a new place to discuss (!)

29 views
Skip to first unread message

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

Today we saw the birth of a new URL.

A group "founded" a new chess club.

Three of the founders are proven character assassins. (Schroder, Czub
and Berger. Mader with a final apology.)

Three are supporters of nazi-like propaganda, at least they defend its
propagator against all critic. (Schroder, Czub and Whittington.)

Almost all of them are against free speech here on usenet.

Because they confuse their mostly respected cc expert status with the
undisturbed possibility to write about gazolining people, throwing them
in concentration camps, signing them with highly visible marks in public
and extinguishing them from public discours. With the exception of
Berger they are *all* famous for their own wildly off-topic stuff here
in rgcc. But this freedom they could only imagine for themselves, but
not for the broader public. Understandable because most of them make
some money out of the hobby. So that is the reason for their elitarian
cheat.

What they forgot is simply the culture of a scientifical discours. Where
*all* statements could be seriously challenged. They wanted instead to
decide on their own what should be discussed. (This will be the reason
for one of them losing his scientifical standard and image. Shit.)


Usenet is now free of these mostly criminal character assassinators.
Especially Schroder, the author of Rebel.


mclane

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:

>Today we saw the birth of a new URL.

right

>A group "founded" a new chess club.

No - a forum where we can speak without YOU and your offending posts !
This was the idea !

>Three of the founders are proven character assassins. (Schroder, Czub
>and Berger. Mader with a final apology.)

I can only laugh about your above statement.
Mader is a fine man.
And Moritz too.
You are ill Rolf. Take your pills.

>Three are supporters of nazi-like propaganda, at least they defend its
>propagator against all critic. (Schroder, Czub and Whittington.)

!! :-)

>Almost all of them are against free speech here on usenet.

This is of course a lie. We are for free speech, but we are against
your speech !
We are not against you because we are against free speech, we are
against your posts. The one thing has no influence to the thing.


>Because they confuse their mostly respected cc expert status with the
>undisturbed possibility to write about gazolining people, throwing them
>in concentration camps, signing them with highly visible marks in public
>and extinguishing them from public discours. With the exception of
>Berger they are *all* famous for their own wildly off-topic stuff here
>in rgcc.

This is not true. Neither is Bruce famous for his off-topic stuff nor
is Bob famous for his off-topic-stuff.
You are wrong.

>But this freedom they could only imagine for themselves, but
>not for the broader public. Understandable because most of them make
>some money out of the hobby. So that is the reason for their elitarian
>cheat.

There is no cheat. Of course WE ALL MAKE MONEY out of whatever, in
opposite to you we are financing our live with WORK and we are not
living from social-welfare !
But we don't have to cheat. We are doing what any human beeing in this
society does: financing his life !


>What they forgot is simply the culture of a scientifical discours. Where
>*all* statements could be seriously challenged. They wanted instead to
>decide on their own what should be discussed. (This will be the reason
>for one of them losing his scientifical standard and image. Shit.)

Right. We want discussion without offending and insulting ranting like
90 % of your posts fill this newsgroup with your garbage.


>Usenet is now free of these mostly criminal character assassinators.
>Especially Schroder, the author of Rebel.

Ha - Ed will take an eye on this statement, I am for sure.

Have a good day Rolf !
And we will hopefully not see us any further !! And you know why ! :-)


Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

In a very long post about DB failures the following was hidden and left
without comment.

In connection with the new order club led by known criminals (character
assassination mainly) the pretended reason, off topics and insults by
Tueschen alone, is taken to task. And up to now proven as a big lie.
=======================================================


[Tueschen wrote]

>: Or is it secret data for slaves only? With each sunday a service with
>: being forced to take part?

[Hyatt wrote]

>We had a discussion about whether we'd even allow you to participate.
>I actually stood on your side of this discussion, thinking everyone ought
>to have the chance to read/post there,

[Tueschen wrote]

I didn't enter usenet just to become a slave of some idle censors. What
I wanted is a read only pass through. Because it seems to be important
to follow some debates there as you stated. It's a pity that people try
to change usenet into a secret order.

Again, show me a way to read only. But I wont take part and support an
elitarian, possibly led and censored by criminals, club. You could do
that by email like your crafty information system. But a censored
discussion group with passwords provided by possibly those criminals is
no longer usenet. For me the main motivation to create a closed group
came from commercially interested/involved members of rgcc. But a closet
is totally in opposition what business people need. They need the
contact to the big public audience. And not a monastery of a few chosen
slaves. Bob, you don't like science. You may love cc, but not science
and open discussions. Because I already gave you evidence that you miss
a lot of questions. And also statements. I did once claim that I did
*never* attack (not to speak insult) someone who had never wrote against
or about me with negative tendency. I wrote **never**. Now, your simple
job had to be to either support this or to refutate it by *one single*
counter example (POPPER). But as it seems you are not really intrerested
in the truth. You would accept a criminal character assassin and
supporter of nazi-like posting people like Schroder just because he's a
well known programmer too. You even defend him in a way aginst me who
only wanted satisfaction for a mean insult. This is below all standards
of scientifical soundness.

Therefore I ask you precisely, did you never read my claim or did you
have another opinion based on concrete data? Or are you only interested
in cc, but apart from that a collegue could be whatever. For instance a
character assassin?

[Hyatt wrote]

>until they overstepped the boundaries
>we have established. I now regret this decision...

[Tueschen wrote]

You don't have to. This shit will not be supported actively by me.
Perhaps after the criminals have left that group too.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(But you write you argued in (my) favor. I dont know why. But anyway. I
just want to remember you to the many peace offers *I* made. So I think
you are in frequent secret email communication too. Just wanted to say
that my goal is not to save my behavior to the next century. But without
a clear excuse for the insults and some further details I will never
forget what Schroder did against me. Let's see who can live with that
longer. The independant intellectual or the money making businessman.

Just my thoughts about the actual situation.)


Andreas Mader

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

Rolf Tueschen wrote in rec.games.chess.computer:

[Quoting begin]

... Three of the founders are proven character assassins....
... Three are supporters of nazi-like propaganda, at least they defend
its
propagator against all critic...
... Almost all of them are against free speech here on usenet....
... Usenet is now free of these mostly criminal character assassinators.

Especially Schroder, the author of Rebel...
...In connection with the new order club led by known criminals
(character
assassination mainly)...
...This shit will not be supported actively by me. Perhaps after the
criminals have left that group too...

[Quoting end]

Rolf, you are quite right! If I were you I NEVER would support the new
founded Computer Chess Club!

Best wishes
Andreas


Robert Hyatt

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:

: Bob, you don't like science. You may love cc, but not science


: and open discussions. Because I already gave you evidence that you miss
: a lot of questions.

I wonder how you'd know? Since you obviously don't understand exactly
what science is, and how it is different from rumor, speculation, and
innuendo...

: You don't have to. This shit will not be supported actively by me.


: Perhaps after the criminals have left that group too.

Fortunately the "criminal(s)" have *not yet* made it to that group.


Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

hyatt@crafty (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

>Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:

>: Bob, you don't like science. You may love cc, but not science
>: and open discussions. Because I already gave you evidence that you miss
>: a lot of questions.

>I wonder how you'd know?

That's the difference between us. I talk about your non-love. But you
come up with another ad hominem. Stating my not-understanding. That's a
big difference. Think about the difference of the two statements.

But I have evidence for your not reacting to data you dont like. Up to
now you never reacted to my statement about Benjamin. He lied. And you
can't deny that. So you prefer to stay mute about it. That is undecent.

Then you once claimed you answer all questions. That's true mostly. But
not in all cases. I gave you two examples. Also here you didn't react
actually at all.

But instead you are always there like a proxy when someone wrote about
DB. Then you are there day and night. Wonder why? What is your job
there? ure, you have your income as teacher at the university, but what
is your special interest in DB/IBM?????


> Since you obviously don't understand exactly
>what science is, and how it is different from rumor, speculation, and
>innuendo...

>: You don't have to. This shit will not be supported actively by me.
>: Perhaps after the criminals have left that group too.

>Fortunately the "criminal(s)" have *not yet* made it to that group.

Also here I asked you how I could achieve to read only in that group. I
dont want to write there. What is a special control for if one reads
passively? Do you want access to the persons privately? What is this
method for? Open the read only possibility for all.

You see. Clear questions already yesterday, but no answers.

Science for me has a lot to do with collecting data. I collect answering
posts. But i do also research about those parts of letters that never
get an answer... Sometimes it tells you more than thousand pages of
looong answers. Often people try to hide by pretending answering all...

Robert Hyatt

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

Dr. Dirk Frickenschmidt (di...@jimknopf.wupper.de) wrote:
: Hi Rolf,

: I'm very sorry Bob forgot to mention me in the group of nine or ten.

: Maybe after wiping the foam from your mouth you have something nice to say
: about me as well?
: My good reputation will suffer if you haven't :-)

: CCC works really fine: lot of on topics from many people about computer
: chess, written in a civilized style: no outrageous bs like the one you just
: produced once more.

: Anyone being able to behave (most are!) or wishing not to to be bothered by
: the kind of junk mail you just produced is invited...

: www.icd.com.ccc

: Kind regards from Dirk


Your omission was my error. There was a "clamor" to get the post we
had agreed on out. I didn't get your "O.K. to post my name" until it
was too late. I decided to err on the side of conservatism and not
post a name without approval. My appologies.. :)

Bob


mclane

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:

>In a very long post about DB failures the following was hidden and left
>without comment.

>In connection with the new order club led by known criminals (character


>assassination mainly) the pretended reason, off topics and insults by
>Tueschen alone, is taken to task. And up to now proven as a big lie.
>=======================================================


> [Tueschen wrote]

>>: Or is it secret data for slaves only? With each sunday a service with
>>: being forced to take part?

> [Hyatt wrote]

>>We had a discussion about whether we'd even allow you to participate.
>>I actually stood on your side of this discussion, thinking everyone ought
>>to have the chance to read/post there,

>[Tueschen wrote]

>I didn't enter usenet just to become a slave of some idle censors.

Nobody is idle just because he tries to keep RT shut his mouth !

>What
>I wanted is a read only pass through. Because it seems to be important
>to follow some debates there as you stated. It's a pity that people try
>to change usenet into a secret order.

>Again, show me a way to read only. But I wont take part and support an
>elitarian, possibly led and censored by criminals, club.

Nobody censors unless you try to post your insults !
If you behave civilized - anything is ok. I don't think that you are
able to behave this way, but it is up to you.


>You could do
>that by email like your crafty information system. But a censored
>discussion group with passwords provided by possibly those criminals is
>no longer usenet.

Right. But we need the password when we have to throw you out because
you act against the charta of the club.

> For me the main motivation to create a closed group
>came from commercially interested/involved members of rgcc.

Wrong. The idea came from those guys YOU attacked !
So this club is a reaction, a directly reaction of you throwing mud
and offending insults towards posters of rgcc.

>But a closet
>is totally in opposition what business people need. They need the
>contact to the big public audience. And not a monastery of a few chosen

>slaves. Bob, you don't like science. You may love cc, but not science


>and open discussions. Because I already gave you evidence that you miss
>a lot of questions.

You give nothing Rolf.

>And also statements. I did once claim that I did
>*never* attack (not to speak insult) someone who had never wrote against
>or about me with negative tendency. I wrote **never**. Now, your simple
>job had to be to either support this or to refutate it by *one single*
>counter example (POPPER).

I don't think you have the IQ to understand popper. This needs a
little more brain and no offending and psychotic mind.

>But as it seems you are not really intrerested
>in the truth.

And now ? Again attacking Bob, the only guy really talking with you
after all ?

>You would accept a criminal character assassin and
>supporter of nazi-like posting people like Schroder just because he's a
>well known programmer too.

Aha. Now ou attack Bob.

>You even defend him in a way aginst me who
>only wanted satisfaction for a mean insult.

You want to be accepted in rgcc as a victim. You are not a victim. You
are an ill perpetrator.

>This is below all standards
>of scientifical soundness.

You and science ?


>Therefore I ask you precisely, did you never read my claim or did you
>have another opinion based on concrete data? Or are you only interested
>in cc, but apart from that a collegue could be whatever. For instance a
>character assassin?

Schlimmer als a character assassin ist wohl ein Charakterschwein !

> [Hyatt wrote]

>>until they overstepped the boundaries
>>we have established. I now regret this decision...

!! :-) I still have to smile reading this !

> [Tueschen wrote]

>You don't have to. This shit will not be supported actively by me.
>Perhaps after the criminals have left that group too.

We wait that you leave any group !

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>(But you write you argued in (my) favor. I dont know why. But anyway. I
>just want to remember you to the many peace offers *I* made.

A piece offer from you is worth what ?
Nothing.

>So I think
>you are in frequent secret email communication too. Just wanted to say
>that my goal is not to save my behavior to the next century. But without
>a clear excuse for the insults and some further details I will never
>forget what Schroder did against me. Let's see who can live with that
>longer. The independant intellectual or the money making businessman.

We ! Cause we have build a NEW forum where people like you CANNOT
throw mud like you still do here. We have build a peaceful place full
of information where Rolf Tueschen is only allowed to stay if he
closes his mouth ...

>Just my thoughts about the actual situation.)

Nobody is interested in your thoughts. CCC has more threads/hits than
rgcc ! And this means: we have more information and NO TUESCHEN !!!
Yeah !


Dr. Dirk Frickenschmidt

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

Hi Rolf,

I'm very sorry Bob forgot to mention me in the group of nine or ten.

Maybe after wiping the foam from your mouth you have something nice to say
about me as well?
My good reputation will suffer if you haven't :-)

CCC works really fine: lot of on topics from many people about computer
chess, written in a civilized style: no outrageous bs like the one you just
produced once more.

Anyone being able to behave (most are!) or wishing not to to be bothered by
the kind of junk mail you just produced is invited...

www.icd.com.ccc

Kind regards from Dirk


> Today we saw the birth of a new URL.
>

> A group "founded" a new chess club.
>

> Three of the founders are proven character assassins. (Schroder, Czub
> and Berger. Mader with a final apology.)
>

> Three are supporters of nazi-like propaganda, at least they defend its

> propagator against all critic. (Schroder, Czub and Whittington.)
>

> Almost all of them are against free speech here on usenet.
>

> Because they confuse their mostly respected cc expert status with the
> undisturbed possibility to write about gazolining people, throwing them
> in concentration camps, signing them with highly visible marks in public
> and extinguishing them from public discours. With the exception of
> Berger they are *all* famous for their own wildly off-topic stuff here

> in rgcc. But this freedom they could only imagine for themselves, but


> not for the broader public. Understandable because most of them make
> some money out of the hobby. So that is the reason for their elitarian
> cheat.
>

> What they forgot is simply the culture of a scientifical discours. Where
> *all* statements could be seriously challenged. They wanted instead to
> decide on their own what should be discussed. (This will be the reason
> for one of them losing his scientifical standard and image. Shit.)
>
>

Steven Schwartz

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

On 9 Oct 97 16:39:27 GMT, "Dr. Dirk Frickenschmidt"
<di...@jimknopf.wupper.de> wrote:

>CCC works really fine: lot of on topics from many people about computer
>chess, written in a civilized style: no outrageous bs like the one you just
>produced once more.
>
>Anyone being able to behave (most are!) or wishing not to to be bothered by
>the kind of junk mail you just produced is invited...
>
>www.icd.com.ccc

>Kind regards from Dirk
The correct URL to sign up is http://www.icdchess.com/ccc.html
Regards, Steve

Dr. Dirk Frickenschmidt

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

Uuups, I didn't spell the new URL of the computer-chess club precise.

Here's the correct URL:

www.icdchess.com/ccc.html

Yours Dirk

Dr. Dirk Frickenschmidt <di...@jimknopf.wupper.de> schrieb im Beitrag
<01bcd4d1$11e4ec40$8c0b61c2@dirk>...


> Hi Rolf,
>
> I'm very sorry Bob forgot to mention me in the group of nine or ten.
>
> Maybe after wiping the foam from your mouth you have something nice to
say
> about me as well?
> My good reputation will suffer if you haven't :-)
>

> CCC works really fine: lot of on topics from many people about computer
> chess, written in a civilized style: no outrageous bs like the one you
just
> produced once more.
>
> Anyone being able to behave (most are!) or wishing not to to be bothered
by
> the kind of junk mail you just produced is invited...
>
> www.icd.com.ccc
>
> Kind regards from Dirk
>
>

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

hyatt@crafty (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

>Your omission was my error. There was a "clamor" to get the post we
>had agreed on out. I didn't get your "O.K. to post my name" until it
>was too late. I decided to err on the side of conservatism and not
>post a name without approval. My appologies.. :)

>Bob

======================================

Ok, now you're 'brown' enough, perhaps you should be informed that
either the information you and all others of the 'thing' posted here was
damn wrong, your 'noses are lying as always' or sorry, my browser
netscape 2 is too old to get it done. I suscribed half a dozen entries
of my user name and also with my email but nothing happened. But I can't
enter a password I don't have.

I only mention that to keep the record straight. To demonstrate that the
times of free speech are gone in computer chess. Now you have to wear
black leather boots...

BTW character assassination of Ed Schroder and gang against you and me
doesn't bother you. Guess why. But giving excuses for using wrong
condoms seems the appropiate occasion to make a stand. SHIT. :)


Drew Sarkisian

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

>CCC works really fine: lot of on topics from many people about computer
>chess, written in a civilized style: no outrageous bs like the one you just
>produced once more.
>
>Anyone being able to behave (most are!) or wishing not to to be bothered by
>the kind of junk mail you just produced is invited...
>
>www.icd.com.ccc


Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through to simply ignore some
psychotic clown like Rolf. I personally would rather stick to this
newsgroup and use a kill file to censor the babblings of those I personally
find distasteful in the extreme...

--Drew


Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

"Drew Sarkisian" <dr...@risc.sps.mot.com> wrote:

>--Drew

^===============================

This is finally a well balanced word of some man of world. But isn't it
the proof for the more senseful explanation that the "club" was created
by criminals for criminals to do some exchanges in the hidden? But what
for? To tear the attention from not so friendly posted truths about the
criminal problem.

If it were only the problem of a lone 'psychotic clown like Rolf' NOBODY
would have left the group. Think about that... and you'll get the clue.

Just in case you're new here. The story began with nazi-like postings of
a guy called Czub. He wanted to revive concentrastion camps and signing
people in public. I opposed that (well, it might be psychotic... to even
think about the possibility to debate with a dumb nut, uneducated like
Czub) by mentioning the bad past of nazi Germany where these methods
were used to extinguish and kill people. At that moment came Ed
Schroder, the biiig author of REBEL, and insulted me for having attacked
Czub. He then sued me before the Grand Royal Jury of the Netherlands.
But got a kick into his ass himself to be more careful with his
pretended evidence... Afterwards he left the group because he couldn't
stand the laughter about his sissy style. Now came some of his deepest
business friends and created this group to enable him to post his fairy
tales about REBEL the BEST program of the world, better than Deep Blue
in some respects, *without* being disturbed by Rolf (the "psychotic
clown", you probably had guessed that). That's all. If some define
psychotic that way it must be a noble attitude or some such but not a
dangerous illness...
Let's see, then one had to redefine the diagnoses for some here in this
group. But for the moment the notion character assassination as used by
juridical experts will do it. Perhaps you had this in mind too... :)
But I would still advise you to be a little bit more careful with
psychiatric details without being really an expert. But that is already
to exclude because a real expert would never run around and defame other
people like this. Perhaps he would feel compassion but no hate of
course.

With a minimum of smartness you must be able to sense the qualitative
difference between a poster who dreams about concentration camps and
another who tries to oppose the like. If you ask yourself what this all
had to do with cc, then let me tell you, basically nothing, if you
forget that pilgrimfathers of the new "club" like Czub, Whittington,
Schroder who took part in that off-topic.

Others intervened indirectly like Hyatt, who decided to attack the
off-topics of the critic of the like-nazi stuff BUT NOT the nazi-like
stuff itself. No wonder, being close to those ideas himself. He once
propagated that it would be helpful for mankind if we could win gazoline
out of the bodies of deth row citizans.... In this respect Hyatt is also
*very* close to fascist ideas of exploiting teeth gold, skin for lamp
shields and soap out of the killed Jews and other inhabitants of the
concentration camps.

Yes, it's a nice thing to see all those *friends* of Czub now in the
"club"... SHIT. :)


Greetings to an allegedly new member of rgcc

From an allegedly *very* psychotic Rolf :)


Robert Hyatt

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
: hyatt@crafty (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

: >Your omission was my error. There was a "clamor" to get the post we
: >had agreed on out. I didn't get your "O.K. to post my name" until it
: >was too late. I decided to err on the side of conservatism and not
: >post a name without approval. My appologies.. :)

: >Bob

: ======================================

: Ok, now you're 'brown' enough, perhaps you should be informed that
: either the information you and all others of the 'thing' posted here was
: damn wrong, your 'noses are lying as always' or sorry, my browser
: netscape 2 is too old to get it done. I suscribed half a dozen entries
: of my user name and also with my email but nothing happened. But I can't
: enter a password I don't have.

Steve posted a note here a day ago that they had email problems. However,
I'd certainly support his not giving you one if that's the issue. There's
enough noise here, CCC has been pretty nice so far... I think we'd all like
to keep it that way.

: I only mention that to keep the record straight. To demonstrate that the


: times of free speech are gone in computer chess. Now you have to wear
: black leather boots...

No leather boots here...

: BTW character assassination of Ed Schroder and gang against you and me

Steven Schwartz

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

>Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:

>: Ok, now you're 'brown' enough, perhaps you should be informed that
>: either the information you and all others of the 'thing' posted here was
>: damn wrong, your 'noses are lying as always' or sorry, my browser
>: netscape 2 is too old to get it done. I suscribed half a dozen entries
>: of my user name and also with my email but nothing happened. But I can't
>: enter a password I don't have.

On 10 Oct 1997 17:12:57 GMT, hyatt@crafty (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>Steve posted a note here a day ago that they had email problems. However,
>I'd certainly support his not giving you one if that's the issue. There's
>enough noise here, CCC has been pretty nice so far... I think we'd all like
>to keep it that way.

The temporary e-mail problem was solved at 10:47 a.m. on
Wednesday, and everyone who applied to CCC for a free
password (http://www.icdchess.com/ccc.html) was automatically
sent a password at 10:48.

The problem never prevented anyone from receiving a password;
it simply elongated the waiting time period from a few seconds
to a few hours.

The problem had not happened prior and has not happened since.
Because the process of issuing a password is automated, there
is no human input, and, consequently, no one can be (or ever
was) denied a password.

Steve

Dann Corbit

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

Many newsreaders have killfile capability. WinVN is a free one that comes
with source and works on Win, Win95, Win NT, UNIX and others. The new MSIE
4.0 interface has a nice killfile. New users are not going to find the
private chess club and that will be a shame. They may have something valuable
to contribute.
--
C-FAQ ftp sites: ftp://ftp.eskimo.com ftp://rtfm.mit.edu
Hypertext C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
C-FAQ Book: ISBN 0-201-84519-9.
Want Software? Algorithms? Pubs? http://www.infoseek.com

Drew Sarkisian wrote in message <61lf5v$gbc$1...@talos4.risc.sps.mot.com>...

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

hyatt@crafty (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

>Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
>: hyatt@crafty (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

>: >Your omission was my error. There was a "clamor" to get the post we
>: >had agreed on out. I didn't get your "O.K. to post my name" until it
>: >was too late. I decided to err on the side of conservatism and not
>: >post a name without approval. My appologies.. :)

>: >Bob

>: ======================================

>: Ok, now you're 'brown' enough, perhaps you should be informed that


>: either the information you and all others of the 'thing' posted here was
>: damn wrong, your 'noses are lying as always' or sorry, my browser
>: netscape 2 is too old to get it done. I suscribed half a dozen entries
>: of my user name and also with my email but nothing happened. But I can't
>: enter a password I don't have.

>Steve posted a note here a day ago that they had email problems. However,


>I'd certainly support his not giving you one if that's the issue.

So we can keep just for history that you (SHIT. :)) support a clear
censoring of me even for read-only purposes to inform myself? You
want to prevent that I read *technical* stuff? Must be a special
technique... SHIT. :)

>There's
>enough noise here, CCC has been pretty nice so far... I think we'd all like
>to keep it that way.

>: I only mention that to keep the record straight. To demonstrate that the

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

i...@icdchess.com (Steven Schwartz) wrote:

>>Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:

>>: Ok, now you're 'brown' enough, perhaps you should be informed that
>>: either the information you and all others of the 'thing' posted here was
>>: damn wrong, your 'noses are lying as always' or sorry, my browser
>>: netscape 2 is too old to get it done. I suscribed half a dozen entries
>>: of my user name and also with my email but nothing happened. But I can't
>>: enter a password I don't have.

>On 10 Oct 1997 17:12:57 GMT, hyatt@crafty (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>>Steve posted a note here a day ago that they had email problems. However,

>>I'd certainly support his not giving you one if that's the issue. There's


>>enough noise here, CCC has been pretty nice so far... I think we'd all like
>>to keep it that way.

>Because the process of issuing a password is automated, there
>is no human input, and, consequently, no one can be (or ever
>was) denied a password.

This is with all technical innocense I might suffer, wrong.

As I posted I tried more than 5 times. The username is filled(I think
username is my real name, yes?), in the second line a password. I wrote
to Hyatt, the defender of all possible DB/IBM b/s, that I couldn't enter
a password because I don't have some. I just wanted to get some, no? And
my email adress was never asked for.

So I hit ENTER. And after a few seconds the message came: no access
allowed or the like, another try or leave...

You claim that no human intervention took place. But I sask if you
might have filled your program with certain names from a black list; as
it seems, probably this list had only one name, mine. I repeat that this
is the impression with my limited knowledge. It's a question and no
juridical claim.

You see, I asked Hyatt, the defender of all b/s coming from DB/IBM, why
it shouldn't be allowed to only-read, because I couldn't post to
technical stuff anyway... And I wouldn't support a new censored group
because I am for usenet. But as usual he evitated to answer difficult
questions.

I mean if you censor then stay to it and tell the truth. But dont hold
up the myth of USA freedom if in reality you behave in a style typical
for more fascistical systems. My question aagin, as you have this
censorship, why not allowing people to read technical debates about
computer chess. Or is this the lie and you're talking in reality about
totally off-topics...?

But look, I have not the power you have, demonstrated once to discipline
KK, but I ask questions for the history of computer chess. And the mean
style when prominent cc experts supported nazi-like postings but tried
to defame the critic. That is what happened here.

Now you have three possibilities.

Explaining the technical access for Netscape 2.

Denying me the access. So that I could stop to waste expensive costs.

Staying mute. But that would be interpreted like the denying.

You also can contact and explain me deeper stuff via email. It would be
fine with me. But write a decision please. I mean even in Alabama you
get a verdict, no? And dont confuse the active role of writing with only
reading. You even hadn't the excuse to say well with you that costs too
much trouble. As I said you won't see me there. So where could be the
trouble. For me it would be also too expensive. I prefer offline
reading... Because my english is not so good after all... Here in Europe
we have to pay very expensive online costs, you know...

That we could never more become to friendly exchange after your mean
show with KK and now possibly until technical refutation the little
tricks, is selfunderstood.
The scandal is that nobody tried to understand what was the reason for
Schroder's departure. It was the defeat he got at his trial in Zwolle,
where he had no evidence, but provided instead evidence against himself.
Think of that comedy...

And now I should be punished because Schroder made an asshole out of
himself? I mean we had never talked before, but couldn't you ask
yourself who did what in that comedy? Are you all running after the
money over there? Like DB/team/IBM? And the truth doesn't count?

Look, if I would be proven guilty in insulting people or whatever I
would retire, but you won't find examples where I did this without a
cause. I correct that I didn't insult in these cases but I attacked.
(BTW I never called someone a "Nazi" although many seem to think the
like.) How could Schroder go off with his insult after I had attacked
someone who posted stuff as an allegedly "German" when his stuff is
under criminal law in Germany. Ever thought about that? How could it be
allowed even on usenet that a prominent figure behaved like this? And
insulted a critic of nazi-like stuff??

Who acted off-topic then me or him?

Who acted as character assassin, Schroder or me?

The answer is clear. He did it three times. One against Hyatt and two
against me.

But in USA the money support counts that comes from Schroder?


Don't claim in future you'd thought that Tueschen was the one who did
all the bad things Schroder told you. I tell you there's no evidence.
And note, usenet is controlled by Dejas. Nobody could claim the opposite
of the truth... It's all in Dejas.

Rolf Tueschen


>Steve

Robert Hyatt

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

Dann Corbit (dco...@solutionsiq.com) wrote:
: Many newsreaders have killfile capability. WinVN is a free one that comes

: with source and works on Win, Win95, Win NT, UNIX and others. The new MSIE
: 4.0 interface has a nice killfile. New users are not going to find the
: private chess club and that will be a shame. They may have something valuable
: to contribute.
: --

There is also an effort underway to create a moderated newsgroup for
computer chess programming topics. I agree with you that the CCC
option has problems with visibility. The new newsgroup won't have this
problem, but also won't have the problems this newsgroup has either...


Robert Hyatt

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:

: As I posted I tried more than 5 times. The username is filled(I think


: username is my real name, yes?), in the second line a password. I wrote
: to Hyatt, the defender of all possible DB/IBM b/s, that I couldn't enter
: a password because I don't have some. I just wanted to get some, no? And
: my email adress was never asked for.

: So I hit ENTER. And after a few seconds the message came: no access
: allowed or the like, another try or leave...

: You claim that no human intervention took place. But I sask if you
: might have filled your program with certain names from a black list; as
: it seems, probably this list had only one name, mine. I repeat that this
: is the impression with my limited knowledge. It's a question and no
: juridical claim.

No, Steve just failed to make this completely idiot proof. Which in your
case is unfortunate. You are at the *wrong* place with netscape. You are
at the login screen. You have *not* gone thru the registration screen.
Instructions were given in the post I have displayed here two times. If
you can't follow simple directions, perhaps you really don't belong there
at all. We're hoping for mostly adults...

mclane

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

i...@icdchess.com (Steven Schwartz) wrote:
>Because the process of issuing a password is automated, there
>is no human input, and, consequently, no one can be (or ever
>was) denied a password.

>Steve

It looks Rolf is to stupid to handle the problem ! :-)


mclane

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>======================================

>Ok, now you're 'brown' enough, perhaps you should be informed that
>either the information you and all others of the 'thing' posted here was
>damn wrong, your 'noses are lying as always' or sorry, my browser
>netscape 2 is too old to get it done.

What do you mean with saying BOB is BROWN ?
Maybe you are not intelligent enough to enter CCC in the right way ?


> I suscribed half a dozen entries
>of my user name and also with my email but nothing happened. But I can't
>enter a password I don't have.

Maybe you entered the wrong path/site ? What a pity Rolf. What a pity
:-)


>I only mention that to keep the record straight. To demonstrate that the
>times of free speech are gone in computer chess. Now you have to wear
>black leather boots...

Richtig ! Black leather boots are very good in those cold and rainy
times. I guess you don't have them ?! What a pity !

mclane

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
I would say Rolf an apology is needed !
You called Bob a brown-nose and CCC a fascistical system
only because you are too stupid to enter accurate !

Is this your way of behaving as an adult ? Calling anybody a nazi just
because you have a lack of intelligence ?

Please apologize towards Bob and the CCC-forum !
Thanks.

mclane

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>This is with all technical innocense I might suffer, wrong.

>As I posted I tried more than 5 times. The username is filled(I think
>username is my real name, yes?), in the second line a password. I wrote
>to Hyatt, the defender of all possible DB/IBM b/s, that I couldn't enter
>a password because I don't have some. I just wanted to get some, no? And
>my email adress was never asked for.

>So I hit ENTER. And after a few seconds the message came: no access
>allowed or the like, another try or leave...

!!!! :-)


>You claim that no human intervention took place. But I sask if you
>might have filled your program with certain names from a black list;

:-)
Of course we have a black list with your name on the first rank Rolf
:-) You are so important, we have put you on rank ONE !

> as
>it seems, probably this list had only one name, mine.

Of course :-)
You are the one and only asshole in the universe !! :-)

>I repeat that this
>is the impression with my limited knowledge.

With your limited limited limited knowledge ... :-)

> It's a question and no
>juridical claim.


Why don't you put a question-mark behind a question ??

>You see, I asked Hyatt, the defender of all b/s coming from DB/IBM, why
>it shouldn't be allowed to only-read, because I couldn't post to
>technical stuff anyway... And I wouldn't support a new censored group
>because I am for usenet. But as usual he evitated to answer difficult
>questions.

Right ! We hope you will NOT support a censored group ! :-)

>I mean if you censor then stay to it and tell the truth. But dont hold
>up the myth of USA freedom if in reality you behave in a style typical
>for more fascistical systems.

??? CCC a fascistical system ? Don't you think this is a little to far
just because you are to unintelligent to handle the
submitting-processes ?

>My question aagin, as you have this
>censorship, why not allowing people to read technical debates about
>computer chess. Or is this the lie and you're talking in reality about
>totally off-topics...?

You are the liar. We do not lie Rolf. Did you forget this ?

>But look, I have not the power you have, demonstrated once to discipline
>KK, but I ask questions for the history of computer chess.

For the history of my wastepaper-basket. :-) What has computerchess to
do with you ?

>And the mean
>style when prominent cc experts supported nazi-like postings but tried
>to defame the critic. That is what happened here.

!!! Hahaha ! Good Rolf, really good. Gimme more...

>Now you have three possibilities.

No - we have all possibilities of the world. YOU have no possibiliy !!

>Explaining the technical access for Netscape 2.

Why ?

>Denying me the access. So that I could stop to waste expensive costs.

We want you to increase you exensive costs !! Thats the target Rolf !
Isn't the social-welfare office paying you all the telephone costs ?

>Staying mute. But that would be interpreted like the denying.

Right.

>You also can contact and explain me deeper stuff via email.

We contact YOU ??


>That we could never more become to friendly exchange after your mean
>show with KK and now possibly until technical refutation the little
>tricks, is selfunderstood.

Right. We will never more become to friendly exchange with you !!

>The scandal is that nobody tried to understand what was the reason for
>Schroder's departure. It was the defeat he got at his trial in Zwolle,
>where he had no evidence, but provided instead evidence against himself.
>Think of that comedy...

We will see Rolf.

>And now I should be punished because Schroder made an asshole out of
>himself?

Schroder an asshole ?? I thought this role is for you Rolf ?!

>Who acted off-topic then me or him?

You.

>Who acted as character assassin, Schroder or me?

You.

>The answer is clear. He did it three times. One against Hyatt and two
>against me.

No - you are the bad guy here.

>But in USA the money support counts that comes from Schroder?

Right. Ed gives us all much money !! How do you know ??? :-)

>Don't claim in future you'd thought that Tueschen was the one who did
>all the bad things Schroder told you. I tell you there's no evidence.

Your output here is evidence enough...

>>Steve

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

gazoline-hyatt@crafty (Robert <gazolining> Hyatt) wrote:

>Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:

>: As I posted I tried more than 5 times. The username is filled(I think


>: username is my real name, yes?), in the second line a password. I wrote
>: to Hyatt, the defender of all possible DB/IBM b/s, that I couldn't enter
>: a password because I don't have some. I just wanted to get some, no? And
>: my email adress was never asked for.

>: So I hit ENTER. And after a few seconds the message came: no access
>: allowed or the like, another try or leave...

>: You claim that no human intervention took place. But I sask if you
>: might have filled your program with certain names from a black list; as
>: it seems, probably this list had only one name, mine. I repeat that this
>: is the impression with my limited knowledge. It's a question and no
>: juridical claim.

>No, Steve just failed to make this completely idiot proof. Which in your
>case is unfortunate.

I didn't intend originally to see that mug again, but it could be worth
to point at the lying of a fascist who within 24 hours before wrote that
he would applaude if one "Steve" had denied the access to me. I'm
writing for the documentation of Dejas, not to a fascist whose idea is
to exploit humans to make profit out of their physical chemistry.
SHIT. :)

> You are at the *wrong* place with netscape. You are
>at the login screen. You have *not* gone thru the registration screen.
>Instructions were given in the post I have displayed here two times. If
>you can't follow simple directions, perhaps you really don't belong there
>at all.

A stinking lie. Because I travel with the same netscape through the
internet since I entered this medium a year ago. Nowhere these
difficulties.

But for the sake of the record I want to make clear that I asked
questions to one "Steve" and not to that humpty dumpty who's everywhere
and nowhere at the same time... SHIT. :)

No gazoline-Hyatts (SHIT. :)) won't fuck me again.

brucemo

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

mclane wrote:

> :-)
> Of course we have a black list with your name on the first rank Rolf
> :-) You are so important, we have put you on rank ONE !

You use "we" a lot in this post. I want to clarify that I for
one haven't appointed Thorsten as my spokesman.

bruce

mclane

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

brucemo <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:

>mclane wrote:

>bruce

In a democratic structure where all members have the same rights and
ONE vote, I would say nobody is the spokesman of another, maybe if one
was elected as the spokesman.

I guess you should allow me to speak for those I know they are my
opinion. Of course you are allowed to have a different opinion Bruce,
that concept is called democracy !
New to you ? :-)


Rolf Czedzak

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

Rolf Tueschen wrote: <61obbm$emm$1...@news01.btx.dtag.de>

[]

> No gazoline-Hyatts (SHIT. :)) won't fuck me again.

So far for Your "communication" with Bob.

Any volunteers left?

Rolf (C)

Jay L Cole

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:

>hyatt@crafty (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

>>Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:

>>: Bob, you don't like science. You may love cc, but not science


>>: and open discussions. Because I already gave you evidence that you miss
>>: a lot of questions.

>>I wonder how you'd know?

>That's the difference between us. I talk about your non-love. But you
>come up with another ad hominem. Stating my not-understanding. That's a
>big difference. Think about the difference of the two statements.

>But I have evidence for your not reacting to data you dont like. Up to
>now you never reacted to my statement about Benjamin. He lied. And you
>can't deny that. So you prefer to stay mute about it. That is undecent.

I think Mr. Hyatts appraisal of your scientific understanding is
wholly correct based on this very statement. 'He lied', and 'you
never reacted' have nothing to do with science. The statement of 'I
wonder how you'd know' is an observation, not an ad hominem. He is
merely reading your post and making a conclusion. Ad hominem is more
like saying, 'Of course you don't like my idea, you are evil.' Bob
went on to show you the elements of your post that show you do not
know where science ends and rumor, et al, begin. There is a logic faq
up on the web to help you with this if you need further clarification.

>Then you once claimed you answer all questions. That's true mostly. But
>not in all cases. I gave you two examples. Also here you didn't react
>actually at all.

Of course, this newsgroup is not.
'alt.bob.answers.all.rolfs.questions.' Bob can pick and chose what
posts he feels like answering. There is no onous(sp) on him to do
anything.

>But instead you are always there like a proxy when someone wrote about
>DB. Then you are there day and night. Wonder why? What is your job
>there? ure, you have your income as teacher at the university, but what
>is your special interest in DB/IBM?????

Now, that is known as 'impugn the motive.' Maybe his interest in DB
is that it is the best chess playing machine out there.

>> Since you obviously don't understand exactly
>>what science is, and how it is different from rumor, speculation, and
>>innuendo...

>>: You don't have to. This shit will not be supported actively by me.


>>: Perhaps after the criminals have left that group too.

>>Fortunately the "criminal(s)" have *not yet* made it to that group.

>Also here I asked you how I could achieve to read only in that group. I
>dont want to write there. What is a special control for if one reads
>passively? Do you want access to the persons privately? What is this
>method for? Open the read only possibility for all.

>You see. Clear questions already yesterday, but no answers.

>Science for me has a lot to do with collecting data. I collect answering
>posts. But i do also research about those parts of letters that never
>get an answer... Sometimes it tells you more than thousand pages of
>looong answers. Often people try to hide by pretending answering all...

This is a discussion group for computer chess. If you want to turn it
into a forum of 'attacks' or 'debates' then that is your choice.
Other people can simply view it as a way to discuss computer chess.
Just as you have freedom to post, people here have freedom not to
answer you for any number of reasons. Quit being a selfish child.

Jay Cole

My real address is @bgn.mindspring.com to prevent spam.


Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

op...@addressin.txt.com (Jay L Cole) wrote:

>TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:

>>hyatt@crafty (Robert Hyatt) wrote:

>>>Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:

>>>: Bob, you don't like science. You may love cc, but not science
>>>: and open discussions. Because I already gave you evidence that you miss
>>>: a lot of questions.

>>>I wonder how you'd know?

>>That's the difference between us. I talk about your non-love. But you
>>come up with another ad hominem. Stating my not-understanding. That's a
>>big difference. Think about the difference of the two statements.

>>But I have evidence for your not reacting to data you dont like. Up to
>>now you never reacted to my statement about Benjamin. He lied. And you
>>can't deny that. So you prefer to stay mute about it. That is undecent.

>I think Mr. Hyatts appraisal of your scientific understanding is
>wholly correct based on this very statement. 'He lied', and 'you
>never reacted' have nothing to do with science.

That's n easy one as Mr. Hyatt would say...

You miss a lot obviously being new here. Dont' take me wrong, read as
such you are basically right. But not on some specifical points here
mentioned. Do you want to hear, or do you think it doesn't matter?

I write as if you hd asked me to recinsider...

Let's take this first one. Why I accused someone for not reacting on
something he didn't do at all. Something that Benjamin had done?

That's very easy. Normally I would say, read it for yourself in
DejaNews, but for you, here it is. We debates about DB and things a bit
longer here in rgcc. And Mr. H. commented very agitted on *all* points.
You get this? One of the very rare cases he missed a point, was here
with Benjamin. Then he asked for details, as if he didn't know. Then I
wrote, read Dejas. But he didn't come back to the point. So I repeated
my question and so on.

Now you come down on me teaching me about science. But then please wait
a second. Let me ask you. Does science start with asking questions? Does
it start with collecting data? Yes, of course. Among other things, these
are important.

Now, we're talking about the impression we have of DB/IBM/team.
And Mr. H. is always convincing us that all is quite normal. No cheat at
all. Basically not even a slight reason to be seen to become suspicious.
You get this? Ok.

Now comes the author of this post and asks Bob about Benjamin and up to
now his lies...

Would you still think Mr. H. is absolutely correct when ignoring this my
question??

So far about science, collecting data and shutting eyes... :)

>The statement of 'I
>wonder how you'd know' is an observation, not an ad hominem. He is
>merely reading your post and making a conclusion. Ad hominem is more
>like saying, 'Of course you don't like my idea, you are evil.'

What he usually says is worse. He saying: Did you ever publish something
about science? No, then shut up. Sorry, I don't want to teach you about
indirect conclusions but for me this always meant, 'because you are not
really in that cc, you better shut up, because you know nothing...'. See
what I mean? Perhaps you reply with deeper questions if you didn't get
it.

> Bob
>went on to show you the elements of your post that show you do not
>know where science ends and rumor, et al, begin.

Nice description. But I would doubt that I don't know the borderline. :)

>There is a logic faq
>up on the web to help you with this if you need further clarification.

>>Then you once claimed you answer all questions. That's true mostly. But
>>not in all cases. I gave you two examples. Also here you didn't react
>>actually at all.

>Of course, this newsgroup is not.
>'alt.bob.answers.all.rolfs.questions.' Bob can pick and chose what
>posts he feels like answering. There is no onous(sp) on him to do
>anything.

Why do you write so hot tempered? You sounded so cool at first.

You're plain wrong again, due to your short stay here in rgcc. :)

What would you say if your Bob had claimed that he had answered on *all*
posts in relation to cc?

It's clear that you oversaw that possibility...

But it's ok. I don't mind.


>>But instead you are always there like a proxy when someone wrote about
>>DB. Then you are there day and night. Wonder why? What is your job
>>there? ure, you have your income as teacher at the university, but what
>>is your special interest in DB/IBM?????

>Now, that is known as 'impugn the motive.' Maybe his interest in DB
>is that it is the best chess playing machine out there.

Again J. I wanted to ask beyond the surface of mere interest, you know?

We're discussing a little bit deeper. Because interested we're *all*,
you too, no? :)

>>> Since you obviously don't understand exactly
>>>what science is, and how it is different from rumor, speculation, and
>>>innuendo...

>>>: You don't have to. This shit will not be supported actively by me.
>>>: Perhaps after the criminals have left that group too.

>>>Fortunately the "criminal(s)" have *not yet* made it to that group.

>>Also here I asked you how I could achieve to read only in that group. I
>>dont want to write there. What is a special control for if one reads
>>passively? Do you want access to the persons privately? What is this
>>method for? Open the read only possibility for all.

>>You see. Clear questions already yesterday, but no answers.

>>Science for me has a lot to do with collecting data. I collect answering
>>posts. But i do also research about those parts of letters that never
>>get an answer... Sometimes it tells you more than thousand pages of
>>looong answers. Often people try to hide by pretending answering all...

>This is a discussion group for computer chess. If you want to turn it
>into a forum of 'attacks' or 'debates' then that is your choice.

How old are you? Because that's what a newsgroup is for. Discussion are
made out of attacks and debates, no? Did I miss something interesting?
Topic is of course computer chess. Good to know that you are new here
because months ago we debated about Osiris and the pyramids in ancient
Egypt. Think of that.


>Other people can simply view it as a way to discuss computer chess.
>Just as you have freedom to post, people here have freedom not to
>answer you for any number of reasons. Quit being a selfish child.

I will surely think about your advice. I think I see what you wanted to
tell me. And I hope I have given you a little of feedback to be able to
judge much more profound what's going on here. Thanks for your post,
Jay.


Greetings

Rolf Tueschen

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Oct 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/15/97
to

r...@sensecom.de (Rolf Czedzak) wrote:

>Rolf Tueschen wrote: <61obbm$emm$1...@news01.btx.dtag.de>

>[]

>> No gazoline-Hyatts (SHIT. :)) won't fuck me again.

>So far for Your "communication" with Bob.

You must have missed the meaning of the quoted line...

(Listen, please, try, if you can, to ameliorate your access to this
news-group, you're always far behind the actual situation; so reading
you one had to talk about stuff which has already been digested. I for
one find it interesting anyway, but think about newspapers from
yesterday, it's like Schnee von gestern... There're not many
archeologists here around.)


>Any volunteers left?


Don't buy Czubszcian interpretations to understand what I'm doing here.
It won't function. I thought you have a bet running. Double it. You'll
win in the end. :)

>Rolf (C)

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages