on computer chess.

Ye gods Cameron!! This is where we all came in!

Regards.
--
Bill Newton

elvi...@owl-online.de

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 15:32:31 GMT, "Chris Whittington"
<chrisw[nospam]@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article

><6evf0s$tpg$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...


>> In article <01bd528f$34b1a420$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,
>> Chris Whittington <chrisw[nospam]@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>

>Thanks for your response.
>
>When I read Elvis's well written and persuasive post yesterday, I decided
>he had it right; his was a 'stop' message.
>
>So I put my next prepared weapon aside; and decided it was time to get up
>out of the gutter. It can't do your side much good to be feeling partly
>responsible for this; and I think what I think, and have said it, no point
>in repeating.
>
>Your further response, after the Elvis message, is a shame. But its not
>going to provoke me into another escalation.
>
>I would understand if you wanted to fight it out over the liar allegations.
>The first one you have, no doubt you disagree, I haven't read any response
>yet. The second is already made, and concerns your spin on the
>'kicking-out' process. You've already disagreed. The third, we can slugfest
>over, if you want. I've not revealed it. Not a lot of purpose, from my
>point of view.
>
>So, for me, the battle, if that's the right word, moves away from the
>gutter fighting; and onto another level. In many ways, Bob Hyatt, you're
>not involved on the level I have in mind.
>
>So long.
>
>Chris Whittington
>

I really congratulate you on this mature + balanced decision, Chris.
And if it " only " were for peace of mind......
besides : clearly for the benefit of this NG

ELVIS

Robert Hyatt

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

In article <01bd54dd$edea41e0$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,

Chris Whittington <chrisw[nospam]@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article
><6evf0s$tpg$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...

>> In article <01bd528f$34b1a420$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,
>> Chris Whittington <chrisw[nospam]@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Thanks for your response.
>
>When I read Elvis's well written and persuasive post yesterday, I decided
>he had it right; his was a 'stop' message.
>
>So I put my next prepared weapon aside; and decided it was time to get up
>out of the gutter. It can't do your side much good to be feeling partly
>responsible for this; and I think what I think, and have said it, no point
>in repeating.
>
>Your further response, after the Elvis message, is a shame. But its not
>going to provoke me into another escalation.
>
>I would understand if you wanted to fight it out over the liar allegations.
>The first one you have, no doubt you disagree, I haven't read any response
>yet. The second is already made, and concerns your spin on the
>'kicking-out' process. You've already disagreed. The third, we can slugfest
>over, if you want. I've not revealed it. Not a lot of purpose, from my
>point of view.


I didn't "spin" the kicking out issue. Simple question: "did you, or
did you not specifically and unconditionally tell us to remove your
password from CCC?"

A simple yes or no will do. If yes, then we didn't "kick", you "left."
If "no" then either my email messages from you were forged by someone
else, or I am lying. But if I am, I am doing it unknowingly, because
I have several messages from you, your domain name, etc...

your serve...

>
>So, for me, the battle, if that's the right word, moves away from the
>gutter fighting; and onto another level. In many ways, Bob Hyatt, you're
>not involved on the level I have in mind.
>
>So long.
>
>Chris Whittington
>


Suits me. I plan on moving "up". You obviously want to go the other
way, which is fine by me...

IE you want to allude to some "dark thing" (item 3) that I've supposedly
done (another lie, implied). No wonder you don't want to discuss it,
however. Just like the other two "lies" you said you had evidence of.
So if you want to play that game, take your ball and go home rather than
risk exposure, you have to make your own decisions...

But "lie" I haven't... Except by your definition, where you want to take
what I (or other CCC folks) have said, and twist that around to suit your
"reality" and then prove that your twisted version was a lie. That's one
way to prove a point, I suppose. Not a convincing one, however...

Personally, given the choice of talking with Rolf or you, I'd take Rolf.
I believe he might come around one day and be a reasonable participant
here. Seeing how you have turned on your friends, I'd hesitate to put
myself in their position if I have a choice...

nob...@nsm.htp.org

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 16:29:25 GMT elvi...@owl-online.de wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 15:32:31 GMT, "Chris Whittington"


><chrisw[nospam]@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article

>><6evf0s$tpg$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...


>>> In article <01bd528f$34b1a420$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,
>>> Chris Whittington <chrisw[nospam]@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>

>>Thanks for your response.
>>
>>When I read Elvis's well written and persuasive post yesterday, I decided
>>he had it right; his was a 'stop' message.
>>
>>So I put my next prepared weapon aside; and decided it was time to get up
>>out of the gutter. It can't do your side much good to be feeling partly
>>responsible for this; and I think what I think, and have said it, no point
>>in repeating.
>>
>>Your further response, after the Elvis message, is a shame. But its not
>>going to provoke me into another escalation.
>>
>>I would understand if you wanted to fight it out over the liar allegations.
>>The first one you have, no doubt you disagree, I haven't read any response
>>yet. The second is already made, and concerns your spin on the
>>'kicking-out' process. You've already disagreed. The third, we can slugfest
>>over, if you want. I've not revealed it. Not a lot of purpose, from my
>>point of view.
>>

>>So, for me, the battle, if that's the right word, moves away from the
>>gutter fighting; and onto another level. In many ways, Bob Hyatt, you're
>>not involved on the level I have in mind.
>>
>>So long.
>>
>>Chris Whittington
>>

>I really congratulate you on this mature + balanced decision, Chris.
>And if it " only " were for peace of mind......
>besides : clearly for the benefit of this NG
>
>ELVIS

So, after the bloodshed, what's next? Chris, are you leaving RGCC in
disgust, or will you continue to contribute - to chess discussions, that
is?


Robert Hyatt

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

In article <dsbamfAD...@notwen.demon.co.uk>,

You overlook the reason *I* respond. If no one responds, and new
folks only get "the distorted view" of what's going on, that doesn't
serve a good purpose either. It is a pain to respond to Chris about
his behavior, but it's also a pain to not respond and let accusations
pile up. It's a lose-lose situation, but in this case, it is a bigger
"lose" to say nothing...

Chris Whittington

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to


Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article

<6f0qj1$8u1$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...
> In article <01bd54dd$edea41e0$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,


> Chris Whittington <chrisw[nospam]@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article

> ><6evf0s$tpg$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...


> >> In article <01bd528f$34b1a420$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,
> >> Chris Whittington <chrisw[nospam]@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >

> >Thanks for your response.
> >
> >When I read Elvis's well written and persuasive post yesterday, I
decided
> >he had it right; his was a 'stop' message.
> >
> >So I put my next prepared weapon aside; and decided it was time to get
up
> >out of the gutter. It can't do your side much good to be feeling partly
> >responsible for this; and I think what I think, and have said it, no
point
> >in repeating.
> >
> >Your further response, after the Elvis message, is a shame. But its not
> >going to provoke me into another escalation.
> >
> >I would understand if you wanted to fight it out over the liar
allegations.
> >The first one you have, no doubt you disagree, I haven't read any
response
> >yet. The second is already made, and concerns your spin on the
> >'kicking-out' process. You've already disagreed. The third, we can
slugfest
> >over, if you want. I've not revealed it. Not a lot of purpose, from my
> >point of view.
>
>

> I didn't "spin" the kicking out issue. Simple question: "did you, or
> did you not specifically and unconditionally tell us to remove your
> password from CCC?"
>
> A simple yes or no will do. If yes, then we didn't "kick", you "left."
> If "no" then either my email messages from you were forged by someone
> else, or I am lying. But if I am, I am doing it unknowingly, because
> I have several messages from you, your domain name, etc...
>
> your serve...
>
> >

> >So, for me, the battle, if that's the right word, moves away from the
> >gutter fighting; and onto another level. In many ways, Bob Hyatt, you're
> >not involved on the level I have in mind.
> >
> >So long.
> >
> >Chris Whittington
> >
>
>

> Suits me. I plan on moving "up". You obviously want to go the other
> way, which is fine by me...
>
> IE you want to allude to some "dark thing" (item 3) that I've supposedly
> done (another lie, implied). No wonder you don't want to discuss it,
> however. Just like the other two "lies" you said you had evidence of.
> So if you want to play that game, take your ball and go home rather than
> risk exposure, you have to make your own decisions...
>


Ok, if you insist. It would be unreasonable to leave item 3 if you want it
clarified.

Three days ago, I sent you this email, in response to the allegation
contained within your indented snippet. The email is at the end of this
post.

To date I have not received the courtesy of a reply.

A copy of the email (with a minor 'locating' explanation) was also sent to
Enrique. He hasn't replied to it either.

There has been no 'bounce' message from either email.


You were explaining the decision that you deny is a kicking-off to Bruce
Moreland. You were therefore placing acts between your 'yellow' card and
the 'kicking-off'. Ie between late November 1997 and Match 1998.

In this time, I have not posted one single item onto CCC. Nor do I have any
knowledge at all of making any attacks, personal or otherwise, on any
'well-known programmer who posts neither on CCC nor rgcc'. Nor do I have
any knowledge of any 'asks to stop'.

I do have knowledge of critical posts made about your CCC. And about posts
in general support of Rolf Tueschen.

The only attacks made, personal, that I'm aware of, are going on the CCC
board, sometimes spilling over to rgcc, in relation to Fritz5. And I'm not
exactly responsible for these.

The other personal attacks that I'm aware of were made on the Mchess team
in CCC. Apart from the fact these were (a) not made by me, I was supporting
the Mchess team; and (b) before the time of your yellow card; I can't see
that they would be relevant in this case.

So, from your lack of courtesy in replying, and also Enriques failure to
reply, I am rather assuming that the original allegation was an untrue
character assassination. Or lie as I would put it.


I think what I think. I am not interested in slugfest-ing with you. You can
deny it, or say what you want.

For me, Elvis was correct that its time to stop. So I've stopped. With you.

The floor is yours. But remember, you were contexting into the time frame
of yellow card to 'kick-out'.

Chris Whittington

Email sent to Robert Hyatt (with almost idencal email to Enrique), sent on
18 March 1998 at 20.31 GMT.
......

----------
> From: Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
> Subject: Re: Rebuttal to Chris Whittington
> Date: 18 March 1998 20:12
>
> bruce moreland <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:

< snipped >

>
> I don't agree with your wording above. We didn't "suddenly kick Chris
> out." He left in a huff a good while ago when he started his latest
> restore Rolf or else tirade. We've had long email discussions about
> whether to ignore his stuff and not remove his password in the hope he
> would return. It was finally decided, after much email traffic, that
> we should simply do what he asked and close that chapter on things.
>
> But he was *not* kicked off... unless you accept the idea of
> "self-kicked". he wasn't asked to leave.
>

> He *was* asked to stop
> the continual personal attacks against a well-known chess programmer
> that doesn't even post on CCC nor here.
>

Excuse me.

I'm not in any way conversant with what you are talking about.

1. Who is this programmer ?

2. What am I supposed to have said that constitutes a 'continued personal
attack' ?

3. In what way was I asked to stop ?

Chris Whittington

End of sent email
=============

Chris Whittington

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to


Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article

<6f0qj1$8u1$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...
> In article <01bd54dd$edea41e0$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,


> Chris Whittington <chrisw[nospam]@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Robert Hyatt <hy...@cis.uab.edu> wrote in article

> ><6evf0s$tpg$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...


> >> In article <01bd528f$34b1a420$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,
> >> Chris Whittington <chrisw[nospam]@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >


OK, you'ld like an answer ..............

On the 15 March Enrique sent me an email to announce your CCC board
decision.

In this email he wrote, inter alia, "It was me who proposed to kick you
out."

So this tells me that you all use, in the CCC group of founders, the
operating expression 'kick you out' or 'kicking-out', as a description of
the process. This wording was also used at the time of the Rolf expulsion,
that is when it wasn't being referred to as 'killing'.

Additionally, Bruce Moreland used the wording 'booted out'. You replied
using the 'kicking out' expression. This identical verbiage with Enrique
confirms, IMO, that 'kicking out' was indeed your operational expression;
and a true description of the action.

The decision to term it, for public consumption, as a 'resignation
acceptance' is no more than PR spin. Or, if I'm in an uncharitable mood, a
lie.

Say what you want. This is my analysis and I'm sticking to it.

Now, lastly .....

You (Bob) and I have thoroughly disliked each other for ever since meeting
in cybersapce about two years ago.
Occasionally we have attempted some sort of contact, but it has always
slipped back into mutual dislike.

There have been, and are no, points of contact at all.

probably we differ on just about anything and everything.

If you think A = B and A not= C; you can probably bet on it that I'll be
simultaneously thinking A not= B and A =C.

Same data, different thoughts.


Now back to the 'kick-out'. It was that in one sense, but in another not. I
hadn't posted to CCC for four months. I very rarely read it, and didn't act
on any information in it. I wasn't there. So the removal of password had no
material significance, to you, neither to me.

It was an emotional act, of no material significance, dressed up as a
'committee' decision. In fact it was a flame.

What it really meant was:

"Whittington, we hate you, you betrayed us by declaring for Tueschen, you
can eff off, we never want to see you again"

So, this little conflict, although it appears to be between you and I,
isn't. You and I have no emotional involvement (thank god, I hear you say);
no contact points, just dislike. Its basically between me and the hurt
individuals. Thorsten (mainly), and Schroder (to a lesser, but significant
degree). Frinkenschmidt and Enrique a little, Moritz slightly; but
certainly not with you (Bob).

It took place entirely because of the 15 March rgcc post, in which, for the
first time, I basically came out in declaration with Rolf. That had never
happened before. Before was always with reservations, watered down. But the
15 March post was the key. Not anything else. The sin was the siding with
the enemy; which your guys saw as a betrayal. Everything else is
peripheral. Bob, you know that you and I could viciously flame each other
here on rgcc forever, without any repercussion on CCC. Its the mention of
Tueschen that is the key. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

Now I suggest we (Bob and I) stop fighting. As Elvis says its action +
reaction + reaction on and on until nuclear warfare. No purpose. You know
what I think of you, I know what you think of me. Mutual dislike, hatred
even.

Will that do for yes or no ?

Chris Whittington


Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

"Chris Whittington" <chrisw[nospam]@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:


>When I read Elvis's well written and persuasive post yesterday, I decided
>he had it right; his was a 'stop' message.

>So I put my next prepared weapon aside;

Chris, that's a mystery.

There comes one Elvis-Detlev or Detlef, anyway, and tells you a
trivial thing. That we always have a higher goal in life. How boring.
Exactly Elvis had to teach us. The aint no satisfaction guy with the
baseball bat phantasy.

And you stop in the middle of a nice coming out of Robert Hyatt.

I still dont get it.

Look, months before when you falsely supported Ed Schroder with his
sueing threat and finaly court trial, you could also have focussed on
higher goals. Especially one of more truth and veracity. And probably
much unhappy happening could have been evitated...


But this here is NOT sound. Once you quickly come by and appologized
to Elvis who had coughed something about I export into the whole
world... And so you Chris had not the allowance to write that
Elvis-Detlef preferred baseball bat swinging??

Well, but I had read the same in Elvis' few posts. And I repeat you
statement in case Elvis had problems with hearing from you...


And now Elvis comes with sort of hidden threat...?? And you surprise
us after a year long war that humans can also look at higher goals.
And you stop telling Bob the truth, that he's a liar?? Cant you see
that Elvis is only a spooky proxy who was sent to--- yes, tell me to
threaten you somehow??

Chris, I want to know the truth. And I want to back you. Of course you
sit between all chairs (German expression) after your turning from a
Saulus to Paulus. But to change from a bunch of fascist censors, who
united around a little neo-nazi and a Dutch criminal, to the truth
that I was censored with your own help without sufficient reasons, to
be exact, without any reason at all, that is not a bad thing, no?

In some time, maybe weeks or months, the clique will come crawling on
the floor, both nipples kissing the soil, and they wil ask you to
excuse them. I know that for sure. Simply because they have no case.
No cause. No facts. No evidence.

Of course we've all errors, mistakes. We are humans. I have also many
faults. And what the fascists are doing right now, they threaten you
with stuff you once wrote/did. As if you had changed your position and
had pretended to be innocent!


Oh, the cripples in mind. How low will this go down into the gutter??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I want to write here without hesitation about something I wrote only
in emails about. And that's the background, the real event behind the
CCC hamact, or tragicomedy as another great moral philosopher of rgcc
dtated today.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When you in first rank and the others decided to leave rgcc and to
found ccc on ICD that was a great challenge. I can only compare it
with the famous MILGRAM experiments in the fifties.

The question was simply. Would the academics, the highly respected
experts of computer chess realize that they were no longer fighting
against a single Rolf and his angrying postsings, but with the devil
in themselves, so-called Mephisto to speak with the German poet
Goethe? Could they detect that in fighting Rolf they were suddenly
using inhuman methods, disgustfully violating the dignity of
THEMSELVES and no longer Rolf alone??

No.

Would they, the uncrowned kings of data, evidence and testing, think
and rethink for some moments if their war was still a justified and
honestly measured tool to punish a single opposing human being??

No.

They behaved ALL like all members of little peer-groups react under
threats.

Threats as we know by now, that were simply the manifestation of the
truth. Your little German son HAD propagated putting people he
disliked into concentration camps, yes, he even wanted that these
people would be killed in some senseless wars. The backyard dog had
posted the new idea of signing people of opposite political opinion in
the streets. And we know exactly that this is NOT new for Germany.
After the Jews were stigmatized with their yellow stars.
And Ed did sue me without a cause. I had NOT called him a Nazi. But he
wrote to the court, "yes, it's true, I insulted the defendant (!) as a
pig. My third or was it the second character assassination...". ROTFL.
And Hyatt lost two contests I held for the whole rgcc. Nobody could
provide a proof for Hyatt's claims that I had posted in all of my
posts at least one lie and one insult. But I had claime, that I had
never lied and never insulted or attacked someone who had never
written something shakey about me myself...


And now a baseball batter Elvis should be our mediator. Our peace
angel??

In our case here, where 9 or ten fascists manipulate the whole chess
group we two are in minority. Good to know the DoDo at our sides. But
one thing cant function. It's true the Revolution frisst ihre Kinder,
revolution eats its own children, but if I see it right we simply cant
eat us yet. We are condemned to go on. Let em elvis export to the
northpole, but dont be a sissy and kissing his shoes. Period.


Read the Hyatt hyenna, he's already arguing that your fate was well
thought because you had once written about fife-star hotels for the
ICCA teamsters. Levy and Morsland. :)


Chris, I'm at your side. You're only responsible before your own
conscience. And no Detlef (!!) can put you dowm Raise your head again
and fight the fascist censors. Doing nothing is loss of ll
self-respect. Period.

The Pope of all Dragons


bruce moreland

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:53:24 +0100, "Enrique Irazoqui"
<en...@intercom.es> wrote:

>As for Rolf's exclusion of CCC, as Bob says it was the right decision even
>if for the wrong reason. In other words, in the moment we should have
>handled this better, but in my personal view excluding Rolf from any forum
>is a blessing for that forum. Remember that one of the reasons behind the
>creation of CCC was precisely Rolf.

CCC exists not specifically because of Rolf, but rather because it is
able to defend itself against people like Rolf.

I would rather see you kick people out because they cause problems,
rather than kicking them out because they might cause problems, or in
retaliation for their poor behavior in places where you have no
enforcement power.

There is no need for preemptive strikes against these people, you can
just as easily wait to see if they will violate the group's rules, and
do something against them then.

To kick people out who don't do anything visibly against the rules of
CCC opens you to charges that rather than defending CCC, you are
punishing people for reasons that are your own.

I would hope that you guys didn't join that group in order to get some
extra clout against people who don't even write in CCC.

I think you should make a rule that you won't kick *anyone* out of CCC
unless they transgress in CCC. I would have insisted on this long ago
except that it never occurred to me that you would do otherwise.

It is very serious to kick someone out of CCC, since you take away
their ability to read, which harms nobody, as well as write.

bruce


Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

"Enrique Irazoqui" <en...@intercom.es> wrote:

>I sincerely believe that your
>contribution would help us to take the right decisions. This you won't
>achieve by staying out and being critical after the fact. I am sure you
>would be more than welcome to join again the group of founders.

You are quite right, Enrique. Good post, good proposition.

Of course, it would be the best solution to include Rolf in the clique
of founder fathers.

However, I need some a p o l o g i e s before I could help
you out of the actual difficulties. You know, if you ask me like this,
I would also recommand to think about the time you -- as cc experts --
waste when talking off-topic about me and Chris. If you invited both
of us, we could do the work, think about ourselves and *you*, I mean,
your collegues, because you are mainly an amateur tester who never had
played a game of chess. You remember what you once wrote to me in
email? When I begged you to show me some of your most famous jewels...


I repeat. You and the whole gang of fascist censors apologize here in
public, then you invite Chris and me into the clique, and then you
have time again to do important testing with FRITZ5 for example...!!


++---------(;---)===


Your truly Pope of RGCC *AND* CCC

>Enrique


Chris Whittington

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to


bruce moreland <bru...@seanet.com> wrote in article
<35142f67....@news.seanet.com>...


> On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:53:24 +0100, "Enrique Irazoqui"
> <en...@intercom.es> wrote:
>
> >As for Rolf's exclusion of CCC, as Bob says it was the right decision
even
> >if for the wrong reason. In other words, in the moment we should have
> >handled this better, but in my personal view excluding Rolf from any
forum
> >is a blessing for that forum. Remember that one of the reasons behind
the
> >creation of CCC was precisely Rolf.
>
> CCC exists not specifically because of Rolf, but rather because it is
> able to defend itself against people like Rolf.

I think this is not quite right.

It possibly should exist to defend itself against people, euphemistically,
like Rolf.

But,

it *does* exist specifically because of Rolf. In a sense, its an armed camp
*against* Rolf. Rolf has been demonised into the source of all evil. To
agree with him is to side with the devil in this view. The 'game' with him
is zero sum. Any plus for Rolf is a minus for CCC, no, a minus for CCC
*Founders*, and vice versa. That's why the expulsion sin is "anything that
supports Rolf, and reduces CCC (again in the zero-sum view), in any place;
CCC, rgcc, the BBC, or The Times".

Under crisis, and, because of this one, fatal flaw, their moral conscience
failed.

Twice.

Chris Whittington

Robert Hyatt

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98