<but anything from "annoying" and down is worth wasting time on>

I should be safe, in that case.

<frogbert> I think we're all doomed, but I don't consider that to be pessimism. I'm fairly neutral as regards the future of the human species, if it has one.

But just imagine some space traveller in a million years time landing in the ruins of Oslo, and finding a statue ("whose wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, tell that the sculptor well those passions read") ... engraved with the words <"My Name is Magnus Carlsen, King of Kings. Look on my games, ye mighty, and despair.">

Heh. I couldn't possibly analyze my dreams, as I can almost never remember any of them. One of the known drawbacks of poor short-term memory.

<<but anything from "annoying" and down is worth wasting time on>

I should be safe, in that case.>>

Yes dear. If you are a Sudoku. Otherwise, being annoying very often may not be a good idea. :p

<His little archipelagic fans, the Hash Tags, have opted for one of their own.>

i'm really surprised if you're not able to see the <damage to the site> that certain "well-wishing" kibitzers are capable of, dom.

if/when you're looking for reasons for the caissars (and similar) not attracting more interest, it might be time to consider some of the attitudes that exist among the old guard. for how many years do you think a kibitzer should be allowed to attack a <single individual>, stalking him all over this place, before that behaviour should warrant a serious reaction from the site administrators, dom daniel?

is 4 enough, do you reckon?

i do indeed ascribe some responsibility to parts of the "silent majority" in cases like this. to you, and to you, and to you.

Damage: minimal

Degree of repentancy: unknown

Attacks on a <single individual>: there are other kinds?

I will comment further in time.

I'm not a moral authority. I have no standing in CG that I'm aware of. OK, maybe *some* that I'm aware of.

But how does this pertain to you? I accept that you've been stalked. The perps probably aren't very nice people. I can't imagine *why* anyone would stalk you -- unless, as I said before, they came from a more tribal culture and assumed that your affinity with Magnus, as a fellow Norwegian, amounted to the same kind of idiotic idolatry.

It's hard for some people to understand how civilized Scandinavians are. Maybe they saw a movie about Vikings once, or something.

But I haven't seen the stalker evidence. I stay well away from almost all player pages. It's just not something I care much about, players and their perfs. I lack the fan gene.

Ditto ratings, actually. I was bemused and perplexed to find people expressing the hope that Carlsen would surpass Kasparov's rating record. Which would 'prove' nothing, of course.

As an aside: I recently changed my mind about the ratio of rating inflation to improved play as cofactors in the GM rating rise. I used to think it was mostly inflation (which is quite visible) plus *some* computer-driven improvement in performance.

But I've been looking at similar increases in other statistical measures of performance: it's a well-known effect in IQ testing, for example. Such tests have been administered routinely since WW1, so there's a century of hard data which seems to say that the average person in 1912 would perform at an acutely subnormal level today. Which doesn't mean our grandparents were all idiots: simply a broad increase in competence at certain aspects of an IQ test. It's very plausible that chess has seen a similar rise in competence.

Unlike you, however, I lack the energy to argue about these things.

Which leaves a question: why has CG, or Daniel Freeman in person, not intervened on your behalf in the stalking situation?

I don't know. I have some hypotheses, but they're based on poor data as I haven't seen the stalking personally. When I was attacked it was personal, vicious, defamatory and false - way past name-calling - and they dealt with it promptly.

Hypothesis: you have, to some extent, engaged in debate with your persecutors. Almost always a mistake, as we know: the 'lunatic' (as CG described my attacker) doesn't listen or gets troll kicks, while others see it as a feud or squabble.

That happened to me a couple of times when I bit back. And I tend to be pretty passive: I forget past grievances and couldn't give a hoot about honour.

Just as people see a dreary inevitability in the unceasing war between AJ and his foes, perhaps you're seen as having evolved a codependency with your stalker?

It's an idea. I should be more Newtonian and say "Hypothesis non fingo".

So I knows nothing, yer frogship. But feel free to spawn here anytime.

Paranoia is often necessary, of course. It may even be what makes us tick. I'm not complaining.

Do *any* of us really have a clear overview of who is in touch with whom, behind the scenes and via other media?

what does the "silent majority" has to do with cliques? the majority is silent, and most members of the majority would have no say in this regardless. but while what i say and do mean nothing to certain kibitzers here, it's my assumption that your and a couple other voices might be heard, if wanting or bothering to speak clearly.

<perhaps you're seen as having evolved a codependency with your stalker>

while the theory might be acceptable in principle, i don't think it applies to the case i have in mind.

<why has CG, or Daniel Freeman in person, not intervened on your behalf in the stalking situation?>

it's more than a year since last time i involved daniel, and he was generally positive to trying to find some solution. even when possibly as simple as telling the premium cg.com stalker to knock it off.

whether he eventually did or didn't, i do not know, but the premium stalker hasn't changed his ways.

<Do *any* of us really have a clear overview of who is in touch with whom, behind the scenes and via other media?>

no, and i don't care. to me that's rather irrelevant though - i'm only concerned about the interaction that's <visible> on the site. some people spend <way> too much time trying to "figure out" who's behind this or that nickname, counting socks, or whatever.

<I can't imagine *why* anyone would stalk you >

does this mean that

1) you're actually not seeing what's going on, or that

2) you see it, but you don't understand why, or that

3) you see something, but don't consider it to be stalking

sure. and it's not like i never sense that people want to be finished and move on - like right now, in your case - but regardless any determined relentlessness are almost never *personal* towards my opponent or debate partner; i generally like people, even silly people - but i'm sensitive to certain types of silliness; lack of logic, self-imposed ignorance or ad hominems or straw-man arguments when people run out of meaningful things to say.

the latter might cause temporary bursts of aggression - but it's hardly ever personal, it's directed towards the nonsense (something that might be misunderstood, of course). the few people here that either mostly say things i find annoying and/or silly, or clearly are out to attack *me* (and not what i say) are typically granted a spot on my ignore list. again, it's hardly personal - i simply remove "noise" and "annoyances" in order to enjoy the site more.

i would be happy to dissect some parts of it, but i'm skeptical whether we'll actually manage to stick to doing <just that> before we (you) move on to other false claims.

<telling another user to "mind your own business" like a big baby>

you are calling me a "big baby" here, btw - but that's a bit beside the point. on to the history and the context for your claim - the three posts leading up to me asking <golden executive> to mind his own business:

--- --- ---

[frogbert:]
it would be great if more ppl did like fsr, quote and/or link the <post> you're voting for.

in practice this makes sfm's post the only candidate for me, as the others are posters/kibitzers, not posts.

---

[Golden Executive:]
<it would be great if more ppl did like.....>

It would be great if.........

<in practice this makes sfm's post the only candidate for me....>

The only candidate for me.....for me....for me.....me....me....

---

[Golden Executive:]
+++++ FLASH BACK ++++++

<Jan-05-12
OhioChessFan: <frogbert> I appreciate your thoughts, but I think it's time to move on to the nomination and voting process. <wannabe> basically pleaded for input for several weeks and there's more input now than then. I have a post on my forum page giving my thoughts on the matter.>

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

<frogbert> Do you have <OCF> on ignore? I do not think so.

Your opinion is welcome, but please do it at the right time.

--- --- ---

<note> that before the above, i had not addressed golden executive, i wasn't discussing anything with him, i had not approached him in any way. however, golden executive was seemingly annoyed with me, and expressed it in the following mature and constructive way:

---
<it would be great if more ppl did like.....>

It would be great if.........

<in practice this makes sfm's post the only candidate for me....>

The only candidate for me.....for me....for me.....me....me.... ---

is this a polite way to address anyone? is it an attack? is it a personal attack? what do you think g.e. meant to say about me using the "echo-effect" 'for me... for me... for me...' in the above, tpstar?

< two contest leaders holding a private exchange discussing ... >

i assume you are one of those two highly <"contest leaders"> holding a <"private exchange"> in your forum, and that the other one was ocf.

that takes us back to january 5th.

My guess - just a guess - was that tpstar was alluding to his own request that WannaBe contact him via chat mode on a playing site to discuss sockpuppets and related issues. An invitation was made: I don't know whether it was taken up.

This is also the logical assumption, insofar as any such private exchange is just noise - meaningful though it may be to the participants - unless at least one of them has the ability to affect the voting procedure in some way.

I'm not sure what tp's 'thing' is -- I thought he might have had more than one, actually, as polythingness is a common affliction around here. But any post that begins with <There's a rumor on the Internet> probably has a high irony factor.

however, it seems that tpstar instead was publishing how wannabe and himself, the contest leaders, discussed me in private and how the concencus the two of them might have reached somehow warranted another dose of personal attacks in his caissar summary, repeating his worn out claims about malicious, destructive "rulebreaking".

whatever tpstar's intentions were by mentioning wannabe, i'm not holding anyone but tpstar accountable for his words, obviously.

ocf, i can understand annoyance, but in your case it didn't lead to you making any personal attacks due to it, right? adults can talk whenever there is a disagreement.

also, i'm sure that you agree that most levels of annoyances don't warrant or justify personal attacks. that's really at the core of this discussion.

<something about a bra>

please sit down at the table and try the thing called "dialogue" - i've heard it can be good. even you must see by now that you're not achieving much with your neverending monologues, insults, attacks and distorted & cherry picked pieces of reality. the latter is generally quite undiscernable from the thing called "lies".