Will Ed Schroder come back to the normal?
Rolf Tueschen
When will Ed Schroder, the dutch creator of Rebel taske back the mean
insult of me? He did it exactly because I attacked Czub-mclane for his
nazi-like propagations of new concentration camps and signing people in
todays Germany.
Although he backed Czubs mean propaganda Ed Schroder further went over
the edge by claiming I had insulted him of being a nazi or the like.
It's true, that this insinuation could be made on the surface, but I
never did it. Instead I wrote that Schroder couldn't make further good
business with insulting people, who attacked nazi-like stuff. Especially
for a dutch businessman this should be self-evident. Too many dutch
people were in their families victims of the cruel nazi concentration
camps...
It is a very disgustful trick of Schroder first of insulting a critic of
nazi-like stuff and then promissing money of the juridical court trial
for the Anne Frank Fond. This is an unbelievable cheat. Then it would be
very helpful if Schroder's Ed had *supported* the critic against Czubs
crazy propaganda. Period.
When will Ed finally come back to the normal?
When Ed will finally apologize for his mean insult?
Will he ever come back to normal communication?
Is Ed still the head of Schroder BV? Does he have disposing capacity?
Will there be a future for Rebel without it's inventor and father?
I hope for a positive insight of such a brilliant programmer.
Rolf Tueschen
Wybe Koopmans
Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>When will Ed Schroder, the dutch creator of Rebel taske back the mean
>insult of me? He did it exactly because I attacked Czub-mclane for his
>nazi-like propagations of new concentration camps and signing people in
>todays Germany.
Read this line again Rolfje, "d"utch; nazi-like ; concentration camps ;
"G"ermany
>Although he backed Czubs mean propaganda Ed Schroder further went
>over the edge by claiming I had insulted him of being a nazi or the like.
Again Rolfje, "your" words, "your" behavior
>It's true, that this insinuation could be made on the surface, but I
>never did it. Instead I wrote that Schroder couldn't make further good
>business with insulting people, who attacked nazi-like stuff. Especially
>for a dutch businessman this should be self-evident. Too many dutch
>people were in their families victims of the cruel nazi concentration
>camps...
>It is a very disgustful trick of Schroder first of insulting a critic of
>nazi-like stuff and then promissing money of the juridical court trial
>for the Anne Frank Fond. This is an unbelievable cheat. Then it would be
>very helpful if Schroder's Ed had *supported* the critic against Czubs
>crazy propaganda. Period.
> When will Ed finally come back to the normal?
I think I know the answer, if we can find a "new" home for you.
I knoiw: a newsgroup only for you:
R.G.R.O, means Rec.Games.Rolfje.Only
So you a new home, we Ed Schroder back.
> When Ed will finally apologize for his mean insult?
I think NEVER
> Will he ever come back to normal communication?
NO I don't think so, he's DUTCH, you're german
>Is Ed still the head of Schroder BV? Does he have disposing capacity?
>Will there be a future for Rebel without it's inventor and father?
>I hope for a positive insight of such a brilliant programmer.
Good boy; "such a brilliant programmer"
This is the way I like it;
So more: ............... Apologies to Ed ?????????
Wybe Koopmans
Rolf Tueschen
lars...@worldaccess.nl (Wybe Koopmans) wrote:
>Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>When will Ed Schroder, the dutch creator of Rebel taske back the mean
>>insult of me? He did it exactly because I attacked Czub-mclane for his
>>nazi-like propagations of new concentration camps and signing people in
>>todays Germany.
>Read this line again Rolfje, "d"utch; nazi-like ; concentration camps ;
>"G"ermany
Yeah, dutch = adjectif and Germany like Holland a nation = substantive.
Ok? What's your problem? No reason to feel inferior, no?
>>Although he backed Czubs mean propaganda Ed Schroder further went
>>over the edge by claiming I had insulted him of being a nazi or the like.
>Again Rolfje, "your" words, "your" behavior
>>It's true, that this insinuation could be made on the surface, but I
>>never did it. Instead I wrote that Schroder couldn't make further good
>>business with insulting people, who attacked nazi-like stuff. Especially
>>for a dutch businessman this should be self-evident. Too many dutch
>>people were in their families victims of the cruel nazi concentration
>>camps...
>>It is a very disgustful trick of Schroder first of insulting a critic of
>>nazi-like stuff and then promissing money of the juridical court trial
>>for the Anne Frank Fond. This is an unbelievable cheat. Then it would be
>>very helpful if Schroder's Ed had *supported* the critic against Czubs
>>crazy propaganda. Period.
>> When will Ed finally come back to the normal?
>I think I know the answer, if we can find a "new" home for you.
>I knoiw: a newsgroup only for you:
>R.G.R.O, means Rec.Games.Rolfje.Only
>So you a new home, we Ed Schroder back.
>> When Ed will finally apologize for his mean insult?
>I think NEVER
We'll see. You'll see. Like the BIG Schroder trial before the Highest
Court in Zwolle... :)
BTW Ed **will** apologize. I tell you that with confidence. :)
>> Will he ever come back to normal communication?
>NO I don't think so, he's DUTCH, you're german
Do you think the rules of communication should be nation-related
defined? Like the *german* natural sciences in the 30ies of this
century? I fear we come closer to a clear picture... of Ed Schroder and
his followers. :)
Note, first click on "thinking", then on "writing", only then on
"posting". Otherwise you fail to make your point like Berger, Mr. Witty
Nutty and others before... It's not sufficient to have a point. But you
should look if it holds what it seems to promise... Perhaps it strikes
back on to you?
>>Is Ed still the head of Schroder BV? Does he have disposing capacity?
>>Will there be a future for Rebel without it's inventor and father?
>>I hope for a positive insight of such a brilliant programmer.
>Good boy; "such a brilliant programmer"
>This is the way I like it;
>So more: ............... Apologies to Ed ?????????
I did always seperate Ed the programmer and Ed the dangerous political
clown. Ask him. But I won't take on my shoulders the risks this bears
for his business either. That's Ed's own decision... Nobody told him to
defend a crazy poster of nazi-like stuff. But Ed did it. It's simply
like this. And now he has to pay for all his bad deeds...
You must have missed most of the new development. Sorry.
Again. Contact him.
>Wybe Koopmans
Wybe Koopmans
Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>Note, first click on "thinking", then on "writing", only then on
>"posting". Otherwise you fail to make your point like Berger, Mr. Witty
>Nutty and others before... It's not sufficient to have a point. But you
>should look if it holds what it seems to promise... Perhaps it strikes
>back on to you?
No, GM in beating Fritz 3.0, can tell me, how to think, how to write, how to
post. That's the point Rolfje, because I love to read all the computer related
chessmails (Hyatt, KK, Mclane, Moritz, Ed .......). Every email you wrote,
first insulting people, attacking people, and a little chess. Despite the lack
of popularity in the higher echelons of this group, the only thing for you left
is insulting and attacking, because I think you know nothing about chess
and computers (sorry, you're a GM in beating Fritz). Ok, I understand, even
today, the assessment of your mails is completely clear. Nothing about
chess and computers. So, you wrote; R.G.C.C is your home, your land,
your nation, but you're a story itself. Because you're so good, so smart, so
clever, that I think we cannot afford such a luxury, so, why not seperate the
newsgroup in R.G.C.C and one for Rolfje only, all yours, so we can go
back to the chain gang.
Wybe Koopmans
Rolf Tueschen
lars...@worldaccess.nl (Wybe Koopmans) wrote:
>Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>Note, first click on "thinking", then on "writing", only then on
>>"posting". Otherwise you fail to make your point like Berger, Mr. Witty
>>Nutty and others before... It's not sufficient to have a point. But you
>>should look if it holds what it seems to promise... Perhaps it strikes
>>back on to you?
>No, GM in beating Fritz 3.0, can tell me, how to think, how to write, how to
>post. That's the point Rolfje, because I love to read all the computer related
>chessmails (Hyatt, KK, Mclane, Moritz, Ed .......). Every email you wrote,
Email. Interesting slip of tongue. You seem a little bit nervous,
W y b e. It's because you lost the main topic "Ed Schroder coming back
to normal?" out of view? :)
Did you contact him? Is he still chief of Schroder BV. Is he still doing
fine? Is he in a sanatory or is he at home?
>first insulting people,
By always repeating the same lies, they won't become true, no? Please
give some evidence. :)
>attacking people, and a little chess. Despite the lack
>of popularity in the higher echelons of this group,
Hey, that's really funny, W y b e. What is popularity for you? To play
the party soldier for Ed Schroder?
I did never intend to become popular, W y b e. I do my job as best as I
can, and then it's fine with me. You seem to imply that people should
behave to please others. Well, W y b e, that's not my biusiness. I'm an
average scientist. I make my statements about observations whether it's
good or bad for my personal image. You never heard about this strange
behavior? How old are you, W y b e? I'm 22. You cannot be so much
older, no? Did you never learn at school, that you needed your *own*
opinions to become an adult?
>the only thing for you left
>is insulting and attacking, because I think you know nothing about chess
>and computers (sorry, you're a GM in beating Fritz). Ok, I understand, even
>today, the assessment of your mails is completely clear. Nothing about
>chess and computers.
W y b e, you're wrong again. :)
Talking about Ed's personal disabilities is a very on-topic stuff.
Because we all like Ed, the programmer, it cannot be uninteresting to
know what Ed did when he defended Czub's off-topic nazi-like propagating
of concentration camps and signing of opposing people.
It's important to know that a dutch business man went so far as to
insulting a noble critic of this nazi stuff as "pig". You cannot delete
this fact, W y b e. It's not the word pig as such. It's the combination
of this insult on a noble critic of concentration camps.
It's allowed therefore to assume that the author who insulted someone as
"pig" when he had attacked nazi-stuff, is himself not so far away from
these thoughts, no? And Ed did never correct this impression afterwards.
That's the frightening aspect of the whole scandal. Ed, defending
nazi-like stuff.
Note, that I did never write a thing about Ed's personality. I dont know
if he's really crazy personally. But what he *did* should be
regarded/judged as crazy. It's sort of self-destruction of a dutch
businessman. And that was it what I meant with my "he will never see the
sun again". Because he destructed his formerly good name by defending
Czub's nazi-like stuff. And as I wrote. Giving money to the Anne Frank
Foundation is a stinky mean cheat. Because Anne Frank was murdered in
such a concentration camp, Czub proposed and Ed Schroder, the father of
Rebel, did defend. Period.
>So, you wrote; R.G.C.C is your home, your land,
>your nation, but you're a story itself. Because you're so good, so smart, so
>clever, that I think we cannot afford such a luxury, so, why not seperate the
>newsgroup in R.G.C.C and one for Rolfje only, all yours, so we can go
>back to the chain gang.
Gang is not so far away from the truth, W y b e. :))
>Wybe Koopmans
Wybe Koopmans
Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>I did never intend to become popular, W y b e. I do my job as best as I
>can, and then it's fine with me. You seem to imply that people should
>behave to please others. Well, W y b e, that's not my biusiness. I'm an
>average scientist. I make my statements about observations whether it's
>good or bad for my personal image. You never heard about this strange
>behavior? How old are you, W y b e? I'm 22. You cannot be so much
>older, no? Did you never learn at school, that you needed your *own*
>opinions to become an adult?
There is something weird about you Rolfje. You think you're an adult and
having a opinion (I still think a opinion about everything, but not
computer-chess). So far so good. That's not my problem. It's the WAY of
talking, Rolfje, no respect. In nearly all your mails you're looking for a
enemy. The great boom began about a year ago and has continued up to
the present day. Rolfje is better then the rest, insulting and attacking.
What ? Ofcourse, you're the pope of this newsgroup.
Ok, we know you're very good in beating Fritz., but beating Rebel is
another story, Rolfje. "I think about 100 ELO-points :-))"
The purpose of this mail is not to defend Ed, KK, Enrique ..... and others.
For them, thanks for the efforts on many subjects so far. I love read your
mails, quys !
I know, Rolfje there's a thin line between love and hate. So, you might pay
attension to other programs. Starting with Rebel Decade, afther being a GM
in beating Decade, I think Chessmaster 5000 (= The King 2.54/2.55) will be
a good choice. And when you're an adult, I will ask the DB-team if it's
possible to play one time against Deep Blue, ok ? But only when your
behavior looks like an adult.
So, stop your porn immediately, Rolfje (RR: quote of Rolfje in "Even more
Objective Information")
Wybe Koopmans
--
Regards,
Wybe Koopmans
Rolf Tueschen
lars...@worldaccess.nl (Wybe Koopmans) wrote:
>There is something weird about you Rolfje. You think you're an adult and
>having a opinion (I still think a opinion about everything, but not
>computer-chess). So far so good. That's not my problem. It's the WAY of
>talking, Rolfje, no respect. In nearly all your mails you're looking for a
>enemy. The great boom began about a year ago and has continued up to
>the present day. Rolfje is better then the rest, insulting and attacking.
>What ? Ofcourse, you're the pope of this newsgroup.
Yes, that's right, W y b e, I'm *your* Pope too. :)
And that at least should give you more to think you can handle at the
moment. :)
Because you went wrong again in the quote above.
Please keep in mind that we all write here in cyber space. We're not
here personally. Most people hide behind anonymous names. This is all in
a way a cheating procedure. Now, why should I search for *personal*
enemies? This is not logical, W y b e. Logic must have told you
that I only **react** on stuff others have written before.
Example: Czub propagated concentration camps. I opposed.
Example: Ed Schroder, the author of Rebel insulted me for my attack on
Czub.... I attacked him of defending Czub with his nazi-like stuff.
I dont know if you ever will understand that, but I gave you my
reasoning. Hope, it helps you.
What do you mean with _respect_ then? Letting big experts cheat and lie?
This cannpt be what you meant, no?
Ě think we all have the right and the duty to oppose nazi-like
propaganda, cheats and lies. When I observe it, I say it loud.
What you call respect is often here on rgcc a sort of brown nosing. You
have a friend or collegue, and whatever bull he said you keep mute
without commenting. This is pure cowardice. But not behavior of
independent adults. Then we have proxies and simple party soldiers.
So, attacking. yes, that's right.
But insulting. Again your nonsense. As I said before. Repeating it
witthout evidence doesnt make it true. I did never insult another poster
here on rgcc. Period.
But your fellow comrade Ed Schroder from Deventer, the father of Rebel,
he insulted me as "pig" when I had attacked Czub for his nazi-like
propagations. Period.
NB: You're right, love and hate are very close together. In cyberspace
we should say it as follows:
I admire Ed for his success in cc with his Rebel and many machines
before. But I cannot accepte therefore insults and cheats. Even if they
come from Ed Schroder. In a way he reacts like you, Wybe. From many
emails, I repeat, real emails, not posts, I know Ed sufficiently good.
Most of his behavior is resulting from his decades-long work in cc.
Sometimes he behaves therefore rather strange. I dont condemn Ed.
But I cant accept that such a hero of cc should be allowed to defend
nazi-like stuff if it comes from a befriended collegue. This is exactly
what you understand with "respect". A god like Ed does something and
respect reqires that we should swallow it. THIS IS WRONG, Ed -- sorry,
Wybe. :))
But "hate", Ed, sorry, Wybe, is a totally other thing. We're
discussing, but we're not that close to hate each other. Ed, I am sad
therefore, that Don has left us. He was one of a few with a real
philosophical background of peoce and humanity. It's a pity that he went
away due to misunderstandings somehow... Don could have mediated
between all of us. He could convince you that I'm not against you. That
a good critic is better than 20 brownb-nosing djorks. :)
So Wybe, Ed, I still hope that we all come back to normal. Especially
the business guys should have a great interest for the normal........
PPS
Wybe, I forgot to mention that I'm a Rebel IGGM too!! I never lost a
single game to Rebel. But I agree I made an awful lot of half points.
Rebel is terribly strong. That's why I admire Ed so much. And hold
yourself. I played most games with the Blacks. So, if I ever took the
Whites........... Think of this. I could become Wch of all IGGMs.
But I'm not at all arrogant, see? It's normal for me. I still have 15
years of big experience to play the computers. That helps a lot. :)
The Pope of rgcc has spoken -- the truth!
==============
For better understanding me, Wybe, I repeat an important part of a past
post. Which you didn't comment. Perhaps you've overlooked it....
Here it is again:
==========Begin of quote================
Talking about Ed's personal disabilities is a very on-topic stuff.
Because we all like Ed, the programmer, it cannot be uninteresting to
know what Ed did when he defended Czub's off-topic nazi-like propagating
of concentration camps and signing of opposing people.
It's important to know that a dutch business man went so far as to
insulting a noble critic of this nazi stuff as "pig". You cannot delete
this fact, W y b e. It's not the word pig as such. It's the combination
of this insult on a noble critic of concentration camps.
It's allowed therefore to assume that the author who insulted someone as
"pig" when he had attacked nazi-stuff, is himself not so far away from
these thoughts, no? And Ed did never correct this impression afterwards.
That's the frightening aspect of the whole scandal. Ed, defending
nazi-like stuff.
==========================End of quote=========
Thomas Davie
In article <6017gf$sgq$1...@news02.btx.dtag.de>, TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>Yes, that's right, W y b e, I'm *your* Pope too. :)
You're the pope of no one except in your own mind. Sorry to let you down.
>Please keep in mind that we all write here in cyber space. We're not
>here personally.
We aren't? Maybe you're not, but my words stand for me. God, I hate to think
that your words really stand for you or that you're like this in real life.
> Most people hide behind anonymous names. This is all in
>a way a cheating procedure. Now, why should I search for *personal*
>enemies? This is not logical, W y b e. Logic must have told you
>that I only **react** on stuff others have written before.
I don't know. I've seen you repeatedlt launch personal invectives based on
nothing at all.
>I dont know if you ever will understand that, but I gave you my
>reasoning. Hope, it helps you.
Personally, I think you're guilty of faulty ad hominem reasoning, but
then....thats just my opinion.
>Ě think we all have the right and the duty to oppose nazi-like
>propaganda, cheats and lies. When I observe it, I say it loud.
Yeah, whatever. Maybe we should all have the duty to oppose idiocy too?
>So Wybe, Ed, I still hope that we all come back to normal. Especially
>the business guys should have a great interest for the normal........
Again, this is just a personal note, but I don't think this newsgroup will
ever have a semblance of normalcy as long as you're here. But hey, thats what
kill files are for, right?
>The Pope of rgcc has spoken -- the truth!
Insane litany, nothing more. And yes, I'm calling you insane. Make no mistake
about it Rolf.
Now, kill file me, call me Nazi like or whatever.
Tom
Brought to you from Manitoba, Canada
The dryest province in Confederation.
Rolf Tueschen
tda...@escape.ca (Thomas Davie) wrote:
>In article <6017gf$sgq$1...@news02.btx.dtag.de>, TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>>Yes, that's right, W y b e, I'm *your* Pope too. :)
>You're the pope of no one except in your own mind. Sorry to let you down.
You cant retract an official crown ...
>>Please keep in mind that we all write here in cyber space. We're not
>>here personally.
>We aren't? Maybe you're not, but my words stand for me.
I read it. But as I said, *many* hide behind anonymous names...
> God, I hate to think
>that your words really stand for you or that you're like this in real life.
Like what? What you seem to oversee/look? is simply the fact that you
had to explain why you do think so. Your *opinion* saying is ok. But
your opinion lacks of a zero evidence...
I would recommend you to think about the need to interprete words. I
don't know what you wanted to say with "words really stand for", but I'm
sure different people woulld have different opinions here.
>> Most people hide behind anonymous names. This is all in
>>a way a cheating procedure. Now, why should I search for *personal*
>>enemies? This is not logical, W y b e. Logic must have told you
>>that I only **react** on stuff others have written before.
>I don't know.
Yes, I see.
>I've seen you repeatedlt launch personal invectives based on
>nothing at all.
LOL. You're saying you *saw* doing me this, and because you couldn't see
*why* I did so, you simply conclude that I must have invented it. But
that is -- also on the ***base*** of DejaNews, if you know of what I'm
talking about -- wrong.
When you imply you've seen me acting on the base of nothing at all, this
could also be a problem of your perceptive faculty, no?
>>I dont know if you ever will understand that, but I gave you my
>>reasoning. Hope, it helps you.
>Personally, I think you're guilty of faulty ad hominem reasoning, but
>then....thats just my opinion.
You have to decide. Either on lacking or faulty reasoning. But again,
Dejas could provide you all the data needed to see why and what and how
and when. It's easy to detact lacking reasoning because it's simply not
there. :)
>>Ģ think we all have the right and the duty to oppose nazi-like
>>propaganda, cheats and lies. When I observe it, I say it loud.
>Yeah, whatever. Maybe we should all have the duty to oppose idiocy too?
Important. Definetely. And you're also right implying that it's often
croping up together... :)
>>So Wybe, Ed, I still hope that we all come back to normal. Especially
>>the business guys should have a great interest for the normal........
>Again, this is just a personal note, but I don't think this newsgroup will
>ever have a semblance of normalcy as long as you're here. But hey, thats what
>kill files are for, right?
--- :)
>>The Pope of rgcc has spoken -- the truth!
>Insane litany, nothing more. And yes, I'm calling you insane. Make no mistake
>about it Rolf.
No problem of mine, as you know, I'm the Pope.
BTW the title "POPE" was given to me in a famous session months ago here
in rgcc. Perhaps you check Dejas for this important event too. :))
>Now, kill file me, call me Nazi like or whatever.
No, I would say.
I always read the posts and dont give half a damn if the poster is black
or white, or male or female, or whatelse...
I'm focussing on behavior. Others, like the famous defender of nazi-like
crap Ed Schroder, insult ad hominem. He called me a "pig". And this for
my attack on nazi-like crap. Think of this scandal...
*But* if you have the time to check Dejas you'll quickly see what was
happening...
That is not what I meant with cyber space. This doesn't allow simply
cheating the true data. Or any data. :)
Cyberspace meant in my view that we never know what really is the person
behind a poster. With simple tricky manoevers it's easy to fake legends.
So I usually concentrate on the written words and the reasoning -- as
far as it's detectable.
How difficult this is in reality you could see when prominent members of
the group discussed the "human-like" base of the expert "Bob" Robert
Hyatt. Simple checks on the time schedules of even the tiniest orofs in
the USA brought the results that "Bob" must be a computer or a company
of professional cc experts but never a single human with a wife and
family... Exact calculations also reveiled that "Bob" had to have 36
hours minimum for his daily work. Again, not counting the heavy petting
sessions at home... :)
But you're able to detect a serious idioty of my self? Yes, maybe, it
must have something to do with that notion, I see right now what you're
calling "detection". :)
Thomas or Tom? My name is Rolfietje. :)
You see, it's not so easy these days.
Best wishes for you
from your Pope Rolfieje the XXIX.
Thomas Davie
In article <602l3f$42a$2...@news01.btx.dtag.de>, TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>You cant retract an official crown ...
Where, when, and on what credentials were you crowned? Please state now for
all to know( and bow to you ), or keep your llunacy to yourself.
>I read it. But as I said, *many* hide behind anonymous names...
I'll agree with you on this one.
>
>Like what? What you seem to oversee/look? is simply the fact that you
>had to explain why you do think so. Your *opinion* saying is ok. But
>your opinion lacks of a zero evidence...
You're right. It lacks of a zero evidence. But, it does not lack of a positive
evidence. Go to www.dejanews.com and look at all your postings over the past
year and find out how many times you've been embroiled in controversy.
>Important. Definetely. And you're also right implying that it's often
>croping up together... :)
I guess we agree on another point then.
>BTW the title "POPE" was given to me in a famous session months ago here
>in rgcc. Perhaps you check Dejas for this important event too. :))
You might attach a degree of importance to this, ah....famous event, but if
the people who proclaimed you pope are people who hide behind a shield of
anonymity what validity doesit have? None.
>I'm focussing on behavior. Others, like the famous defender of nazi-like
>crap Ed Schroder, insult ad hominem. He called me a "pig". And this for
>my attack on nazi-like crap. Think of this scandal...
A scandal? No, I would call it ad hominem behavior on their part. Just curious
for the sake of argument why is anything 'nazi like' crap?
>Cyberspace meant in my view that we never know what really is the person
>behind a poster. With simple tricky manoevers it's easy to fake legends.
>So I usually concentrate on the written words and the reasoning -- as
>far as it's detectable.
This makes sense. I don't have anything against this. But then please dig a
little deeper within yourself as well.
>Thomas or Tom? My name is Rolfietje. :)
Thomas or Tom. I respond to either.
Rolf Tueschen
tda...@escape.ca (Thomas Davie) wrote:
>In article <602l3f$42a$2...@news01.btx.dtag.de>, TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>>You cant retract an official crown ...
>Where, when, and on what credentials were you crowned? Please state now for
>all to know( and bow to you ), or keep your llunacy to yourself.
Good questions. See below for the answers.
>>I read it. But as I said, *many* hide behind anonymous names...
>I'll agree with you on this one.
>>
>>Like what? What you seem to oversee/look? is simply the fact that you
>>had to explain why you do think so. Your *opinion* saying is ok. But
>>your opinion lacks of a zero evidence...
>You're right. It lacks of a zero evidence. But, it does not lack of a positive
>evidence. Go to www.dejanews.com and look at all your postings over the past
>year and find out how many times you've been embroiled in controversy.
Tom, it's a pity seeing you coming up with this sort of "argument".
On the other hand if you state this it's much more friendly for me than
your "searching for enemies", you stated at first.
But controversy is the reason for good talking, Tom.
In university you often find the proceduring of chosing one as devil's
lawyer. Simply to elevate the interest for the debate.
Not saying that I played this role. But I believe in questioning *all*
that I couldn't understand (this hopefully with attention but no
attacks) or that seemed not sufficciently proven. The clearest case with
no evidence at all. I called this inventions/cheating and so on.
Brown nosing is for me 'following a famous expert without checking the
evidence'.
Now, you're right. Following these guidelines results in the end on the
surface as if there was a continuously quarreling trouble-maker...
If you're not in the details of a topic and you want to "read" about
trouble, then read my posts every two or three weeks. Then you'll get
what you serch for. But the result you observed is *NOT* the reality of
my postings.
The same with the quoting of a singular post. You will easily find parts
im my postings that sound rather aggressive or brutal, if, and only if
you cut the coherence of a longer argumentation in pieces.
This is very easy to achieve. Simply because I try to give a sound
reasoning for my verdicts, which can last a certain time, a djork always
has a simple possibility to manipulate and cheat in the quotes.
Here again it's very important to keep in mind that we have a
cyberspace, where you go off free after you did a little bit of cheating
or lying.
(Best example: all the people who attacked me for my opposing of Ed
Schroder for *no reasons at all...*. In real science this simply would
hurt the image of the one who put that into publishing. But it wouldn't
hurt my reasoning at all. Becuase the reasons lay open bare for
everybody who's searching in Dejas.)
You will "never" see me doing this. Because I have my own scientifical
level to follow. I act regarding evidence as if we were in a university.
But I agree cause of cyberspace I impute a lot of irony and satirical
stuff. Because I believe in having fun. I believe in the typical british
way of black humor.
And I'm always sad seeing people not-understanding the jokes. You also
took certain things with a serious hesitating as if we had just
discussed if we should launch another atomical bomb over Canada...
I'm sorry that I cant reveil the details because then the jokes are no
longer there, ok? :)
But to keep your condemnation of controversies alive another second, let
me clearly state, that I'm proud to having helped for so much contoversy
coming through. :)
>>Important. Definetely. And you're also right implying that it's often
>>croping up together... :)
>I guess we agree on another point then.
Pity that you snipped the upper part for this, because I fear we don't
mean the same thing, Tom.
>>BTW the title "POPE" was given to me in a famous session months ago here
>>in rgcc. Perhaps you check Dejas for this important event too. :))
>You might attach a degree of importance to this, ah....famous event, but if
>the people who proclaimed you pope are people who hide behind a shield of
>anonymity what validity doesit have? None.
Nope. This time it was under the presidency of a very famous expert of
rgcc. No anonymous. That's why it's so important. :)
>>I'm focussing on behavior. Others, like the famous defender of nazi-like
>>crap Ed Schroder, insult ad hominem. He called me a "pig". And this for
>>my attack on nazi-like crap. Think of this scandal...
>A scandal? No, I would call it ad hominem behavior on their part. Just curious
>for the sake of argument why is anything 'nazi like' crap?
This is for me the actual top sentence of your post. And I have to admit
that possible my english isn't sufficient to understand what you really
meant. Let me state threfore what I understood. I answer on that base
then.
° You say, no, not a *scandal*, but pure ad h.
I say no, this is misunderstanding the underlying nazi-like stuff. Tom,
the scandal is not the "pig" insult, but this insult against a poster
who came just back from an attack against nazi-like propagatings.
Tom, you simply couldn't insult me here in usenet. Becuase all insults
either fell back on the poster or he was right and I did something
wrong. Then I felt ashamed because of that but not because of being
insulted. But the story here is a completely other one. I did what is a
simple "duty" for an educated German, that is to oppose such stuff in
the genuin german interest, you know. Becuase nobody can appreciate it
when stuff of the darkest period of german history is again propagated
for the handling of today's problems. That's a very simple reasoning,
Tom.
When Ed Schroder, the famous programmer of Rebel, insulted me exactly in
that moment as "pig", he took sides in the former debate. With or
without conscience. I mean "knowing" what he really did in that moment.
And you know why I will never treat a millimeter of this position?
Because Ed Schroder is the man of easy characterassassination here on
this group.
-- first he did it against me "I used my titles for wrong/mean goals"
-- second he attacked Hyatt for "putting terror on posters of rgcc"
-- third he insinuated and claimed this at the court in Zwolle,
Netherlands, that I had called him a nazi or something like this.
And that is because it's wrong a criminal act at least in our juridical
system here in Europe. Also if I had done it whithout evidence it would
be a criminal acting of myself. But all is pure invention by Ed
Schroder. But his defending of Czub in his nazi-like propaganda, this is
not at all an invention, it's the truth. Period.
So far the scandal.
° Then I understood you said why is *all* nazi-like stuff equal to crap?
There I must agree. Using the word crap is more a tiny miniaturing of
the real genocidal background of the nazi-politics. Crap is a very
negligent notion so far.
Why definetely nazi-methods like concentration camps and signing of
people (did you never saw the pictures of the Jews with the yellow
star?) are named and called the like as nazi-like today is more a
internal german question. May the world do what it likes (see the camps
everywhere) but in Germany I don't want to see these camps again.
Czub wanted to build them for the Scientologists. I said, if they had
done something criminal they should be taken to the court but not in a
camp... Because we have a saying in Germany, and ChrisW pointed it out
again, first they caught (here) the Scientologists and nobody protested
against [and so on] (it ends with the words) and finally they took me
away, but then there was no one left to give his protest against it.....
So, Tom, I would not say that *all* what the nazis did was criminal or
crap. But their underlying politics was a criminal terrorizing politics
leading to clear genocide with millions of victims during the war.
Let me thank you for at least some serious questions. It would making my
day if someone could convince Ed, how deeply wrong he acted here in the
group three times.
(Pope) Rolfietje
>>Cyberspace meant in my view that we never know what really is the person
>>behind a poster. With simple tricky manoevers it's easy to fake legends.
>>So I usually concentrate on the written words and the reasoning -- as
>>far as it's detectable.
>This makes sense. I don't have anything against this. But then please dig a
>little deeper within yourself as well.
You're so right. I try. Don't think that I'm not hurt by the many
critics against me. But I know that it's right to oppose Ed Schroder.
I know that it hurts others who can't understand the many mean actions
of Schroder. Although I desribed them exactly.
I'm sure that it will hurt Ed in the end. Because this is self
destruction what he does politically. Running to court pushed by Mr.
Whittington was a big mistake. because now it's no longer cyberspace but
real life.
Thomas Davie
In article <603vj3$sa$1...@news00.btx.dtag.de>, TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>Tom, it's a pity seeing you coming up with this sort of "argument".
>On the other hand if you state this it's much more friendly for me than
>your "searching for enemies", you stated at first.
What type of argument would you prefer me to use Rolf? I can argue from my
life's experience, or from my formal training in college. I can do no other.
>Not saying that I played this role. But I believe in questioning *all*
>that I couldn't understand (this hopefully with attention but no
>attacks) or that seemed not sufficciently proven. The clearest case with
>no evidence at all. I called this inventions/cheating and so on.
There's nothing wrong with this. However, when arguing, one usually does so
with an aim of advancing one's own interests, no? If not, there is no reason
for arguing. And if so, you'd probably advance your interests quite a bit more
if you changed your style.
>Brown nosing is for me 'following a famous expert without checking the
>evidence'.
Perhaps. But when checking the evidence you do not have to come across like
you have.
>The same with the quoting of a singular post. You will easily find parts
>im my postings that sound rather aggressive or brutal, if, and only if
>you cut the coherence of a longer argumentation in pieces.
Well, I've been reading this newsgroup since May. Since then, and to be honest
your posts have often seemed random and incoherent.
>Here again it's very important to keep in mind that we have a
>cyberspace, where you go off free after you did a little bit of cheating
>or lying.
And you can also go off free after having prsented a sound and reasoned
discourse.
>You will "never" see me doing this. Because I have my own scientifical
>level to follow. I act regarding evidence as if we were in a university.
>But I agree cause of cyberspace I impute a lot of irony and satirical
>stuff. Because I believe in having fun. I believe in the typical british
>way of black humor.
Fair enough. What type or sort of scientific reasoning do you follow? Immanuel
Kant or David Hume?
>And I'm always sad seeing people not-understanding the jokes. You also
>took certain things with a serious hesitating as if we had just
>discussed if we should launch another atomical bomb over Canada...
>I'm sorry that I cant reveil the details because then the jokes are no
>longer there, ok? :)
Just a suggestion, but perhaps if people are not getting the joke then maybe
you should rethink your style of joke telling, no? Hey, as long as you launch
an atom bomb over Quebec it wouldn't bother me( there, that displays a
certain tongue in cheek attitude ). I'm sorry, a lot of people just do not
find your writing style humorous or anecdotal at all.
>But to keep your condemnation of controversies alive another second, let
>me clearly state, that I'm proud to having helped for so much contoversy
>coming through. :)
There's nothign wrong with that as long as it's goal directed towards a
certain point. Controversy or open ended antagonism is pointless.
>>for the sake of argument why is anything 'nazi like' crap?
>
>This is for me the actual top sentence of your post. And I have to admit
>that possible my english isn't sufficient to understand what you really
>meant. Let me state threfore what I understood. I answer on that base
>then.
I mean how can you, in an a priori sense condemn anything that is of a
National Socialist bent? If I call you a Nazi is it automatically an insult
deserving a response from you?
>Let me thank you for at least some serious questions. It would making my
>day if someone could convince Ed, how deeply wrong he acted here in the
>group three times.
You're welcome. It would also make my day if you acted in a more sane and
rational( to my British Canadian way of thinking )manner. I hope you really
believe I'm not trying to insult you, but I really do believe you are
pathologically insane.
Rolf Tueschen
tda...@escape.ca (Thomas Davie) wrote:
>In article <603vj3$sa$1...@news00.btx.dtag.de>, TUESCHEN.MEDIZIN_KUNSTFEHLER@
>t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>>Tom, it's a pity seeing you coming up with this sort of "argument".
>>On the other hand if you state this it's much more friendly for me than
>>your "searching for enemies", you stated at first.
>What type of argument would you prefer me to use Rolf? I can argue from my
>life's experience, or from my formal training in college. I can do no other.
Again you tried this cheat by cutting the logic of an argument. You snip
"this sort of argument" (see the former post) and then you ask something
I did never imply you to do...
Next point. You claim experience and training. This is fine with me. But
tell *me* now what I should do if I had detected that you was wrong in
so many points. Is it allowed to come to a provisional verdict? I still
can criticise the *output* of your experience/logic, no?
I think I gave you a lot of informations. Now it's up to you to analyse
the "nazi-like"- debate between Ed Schroder and me. Check Dejas and you
can judge. At the moment it seems as if you're no longer interested in
this question.
So don't let us continue this exchange because you seem so strange. On
the one hand you have your verdict of me being a fool and on the other
side you want me to write about Kant or Hume.
But I'm in serious court trouble with the Schroder's Ed, and I cant
discuss in public all the different positions. This would be stupid...
>when arguing, one usually does so
>with an aim of advancing one's own interests, no? If not, there is no reason
>for arguing. And if so, you'd probably advance your interests quite a bit more
>if you changed your style.
You argue exactly like Ed Schroder (!) at the beginning of a longer
email exchange. He also couldn't understand the "motivation". He
searched and searched for sinister *interests* (for which concurrent
he's working?), and went completely over the edge, when I insisted not
having at least not those he had assumed...
(Reminds me on the americo/canadian tourists in Europe who are
astonished that in Europe not everybody is wearing baseball caps or
shorts or lipsticks... Or another example. The 35 y. old latino-american
woman on a 9-days-7-country-short-visite for 4500$$ in front of
Michelangelo's David saying, "oh, if my mother was here, she sure sayin
'keep your eyes away from *this* one'."
And think of this scandal: Europeans drink Coke without ice....
Another woman from an investment broker scene admitted never (!) having
heard about Europe in school...)
_I_ dont need to "advance" dark interests. I'm interested in knowledge.
I'm not changing my style either. If the usual two pages are too long
for some american/canadians, I don't mind. I'm not forced to adopt the
american fast food culture in *all* fields, no? For these cases we have
the kill-files I was told... :)
(Of course my bad english which could be ameliorated, that's obviously
right.)
>>Brown nosing is for me 'following a famous expert without checking the
>>evidence'.
>Perhaps. But when checking the evidence you do not have to come across like
>you have.
Even a pope is imperfect. :)
>Well, I've been reading this newsgroup since May. Since then, and to be honest
>your posts have often seemed random and incoherent.
Important this word "seemed", which means that it depends on the reader
*too*, no? The problem is simply that it's impossible to always repeat
all referencies for possible new members who are too lazy to search in
Dejas...
>>Here again it's very important to keep in mind that we have a
>>cyberspace, where you go off free after you did a little bit of cheating
>>or lying.
>And you can also go off free after having prsented a sound and reasoned
>discourse.
? :)
Interesting piece of cencoring. You concentrate on trivialities. I
myself on the cheats and lies...
>>You will "never" see me doing this.
Nice trick. As if I had rejected the sound discourse. Nice.
Could be an original Torsten Czub from Luenen, Germany.
>>Because I have my own scientifical
>>level to follow. I act regarding evidence as if we were in a university.
>>But I agree cause of cyberspace I impute a lot of irony and satirical
>>stuff. Because I believe in having fun. I believe in the typical british
>>way of black humor.
>Fair enough. What type or sort of scientific reasoning do you follow? Immanuel
>Kant or David Hume?
I'm more on the POP'.
>>And I'm always sad seeing people not-understanding the jokes. You also
>>took certain things with a serious hesitating as if we had just
>>discussed if we should launch another atomical bomb over Canada...
>>I'm sorry that I cant reveil the details because then the jokes are no
>>longer there, ok? :)
>Just a suggestion, but perhaps if people are not getting the joke then maybe
>you should rethink your style of joke telling, no? Hey, as long as you launch
>an atom bomb over Quebec it wouldn't bother me( there, that displays a
>certain tongue in cheek attitude ). I'm sorry, a lot of people just do not
>find your writing style humorous or anecdotal at all.
But please. Did you ever find an author who was interested that *all*
the people could understand him? LOL.
>>But to keep your condemnation of controversies alive another second, let
>>me clearly state, that I'm proud to having helped for so much contoversy
>>coming through. :)
>There's nothign wrong with that as long as it's goal directed towards a
>certain point. Controversy or open ended antagonism is pointless.
That is true for real life / university stuff. But not for the ever
flowing cyber... You for instance jumped in in May. Fine. But Ed
Schroder's cheat and characterassassination began much earlier... I saw
it in November/December 1996. So for this you should check Dejas. I can
only repeat myself.
>>>for the sake of argument why is anything 'nazi like' crap?
>>
>>This is for me the actual top sentence of your post. And I have to admit
>>that possible my english isn't sufficient to understand what you really
>>meant. Let me state threfore what I understood. I answer on that base
>>then.
>I mean how can you, in an a priori sense condemn anything that is of a
>National Socialist bent? If I call you a Nazi is it automatically an insult
>deserving a response from you?
Right. If you called me so it's an insult here in Germany.
Not *all* national politics is wrong or "nazi". I for one wrote here in
public that the endless flow of asylants who travel exclusively for
getting the money of another people has to be stopped.
Thats not "nazi" or "bad" or whatever.
This is really off topic for this group. Let's stop here.
>>Let me thank you for at least some serious questions. It would making my
>>day if someone could convince Ed, how deeply wrong he acted here in the
>>group three times.
>You're welcome. It would also make my day if you acted in a more sane and
>rational( to my British Canadian way of thinking )manner. I hope you really
>believe I'm not trying to insult you, but I really do believe you are
>pathologically insane.
If you were really an educated man, you would know that without being an
expert, your judging, no, more so your "believing" that someone is
"pathologically insane", you absolutely dont know in personal, IS a big
insult. Not enough, it spoils your own image. Sorry, if you missed that.
Let's talk another time about more on-topic stuff. Until then, bye-bye.
Thomas Davie
In article <605dvn$7km$1...@news00.btx.dtag.de>, TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen) wrote:
>>What type of argument would you prefer me to use Rolf? I can argue from my
>>life's experience, or from my formal training in college. I can do no other.
>
>Again you tried this cheat by cutting the logic of an argument. You snip
>"this sort of argument" (see the former post) and then you ask something
>I did never imply you to do...
No, you seemed to be unaware of the type of logical/scientific system under
which I was existing. I'm stating me foundational presuppositions. I ask that
you kindly do the same. Cheat? I'm not implying your English is poor( God
knows it's a hell of a lot better than my German ), but what do you mean by
cheating?
>
>Next point. You claim experience and training. This is fine with me. But
>tell *me* now what I should do if I had detected that you was wrong in
>so many points. Is it allowed to come to a provisional verdict? I still
>can criticise the *output* of your experience/logic, no?
If you detect that I am wrong, I expect to be told why I am wrong and I take
no insult in been shown how and/or why I am wrong. Of course you can criticize
the output of my logic and experience, just as I can( and do )yours.
>
>I think I gave you a lot of informations. Now it's up to you to analyse
>the "nazi-like"- debate between Ed Schroder and me. Check Dejas and you
>can judge. At the moment it seems as if you're no longer interested in
>this question.
I've taken a look and frm my perspective it appears as if you really do not
comprehend just what it is that you've engendered or undertaken.
>So don't let us continue this exchange because you seem so strange. On
>the one hand you have your verdict of me being a fool and on the other
>side you want me to write about Kant or Hume.
No, let us continue this exhcnage because to me you still appear to be insane
and rambling.
>But I'm in serious court trouble with the Schroder's Ed, and I cant
>discuss in public all the different positions. This would be stupid...
Ok, don' t then. Now, if you're in serious court trouble, there is a reason
for that. I'm not asking a disclosure, unless of course you wish to clear the
air. But, feel free to not do so.
>You argue exactly like Ed Schroder (!) at the beginning of a longer
>email exchange. He also couldn't understand the "motivation". He
>searched and searched for sinister *interests* (for which concurrent
>he's working?), and went completely over the edge, when I insisted not
>having at least not those he had assumed...
I'm not searching for sinister interests, I'm searching for motivations. You
must have some, even if they are completely incomprehensible to myself.
>
>(Reminds me on the americo/canadian tourists in Europe who are
>astonished that in Europe not everybody is wearing baseball caps or
>shorts or lipsticks... Or another example. The 35 y. old latino-american
>woman on a 9-days-7-country-short-visite for 4500$$ in front of
>Michelangelo's David saying, "oh, if my mother was here, she sure sayin
>'keep your eyes away from *this* one'."
>And think of this scandal: Europeans drink Coke without ice....
>Another woman from an investment broker scene admitted never (!) having
>heard about Europe in school...)
Well, I'm not in Europe, not a tourist, and I definately do not waste my time
about baseball caps, shorts, lipsticks, Coke, or investment brokers. But, I am
amusing myself examing your discourse and conversing with you. You're quite an
entertaining chap.
>I'm not changing my style either. If the usual two pages are too long
>for some american/canadians, I don't mind. I'm not forced to adopt the
>american fast food culture in *all* fields, no? For these cases we have
>the kill-files I was told... :)
No, don't adopt to the North American fast food culture if you don't want to.
But, you also don't have to be understood either. Your choice on this one
Rolf.
>Even a pope is imperfect. :)
You're not a Pope though.
>Important this word "seemed", which means that it depends on the reader
>*too*, no? The problem is simply that it's impossible to always repeat
>all referencies for possible new members who are too lazy to search in
>Dejas...
I should think that it is important to do so if your position is a rationally
coherent one....or if it is important. But, if not....
>Nice trick. As if I had rejected the sound discourse. Nice.
>Could be an original Torsten Czub from Luenen, Germany.
No, all it is is concentrating on what is important to me at the moment. Some
things you say just do not make sense. There are some statements from you that
I am incapable of interpreting. I'll freely and readily discard them. If you
say they're important, I trust that you will clarify them for me. If you
don't, I conclude that they are not important.
>But please. Did you ever find an author who was interested that *all*
>the people could understand him? LOL.
All the time. In my line of work, we submit peer reviewd articles for
publication. We expect that they will be understood by all the reviewers. If
they aren't, they usually do not get published. We then have to revise the
articles until they are understood.
>That is true for real life / university stuff. But not for the ever
>flowing cyber... You for instance jumped in in May. Fine. But Ed
>Schroder's cheat and characterassassination began much earlier... I saw
>it in November/December 1996. So for this you should check Dejas. I can
>only repeat myself.
'Cyber' as you put it is real life. It's just another form of communication.
>This is really off topic for this group. Let's stop here.
No, this topic of Nazism really interests me. I'll continue the conversation
until you don't respond publicly or until I'm killfiled.
>If you were really an educated man, you would know that without being an
>expert, your judging, no, more so your "believing" that someone is
>"pathologically insane", you absolutely dont know in personal, IS a big
>insult. Not enough, it spoils your own image. Sorry, if you missed that.
I guess it is a big insult. If you're insulted sorry. My opinion of your
insanity stands though. My image? Oh well, maybe I'll get labelled as someone
mean and nasty. Oh well.
>Let's talk another time about more on-topic stuff. Until then, bye-bye.
If you want to talk about chess without resorting to rambling, incoherent
babblings I'm quite willing to do so.