What happened to RGCC?

72 views
Skip to first unread message

ericfitch

unread,
Sep 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/1/97
to

I haven't been here in a long time and when I come back, I see that 80%
of the posts have to do with Nazi silliness. How does a newsgroup
devoted to chess come to this? Very sad.

pulgao

unread,
Sep 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/1/97
to


5) Chris, offering tedious amateur psychoanalysis of everyone else in
the group, when his time could be better spent in trying to get Chess
System Tal finished and released sometime this *century*.

And on and on and on...

-- Steve Lopez
Read my book "Battle Royale", serialized at:
http://www.chessbaseusa.com/NY1924/ny1924.htm

I don't like work -- no man does -- but I like what is in the work: the
chance to find yourself. -- Joseph Conrad

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Sep 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/1/97
to

ericfitch <lan...@mindless.com> wrote:

I understand your disgust, Eric.

Note please, that Czub wrote in an off-topic thread that he wanted to
build concentration csamps in Germany again and he wanted to sign
people...

I opposed him and explained him that these methods were once used by the
nazis.

Schroder Ed jumped on me and insulted me very badly how I could attack
Czub for this. Ad infinitum.....

Then Ed wanted to sue me for having called *him* a Nazi (!!).

You see, because a very prominent programmer drifted over the edge this
is absolutely not funny and surely *is* also very on-topic.


Thanks for having given your voice.


Lovely. :)

Rolf Tueschen


chrisw

unread,
Sep 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/1/97
to

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

ericfitch <lan...@mindless.com> wrote in article
<340A9F...@mindless.com>...


> I haven't been here in a long time and when I come back, I see that 80%
> of the posts have to do with Nazi silliness. How does a newsgroup
> devoted to chess come to this? Very sad.
>

Quite so.

Too many self-opinionated dorks just can't resist the opportinity to bore
us all silly with their boring opinions.

These are the guys who (if they dare) approach the beautiful girls at
parties and launch into meaningful political conversations. The beautiful
girls smile sweetly and move away as fast as their long legs can carry
them.

1. Troublemakers who just want to play their own silly games.
Teuschen et al


2. Bores who can't help delivering their opinions on everything.
De Caro
Tillotson
etc.


3. Political fanatics who just have to counter anything and everything they
disagree with, plus postulate inane theories of pyramidal time-travel and
and and
Czub


4. Haters who just have to counter their favourite hate-target.
Czedak
etc.


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

Tillotson, shut up with your boring opinions/solutions to all the problems
of the world. You just give the lunatics more threads to fill out.

deCaro - cease launching into the politico threads. You just make matters
worse.

Czub - stop your pyramids/scientologists/communist propaganda/nazi
analysis/time warping/orion bullshit. You just irritate people so that they
feel impelled to counter you.

Czedak - quit hassling Czub.


And lastly, the rest of you, and the above; you are bloody lucky to have
Hyatt, Bruce, Schroder, Enrique, Chris, Moritz, Ingo, Korner, Tom, Peter,
Matthias, Andreas and co and many others making intelligent, often
opposing, sometimes silly conversations on this news group. Consider
yourselves fortunate, if computer chess stuff interests you, that we all
make this group an interesting place to come and visit.

And, to the dorks, quit posting your tedious opinions on anything and
everything. Shut up and try listening for a change, hmmmm ?

Chris Whittington

chrisw

unread,
Sep 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/1/97
to

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

pulgao <bays...@intrepid.net> wrote in article
<5uer2v$o8g$2...@news3.texas.net>...


>
> 5) Chris, offering tedious amateur psychoanalysis of everyone else in
> the group, when his time could be better spent in trying to get Chess
> System Tal finished and released sometime this *century*.
>
> And on and on and on...

Probably you're right :)

New resolution: try and only post computer chess relevant stuff.

I try but its difficult, given rgcc.

Chris Whittington

chrisw

unread,
Sep 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/1/97
to

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970901171...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> Hello, Whittington:
>
> Confirm you are the same guy who was caught up for months in a
> free-for-all with Czub and Rolf exchanging insults and discussing
anything
> but computer chess? Confirm also that you are the one who regularly
> exchanges barbs with Rolf and only recently posted your historical
insights
> (junior high school level) on the German occupation of Holland during
World
> War II. Interestingly enough, your postings on computer chess are more
> confrontational than informative as well.


>
> >Too many self-opinionated dorks just can't resist the opportinity to
bore
> >us all silly with their boring opinions.
>

> It appears that in your mind, Whittington, any opinion on a topic that
> does not interest you or in which you are ignorant is synonymous with
> boring. Have you ever considered that the same topic may be interesting
to
> someone else, even if this topic is posted on a chess computer newsgroup?

> The fact that there is considerably more response in this newsgroup to
some
> of what you label boring opinions than your exciting insights on chess
> programming, makes my point.


>
> >These are the guys who (if they dare) approach the beautiful girls at
> >parties and launch into meaningful political conversations. The
beautiful
> >girls smile sweetly and move away as fast as their long legs can carry
> >them.
>

> Whittington, do you honestly delude yourself into believing that those
> same girls are more interested in hearing your" meaningful" tirades on
why
> you have to postpone the launching of CST another month because the
program
> is still losing to "free downloads?"


>
> >1. Troublemakers who just want to play their own silly games.
> >Teuschen et al
> >

> You certainly could not restrain yourself in the past from joining Rolf
in
> what you now call "his silly game."


>
> >2. Bores who can't help delivering their opinions on everything.
> >De Caro
> >Tillotson
> >etc.
> >

> You forgot to include Whittington here as well. I am willing to bet
there
> are more posts of some of your off-the subject opinions on this newsgroup
> than Tillotson's and mine combined. Additionally, I doubt that everyone
on
> this newsgroup would want you to be the judge for them of what's boring
and
> should not be posted.


>
> >3. Political fanatics who just have to counter anything and everything
they
> >disagree with, plus postulate inane theories of pyramidal time-travel
and
> >and and
> >Czub
>

> Most of what you call Czub's "inane theories" have a very sound basis in
> quantum mechanics and even when I don't agree with them, I find them
> interesting. Try to refute them scientifically and you will discover
that
> these "inane theories" are not so inane after all.


>
> >so, Teuschen - go away and die
> >

> A bit extreme, don't you think? Rolf's comments about you sound more
> reasonable all the time.


>
> >Tillotson, shut up with your boring opinions/solutions to all the
problems
> >of the world. You just give the lunatics more threads to fill out.
> >

> It looks like you are the one who gives the lunatics more threads to fill
> out than Tillotson. Count how many threads by Rolf have been directed
> toward you and how many toward Tillotson. Then you will realize who the
> real culprit is.


>
> >deCaro - cease launching into the politico threads. You just make
matters
> >worse.
>

> Every one of my threads was a REPLY to another thread...in other words, I
> did not LAUNCH anything!


>
> >Czub - stop your pyramids/scientologists/communist propaganda/nazi
> >analysis/time warping/orion bullshit. You just irritate people so that
they
> >feel impelled to counter you.
> >

> If Czub's more" creative":) efforts irritate you to the point where you
> feel compelled to counter tham (as you did here), restrain yourself. Or
do
> you feel equally compelled to counter all the sex posts on this
newsgroup?
> My guess is you just don't read them, rather than read them so you can
> counter them. Correct me here if I'm wrong since I can't be ssure!:)


>
> >And lastly, the rest of you, and the above; you are bloody lucky to have
> >Hyatt, Bruce, Schroder, Enrique, Chris, Moritz, Ingo, Korner, Tom,
Peter,
> >Matthias, Andreas and co and many others making intelligent, often
> >opposing, sometimes silly conversations on this news group.
> >Consider
> >yourselves fortunate, if computer chess stuff interests you, that we all
> >make this group an interesting place to come and visit.
> >

> It must have required a gargantuan amount of restraint for someone with
> your ego not to have put your name on this list.


>
> >And, to the dorks, quit posting your tedious opinions on anything and
> >everything. Shut up and try listening for a change, hmmmm ?
> >

> Since according to you, I belong in that category, let me only say I
> listen to those who listen to me. I have been to seminars on different
> topics and often the most interesting information received had nothing to
> do with what everyone came together to discuss. No open mind would want
to
> limit in an open forum the discussion to only that which was the primary
> topic of interest. The same applies to newsgroups.
>
> Some advice to you, Whittington: it's not a good idea to kick dogs who
> have not even barked at you. You may discover some of them will now
bite.

Oh dear, woe is me.

Yup, I know I was heavily responsible for creating the atmosphere of
anything goes.

But now I think differently.

This is not a news group for anybody to sound off about issues unrelated to
computer chess. This includes nazis, germany, pyramids, time travel,
relativity theory, gratuitous insulting, playing mind games, offering to be
people's friends if they let you psycho-analyse their secrets (this is one
of your favourites, I'm told ?), scientology, concentration camps or all
the other junk. All very interesting, but this is no fancy dress party, its
a computer chess party. Go gatecrash someplace else.

Well, poachers can turn into gamekeepers.

Chris Whittington

>
> Greetings, Reno
>
>
>

Carl Tillotson

unread,
Sep 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/1/97
to

Chris,

You missed yourself off the list, surely you have a contribution to make
also.

Carlos
******
Email Reply : Change "carl.tillotson" to "lca"
Lancashire Chess Association Homepage
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~lca/index.htm

Message Written Offline with Virtual Access 4.0 Mon, 01 Sep 1997 20:14 +0100


RenoDeCaro

unread,
Sep 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/1/97
to

Hello Whittington
I am willing to overlook the fact that you did not answer one single point
I made in my last post, what interests me none the less is why you pick the
N.G. forum to attack, criticize and ridicule someone who claims to be your
friend? I am talking about Thosten Czub who I understand helped you with
the development of CST. According to my "boring" philosophy I belief in
praising my friends openly and chastising them privately. You obviously
adhere to the opposite approach!
WITH FRIENDS LIKE YOU WHO NEEDS ENEMIES????
Why dont you stop violating your own policy for this N.G and start
talking about computer chess? The last question addressed to you in this
N.G. which you never thought important enough to answer was to the effect
of "in which century can we expect CST"?
I n other words "Schuster bleib bei deinen Leisten....."

Greetings Reno

.


brucemo

unread,
Sep 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/1/97
to

RenoDeCaro wrote:

> It appears that in your mind, Whittington, any opinion on a topic that
> does not interest you or in which you are ignorant is synonymous with
> boring. Have you ever considered that the same topic may be interesting to
> someone else, even if this topic is posted on a chess computer newsgroup?
> The fact that there is considerably more response in this newsgroup to some
> of what you label boring opinions than your exciting insights on chess
> programming, makes my point.

That off-topic threads generate a lot of responses is not a reason to condone
off-topic threads. If anything, this is more reason to condemn them.

It is easy to suggest that people just ignore the off-topic crap, but there is
so much of it that it takes a lot of time even to just ignore it. I still
have about twenty "development testing against learners" posts to wade though,
I have to click on the post, wait a couple of seconds (sometimes longer) for
the thing to even start displaying, then discover that it's about physics and
go onto the next one. It is annoying to have to do this in a thread that is
ostensibly on-topic.

> >3. Political fanatics who just have to counter anything and everything they
> >disagree with, plus postulate inane theories of pyramidal time-travel and
> >and and
> >Czub
>
> Most of what you call Czub's "inane theories" have a very sound basis in
> quantum mechanics and even when I don't agree with them, I find them
> interesting. Try to refute them scientifically and you will discover that
> these "inane theories" are not so inane after all.

They may be fascinating, but they properly belong in another group, read by
people who would choose to go looking for such stuff.

This group is for discussion of computer chess.

> >so, Teuschen - go away and die
> >
> A bit extreme, don't you think? Rolf's comments about you sound more
> reasonable all the time.

I understand Chris' point of view and do not criticise it. You may come
around to it when (not "if") Rolf starts doing his business on *your* shoe.

> Some advice to you, Whittington: it's not a good idea to kick dogs who
> have not even barked at you. You may discover some of them will now bite.

Please bite via email, if you are going to do it regularly.

bruce

brucemo

unread,
Sep 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/1/97
to

Carl Tillotson wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> You missed yourself off the list, surely you have a contribution to make
> also.

Both you and Reno DeCaro failed to notice that Chris is, in fact, on the list.

bruce

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Sep 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/1/97
to

"chrisw" <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:


>--
>http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

>ericfitch <lan...@mindless.com> wrote in article
><340A9F...@mindless.com>...
>> I haven't been here in a long time and when I come back, I see that 80%
>> of the posts have to do with Nazi silliness. How does a newsgroup
>> devoted to chess come to this? Very sad.
>>

>Quite so.

>Too many self-opinionated dorks just can't resist the opportinity to bore


>us all silly with their boring opinions.

>These are the guys who (if they dare) approach the beautiful girls at


>parties and launch into meaningful political conversations. The beautiful
>girls smile sweetly and move away as fast as their long legs can carry
>them.

>1. Troublemakers who just want to play their own silly games.
>Teuschen et al


>2. Bores who can't help delivering their opinions on everything.
>De Caro
>Tillotson
>etc.

>3. Political fanatics who just have to counter anything and everything they
>disagree with, plus postulate inane theories of pyramidal time-travel and
>and and
>Czub

>4. Haters who just have to counter their favourite hate-target.
>Czedak
>etc.


>There are some perfectly sensible people on this group,

Me so swollen....


Lovely. :)

Rolf

>and some of the
>above are occasionally capable of making some sort of sense too.

>so, Teuschen - go away and die

>Tillotson, shut up with your boring opinions/solutions to all the problems


>of the world. You just give the lunatics more threads to fill out.

>deCaro - cease launching into the politico threads. You just make matters
>worse.

>Czub - stop your pyramids/scientologists/communist propaganda/nazi


>analysis/time warping/orion bullshit. You just irritate people so that they
>feel impelled to counter you.

>Czedak - quit hassling Czub.


>And lastly, the rest of you, and the above; you are bloody lucky to have
>Hyatt, Bruce, Schroder, Enrique, Chris, Moritz, Ingo, Korner, Tom, Peter,
>Matthias, Andreas and co and many others making intelligent, often
>opposing, sometimes silly conversations on this news group. Consider
>yourselves fortunate, if computer chess stuff interests you, that we all
>make this group an interesting place to come and visit.

>And, to the dorks, quit posting your tedious opinions on anything and


>everything. Shut up and try listening for a change, hmmmm ?

>Chris Whittington

pulgao

unread,
Sep 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/1/97
to

ericfitch <lan...@mindless.com> wrote:

>I haven't been here in a long time and when I come back, I see that 80%
>of the posts have to do with Nazi silliness. How does a newsgroup
>devoted to chess come to this? Very sad.

One can explain it with four little letters:

R-O-L-F

RenoDeCaro

unread,
Sep 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/1/97
to

Hello, Whittington:

Confirm you are the same guy who was caught up for months in a
free-for-all with Czub and Rolf exchanging insults and discussing anything
but computer chess? Confirm also that you are the one who regularly
exchanges barbs with Rolf and only recently posted your historical insights
(junior high school level) on the German occupation of Holland during World
War II. Interestingly enough, your postings on computer chess are more
confrontational than informative as well.

>Too many self-opinionated dorks just can't resist the opportinity to bore


>us all silly with their boring opinions.

It appears that in your mind, Whittington, any opinion on a topic that


does not interest you or in which you are ignorant is synonymous with
boring. Have you ever considered that the same topic may be interesting to
someone else, even if this topic is posted on a chess computer newsgroup?
The fact that there is considerably more response in this newsgroup to some
of what you label boring opinions than your exciting insights on chess
programming, makes my point.

>These are the guys who (if they dare) approach the beautiful girls at


>parties and launch into meaningful political conversations. The beautiful
>girls smile sweetly and move away as fast as their long legs can carry
>them.

Whittington, do you honestly delude yourself into believing that those


same girls are more interested in hearing your" meaningful" tirades on why
you have to postpone the launching of CST another month because the program
is still losing to "free downloads?"

>1. Troublemakers who just want to play their own silly games.
>Teuschen et al
>


You certainly could not restrain yourself in the past from joining Rolf in
what you now call "his silly game."

>2. Bores who can't help delivering their opinions on everything.
>De Caro
>Tillotson
>etc.
>


You forgot to include Whittington here as well. I am willing to bet there
are more posts of some of your off-the subject opinions on this newsgroup
than Tillotson's and mine combined. Additionally, I doubt that everyone on
this newsgroup would want you to be the judge for them of what's boring and
should not be posted.

>3. Political fanatics who just have to counter anything and everything they


>disagree with, plus postulate inane theories of pyramidal time-travel and
>and and
>Czub

Most of what you call Czub's "inane theories" have a very sound basis in


quantum mechanics and even when I don't agree with them, I find them
interesting. Try to refute them scientifically and you will discover that
these "inane theories" are not so inane after all.

>so, Teuschen - go away and die
>


A bit extreme, don't you think? Rolf's comments about you sound more
reasonable all the time.

>Tillotson, shut up with your boring opinions/solutions to all the problems


>of the world. You just give the lunatics more threads to fill out.
>

It looks like you are the one who gives the lunatics more threads to fill
out than Tillotson. Count how many threads by Rolf have been directed
toward you and how many toward Tillotson. Then you will realize who the
real culprit is.

>deCaro - cease launching into the politico threads. You just make matters
>worse.

Every one of my threads was a REPLY to another thread...in other words, I
did not LAUNCH anything!

>Czub - stop your pyramids/scientologists/communist propaganda/nazi


>analysis/time warping/orion bullshit. You just irritate people so that they
>feel impelled to counter you.
>

If Czub's more" creative":) efforts irritate you to the point where you
feel compelled to counter tham (as you did here), restrain yourself. Or do
you feel equally compelled to counter all the sex posts on this newsgroup?
My guess is you just don't read them, rather than read them so you can
counter them. Correct me here if I'm wrong since I can't be ssure!:)

>And lastly, the rest of you, and the above; you are bloody lucky to have


>Hyatt, Bruce, Schroder, Enrique, Chris, Moritz, Ingo, Korner, Tom, Peter,
>Matthias, Andreas and co and many others making intelligent, often
>opposing, sometimes silly conversations on this news group.
>Consider
>yourselves fortunate, if computer chess stuff interests you, that we all
>make this group an interesting place to come and visit.
>

It must have required a gargantuan amount of restraint for someone with
your ego not to have put your name on this list.

>And, to the dorks, quit posting your tedious opinions on anything and


>everything. Shut up and try listening for a change, hmmmm ?
>

Since according to you, I belong in that category, let me only say I
listen to those who listen to me. I have been to seminars on different
topics and often the most interesting information received had nothing to
do with what everyone came together to discuss. No open mind would want to
limit in an open forum the discussion to only that which was the primary
topic of interest. The same applies to newsgroups.

Some advice to you, Whittington: it's not a good idea to kick dogs who


have not even barked at you. You may discover some of them will now bite.

Greetings, Reno

mclane

unread,
Sep 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/1/97
to

renod...@aol.com (RenoDeCaro) wrote:

>Hello, Whittington:

>Some advice to you, Whittington: it's not a good idea to kick dogs who
>have not even barked at you. You may discover some of them will now bite.

>Greetings, Reno

Please, you should not do that. That is exactly what Rolf wants us to
do.
This is his target. To split us in parts, groups of pro- and
anti-fellows.
We should not do this. Let us be civilized and not attack persons but
instead: person opinons.
When we are all wrong sided, and he is alone right-side, his only way
to get more "friends" is to split us into parts, that he gets some
companions.
This way psychotic people make friends. Not with social methods but
with unsocial methods of splitting social-groups.

I know you are all adults and you can do what you want. I only want to
advise you to consider that THIS is exactly what he wants.

I don't want to see my friends fight each against each other, only
because Rolf Tueschen likes it.

Thanks anyway. Consider about Rolfs targets. What could be the target
of his behaviour ?


Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Sep 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/1/97
to

bays...@intrepid.net (pulgao) wrote:

>ericfitch <lan...@mindless.com> wrote:

>>I haven't been here in a long time and when I come back, I see that 80%
>>of the posts have to do with Nazi silliness. How does a newsgroup
>>devoted to chess come to this? Very sad.

>One can explain it with four little letters:

>R-O-L-F

C'mon guys, behave a little bit comme il faut...


Pope Rolf, Rodolpherus XIX.

RenoDeCaro

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

>mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:

>now bite.

>>Greetings, Reno

It appears we have found different parts of the bible persuasive Thorsten.
You seem to be of the "give the other cheek" school of thought and I feel
more comfortable with"an eye for an eye", when someone insults me without
provocation.
Greeting Reno

RenoDeCaro

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

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

>That off-topic threads generate a lot of responses is not a reason to condone
>
>off-topic threads. If anything, this is more reason to condemn them.

I assume that even a N.G. is democratic in nature Bruce.With this thought
in mind if the majority of individuals in the group want to occasionally
digress in their discussion from comp. chess and make this fact known by
generating more off-topic threads than threads on comp. chess than the
minority of purists should not be able to insult them into not
posting.(Please dont claim the silent majority agrees with you :) )After
all, this N.G. should .reflect what a good number of people feel
comfortable talking about at different times...........name of the N.G. not
withstanding.


>I understand Chris' point of view and do not criticise it. You may come
>around to it when (not "if") Rolf starts doing his business on *your* shoe.

Rolf has already don so on numerous occasions,and I still dont think this
is sufficient reason for wanting him to die .Maybe being on Whittingtons
list of" the chosen" helped you see his point of view better.
Ironically of all the people on his list he is the one caught up the most
in topics unrelated to comp. chess.
.Greeting Reno


RenoDeCaro

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

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

>Both you and Reno DeCaro failed to notice that Chris is, in fact, on the
>list.

How right you are Bruce!!!! After insulting other members of the group
Whittington modestly selected himself to HIS LIST of" the chosen few" the
rest of the group should listen to.
Greetings Reno


Tord Kallqvist Romstad

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

In article <01bcb7a3$2dc579c0$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>, chrisw wrote:

>Maybe we should start again with another group:
>rec.games.chess.computers.programming, and call this one
>rec.games.chess.computers.politics

I agree. Does anyone know how we create a new group? Should the programming
newsgroup be moderated? In general I prefer unmoderated newsgroups, but with
Tueschen around a moderated newsgroup may be necessary.

Tord


Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

"Enrique Irazoqui" <en...@xs4all.nl> wrote:


>Bill Newton <Bi...@notwen.demon.co.uk> wrote in article

>> ' CHRIS WHITTINGTON IS AN INTERESTING PERSON'

>Good, Bill, you are becoming perceptive.

>Enrique

>PS. Chris: why don't you stop wasting your time with people that are not
>going to listen anyway?

Pardon me, Enrique, my friend, wouldn't it be wiser if everybody judged
about the quality of his own post before lift-off?

Why do you want to link someones posts with the possible ear problems of
potential readers?

For me Bill made a better comment. He restrictively commented on Chris'
own logic. And he wasn't alone by detecting the mean quality of the
logic of our english businessman.

Where did *you* see the positive good quality in WhittNotty's postings?
Or is it again just one of your typical proxy activities without
personally being involved? :)


Lovely. :) (SA)

Rolf Tueschen


chrisw

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Tord Kallqvist Romstad <rom...@filoktetes.uio.no> wrote in article
<slrn60o6pe....@filoktetes.uio.no>...

It seems unbelievable that a computer chess news group should need to be
moderated, if we can't get our simple little house in order, it doesn't say
much for the chances of the world.

Also the problem with moderation is who does it ?

Imagine a ng moderated by Czub ?

Imagine a ng moderated by Hyatt ?

Or imagine whoever you want ...

Each would have very different ideas what would be allowed.

Lets first see if enough people will take a stand against the gatecrashers,
bores and hate merchants.

Chris Whittington


>
> Tord
>
>

Dave

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

On 2 Sep 1997 13:57:02 GMT, rom...@filoktetes.uio.no (Tord Kallqvist
Romstad) wrote:

>
>I agree. Does anyone know how we create a new group? Should the programming
>newsgroup be moderated? In general I prefer unmoderated newsgroups, but with
>Tueschen around a moderated newsgroup may be necessary.
>

>Tord

Aside from the tensions that Rolf has stirred up, I personally don't
think the ng has a need to become moderated.

All we need to do is:

1. Get rid of Rolf's incessant name calling.

and

2. Refrain from doing any of that ourselves. [%-))

It's not that hard to get a moderated ng, but to prevent the abuses
currently in progress (all the name calling), it would need content
based censorship, which is a *huge* can of worms.

If Rolf's common sense doesn't return soon, let's see about having his
usenet privileges suspended for a while. Should be possible. Have
heard it's *quite* possible. A word to the wise, R.T.:

To Rolf T.:
*******************************************************************
You know I'm not against you, but I'm against your incessant attempt
to force Czub or Ed to apologize. They clearly don't agree with your
point of view. Your daily write up(s) of name-calling, nazism in
general, etc. are getting on everyone's nerves. Your attempt to sink
the ocean liner because you have been injured by a fellow passenger is
utter nonsense. I don't know if you are guilty of slander, but you are
surely guilty of abusing your usenet privileges in this ng. [If you
really were insulted by some people you really believe are neo-nazi's,
you should feel *proud* of it, not injured.]
It's *way* past time you got away from this name calling on the ng.
*********************************************************************

I don't mind the occasional off-topic threads, as long as it's not the
rgcc name-calling contest we seem to be having lately.

Having worked long and hard on their programs, (or having spent a
bundle buying a few) or both, we need to remember that raw nerve
endings are already exposed, and keep our language and courtesy toward
*all* the readers, elevated. It shouldn't be that hard since
everything has to be entered at the keyboard. We have a chance to
reflect on what we're saying if we just take advantage of it. We
should use it for our mutual benefit. Save the name calling for the
next family re-union, maybe!!

Regards,
Dave


Tom Kerrigan

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

chrisw (chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:

: Also the problem with moderation is who does it ?


: Imagine a ng moderated by Czub ?
: Imagine a ng moderated by Hyatt ?
: Or imagine whoever you want ...
: Each would have very different ideas what would be allowed.

Missed the point of moderation, Chris. It's not the same as censorship.
I'm not sure if I would trust Czub to do it, but I wouldn't have a problem
if Hyatt was deleting the crap. If Czub is going off about who shot JFK
or if Rolf is flaming Ed for no good reason, that's obviously trash and
doesn't need to be here. What's more, it's half the trash on this group.
I can save myself a tremendous amount of time if I just ignore those two
guys.

Cheers,
Tom

chrisw

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Tom Kerrigan <kerr...@deimos.frii.com> wrote in article
<5uhfnm$6cg$1...@europa.frii.com>...


>
> chrisw (chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : Also the problem with moderation is who does it ?
> : Imagine a ng moderated by Czub ?
> : Imagine a ng moderated by Hyatt ?
> : Or imagine whoever you want ...
> : Each would have very different ideas what would be allowed.
>
> Missed the point of moderation, Chris. It's not the same as censorship.

Its a thin line between the two.

I'm fairly sure I'ld never post to a moderated ng. But that's just me
personally, I couldn't cope with the idea that somebody else had the right
to moderate/censor it.


> I'm not sure if I would trust Czub to do it, but I wouldn't have a
problem
> if Hyatt was deleting the crap.

It wasn't a point about who moderates, rather that any moderation is going
to be subjective to some extent and quite possibly political. depending on
your viewpoint either Czub or Hyatt could be seen as highly partial to a
particular view.

For example, suppose we started a thread about DB and materialistic search.
I could see very different approaches to what would and what wouldn't be
acceptable.

Or suppose at a WMCCC there was a highly controversial decision. What could
be acceptable to post and what not could again be highly subjective. Or a
decision on stopping such a thread after it got going, or stopping specific
individuals or allegations. Dodgy, no ?


> If Czub is going off about who shot JFK
> or if Rolf is flaming Ed for no good reason, that's obviously trash and
> doesn't need to be here.

Agreed.

What's more, it's half the trash on this group.

Well more than 50% if you count all the opinionated piling in on top.

> I can save myself a tremendous amount of time if I just ignore those two
> guys.

Ok, drawbacks of moderation:

1. its slow, we stop being so spontaneous

2. slowness effectively reduces the traffic in general

3. controversially subjective decisions are bound to get made

4. its not so nice knowing that one's posts are liable to get bounced

5. how can computer chess be so wildly violent to even require this ?

6. someone who gets off on the wrong foot would get put out of the
discussion when there may be hope that that person could later be
socialised or even deliver gems of wisdom. Even Teuschen c o u l d have
been an asset, no ? And we'ld almost certainly not have kept Thorsten,
probably not me either, given the icca fracas many months ago.

7. Far less readership, and for some of us the reduction in self-promotion
or promotion of a program/product would be lost. At the risk of getting
some people angry, rgcc is used for promotion right now in various ways
that would be lost. Its no secret that Ed, myself, Bob, Bruce, even you and
Stobor, et al are known, get their work/products known and so on. KK
promotes himself as an individual. I'm quite happy to see rgcc carry out
this function, it leads to more knowledge, more understanding. Less
readership reduces this.

8. As already asserted, getting to see the personalities of the people at
the production side of computer chess is a neat way of getting to
understand their programs. Much of this would be lost

Advantages

1. No Teuschen

2. No hate mailers chasing specific individuals

3. No nonsense threads

4. possibly some old posters would return


I'ld like to see us try and reform first.

Chris Whittington

BTW please send your email address to Ed, there's something you should be
part of.

>
> Cheers,
> Tom
>

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

co...@sprintmail.com (Dave) wrote:

>On 2 Sep 1997 13:57:02 GMT, rom...@filoktetes.uio.no (Tord Kallqvist
>Romstad) wrote:

>>
>>I agree. Does anyone know how we create a new group? Should the programming
>>newsgroup be moderated? In general I prefer unmoderated newsgroups, but with
>>Tueschen around a moderated newsgroup may be necessary.
>>
>>Tord

>Aside from the tensions that Rolf has stirred up, I personally don't
>think the ng has a need to become moderated.

>All we need to do is:

> 1. Get rid of Rolf's incessant name calling.

> and
>
> 2. Refrain from doing any of that ourselves. [%-))

>It's not that hard to get a moderated ng, but to prevent the abuses
>currently in progress (all the name calling), it would need content
>based censorship, which is a *huge* can of worms.

>If Rolf's common sense doesn't return soon, let's see about having his
>usenet privileges suspended for a while. Should be possible. Have
>heard it's *quite* possible. A word to the wise, R.T.:

Brother, who do think you are to talk to me in this way? Think about it.
What are your motives?

Look, you were on vacations when Czub posted nazi-like stuff.
You were on holidays when Schroder insulted me for opposing Czub in this
question.
You were lost in the Bermuda Triangle when Ed Schroder BV posted here in
rgcc that they would sue me...

Now, when the day comes nearer, we'll all could see that Ed was a little
bit overheated when he decided to sue me, or bit too much driven mad by
WhittoNottigh...

And at that moment you stand up like a man and babble your stuff into
the public. LOL. You, the expert of usenet, you should know that you
could talk privately to people. Perhaps then you could convince someone
of the quality of your arguments. Here in public, you naive Hulk, you
almost forced me to resist.

And your arguments too are of minor quality. I'am not hoping for several
excuses. Only one single. From Schroder is sufficient. I doubt you even
know about his insult? (It was about rotten fish.) Who the hell told you
I expected a real apology for Czub's nazi-like stuff. Wouldn't this be
very strange? He could explain what he meant. But he didn't insult me
with his rantings. He insulted me several times, but how could I expect
a madman to excuse himself. Funny idea. You must be badly misleaden.

And then I wait for the decleration of Schroder that his sueing idea is
dead. Tomorrow or the next days.

Fine with me. Another sueing takes departure after deadline Sept 15th.
You missed this too I fear. Because Schroder is guilty of a crime. Of
the pretended victim role after invented threats to his life and insults
that he should be a nazi. We'll see what the public prosecutor, NOT me,
will have to say.... At least in germany the law about this nazi stuff
is very restricted.

Again, who do think you are, anonymous Dave? You know my name. Please
write yours too. You can't be a prominent figure with the need of
protection. You seem too less smart for that...

And to say the truth, I don't believe you, that you are not against me.
Either you lie or you're too stupid to realize what you've already done
here.... I state. If I misread something I will hurry to apologize. Your
turn now.


Lovely. :) (SA)

Rolf Tueschen

>To Rolf T.:

Tom Kerrigan

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

I'm sorry that I don't have a lot of time to reply to this or hit on every
point, but I'd like to say something about moderation. I would expect clear
rules to exist. For example, posting that ICCA is evil for certain reasons
is just fine, and I'm sure Bob would allow it if he was moderating. If
somebody participating in the discussion started calling everybody else
Nazis for no obvious reason (this seems to be a frequently recurring theme
in Rolf and Czub's posts) then that's obviously useless and can be safely
booted.

Cheers,
Tom

brucemo

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

chrisw wrote:

> You may not like it, but it is an elitist issue.
>
> The reason this group is (was) interesting and active is that a fair few of
> the people involved and knowledgeable about computer chess are posting to
> it.

It would be a great world if we could get Thompson, Berliner, Hsu, Slate, as
well as a few more of the professionals, to post here.

It would be approximately like a continuous WCCC, sans beer.

However, I can't agree with your "elitist" characterization. I think that
anyone who asks a question, states an opinion, makes a statement, or whatever,
as long as there is a fair attempt made to stay on topic, is absolutely
welcome here. If these other folks didn't want to inhabit a group that was
mostly like that, well, that's their choice.

This group is about computer chess. If you have something to say on this
subject, please post it. Your idea may be criticized, but perhaps you will
make an interesting point, and someone may read it and respond intelligently.

> Another fair few think rgcc is so pathetic and boring that they no longer
> post; probably I, amongst others, am responsible for this.

I don't. I'm still here. I still read news expecting to find stuff that I
need to find.

Often lately I have sat here staring at my screen, thinking about whether I
should delete the entire damned newsreader off of my computer. I can't do
this. There is stuff here that I need to read.

> So this group operates with an 'elite' group of 'experts', some more so
> than others, and with a wide range of diverse opinion. It generates
> arguments, it generates insights, it sometimes generates stupidity. There
> are also many readers, some of whom post, some of whom are experts who
> don't post and so on.

Don't need an elite. Anyone who's really interested in this topic will become
"elite" enough in about a month.

> My personal view is that the personal opinions of programmers and program
> testers and so on are of interest. See something of the character of the
> programmer and you can understand the program better. So if Bob or Ed or
> myself or Bruce or Dan or Matthias or Tom or Peter or whoever want to spout
> off about whatever, that's fine by me. If I can form the view that Ed is
> clever but inscrutible, or that Bob is a bit materialistic and supported
> the Vietnam war, or that Bruce is Mr Reasonable count to ten before
> Dynamite Explosion, then this helps me understand more about the type of
> program they write.

I on your list (although anyone who knew me in college, or any of my
ex-bosses, would laugh like hell at your characterization of me, suggesting
perhaps that I count to zero instead), but I don't think I have any more
license to talk about communism than anyone else. Often I have refrained from
getting involved in the political threads, even though I have an opinion. I
have written a few off-topic things, unless you count threads where I have
suggested that people be civil and/or not go on about random stuff, in which
case I've written a lot more.

I don't feel compelled to write only on-topic stuff, but I would try not to
get drawn into long involved emotional discussions with people about off-topic
stuff. An exception is that Jakarta thing, which I felt we should try to iron
out, since many of us were thinking about whether we should go.

What I wouldn't do is try to write a point by point rebuttal of one of
Thorsten's political posts. Sometimes I have felt like doing this. And I
would never, ever, has been done recently by someone who I hope quickly learns
better, ask Thorsten to *elaborate upon* one of his random political things.

> So I am very happy for this elite group (elite only here of course) to say
> whatever they want.
>
> I am not happy with the like of yourself (deCaro) doing the same thing.
> Your opinions may be quite fascinating in their context, but you have no
> computer chess contribution behind them to look at; therefore your opinions
> are off-topic on this group.

Same goes for anyone who posts long involved political crud. If people want
to talk *at length* about German politics, capitalism/communism, etc., there
are appropriate places and this is not one of them.

It should be obvious to anyone what topics will make certain people go insane.
These topics should be avoided.

> This is not to say that you should be censored. Sure if somebody is talking
> dumb stuff (about computer chess), and you alone happen to be able to
> correct it, we'll all be very grateful.
>
> But if what you do is get into discussions on relativity theory, nazis and
> pyramids, then you are just making the off-topic crap worse.

Right.

> You may find it incredibly insulting, but I suggest you restrain yourself
> to read only; and find another group where your intelligent contribution
> would be on-topic.

This is a computer chess group, not an "Ooh, that's an interesting point about
German democracy in the 90's, could you elaborate upon that, and what do you
think of this related point?" group. As long as the distinction is made
properly, no problem.

> And if not ? You'll be playing your small part in the gradual destruction
> of this forum as more and more of the intelligent, knowledgeable posters
> leave it.

Things are changing radically. It's already probably about as destroyed as it
can get though. The people who still post often probably would do it even if
we got spammed by thousands of phone sex posts.

bruce

brucemo

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

chrisw wrote:

> Maybe we should start again with another group:
> rec.games.chess.computers.programming, and call this one
> rec.games.chess.computers.politics
>

> this is a change of position on my part (I know), but we can't continue
> like this. I really feel, as someone who has been in the industry since
> 1981, that we need to be speaking to each other, changing ideas, testing,
> arguing sometimes. What we don't need is the hate-shit campaigns from these
> various dorks.

My first law of the internet is that in any usenet group there will always be
at least one asshole.

Some of us will have different opinions about who these people are, but I
think that my statement is probably still true for those of us who are
neither saints nor habitually stoned.

I think the solution is to just cope with these people, since you can't get
rid of them, according to my first law.

I have absolutely failed to do this, myself.

bruce

Lonnie

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

On Mon, 01 Sep 1997 05:59:10 -0500, ericfitch <lan...@mindless.com> wrote:

|I haven't been here in a long time and when I come back, I see that 80%
|of the posts have to do with Nazi silliness. How does a newsgroup
|devoted to chess come to this? Very sad.

Eric,
No,I disagree with you. When u came back in at that appropriate time you caught a
slightly off beat subject in rgcc. This happens from time to time but as a whole I
think everyone sticks to the issues at hand. I mean I am hear to survey any items
related to chess and I find most stick to it. Some at times as well as myself might
go on a "binge" to a non-related subject but that's the ordinary vacillations of the
human mind,usually the furrows of the many direct it to the seeds which reside in the
many.


I again want to express my appreciations for the many reknowed programmers who post
here and basically without their input this group would be sterile in my opinion.

같같같
Lonnie

Dear Santa,
I want a copy of your list of naughty girls!

**Put a "ri" after the "@" to respond to proper email address**

chrisw

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> wrote in article

<19970901220...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...


> Hello Whittington
> I am willing to overlook the fact that you did not answer one single
point
> I made in my last post,

You made no points, merely generated gratuitous attack cliches. It is not
my intention to make this off-topic stuff even greater by responding; but I
note that those of you named have made zero attempt to modify your
gatecrashing of this group and its diversion into disconnected semantics,
when asked politely (I refer to the numerous requests that you go to email,
or just keep to on-topic). Your continuation in the face of all the regular
posters and readers who have complained, politely, is both arrogant and
rude. Don't be surprised, therefore, if it takes some rude insults in your
direction to shake you. Of course, the fact that you are shaken, and then
respond (rudely of course) indicates the sort of world in which you live.

> what interests me none the less is why you pick the
> N.G. forum to attack, criticize and ridicule someone who claims to be
your
> friend? I am talking about Thosten Czub who I understand helped you with
> the development of CST.

I say what I think. Thorsten is quite capable of coping with it. Its one of
the reasons we are friends.

> According to my "boring" philosophy I belief in
> praising my friends openly and chastising them privately. You obviously
> adhere to the opposite approach!
> WITH FRIENDS LIKE YOU WHO NEEDS ENEMIES????
> Why dont you stop violating your own policy for this N.G and start
> talking about computer chess? The last question addressed to you in this
> N.G. which you never thought important enough to answer was to the
effect
> of "in which century can we expect CST"?

Since arrogant bores talk and don't listen .......

> I n other words "Schuster bleib bei deinen Leisten....."

Tell you what. If you just read from now on and keep your great knowledge
of all things non-computer chess to yourself and refrain from telling us
how you know all about Germany/Europe and the rest of us know nothing, and
then only on the kindergarden level, then I might just email you a release
date.
Oh yeah, you'll have also to agree not to email anyone else telling them
they have a split personality, and they are really Teuschen in disguise,
and if they tell you their little dark secret, you'll promise not to reveal
it to anybody, and help them with psychoanalysis sessions via email, and
how very intelligent and perceptive you are, and how you make a very good
friend and they just have to agree to submit to you, and and and. That's
your game, isn't it ?

Chris Whittington


>
> Greetings Reno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>

chrisw

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> wrote in article

<19970902022...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...

You may not like it, but it is an elitist issue.

The reason this group is (was) interesting and active is that a fair few of
the people involved and knowledgeable about computer chess are posting to
it.

Another fair few think rgcc is so pathetic and boring that they no longer


post; probably I, amongst others, am responsible for this.

So this group operates with an 'elite' group of 'experts', some more so


than others, and with a wide range of diverse opinion. It generates
arguments, it generates insights, it sometimes generates stupidity. There
are also many readers, some of whom post, some of whom are experts who
don't post and so on.

My personal view is that the personal opinions of programmers and program


testers and so on are of interest. See something of the character of the
programmer and you can understand the program better. So if Bob or Ed or
myself or Bruce or Dan or Matthias or Tom or Peter or whoever want to spout
off about whatever, that's fine by me. If I can form the view that Ed is
clever but inscrutible, or that Bob is a bit materialistic and supported
the Vietnam war, or that Bruce is Mr Reasonable count to ten before
Dynamite Explosion, then this helps me understand more about the type of
program they write.

So I am very happy for this elite group (elite only here of course) to say
whatever they want.

I am not happy with the like of yourself (deCaro) doing the same thing.
Your opinions may be quite fascinating in their context, but you have no
computer chess contribution behind them to look at; therefore your opinions
are off-topic on this group.

This is not to say that you should be censored. Sure if somebody is talking


dumb stuff (about computer chess), and you alone happen to be able to
correct it, we'll all be very grateful.

But if what you do is get into discussions on relativity theory, nazis and
pyramids, then you are just making the off-topic crap worse.

You may find it incredibly insulting, but I suggest you restrain yourself


to read only; and find another group where your intelligent contribution
would be on-topic.

And if not ? You'll be playing your small part in the gradual destruction


of this forum as more and more of the intelligent, knowledgeable posters
leave it.

Chris Whittington

>
>

Bill Newton

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

In article <01bcb6d4$e64a9220$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,
chrisw <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> writes
>Quite so.


>
>Too many self-opinionated dorks just can't resist the opportinity to
>bore
>us all silly with their boring opinions.

Kettle - Pot - Black.

>These are the guys who (if they dare) approach the beautiful girls at
>parties and launch into meaningful political conversations. The
>beautiful
>girls smile sweetly and move away as fast as their long legs can
>carry
>them.

Something you've experienced ? ;)

>1. Troublemakers who just want to play their own silly games.

As you do now?

>2. Bores who can't help delivering their opinions on everything.

As you do now?

...snip....

>4. Haters who just have to counter their favourite hate-target.

Hi Chris, have you forgotten your 'counter' postings to me? ROFL!

>There are some perfectly sensible people on this group, and some


>of the
>above are occasionally capable of making some sort of sense too.

Yes, and others are perhaps a little patronising don't you think?

No names - No pack drill - but you only get one guess as to whom I
regard as the epitome of pompous patronisation.

Tip: Look in the mirror.

> - go away and die

Subtlety is not one of your strong points, is it?

>Tillotson, shut up with your boring opinions/solutions to all the
>problems
>of the world. You just give the lunatics more threads to fill out.

You're filling this one out nicely.

Incidentally, you do realise that you now identify yourself as a self
confessed lunatic......dont you? ;)


>
>deCaro - cease launching into the politico threads. You just make
>matters
>worse.

Unlike this posting of yours which is oil on troubled water - Not!

>Czub - stop your pyramids/scientologists/communist
>propaganda/nazi
>analysis/time warping/orion bullshit. You just irritate people so that
>they
>feel impelled to counter you.

You're irritated? Try a nice cup of tea, two sugars.

>Czedak - quit hassling Czub.

Now now Czedak, do as the Oracle says.

Nah! On second thoughts, do as you think fit.

>And lastly, the rest of you, and the above; you are bloody lucky to
>have
>Hyatt, Bruce, Schroder, Enrique, Chris, Moritz, Ingo, Korner, Tom,
>Peter,
>Matthias, Andreas and co and many others making intelligent, often
>opposing, sometimes silly conversations on this news group.

Chris, You are pomposity personified.

I can imagine that many of the folk named on your list will positively
cringe at your comments.

> Consider
>yourselves fortunate, if computer chess stuff interests you, that we
>all
>make this group an interesting place to come and visit.

Dont be a shrinking violet Chris! put it in capitals:



' CHRIS WHITTINGTON IS AN INTERESTING PERSON'

Why?

Because he said so.

>And, to the dorks, quit posting your tedious opinions on anything
>and
>everything. Shut up and try listening for a change, hmmmm ?

Ah! I see you haven't lost the knack of how to win friends and
influence people.

One last word. I kept this response rather short inasmuch as
RenoDeCaro made a full and accurate response to your posting.

I noted that you didn't respond back to answer the questions he put
to you, rather you posted suggesting that you are now a
Gamekeeper, having once been a Poacher.

As if that suddenly made all of your previous observations legitimate.

Pardon me for LOL!
--
Bill Newton

Enrique Irazoqui

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

Bill Newton <Bi...@notwen.demon.co.uk> wrote in article

> ' CHRIS WHITTINGTON IS AN INTERESTING PERSON'

Good, Bill, you are becoming perceptive.

chrisw

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Enrique Irazoqui <en...@xs4all.nl> wrote in article
<01bcb797$27867840$82216dc2@enir>...

I guess we could just all quit and leave it to them to bore each other to
death.

Trouble for them is they are fascinated by us, and without us they'ld have
nothing to do.

Shame it seems that an extended forum for programmers / testers / experts
and so on is not possible. Too many dorks want to come and join the party.

What to do ? I really guess that just quit is the option, going on like
this is intolerable.

What will you do, just stop reading / posting / participating ? Ed has
virtually quit already, he just posts occasionally now, and he was one of
the main people on this group. The stuff from Teuschen got too much, plus
there were other rgcc problems for him, so he massively reduced his posts.

Obviously the dorks don't want the programmers/experts to speak. Newton is
obviously so incensed every time I post that he can't help himself. Czezdak
hits Czub's posts almost like clockwork. And Teuschen .......

And then, because we argue and discuss amongst ourselves, they justify
their 'contribution' on the grounds that we do it too.

Maybe we should start again with another group:
rec.games.chess.computers.programming, and call this one
rec.games.chess.computers.politics

this is a change of position on my part (I know), but we can't continue
like this. I really feel, as someone who has been in the industry since
1981, that we need to be speaking to each other, changing ideas, testing,
arguing sometimes. What we don't need is the hate-shit campaigns from these
various dorks.

Chris Whittington


>

Robert Hyatt

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

chrisw (chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:

: --
: http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

: Tord Kallqvist Romstad <rom...@filoktetes.uio.no> wrote in article
: <slrn60o6pe....@filoktetes.uio.no>...
: > In article <01bcb7a3$2dc579c0$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>, chrisw wrote:

: >
: > >Maybe we should start again with another group:


: > >rec.games.chess.computers.programming, and call this one
: > >rec.games.chess.computers.politics

: >
: > I agree. Does anyone know how we create a new group? Should the


: programming
: > newsgroup be moderated? In general I prefer unmoderated newsgroups, but
: with
: > Tueschen around a moderated newsgroup may be necessary.

: It seems unbelievable that a computer chess news group should need to be


: moderated, if we can't get our simple little house in order, it doesn't say
: much for the chances of the world.

: Also the problem with moderation is who does it ?

: Imagine a ng moderated by Czub ?

: Imagine a ng moderated by Hyatt ?

I can imagine that. And I think I'd like the result, *except* I would have
to read all the garbage in order to cull it. So, for me, it would be no
better than today. Others might enjoy finding only computer-chess related
posts here, however...

Bill Newton

unread,
Sep 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/2/97
to

In article <01bcb797$27867840$82216dc2@enir>, Enrique Irazoqui
<en...@xs4all.nl> writes

>Bill Newton <Bi...@notwen.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
>
>> ' CHRIS WHITTINGTON IS AN INTERESTING PERSON'
>
>Good, Bill, you are becoming perceptive.

Enrique, I'm disappointed in you.

Resorting to selective snipping in a vain effort to score points is a
little bit tacky.

Lets have the full version shall we?

Here's what I stated:

**********************************************************

' CHRIS WHITTINGTON IS AN INTERESTING PERSON'

Why?

Because he said so.

************************************************************
There, that puts things in true perspective.

If you can't be good Enrique, at least be honest.

Dont call me, I'll call you ;)

Bye now.

P.S.

I'm more than happy to be quoted saying:

'BOB HYATT IS AN INTERESTING PERSON'

But then again he doesn't go around professing that 'himself' does he.

Chris would do well to watch Bob, and learn.
--
Bill Newton

Tom Kerrigan

unread,
Sep 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/3/97
to

Oh, I'm not volunteering you for anything, but I think Chris's post mentioned
your name as somebody who wouldn't be totally unbiased re: moderation...

Cheers,
Tom

Robert Hyatt (hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu) wrote:
: Tom Kerrigan (kerr...@deimos.frii.com) wrote:

: : I'm sorry that I don't have a lot of time to reply to this or hit on every

: : Cheers,
: : Tom

: Wait a minute. :) I ain't volunteering for *anything* here. It would be
: a time-consuming task to do it right. And it would mean I would have to
: really read *everything* anyone wants to post. Right now, I look at the
: subject/authors and cull a lot sight-unseen. :)


Robert Hyatt

unread,
Sep 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/3/97
to

Tom Kerrigan (kerr...@deimos.frii.com) wrote:
: Oh, I'm not volunteering you for anything, but I think Chris's post mentioned

: your name as somebody who wouldn't be totally unbiased re: moderation...

: Cheers,
: Tom

Sometimes Chris is "out of it." :) It doesn't take an unbiased person to
moderate a newsgroup. It simply takes someone competent *and* honest. That
is a *far* cry from being unbiased. I can't imagine *anyone* that would fit
the "Unbiased" mold... bias is a human trait. But it can be controlled...


chrisw

unread,
Sep 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/3/97
to


--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote in article
<5ujcec$bb2$1...@news00.btx.dtag.de>...


> brucemo <bru...@seanet.com> wrote:
>
> >It would be a great world if we could get Thompson, Berliner, Hsu,
Slate, as
> >well as a few more of the professionals, to post here.
>
> >It would be approximately like a continuous WCCC, sans beer.
>
> >However, I can't agree with your "elitist" characterization. I think
that
> >anyone who asks a question, states an opinion, makes a statement, or
whatever,
> >as long as there is a fair attempt made to stay on topic, is absolutely
> >welcome here. If these other folks didn't want to inhabit a group that
was
> >mostly like that, well, that's their choice.
>
> >This group is about computer chess. If you have something to say on
this
> >subject, please post it. Your idea may be criticized, but perhaps you
will
> >make an interesting point, and someone may read it and respond
intelligently.
>

> Because there was something in the air I take this post as sort of a
> catalyst.
>
> I was of that opinion too from the frog's view of course when I first
> saw this group last year. And I posted timidely at first on topic
> exclusively. Proof see DN. THen suddenly I was even more invited to take
> part. Well, I'm too young at 22 to be a real expert into something, but
> shouldnb't it be a beautiful occasion to communicate in my hobby group
> with real experts when from time to time they drifted from on topic to
> off topic? Like in each average chessclub?
>
> To make a long story really short. Myself I'm a professional watcher. If
> you want a sort of peeping tom. I wouldn't start a computer chess thread
> on my own. How could I? Because I do have Fritz5 or Rebel? Is this the
> base for anything special? Of course if I have a need for support, I
> would put my quests. But this could also be done by email to the
> different -- and high-classed -- support-lines.
>
> But what if suddenly computer chess "experts" wrote about clearly
> defined off topics?? Couldn't this be a chance to win a litle bit of
> usenet existence? To make a looong story short. :)
>
> DN is my proof that I did NEver here in rgcc "invented" one single
> thread on my own. It was always related to something another -- mostly
> an expert -- poster had published before. Sometimes of course I tried to
> impute informations from outside rgcc but then it was related to other
> topics going on already.
>
> This was already the story. Check it if you want. There's no thread
> without a reference. And that's for sure.
>
> So ----, for me any supposition that I did this or that here
> "off-topic", is quite sure an insult as such. I'm just the watcher on
> the fence. But obviously the watcher often observes strange, cute, nasty
> things. And if nobody seems to care, why not jumping right in and talk
> about them? Bob's gazolining, Chris' black sex knickers, Czub's pure
> revolutionary part of a better world... I forgot Schroder's manical
> business creativity. Check DN for details.
>
> But then suddenly people reacted (as known in literature) like royal
> primadonnas or as we say in german with not so much positive
> connotation, in a kind of "Gutsherren". Or for our american friends I
> give the Hollywood reference of The officer and the Gentleman with R.
> Gere in "my role" if you like. :)
>
> Suddenly "fiendly people" came out of their hide and reacted:
>
> ° this is wasting band width, stop it
>
> ° what you say should not be said, I know a bit of it too
>
> ° just tongue in cheek
>
> ° you as a member of the well known german anti-xxxx-mafia
>
> ° you better learn more statitics, *I* am the constructor
>
> ° this is all insinuation, allegations, unjustified attacks
>
> ° either you take it back or we're in a war
>
> ° (and many more of this kind)
>
>
> Now BM, what you can't know. People like the above mentioned experts
> standing in a comparable situation have two (in reality more)
> alternative solutions. Either they quit for good. Because all this is
> circus in a way with real humans. :) Or they stay (with anononymous
> names?) and take part in the game. But then they need good nerves and a
> huge self-ironical humour. Without you're bound to react like some well
> known figures. (BH confirmed this theory about prominents.)
>
> So, I'm not sure why these gods quit the group or never visited it
> actively. Or under their real name.
>
> I can only say that I stayed. I stayed because I had no alternative
> solution or I had to quit my hobby group I had just discovered with joy.
> I think I did never leave a doubt that I was a newbie, and now still a
> newbie or an amateur. What I can do is reading and analysing.
>
> And now I came into an early war with ES, character assassination
> attempt included. And I came into some political stuff. Interesting to
> see some reactions of the group. As I said I always reacted after some
> deeper observations. Sometimes I could write undisturbed and sometimes
> there were at a certain moment always the same censors of free speech
> who tried to cut the debate. Interesting, the funny exchange KK-RT was
> not at all cut, but nazi-like topic was tried to be cut immediately
> after Schroder insulted me....
>
> Folks, to say it quite clear and honest, I don't need any of such
> political debates. I only reacted on some observations I could make. And
> if I reacted on guys like ES or Czub more than on others, then it's
> because I like these guys more than others. It's a stupid situation to
> talk about trivialities!
>
> But then we have in this group like in every group in real life the
> schoolyard allies and cliques. Isn't it funny? Emailing secrets to get
> an "opposite" guy from the Indian side or Saddam personally his hair
> profoundly washed... Isn't it funny?
>
> Sorry, I have to stop this, you already know, here you've another
> crucial situation for each halfway educated individual/autonomical
> thinking human. Quitting or staying and walking slowly 'against the
> wind'?


>
>
> >I'm still here. I still read news expecting to find stuff that I
> >need to find.
>
>

> Exclusively about testresults of Fritz5 on ECM22344?


>
>
> >Often lately I have sat here staring at my screen, thinking about
whether I
> >should delete the entire damned newsreader off of my computer. I can't
do
> >this. There is stuff here that I need to read.
>
>

> Finally?


>
>
> >Don't need an elite. Anyone who's really interested in this topic will
become
> >"elite" enough in about a month.
>
>

> What you're talking about?
> Do you still think that you're really fit for the complicated internal
> german nazi discussion? You wrote about some school/college hours.
>
> [Whittington wrote]


> >> My personal view is that the personal opinions of programmers and
program
> >> testers and so on are of interest. See something of the character of
the
> >> programmer and you can understand the program better. So if Bob or Ed
or
> >> myself or Bruce or Dan or Matthias or Tom or Peter or whoever want to
spout
> >> off about whatever, that's fine by me. If I can form the view that Ed
is
> >> clever but inscrutible, or that Bob is a bit materialistic and
supported
> >> the Vietnam war, or that Bruce is Mr Reasonable count to ten before
> >> Dynamite Explosion, then this helps me understand more about the type
of
> >> program they write.
>
> >I on your list (although anyone who knew me in college, or any of my
> >ex-bosses, would laugh like hell at your characterization of me,
suggesting
> >perhaps that I count to zero instead), but I don't think I have any more

> >license to talk about communism than anyone else.
>

> Thanks, bruce, if only for this sentence, then my answer already had a
> reference. If only all the experts did know about this...
>
> See this WhyttoweBritananny is allowed to bubble about psycho stuff,
> never ever having studied the like profoundly. But ok, he may do it.
>
> But then Czub and I, we're not allowed to decide the nazi question? Note
> psycho is a profession as maybe computer chess, where you'd better be
> prepared by some studies or some, no?
>
> But WhittyNuttghty is allowed to razor edged psycho bubble without being
> controlled?? Or let's take IA. This math prof should continue to post
> his unconcious black humour without being laughed at? Because he has
> expert status from playing some funny cyborg games. Guys, who's
> reminding us on Lonnie, the real expert then? :)


>
>
> >Often I have refrained from
> >getting involved in the political threads, even though I have an
opinion. I
> >have written a few off-topic things, unless you count threads where I
have
> >suggested that people be civil and/or not go on about random stuff, in
which
> >case I've written a lot more.
>

> I did observe another mean trace in your habits. You don't stay out of
> these political threads at all. You take one's side and do the proxy
> trying to imbalance the situation to your favoured pososition. Don't
> know if you got this? And note, in my education proxies were sort of
> aliens. Almost impossible to be in real. Only as the devil's advocat...


>
> >I don't feel compelled to write only on-topic stuff, but I would try not
to
> >get drawn into long involved emotional discussions with people about
off-topic
> >stuff.
>

> But this is 100% fine, Bruce. But then stop this proxy damn thing. Don't
> play God's left little finger...


>
>
> > An exception is that Jakarta thing, which I felt we should try to iron
> >out, since many of us were thinking about whether we should go.
>
> >What I wouldn't do is try to write a point by point rebuttal of one of
> >Thorsten's political posts. Sometimes I have felt like doing this. And
I
> >would never, ever, has been done recently by someone who I hope quickly
learns
> >better, ask Thorsten to *elaborate upon* one of his random political
things.
>
>

> You're so damn mean, brucemo. Who do you think you are? With your
> intelligence you must have detected the need of Thorsten to also write
> about those topics. Bob had your liscence to talk about deathrows but
> Czub isn't sober talking about his chosen topics?
>
> Look, chap, you're writing statements for being taken for a serious
> american guy with smartness. So you choose carefully what to deal with.
> Here a few family pictures, father and son running for the 2016
> olympiads... You and son playing video games... Oh, how human.
> But then your proxy part for all the institutions. Your attempts when
> Bob really happens to go for a shark out there on the ocean. And your
> hiding policy when it comes to Ferret... You're really funny as a
> non-commercial programmer. Hehehehe.
>
> But Czub on the other hand is a poet. He writes as quik as he can tap on
> his keyboard. And I never saw a boring post from this guy! I mean it.
> Whereas you, bruce, as a proxy. Oh, boy...


>
>
>
> >If people want
> >to talk *at length* about German politics, capitalism/communism, etc.,
there
> >are appropriate places and this is not one of them.
>

> You overlook a simple point. What some people want? They want to know at
> least a little more of the life of their idols. Therefore it was a
> scandal for me, hearing that Schroder never wrote Czubs historical
> HGitler stuff. I was very sad about it...


>
> >It should be obvious to anyone what topics will make certain people go
insane.
> >These topics should be avoided.
>

> Do you want to call people like Czub insane, you jerk?
> Who's insane then, is you when playing a living dead, got it?


>
>
> >This is a computer chess group, not an "Ooh, that's an interesting point
about
> >German democracy in the 90's, could you elaborate upon that, and what do
you
> >think of this related point?" group. As long as the distinction is made

> >properly, no problem.
>
>
> But you could make this for yourself. Why do you get agitated? You are
> NOt forced to read the like, no? :)


>
>
> >Things are changing radically. It's already probably about as destroyed
as it
> >can get though. The people who still post often probably would do it
even if
> >we got spammed by thousands of phone sex posts.
>

> Know what? That's an insane reaction I observe here. Proxy can't succeed
> in mastering *the* situation and is running wild/mad about group
> destruction and spammed...
>
> Bruce, I assure you, this group is alive. Czub is NOt mad, Ed will come
> back SOon, Chris will sneakily doing his sarcasms as usual. And so on.
>
> Apart from some juvenile explosions I didn't observe any hints for
> madness or danger for this group. And be sure. My person in or out of
> the group doesn't change that much. Anyhow I'm the observer. I'm not
> really in. How could I? As a amateur computer chess lover. I'm a
> professional ironman...
>
> And note, bruce. Think always positive. This will change situations more
> to your favour than doing the opposite and lamenting endlessly about the
> bad world. BTW read Anonymous and do it like Governor Stanton. :)
>
>
>
> Make LOve not war.
> Lovely. :) (SA)
>
>
> >bruce
>
>
>

chrisw

unread,
Sep 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/3/97
to

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote in article

<5ujjg7$1n5$1...@news02.btx.dtag.de>...
> "chrisw" <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >Where we apparently disagree is in my view that some off-topic is
> >acceptable from programmers/experts since we then get to understand the
> >personality behind the off-topic a little better, and hence understand
his
> >program or expert computer chess opinion. For example, I find it quite
> >interesting that Althofer is a born-again christian.
>
> What the hell did lead you to the idea that Altehofer is an expert of
> computer chess. Look, what he did I've done it all of my life since I
> had my first chess computer...
>
> If this spooky impostor could talk here about the relation of his new
> born religion whereas Czub and myself were censored for their friendly
> exchange about some historical german questions, then something must be
> wrong with your definition.
>
> I hereby state that Altohover may be what he wants but he's no *more* of
> a computer chess expert than me myself. And note, I'm not an ompostor at
> all. If a poet like Czub now suddenly should be censored from this
> group, then good night all the bores who then really got hijacked by a
> single brit WhaittyNaighty, a businessman, who frequently confused
> commercial cleverness with real education.
>
> The whole attempt stinks of censorship. Period.
>
> PS
>
> I know you close enough to be convinced that all of the like bull you
> just posted here to amuse yourself another time. You'd better save some
> tears for Di, the queen of our hearts. Can't you be serious just for
> some days right now?
>
> >I could talk to him
> >about connections between that and his chess work.
>
> >However, if there is no chess work, or program, or expert view behind an
> >off-topic poster, and, worse, that off-topic poster is never even
on-topic,
> >then I find his expression of opinions to be unacceptable within this
news
> >group.
>
> >Chris Whittington
>
>
>
>
>

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Sep 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/3/97
to

"chrisw" <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:


>Rolf Tueschen <TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> wrote

>on 3rd September 1997 at 10:59 am

>Some stuff [ snipped ], presumably from his home somewhere near Munster,
>Germany (or so it is rumoured).

>Shouldn't you have been saying hello to Mr Judge in Zwolle, The Netherlands
>around this time ?

>I mean, if you have a case to argue, its best to argue it, no ?

What do you mean, djork, I'm sitting here at the canteen of the High
Court of The Netherlands. And no Schroder, no lawyer, no women, no
Czuburban on the scene... :(((

It doesn't takes long and I will visit the red light district for a
change.

But first I have to fool my delegation about my intentions.

I'll be back if I succeeded, ok?


Lovely. :) (SA)

>Chris Whittington


Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Sep 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/3/97
to

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

>scandal for me, hearing that Schroder never wrote Czubs historical


Correction.

In a freudian slip of tongue or whatever I wrote "wrote" which should be
corrected to "read" of course.

Well, it#s really not the same if you write in a foreign language. At
moments you simply can't rely on instincts to warn/ prevent pure bull.


Lovely. :) (SA)


mclane

unread,
Sep 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/3/97
to

"chrisw" <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Agreed, as long as it is on-topic. What is not acceptable, and we are in
>agreement here for once, is the endless off-topic threads.

Nobody is doing ENDLESS off-topic threads , despite Rolf. And
sometimes 2 people can do a little war without any reason despite the
fact that they do not seem to like each other:
I could in the same way call your attacks on Reno or my attacks on Bob
and KK into this category.
But I would of course never start a campaign like Rolf.


>Where we apparently disagree is in my view that some off-topic is
>acceptable from programmers/experts since we then get to understand the
>personality behind the off-topic a little better, and hence understand his
>program or expert computer chess opinion. For example, I find it quite

>interesting that Althofer is a born-again christian. I could talk to him


>about connections between that and his chess work.

Right. And others should have the same right to ask Ingo or Ed or
whoever.


>However, if there is no chess work, or program, or expert view behind an
>off-topic poster, and, worse, that off-topic poster is never even on-topic,
>then I find his expression of opinions to be unacceptable within this news
>group.

I don't like your 2 classes category !
I am not interested if somebody is programmer/expert when I like his
posts.
I don't want to be member in a newsgroup that is not open for anybody,
and only for experts/programmers/profs.

Do you remember the ICCA thread ? Do you think it was off-topic?
They thought it was off-topic and insane.


>If you find the elite-ism contained in this view distastful, then so be it.
>But I hold to the view.

Of course- You can hold your views. But I don't want to live in a
world full of primadonna-experts who cannot stand losing face and
whatever strange effects.
I think that is the price you have to pay for democracy. That people
YOU think they have no idea about computerchess talk within the group
as if they had done it for years.
I have never said that I am an expert. And I would never like to be
one.
I don't wanna be count as one. I am doing this for fun, not to show
anybody anything. So if you throw the non-experts out of the group, I
am automatically out. Sorry.
>Chris Whittington

mclane

unread,
Sep 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/3/97
to

"chrisw" <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I really feel, as someone who has been in the industry since
>1981, that we need to be speaking to each other, changing ideas, testing,
>arguing sometimes. What we don't need is the hate-shit campaigns from these
>various dorks.

But ANYBODY has his hate-targets.
I have problems with accepting what frederic friedel writes, sometimes
what Bob posts, you have problems with Newton -
thats NORMAL.

You cannot LIKE anybody or anybodies opinon in a group. But you should
not let these feelings conquer your mind and your on-topic and your
posts in rgcc.

I think there is enough positive stuff in the end. I can learn from
Bruce, Bob, Tom, Ed, ... and join and laugh and post games i guess
there is a point. I can make mistakes and learn out of it.
Reading the ideas of people from all over the world concerning
computer-chess ! WOW !
Nobody censoring. Nobody in an interest conflict. WOW!
We are all connected.
We can read important positions, discuss on them. And it is not
expensive. Of course it is open to anybody.
With advantages and disadvantages.
Elite will always produce nothing. Elite-groups are boring and they
are idle.
You should not mix these things together.
The target of people trying to destroy this newsgroup with posting
spam-messages all over, or the target of other people to piss on
capacities for whatever reason is not the whole newsgroup !
Of course these people have increased.
The more people read this newsgroup the more this will increase.
But on the other hand we know each other better after some experience,
and this should produce a force against this.
Don't give this fight lost. A game is lost when a game is lost. Not
before (as you may remember from Paderborn against XXXX).


>Chris Whittington


>>

chrisw

unread,
Sep 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/3/97
to

--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de> wrote in article
<5uk2gm$7jm$5...@steve.prima.ruhr.de>...


> "chrisw" <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> : Also the problem with moderation is who does it ?
> >> : Imagine a ng moderated by Czub ?
> >> : Imagine a ng moderated by Hyatt ?

> >> : Or imagine whoever you want ...
> >> : Each would have very different ideas what would be allowed.
> >>
> >> Missed the point of moderation, Chris. It's not the same as
censorship.
>
> >Its a thin line between the two.

> Don't offend me.
> I have never censorshipped anything.
> Maybe I do often write to much ideas (redundant and from your point of
> view crazy off-topic-stuff), but to say that I would censor something
> is a claim that insults me. I have seen censorship happen in articles
> of friends and also in mine when the company did not liked the text
> and threatened the subsribers to put down the advertisments. Or when
> the judgement of the program was against the subscribers idea that
> fritz is the strongest chess program on earth.
>
> I have attacked e.g. Bob Hyatt very heavy. Also ICCA and other people.
> But I would never censor them. Also I would not forbid them to tell
> their opinion. You are mixing discussions and attacks in discussions
> with criminal will to kill people or to censorship them or to hate
> them.

>
> >I'm fairly sure I'ld never post to a moderated ng. But that's just me
> >personally, I couldn't cope with the idea that somebody else had the
right
> >to moderate/censor it.
>
>
> >> I'm not sure if I would trust Czub to do it, but I wouldn't have a
> >problem
> >> if Hyatt was deleting the crap.
>
> >It wasn't a point about who moderates, rather that any moderation is
going
> >to be subjective to some extent and quite possibly political. depending
on
> >your viewpoint either Czub or Hyatt could be seen as highly partial to a
> >particular view.
>

> But why do you implicate that I would like to censorship anybody. I am
> open for anybody. When I say : I don't accept you idea or fuck off,
> this does not mean that I want to forbid him to post.
>
> As Bob has said:" I fight for the right to ...".


>
>
>
> >For example, suppose we started a thread about DB and materialistic
search.
> >I could see very different approaches to what would and what wouldn't be
> >acceptable.
>
> >Or suppose at a WMCCC there was a highly controversial decision. What
could
> >be acceptable to post and what not could again be highly subjective. Or
a
> >decision on stopping such a thread after it got going, or stopping
specific
> >individuals or allegations. Dodgy, no ?
>

> >6. someone who gets off on the wrong foot would get put out of the
> >discussion when there may be hope that that person could later be
> >socialised or even deliver gems of wisdom. Even Teuschen c o u l d have
> >been an asset, no ? And we'ld almost certainly not have kept Thorsten,
> >probably not me either, given the icca fracas many months ago.
>

> Can you translate this sentence for me in more understandable english.
> I see my name and I don't understand the meaning of it.
> I want to understand when you insult me or whatever.
> What is with the ICCA and me ?


Thorsten, I think you misunderstand everything in this post.

1. I think I was arguing against censorship, no ?

2. I was not implying you would censor anything, I was using you as an
example (compared to Hyatt), who, if doing a moderating job, would use
subjective criteria that the comparison person would quite probably object
to and vice versa. This is not to say you would a cesor or a moderator,
just a 'what if'. Ok ?

3. Therefore there is no implication that you would like to censor anybody.
Also ok ? Anyroads, you know I know you and that I know that wouldn't be
your style. Also ok ?

4. Translation: when Thorsten first came onto rgcc he got into some very
big arguments (often with Americans) which would, in my opinion, have lead
to a moderator, operating to the mind set of your opponent arguers, almost
certainly censoring you off the group. This, I implied, would have been a
loss. Ok now ?

Chris Whittington

>
>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Tom
> >>
>
>
>

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Sep 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/3/97
to

Moritz...@email.msn.com (Moritz Berger) wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Sep 1997 04:33:01 GMT, co...@sprintmail.com (Dave) wrote:

>>On 2 Sep 1997 18:37:17 GMT, TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de
>>(Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>>
>>>co...@sprintmail.com (Dave) wrote:
>< snip >


>>>Again, who do think you are, anonymous Dave?

>>See above.
>>>You know my name.
>>Yes, and your service provider's name, too.

>>>Please write yours too. You can't be a prominent figure with the need of
>>>protection. You seem too less smart for that...

>>Just barely smart enough to send a catalog of your posts over the last
>>several months to the system administrator representative at Telekom.
>>Quite taxing on the old synapses, I must say.

>I sent the mail below to postm...@t-online.de on August 1st but
>didn't even get a reply so far. I will cc: this article also to this
>address.

>They don't have a "complaints" link on one of their homepages, at
>least I found none.

>Maybe I should have made clear that they are liable for those posts in
>so far as they have been informed about the issue and didn't try to
>prevent Tueschen from posting further stuff like this. German law
>helds them responsible because they are providing him the means to
>accomplish his goals.

>Feel free to also send a mail to postm...@t-online.de, but maybe
>they need a legal letter from lawyers to raise their attention.
>I hope that a sentence against Tueschen by the court Zwolle could be
>handed over also to them for this purpose.


>A translation of the German part in the mail below would be:


>Dear ladies and gentlemen,

>the following text speaks for itself. It has been distributed via your
>news server.

>I expect you to take appropriate measures to prevent further articles
>from this person.


But they won't, stupid little Moritz...

And that has a very simple reason you couldn't understand. What I wrote
and what you quoted below another friendly time was a satire. That means
it was translated from a real behavior of Czub into a very short act. I
have a lot of evidence that Czub is more a very soft and sweet guy. But
suddenly like a thunder stroke he runs amoking against highly admired
experts with highest education. He insults them to be fools, mentally
ill and (this is a further proof for Czubs own underrated education) too
stupid to understan him, the great Czub. Solution? They should go back
to *school* to repeat some lessons. An uneducated guy talking to a real
professor of a university!!

I translated the whole ridicule of Czub in these fortunately NOT daily
strokes. With the intention to demonstrate him the wrong of his attacks
against Bob Hyatt. But I had no success. I hoped for his inborn ability
to laugh about himself. What a pity.

But now I understand *your* primitive structure a little bit better.
Remember you were the first to lie to me about the reasons for your
terrible time delay...... But I knew it at the moment that you were just
another impostor who tried to behave like royals. You simply didnt want
to talk with newbies, no?

I feel really sorry for having attacked Czub so many times, because
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
in comparison to your impostor's style he's really a human with emotions

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
who tries to deal with all members of rgcc. Wheras you and some other
german born guys seem to behave like elitarian primadonnas. It's so mean
and ugly. And now your try of censorship. ROTFL.

But you won't succeed. Germany is a democracy and relicts of a fascistic
past are without a real chance...


Thanks for your relevation. Djirk Frickenschmidt will surely follow you.

Good luck.

Lovely. :) (SA)


>Regards,

>Moritz Berger


>----- mail to postm...@t-online.de on August 1st 1997 -----
>Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

>ich überlasse Ihnen gerne die Beurteilung des nachfolgenden Textes,
>der offensichtlich über Ihren News-Server im Internet verbreitet
>wurde.

>Ich erwarte, daß Sie angemessene Maßnahmen ergreifen um weitere
>derartige Artikel von dieser Person zu verhindern.

>Mit freundlichem Gruß

>Moritz Berger

>On 21 Jul 1997 09:01:51 GMT, in rec.games.chess.computer
>TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf W. Tueschen) wrote:

>>hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote in a desperate try
>>to/about Czub:
>>
>>>I'm really missing something here. I made a simple judgement, based on
>>>the *only* data I had access to. And I'm supposed to "somehow" realize
>>>my opinion is wrong, based on data only you have (and data you won't
>>>share with others)? Somehow I'm missing the point. If there is a point.
>>>I don't see why you'd want to challenge an opinion I posted, without
>>>offering any concrete data in the challenge. It defies all the rules of
>>>debating I learned over the years..
>>
>>ROTFL
>>
>>Did you never ever hear of these strange looking/behaving people who
>>knock at your door at 7 o' 5 in the morning with suitcase in their hand:
>>"Hi, I'm Czubix from Luenen in Westphalia, I've invented a new wheel,
>>which isn't round at all? But I also have a patent on making gold. And I
>>proved that energy does come out of nothing, ehem, I mean, almost
>>nothing. Can I come in, professor? I know you have a day to spend with
>>me .... Look, and I have totally new solutions for the game of computer
>>chess. Interested? No?? Well, could you then give me a dime at least for
>>a new curry wurst? Thanks. May Osiris be with you, my friend. My dear,
>>take this bandage to shout into the world that you are a true believer
>>in Czub, this crazy german nutter. Whaaaaaat? You don't want to take
>>this sign of friendship, you son of a rotten bitch??? I did ask you
>>politely, no, he, hääää, and you dare to reject me, you crazy, mentally
>>ill, you master of science. Unbelievable. Do you also reject Chris, Ed,
>>Ingo, Andreas, Arald, Max and Moritz, and Djirk Mars Frick.????? Ha.
>>Yes? Ok, then <he drops his pants and bends his upper corps forward, his
>>nose almost on the ground>, and he whimpers without a voice: ok, then,
>>I'm ready, mmmmaster, ffffuck me. Uhhhhrgggg. <yelling> Chris!!!!,
>>Ed!!!!!, he didn't want to fuck meeeeeeeeee, <crying for minutes like a
>>little baby>." Until finally you kick him right into his ass? No? Watch
>>out, Bob. This world is full of people full of wonders. :))
>>


Enrique Irazoqui

unread,
Sep 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/3/97
to

chrisw <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<01bcb884$690bb4e0$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>...
> --
> http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
>
> Enrique Irazoqui <en...@lix.intercom.es> wrote in article
> <01bcb87c$22e94660$3e9a4cc3@enir>...
> > chrisw <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> > <01bcb7a3$2dc579c0$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>...
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft

> > > Maybe we should start again with another group:
> > > rec.games.chess.computers.programming, and call this one
> > > rec.games.chess.computers.politics
> >
> > Same thing would happen again. I do not know what is the solution. I
> guess
> > developing a thicker skin helps. Not reading posts from some people
helps
> > too. I do this and I feel much better ever since.
>
> Yup, I know. Trouble is for me and Ed and others, as commercial
programmers
> with businesses to run, getting abused and insulted by hate-mail on rgcc
> gets to be counter-productive. One solution, adopted by almost all
> commercial programmers, is simply to never post. Its a solution adopted
by
> several, no ? Look at the SSDF, they pulled out of rec.games because of
the
> abuse; their attitude was, we are enthusiasts, we make lists, if all you
> dorks can do is abuse us, we just won't post any more. They pulled out
and
> really meant it, and who can blame them ? Other leave for a while, then
> return.
>
> This group has got so bad, its hard to imagine it getting any worse.
Maybe
> a group, devoid of all intelligent content, so they can sit in their own
> pile of shit and throw it at each other, is what they want ?

So it's either leaving or finding a way to put a rapid end to personal
attacks. The problem might disappear if the heavyweights of RGCC (the
programmers) answer collectively to all insulting posts: off topic,
irrelevant, please stop posting personal attacks, etc. Sort of an automatic
answer signed by all programmers active in RGCC would have enough moral
weight to stop a lot of crap and to discredit it. How about it?

Enrique

> Chris Whittington


Robert Hyatt

unread,
Sep 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/3/97
to

mclane

unread,
Sep 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/4/97
to

"chrisw" <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Anyway, the last batch of off-topic "oh that's interesting about 1930's
>Germany, was your mother in-law a nazi?" seems to have been stopped.
You are quoting out of context. And you misunderstand the intention.

Carlos said his mother in law was german. And I did not understand WHY

his wife isn't german when his mother in law was german.

Some people (RT and others) tried again to call me a nazi because I
did not understand this. I don't see any nazi-method in not
understanding about somebodies family life.


>Albeit
>at the cost of me becoming the new target. That's life I suppose; they'll
>find another shoe to piss on soon (thanks for the word picture, Bruce) :)

It was never my intention to spread arround prejudices concerning nazi
or something like this. I liked carlos and asked about his background
when I understood something not comletely.
I accept you are right: I could do this in email. I have invited
Carlos and Reno to email me instead of posting here. Nothing happened.

Bill Newton

unread,
Sep 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/4/97
to

In article <01bcb88e$b16b5740$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>,
chrisw <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> writes

....snip....
>Newton problems have zero basis in rationality. He is just incenced by the
>person he sees in me for some reason. So alone, or occasionally in concert,
>he has a go. If you ask him why, he couldn't really explain; he'ld just say
>"I don't like him" or "he is arrogant" or "pompous" or "he uses the words
>wrong" or whatever. This is not value-rational, its just emotional. It's
>his problem.
....snip....

Hi Chris, howya doin? O.K. I trust :)

Just wanted to clear a couple of points up that may help you grasp
the message that I ( and now others as well ) have been trying to
instil in to your way of thinking for some time now.

First of all Chris, you couldn't be more mistaken in believing that your
posts incense me. Honestly, they dont. It's just that I feel a little
sorry seeing you post self conflicting points of view that make you
look like a sad little person who is only capable of writing the
occasional chess programme.

Well I'm not yet totally convinced that's the whole truth. I have faith
in you and believe that with a little tuition you will be able to produce
and post sensible contributions to this group.

So please, first of all, do yourself and many other folk a great favour
by taking a metaphorical step backwards and having a good look at
the content of your recent postings.

You will note that you consistently argue, not only with what you
perceive as other folks points of view, but with your own points of
view!

You will only be on the road to recovery once you recognise, that if
nobody but your self posted to this group, you would still find
room for argument!

Gottit!?

In other words spend a little time thinking about your 'point of view'
prior to publishing it in the group.

If, following publication you are subsequently swayed from that point
of view by sound argument, acknowledge publically that your 'point of
view' has changed.

Only then should you argue against your original point of view.

Makes sense and it's easy. Honest!

Additionally, may I suggest that you must learn to 'comprehend' what
folk are saying in their postings, and endeavour to respond sensibly
to their points, rather than fly off the handle and accuse folk of being
'dorks' simply because they disagree with whatever your point of
view of the moment is.

Another thing, dont go paranoid on the group. You say you believe 'I'
dont like you. Rubbish! Of course I like you my boy, I'm still trying to
help you aren't I? Come on! Chin up, dont despair.

You then go on to say that you believe that 'I' consider you
'pompous' and 'arrogant'

Well, I'm afraid you're correct for the moment.

But if you heed the advice in this posting, who knows, you may rid
yourself of the delusions of grandeur currently plaguing you, and
become one of us nice ordinary pleasant folk who somehow, always
manage to express a consistent point of view in good clean English.

Last of all, you say you believe me to be an 'emotional' person.

I told my wife this gem.

She's still laughing as I type ;)

Know what I mean?
--
Bill Newton

Andreas Mader

unread,
Sep 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/4/97
to

Enrique Irazoqui wrote:

> chrisw <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote in article


Why not just IGNORE threads without any link to computer chess? I do
this for a few weeks now and it helps very much. I cancel approx. 70
percent of the rgcc post ("This thread is for xyz" or "abc's Belly Flop
Part XXV" and so on) without reading it ("Mark Thread read"). A few
people are in my "kill file". I don't see a problem here.

The problem is that the off topic posters are getting so much response
to their nonsense that they feel forced to continue. Please Chris,
please Ed, (and some others)..... Simply ignore this posts!

Best wishes
Andreas


Robert Hyatt

unread,
Sep 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/4/97
to

Andreas Mader (Mader@*p6*.gud.siemens.co.at) wrote:

: Why not just IGNORE threads without any link to computer chess? I do


: this for a few weeks now and it helps very much. I cancel approx. 70
: percent of the rgcc post ("This thread is for xyz" or "abc's Belly Flop
: Part XXV" and so on) without reading it ("Mark Thread read"). A few
: people are in my "kill file". I don't see a problem here.

: The problem is that the off topic posters are getting so much response
: to their nonsense that they feel forced to continue. Please Chris,
: please Ed, (and some others)..... Simply ignore this posts!

I agree. There are two real problems that I see:

1. too much crapola, from nazis to personal attacks;

2. the subject lines are mysterious to most folks, it seems. For a tiny
bit of trivia: "they can be edited"... which would be nice, so that tangents
can be recognized as tangents. Right now a thread's subject is almost always
meaningless after the original post and one or two follow-ups, because by
then they are off into religious, social, moral or personal issues...

And those that quote the whole thing really don't help a lot either... :)


Rolf Czedzak

unread,
Sep 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/4/97
to

chrisw wrote: <01bcb785$a5b70660$c308...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk>

[]

> My personal view is that the personal opinions of programmers and
> program testers and so on are of interest. See something of the
> character of the programmer and you can understand the program better.
> So if Bob or Ed or myself or Bruce or Dan or Matthias or Tom or Peter
> or whoever want to spout off about whatever, that's fine by me. If I
> can form the view that Ed is clever but inscrutible, or that Bob is a
> bit materialistic and supported the Vietnam war, or that Bruce is Mr
> Reasonable count to ten before Dynamite Explosion, then this helps me
> understand more about the type of program they write.

Thank You for sharing Your insights with us lesser mortals.
While I can see to some extend, what it'd mean to a program's style if
its programmer favours baseball bats in discussion, I can't imagine
what to extract from a programmer's opinion (I write opinion just in
lack of a better word -apes like us) that britsh soldiers should feel
free to kill german civilists in '97 becuse of WWII.

> So I am very happy for this elite group (elite only here of course) to
> say whatever they want.
>
> I am not happy with the like of yourself (deCaro) doing the same thing.
> Your opinions may be quite fascinating in their context, but you have
> no computer chess contribution behind them to look at; therefore your
> opinions are off-topic on this group.

Hit him harder, Lord.

> This is not to say that you should be censored. Sure if somebody is
> talking dumb stuff (about computer chess), and you alone happen to be
> able to correct it, we'll all be very grateful.
>
> But if what you do is get into discussions on relativity theory, nazis
> and pyramids, then you are just making the off-topic crap worse.

These topics are reserved for programmers and co-workers?

> You may find it incredibly insulting, but I suggest you restrain
> yourself to read only; and find another group where your intelligent
> contribution would be on-topic.

What's insulting? I'd call it interesting how You think about potential
customers -not that I'd run into danger to buy anything from someone like
you.

> And if not ? You'll be playing your small part in the gradual
> destruction of this forum as more and more of the intelligent,
> knowledgeable posters leave it.

> Chris Whittington

Rolf

Enrique Irazoqui

unread,
Sep 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/4/97
to

Bill Newton <Bi...@notwen.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<xRYBZDAT...@notwen.demon.co.uk>...

> Enrique, I'm disappointed in you.

Not fair. You never disappoint me.



> Dont call me, I'll call you ;)

Don't hold your breath waiting. Or do, if you must. :)

Enrique


Enrique Irazoqui

unread,
Sep 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/5/97
to

RenoDeCaro <renod...@aol.com> wrote in article

<19970904144...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> >"Enrique Irazoqui" <en...@lix.intercom.es>Wrote:


>
> >So it's either leaving or finding a way to put a rapid end to personal
> >attacks. The problem might disappear if the heavyweights of RGCC (the
> >programmers) answer collectively to all insulting posts: off topic,
> >irrelevant, please stop posting personal attacks, etc. Sort of an
automatic
> >answer signed by all programmers active in RGCC would have enough moral
> >weight to stop a lot of crap and to discredit it. How about it?
> >
> >Enrique
> >

> You imply that the personal attacks don't ever come from the programmers
> themselves.

It has happened. I would like personal attacks out of RGCC, from
programmers or from anybody else. I posted a few myself, even if always to
respond to somebody else's attacks. Not that I am playing saint, but I did
like RGCC better some time ago.

Once this is said, I want to add that some people here post only personal
attacks and nothing else. Not a word about computer chess. With this I mean
to say that some are here for the pleasure of insulting and this is ruining
RGCC. Chris lost his temper a few times, and so did others. A major
difference between Chris and Bill, for example, is that Chris posts mostly
about computer chess, while Bill limits his contributions to pick on
Chris's manners. The difference between them in the way they contribute to
the interest of RGCC is obvious to me. And so on.

> This entire war started when Whittington, a programmer (whom
> you keep defending),

I do, for the reasons above among others. That he blew it when he made
these comments you don't care for? Maybe. I repeat: I would like personal
stuff out of RGCC. But Chris is a major contributor to RGCC in qualitative
terms. Some are not at all. And this "some" pick on Chris, Ed, without ever
saying anything relevant about computer chess. RGCC is supposed to be
computer chess.

> insulted different people, who are not programmers,
> on this N.G. Maybe it's just difficult for you to criticize people who
> put you on their "ELITE" list .

Do I bother answering to this? After all, it's already 4 am... Ok, lets say
that this interpretation of yours came out of the blues. I don't give a
damn about elite lists, even if mostly I agree with the one posted by
Chris. And then this is another attack by implication, this time from you.
Come on, lets stop this garbage.

> Or maybe it's difficult to recognize
> insults by a programmer if you're waiting for an early release of his
> program for your testing.

Sure... And maybe anything else. Look, Reno, these maybes of yours are not
terribly serious, isn't it. You simply have no idea of what you are talking
about with these maybes. So, lets stop this nonsense?

> Either way, Enrique, you are neither impartial

Certainly not. I don't thing anybody is impartial. Being partial, and in
this case I truly am, doesn't mean I'm blind.

> nor without an agenda.

Your interpretation, based on.... ???????

Sincerily? No agendas. Why on Earth would I have one? Look Reno, instead of
making assumptions about things you ignore, lets not ad more wood to the
fire. My agenda, if you insist in me having one, is to get again a feasible
RGCC. Assumptions like yours won't contribute to it.

Enrique

> Greeting Reno
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Dan Thies