To Jeroen and interested minds, re. Tiger node count

[daws]

A collaborator in the Dutch language means f.e. Dutch people who joined the Nazis during world war II and betrayed their own people. So maybe now you understand why I am upset?

For the record, the meaning is more or less the same in Danish. And when used in English, it usually seems to follow that line too.

If anyone called me a collaborator, I'd like it to be a friend who's just joking.

This goes for all the Nordic languages I guess. E. g.: How long has he been collaborating with the enemy?

In German it has ONLY that sense. In the other case the zusammen, together working, or just the kooperieren (to cooperate) is the choice number one. But this isnt all important. Here we have a typical situation where we can only understand in context. CT felt heavily attacked by JN and he stroke back. With a wording, that he with his good connections to Holland and the Dutch (note Lukassoft and the former cooperatron with Ed too) knew as an impossible to tolerate verb for a Dutch. That has nothing to do with the time since WWII. Also what the linguitic context is concerned: the Dutch is mainly a variation of the German and that again is closely related to the Nordic languages. So also from an archaic linkage plus the history of a shameful event (of course caused by the dirty Nazis!) it is one the most evil allegation one could make against a Dutch and this was the case here. The excuse that HERE the English dominated is worthless in case we have a French. BTW with a similar past and the clear negative context but maybe the French have a lighter style to make this forget as a direct pain. But we must not seek too far in the national characters, what counts is that CT is absolutely familiar with that topic in Holland. And therefore it was a dirty attack. While JN just asked for what is proven as fact. In the end the actual campaign was led by someone who has the same tech in his own prog to deceive the naive display readers. So we have this as case one and in the meantime CT came out with his confession that he in special has never liked and has never done therefore, to adopt something OTHES have invented or used for the first time. This is a case two hypocrisy because as reference Bob explained there are not so many new inventions in the progs because they all rely on stuff that was invented by others, mostly friends of Bob and in a time period when Bob was himself competiting. - So, overall, this is a very dirty smear act for computerchess as such.

I think you have a problem taking in facts that don't fit in with your agenda. It's already been pointed out to you that CT never used the word collaborator to describe JN. Or if he did, can you point out the relevant message.

[Rolf]

A collaborator in the Dutch language means f.e. Dutch people who joined the Nazis during world war II and betrayed their own people. So maybe now you understand why I am upset?

For the record, the meaning is more or less the same in Danish. And when used in English, it usually seems to follow that line too.

If anyone called me a collaborator, I'd like it to be a friend who's just joking.

This goes for all the Nordic languages I guess. E. g.: How long has he been collaborating with the enemy?

I just want to remind that the word was used in an English forum, by an native English speaker, and in English the primary meaning is to 'work with' or to assist'...
the only negative connotation in English is when it is used with 'Nazi'.
i.e. a 'Nazi collaborator'. this was not the case.

Why is it being being taken completely out of context, and translated it into other languages in an effort to provide negative connotations?

I don't get it...

I was just explaining also for people who cant understand it. But you must also read the messages. Jeroen didnt take something OUT of context but in context as a Dutch and that mus be allowed here, no? But even this verb "to take" is too wrong. Because here it wasnt an intentional mind game, no, it's something that is deeply based in the Dutch people and their idiomatic understanding of speech. And the English and Dutch are very similar and therefore JN got only the mean and not a British sense because here it should have come from a native speaker. So here I cant agree with ChrisW. Also I had many personal exchanges with ChrisW and he's quiote familiar with the "Dutch" and their "character". And from his experience with Ed also ChrisW knows what makes a Dutch jump up and down because it hurts so much. Just my 2cts.

P.S. For a second time I totally confused in a former message that Chris W and not Chris T has used this term collaborate. When I read Dawlish now I couldnt change that in my message because of the 15 min. It's really a mistake to confuse the two and I apologize to all but it's also true that in my memory I thought I had written that somewhere and I thought it was from CT. However it's not true that I have an agenda somehow other than arguing against the anti Vas/Rybka hunt. The material has now reached a huge amount and it was due to my high speed writing my notes that I confused it. I remember the first time someone corrected me and I answered him in joking but I didnt realise that CT had absolutely nothing to do with this specific term. So again, my fault, sorry. If it happens a third time I will finally claim Alzheimer... So I repeat CT NOT but it was CW.

[icander]

A collaborator in the Dutch language means f.e. Dutch people who joined the Nazis during world war II and betrayed their own people. So maybe now you understand why I am upset?

For the record, the meaning is more or less the same in Danish. And when used in English, it usually seems to follow that line too.

If anyone called me a collaborator, I'd like it to be a friend who's just joking.

This goes for all the Nordic languages I guess. E. g.: How long has he been collaborating with the enemy?

I just want to remind that the word was used in an English forum, by an native English speaker, and in English the primary meaning is to 'work with' or to assist'...
the only negative connotation in English is when it is used with 'Nazi'.
i.e. a 'Nazi collaborator'. this was not the case.

Why is it being being taken completely out of context, and translated it into other languages in an effort to provide negative connotations?

I don't get it...

I used an online Swedish/English dictionary to translate the word. And it gave as an exemple that sentence. It didn't mention Nazi.
I'm of course aware of the more "friendly" meaning. But I wouldn't like to be called collaborator. Isn't it possible that just that word was used intentionally. It could have been said in several other ways.

[Rolf]

I think you have a problem taking in facts that don't fit in with your agenda. It's already been pointed out to you that CT never used the word collaborator to describe JN. Or if he did, can you point out the relevant message.

Of course you are correct, see my P.S. elsewhere. But what strikes me is that you seem to oversee that in such a virtual debate where first of all it's about the unfair attacks on Vas/rYBKA from someone, that was the meaning of JN question to CT, who stands in the same tradition of practice, it is important to oppose the wrong and to support the good side. Question arises whya someone like you, apparently reading all this with care, doesnt himself not comment IMO on the main topic? Instead of correcting what is really true and helpful a more or less secondary confounding of two names in cryptic shortness CW and CT. What has this to do with the attacks from CT on Vas and his reactions on what JN had simply asked to show him how hypocritical his attacks on Vas in truth are.
What importance in that regard has the confounding of CT and CW? Nothing, agreed? Please write on the basic problem too. Thanks.

[daws]

I think you have a problem taking in facts that don't fit in with your agenda. It's already been pointed out to you that CT never used the word collaborator to describe JN. Or if he did, can you point out the relevant message.

Of course you are correct, see my P.S. elsewhere. But what strikes me is that you seem to oversee that in such a virtual debate where first of all it's about the unfair attacks on Vas/rYBKA from someone, that was the meaning of JN question to CT, who stands in the same tradition of practice, it is important to oppose the wrong and to support the good side. Question arises whya someone like you, apparently reading all this with care, doesnt himself not comment IMO on the main topic? Instead of correcting what is really true and helpful a more or less secondary confounding of two names in cryptic shortness CW and CT. What has this to do with the attacks from CT on Vas and his reactions on what JN had simply asked to show him how hypocritical his attacks on Vas in truth are.
What importance in that regard has the confounding of CT and CW? Nothing, agreed? Please write on the basic problem too. Thanks.

I didn't even consider the possibility that you might have just confused the initials CT and CW. If that's what you did then fair enough, but I still feel my correction was justified to put facts straight.

As far as the main topic is concerned, I don't feel qualified to comment as I have no idea about the origins of Rybka or who is right or wrong in this thread.

All I can say is that I downloaded the free Rybka 2.2 and the free book. I'm quite happy with it and thanks very much to Vas.

[Rolf]

I think you have a problem taking in facts that don't fit in with your agenda. It's already been pointed out to you that CT never used the word collaborator to describe JN. Or if he did, can you point out the relevant message.

Of course you are correct, see my P.S. elsewhere. But what strikes me is that you seem to oversee that in such a virtual debate where first of all it's about the unfair attacks on Vas/rYBKA from someone, that was the meaning of JN question to CT, who stands in the same tradition of practice, it is important to oppose the wrong and to support the good side. Question arises whya someone like you, apparently reading all this with care, doesnt himself not comment IMO on the main topic? Instead of correcting what is really true and helpful a more or less secondary confounding of two names in cryptic shortness CW and CT. What has this to do with the attacks from CT on Vas and his reactions on what JN had simply asked to show him how hypocritical his attacks on Vas in truth are.
What importance in that regard has the confounding of CT and CW? Nothing, agreed? Please write on the basic problem too. Thanks.

I didn't even consider the possibility that you might have just confused the initials CT and CW. If that's what you did then fair enough, but I still feel my correction was justified to put facts straight.

As far as the main topic is concerned, I don't feel qualified to comment as I have no idea about the origins of Rybka or who is right or wrong in this thread.

All I can say is that I downloaded the free Rybka 2.2 and the free book. I'm quite happy with it and thanks very much to Vas.

It would be too esy to simply say that I had JUST confused the two initials. What and why it happened is unclear. But please tell me why do you think the origins of Fritz or Shredder were never doubted? You are here many years so what is your opinion? Because only such let's say indirect arguments and question I can make too. Because I myself have also no idea what is really true in the question of Rybka. Point for me is if something wasnt illegal then why now years later the ballyhoo. Such questions you could also ask. And my main motif, but not agenda, is that someone like Vas seems to be hunted. And now the hype - by someone who also faked the output in his program. You see from what angle I write in this thread? I simply try to input some ethics because pure computerchess seems to be too positivistic. All the best.

[smirobth]

This is true but for your judgement you are wrong because CT knew well the tender Dutch point and he pushed the button intentiously. Years ago I took CT himself for Dutch because he was always with Ed and the Dutch. So this is why we must also consider the psychology of the underlying insult. In French one would also take completely different words for working together. But not the collaborer which is also in France a sort of bad reminding of a bad past under the Nazis. So, it's 100% sure that CT didnt use the term unintentionally in a neutral manner. The word is basically meaning the ugly thing called traitor of his own people's honor perhapsw even to get rich by that strategy. That is why it's also so ugly for the Dutch even today. And that was intentional. Believe me.

It was Chris Wittington that said it!!

Well, I used the term in a neutral manner to mean the past cooperation between Jeroen and Christophe, it seems the correct term to describe what I assume in the lack of any other information was a close, unpaid voluntary arrangement of each providing expertise to make a product, maybe royalty based - who knows. What other word would do for people working together in a cooperative manner? Collaboration is the correct english expression.

Cooperate? Also in German the term of choice. Collaborate is for a French clearly intentional an allegation especially to a Dutch. All IMO. Also French would say cooperer. American English might be different.

I find it hilarious that a non native English speaker who on numerous occasions has defended his incorrect usage of the English language due to an admitted lack of English mastery is now lecturing a native English speaker on English. In fact Chris W is quite correct; in English the word collaborate, by itself, has no negative connotation.

[gerold]

Huh? You must be kidding. Calling me a 'collaborator' (which is a very negative word in the Dutch language) is pretty offensive, so I am filing an official complaint here. I don't accept such language, especially not from a moderator.

So basically other programmers can question anything about Rybka and not vice versa. OK, you made that perfectly clear.

In that case I wish you a lot of success with the 'impartial CCC where everybody can ask what he wants'. Maybe you should change its name into 'The Anti Rybka Forum'.

Collaboration involves comming together with others to change
individual approaches to a goal to allow for sharing of resources
and responsibilities.

cooperation between two or more people working together to impove common goal and maintaining their separate mandates and responsibilities.

Best to you,

Gerold.

[bnemias]

I count 47 posts, excluding this one, devoted to the simple misunderstanding about the meaning of a word.

27 of those occurred after the original offended party accepted the benign interpretation.

Hilarious.

[Rolf]

Cooperate? Also in German the term of choice. Collaborate is for a French clearly intentional an allegation especially to a Dutch. All IMO. Also French would say cooperer. American English might be different.

I find it hilarious that a non native English speaker who on numerous occasions has defended his incorrect usage of the English language due to an admitted lack of English mastery is now lecturing a native English speaker on English. In fact Chris W is quite correct; in English the word collaborate, by itself, has no negative connotation.

Blabla. I dont teach or lecture a native English speaker like ChrisW, I only said that ChrisW for certain also knew of the sisitivity of the Dutch because of that history and hence the word itself. I cant judge how and if and when what means in English. So sorry, that was a waste of time from your side. You should have better remained in CTF. <g> Wait till I'll be back, then I'll give you hell. <g>