Chopin: The Official Thread

C

Chopin

Legend
Poster-modernism has a new name:

...

....

.....

......

.......

........

Chopin!

Welcome to Chopin: The Official Thread!

This thread will be a beacon of light for all things related to Club Chopin. Please discuss anything that relates to Chopin and his supporters, including but not limited to:

--The legendary debates between Chopin and the Historians.

--Rod Laver

--Club Chopin membership

--Gold Star Posters of the Week

--Friends of Club Chopin

--Banned poster sightings

--Ideas for the Masterpiece Collection

Also, for a limited time, I'll be answering questions from members. While these questions can be about anything (e.g. views on women, politics, sports, chess openings), I reserve the right to not answer any questions which jeopardize the reputation of Club Chopin and its esteemed place on the Boards.

I'd also like to take this moment to announce that I'll be challenging poster BorgNumberOne, who is a both a gentleman and a scholar, to a debate. Details to follow!

And finally, many thanks to my many supporters.

Best,
Chopin
 
Last edited:
My question is: Is it true that there is a thin line between egomania and over-compensation for a deep-seated sense of inadequacy?
 
One of the reasons I respect Chopin is because he writes very well and when debating with other forum members, he never resorts to petty name-calling. It's a shame others can't learn from him.
 
can you explain your view on tina? (***bonus question**) can you list all her names in chronological order after being banned?.
 
tennisnoob3 said:
can you explain your view on tina? (***bonus question**) can you list all her names in chronological order after being banned?.
Click to expand...

I hesitate to answer this question (like the sun hesitating to peak through the clouds on a rainy day). Alas though, the sun will shine:

Tina was a unique poster who simply got carried away and violated forum rules and policies. In some ways Tina was the Anakin Skywalker of the Boards. This works well as I tend to think of myself as Obi-Wan Kenobi type character. I can only wish Tina well in her personal life, though I refuse let her smear my good reputation on the Boards. Some have questioned the zealousness with which I've argued against her return, but I assure you, I have valid reasons. What's more is that the history I provide below (which answers your bonus question) shows how this poster is violating forum rules with alternate accounts.

History of a Fallen Jedi

Tina
W.C.
H20
Soften
Photo
*

*I've heard rumors that she's back under a new name, though I can't comment on this ongoing investigation. I do ask members of Club Chopin to "do the right thing."
 
Last edited:
Sentinel said:
You could post naked pics of your pet dog or cat.
Click to expand...
Anonymous dog in a tuxedo: Sentinel, my dear sir, I will not disrobe for the prurient jollies of everyone who reads Chopin's thread!
dog-tuxedo.jpg
 
Chopin, could you please tell us something about yourself. why are you so great ?

I've been on this forum a long time, I know of many greats (great posters, great trolls, great jokers..), and many who fell short. Somehow you've missed my radar completely.

who are you ?? what's your claim to fame?

Sincerely,
Senti
 
creating a thread about yourself and your club? I dont get it.

Do you feel you need to do this? I have not heard others promote your club, which would have been the case if it was well known or widely respected, I presume.

I have no negative feelings at all towards you, just very curious, as to the motive behind this thread, please enlighten me if you wish to.

Good Luck.
 
This falls under: The only two things keeping me from being rich and famous.

1. I have no money.
2. No one knows who I am.
 
Lionheart392 said:
One of the reasons I respect Chopin is because he writes very well and when debating with other forum members, he never resorts to petty name-calling. It's a shame others can't learn from him.
Click to expand...

Well...not really true. Chopin makes back handed remarks about the "tennis historians" all the time. This is name calling and inciteful.
 
Rabbit said:
Well...not really true. Chopin makes back handed remarks about the "tennis historians" all the time. This is name calling and inciteful.
Click to expand...

I recall when he was ready to discredit Laver because his height did not match up with the so called "modern standards".

Not sure what Lionheart means.....
 
While I appreciate the compliment Chopin in this "Club Chopin" thread, I've got to say there are many "scholarly" posters on this site. Anyway, I like the John Lennon reference, but this thread has me thinking Planet P's "Why Me?", that great 80's tune.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svl1t4b1RD4

Like others who have posted, I'm also very perplexed as to this whole "Club" concept. We all post here on TT, so aren't all of us in this "club" together already? Why start forming clubs within the club? As for debating, I don't mind debating, I do it all the time and actually do it for a living. Yet there's a limit to the scope here, since this is a tennis forum. Believe me, I enjoy debating politics and a whole set of topics with people that are well versed on the issues, even if they may disagree with me on certain issues. As a lawyer, I do that every day. As for tennis, it's a hobby and a passion and I enjoy talking and thinking about it and I plan to play for the rest of my life. As for debating, I'll gladly keep reading and posting here, and it's great that we can offer our opinions on tennis topics. We may not always agree, but that's life. Variety is the spice of life as they say, and we are not always going to agree on the things we often discuss. I just think it's important to recognize this since we so often enter into discussions here that necessarily involve both subjectivity and objectivity and which involve questions that have no right or wrong answers. We all tend to have our biases, so it's important to recognize what those might be.
 
Club Chopin: Too Star Wars referencey.

I suppose this Chopin self gloss thread will go the way of the previous Chopin self gloss threads: Heaps of criticism dumped on the OP before the thread gets deleted, or ingloriously fades into Mike Tyson's bolivian...

No reason to exclude myself from the fun though...

Chopin said:
History of a Fallen Jedi

Tina
W.C.
H20
Soften
Photo
*

*I've heard rumors that she's back under a new name, though I can't comment on this ongoing investigation. I do ask members of Club Chopin to "do the right thing."
Click to expand...
The latest, failed, incarnation of the Crystal Diamond Bird, known (among other names) as Tina was "chuanchuan" or something close to that. It was a rather pathetic and brief run consisting mostly of threads concerning her hopes - and hopes for her new dress - for the upcoming Chinese New Year. The almost identical posts showed up in several sub-forums ranging from Odds and Ends to Pro Player Discussion. It all seemed rather desperate and I hope this wasn't Tina's "Andrew Cunanan in a Miami Beach houseboat" moment.
 
Boys, I'm impressed by the interest you're all showing in Club Chopin, and I assure you, when we begin accepting new members, you will all have an equal and fair chance of membership (if that's what this is all about).
 
Sentinel said:
i expected this to be a link that tells me more about you, how cool i thought, and i got some 7 second video titled "why you fail" and something i could not hear by some funny creature.

Don't know what to make. I guess I;ll just leave you to your own whatever. bye guys. enjoy yourselves.
Click to expand...

Sentinel, please don't take the link the wrong way. I will be releasing some videos about myself and the Boards in coming days though, and I will be sure to show them to you when that day arrives.

Kind regards,
Chopin
 
dParis said:
Club Chopin: Too Star Wars referencey.

I suppose this Chopin self gloss thread will go the way of the previous Chopin self gloss threads: Heaps of criticism dumped on the OP before the thread gets deleted, or ingloriously fades into Mike Tyson's bolivian...

No reason to exclude myself from the fun though...


The latest, failed, incarnation of the Crystal Diamond Bird, known (among other names) as Tina was "chuanchuan" or something close to that. It was a rather pathetic and brief run consisting mostly of threads concerning her hopes - and hopes for her new dress - for the upcoming Chinese New Year. The almost identical posts showed up in several sub-forums ranging from Odds and Ends to Pro Player Discussion. It all seemed rather desperate and I hope this wasn't Tina's "Andrew Cunanan in a Miami Beach houseboat" moment.
Click to expand...

I doubt that was her, honestly.
 
borg number one said:
While I appreciate the compliment Chopin in this "Club Chopin" thread, I've got to say there are many "scholarly" posters on this site. Anyway, I like the John Lennon reference, but this thread has me thinking Planet P's "Why Me?", that great 80's tune.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svl1t4b1RD4

Like others who have posted, I'm also very perplexed as to this whole "Club" concept. We all post here on TT, so aren't all of us in this "club" together already? Why start forming clubs within the club? As for debating, I don't mind debating, I do it all the time and actually do it for a living. Yet there's a limit to the scope here, since this is a tennis forum. Believe me, I enjoy debating politics and a whole set of topics with people that are well versed on the issues, even if they may disagree with me on certain issues. As a lawyer, I do that every day. As for tennis, it's a hobby and a passion and I enjoy talking and thinking about it and I plan to play for the rest of my life. As for debating, I'll gladly keep reading and posting here, and it's great that we can offer our opinions on tennis topics. We may not always agree, but that's life. Variety is the spice of life as they say, and we are not always going to agree on the things we often discuss. I just think it's important to recognize this since we so often enter into discussions here that necessarily involve both subjectivity and objectivity and which involve questions that have no right or wrong answers. We all tend to have our biases, so it's important to recognize what those might be.
Click to expand...

Think of the Supreme Court, BorgNumberOne. They are all members of the same "club," per say, but if someone described the Court as members of the same club, would it really tell us much about the Court? In some ways, not so much. I'm more of a John Paul Stevens type-figure on the Boards, while other posters are more aligned with Scalia's stricter approach. On the one hand, there's Stevens, someone who's arguably a noninterpretivist, and on the other, Scalia, an originalist.

There are many reasons for Club Chopin's existence, but among other things it's served as a valuable rallying point against those who think that nostalgia has contaminated certain historical discussions, those who believe in civility and honorable discourse, and others who simply want to have a fun, enjoyable time on the Boards. Some posters take themselves and their arguments too seriously (or their tennis tennis heroes), and Club Chopin mixes things up by challenging long-held or deeply embedded beliefs.

As for the debate against you, well, I'd like to challenge Borg's legacy some in 2011. Perhaps more than any other poster, Borg's legacy has a component of mythicism to it. Borg is viewed as more machine than man by many posters, and quite frankly, this view dose not satisfy me. You're a big supporter of Borg, as well a fine and civil debater, so the challenge goes out to you. The threads will begin appearing in the next few months and you can do as you will with them. There will be some cross-generational discussions, where I consider if Borg would really stack up against an average pro today, as well as characters studies of Borg to determine whether or not he was really this "iceman" that some claim.

Anyhow, I know that my threads have had an impact on these Boards and given a voice to many posters who felt stifled by the Historians, who would react angrily to any dissent critical of the "legends" of the game. I take a lot of hits, over and over again, but where others told me I would fall, I've only grown more influential and stronger. In some ways I think of myself as like on the Star Trek aliens from the Original Series: absorbing the negative energy around me to create a beautiful testament to the Game, and civil, free discourse.

Kind Regards,
Chopin
 
Rabbit said:
Well...not really true. Chopin makes back handed remarks about the "tennis historians" all the time. This is name calling and inciteful.
Click to expand...

Rabbit, you take yourself too seriously! Good God! Everything you say about me is negative, and you've called me many names over the years, yet still have the audacity to object to my use of the term, "historian," which I don't think is too terribly offensive.
 
Attention All Posters:

This thread is meant to be a fun thread, and I have no desire to engage in "flame wars" with posters who dislike me as a poster. So you don't like me, please act as a mature person would and ignore this thread.
 
Borg and "mysticism"? Interesting. I suppose you mean "aura". They do speak of that about him. John Lloyd said "Borg had that X factor, that magnetism that drew you to him. I don't know what it is, but he certainly had it." As for tennis in 2011, we have Nadal going for a fourth straight major, which would be a Grand Slam as defined by the ITF. So, Nadal is in the process of ascending the ranks. At this point, he's challenging the players in this era and Roger Federer as much as he is players of the past. That is something that is not subjective and debatable. We can talk about Nadal and Federer versus Laver, Sampras, Borg, and so on, but meanwhile, Nadal's accomplishments can be most clearly compared to the players of his own generation, the players that are in the 2011 AO for starters. So, what we can say with certainty is that if Nadal does win the title it will add to his growing list of accomplishments, but the Grand Slam would be extra special. As for Borg not being the "Iceman", I have to disagree. As for your take on the "Historians", well who exactly are they? How about someone who supports Sampras when a poster criticizes Sampras, but never watched Sampras actually play? Is that person a "Historian". How about in 5-10 years when Federer and then Nadal are perhaps no longer playing in the majors? When posters say that the current players would kill Federer and Nadal, and someone disagrees, will you call that person a "Historian". How exactly do you define the term "Historian"? I enjoy the Sport immensely and I enjoy reading and writing in this forum. There are many great posters here that have a lot of experiencing watching the sport closely. Furthermore, many have played the sport at a high level, while also having watched the sport for many years. So, there are varying degrees of tennis experience among posters, but what we all do have in common is a passion for Tennis. We all love the Sport and if we can have a civil discourse, it will be good for us and actually it will be good for the Sport itself. To a very large extent, the future of Tennis will be shaped by what we do as fans. If we encourage a deep appreciation for the Sport, fostered by a appreciation for its rich history, it will actually be good for the Sport. By doing so, younger players learn from the past and gain an appreciation for what makes this such a great Sport. So, I assert that the "Historians" are actually a very valuable resource. Tennis certainly didn't start just after Andy Roddick became #1 in the world.
 
Last edited:
borg number one said:
Borg and "mysticism"? Interesting. I suppose you mean "aura". They do speak of that about him. John Lloyd said "Borg had that X factor, that magnetism that drew you to him. I don't know what it is, but he certainly had it." As for tennis in 2011, we have Nadal going for a fourth straight major, which would be a Grand Slam as defined by the ITF. So, Nadal is in the process of ascending the ranks. At this point, he's challenging the players in this era and Roger Federer as much as he is players of the past. That is something that is not subjective and debatable. We can talk about Nadal and Federer versus Laver, Sampras, Borg, and so on, but meanwhile, Nadal's accomplishments can be most clearly compared to the players of his own generation, the players that are in the 2011 AO for starters. So, what we can say with certainty is that if Nadal does win the title it will add to his growing list of accomplishments, but the Grand Slam would be extra special. As for Borg not being the "Iceman", I have to disagree. As for your take on the "Historians", well who exactly are they? How about someone who supports Sampras when a poster criticizes Sampras, but never watched Sampras actually play? Is that person a "Historian". How about in 5-10 years when Federer and then Nadal are perhaps no longer playing in the majors? When posters say that the current players would kill Federer and Nadal, and someone disagrees, will you call that person a "Historian". How exactly do you define the term "Historian"? I enjoy the Sport immensely and I enjoy reading and writing in this forum. There are many great posters here that have a lot of experiencing watching the sport closely. Furthermore, many have played the sport at a high level, while also having watched the sport for many years. So, there are varying degrees of tennis experience among posters, but what we all do have in common is a passion for Tennis. We all love the Sport and if we can have a civil discourse, it will be good for us and actually it will be good for the Sport itself. To a very large extent, the future of Tennis will be shaped by what we do as fans. If we encourage a deep appreciation for the Sport, fostered by a appreciation for its rich history, it will actually be good for the Sport. By doing so, younger players learn from the past and gain an appreciation for what makes this such a great Sport. So, I assert that the "Historians" are actually a very valuable resource. Tennis certainly didn't start just after Andy Roddick became #1 in the world.
Click to expand...

I think it's important to entertain the possibility that some of these legends weren't all that. It's like debates about the Founding Fathers of America--when people evoke Hamilton and Jefferson--shouldn't they point out that Hamilton and Jefferson hated each other or disagreed deeply about the direction of the country (or that Hamilton in particular was an elitist and Jefferson a thoroughgoing racist)? Obviously less is at "stake" here, but likewise, shouldn't we point it out if today's players are superior? I'm not saying they are, necessarily, but let's not stifle debate out of some idea that the game and its former players are too sacred to question.

As for Borg, your response is very interesting. You say you "disagree" about him "not being the 'iceman' " but I've yet to even make an argument. Very interesting.

And finally, you have a point about the term "historian," and perhaps in the future I'd do well to more thoroughly clarify what I mean by my lexicography.

Best,
Chopin
 
Last edited:
Chopin said:
Attention All Posters:

This thread is meant to be a fun thread, and I have no desire to engage in "flame wars" with posters who dislike me as a poster. So you don't like me, please act as a mature person would and ignore this thread.
Click to expand...
we don;t know you, dear Chops. please tell us something about yourself rather than avoid the question. (No offence taken to the link, i was just puzzled).

Best
Sentinel.
 
Chopin said:
Rabbit, you take yourself too seriously! Good God! Everything you say about me is negative, and you've called me many names over the years, yet still have the audacity to object to my use of the term, "historian," which I don't think is too terribly offensive.
Click to expand...

Nope, I don't take myself too seriously. I just find you terribly offensive.

Chopin said:
Attention All Posters:

This thread is meant to be a fun thread, and I have no desire to engage in "flame wars" with posters who dislike me as a poster. So you don't like me, please act as a mature person would and ignore this thread.
Click to expand...

Your idea of fun differs vastly from the norm that I am used to.

With regard to unwelcomed responses, I would suggest in the future not baiting posters by including their names in your "for fun" threads. You see, that is your motus operandi. You throw something out there and after the melee starts, you claim the high road. Sorry, but I think everyone sees through what you consider a clever little ploy. You are the single most egocentric poster on these boards and just can't help going back to the well.
 
Last edited:
Legend of Borg said:
I recall when he was ready to discredit Laver because his height did not match up with the so called "modern standards".

Not sure what Lionheart means.....
Click to expand...

Oh, I think everyone has a chopin story.

My favorite ploy of his is when he throws one of his 'masterpieces' out there that centers on Laver vs some average pro. Then when he starts to get lambasted, he says he's working on a really interesting thread.

But, when the 'new' thread comes out, Laver's name is in the title versus some other averge pro. chopin is basically spell SSDD, he just never delivers. And, he really thinks his turn of the 19th century phrasing makes him read smarter. It doesn't, old boy...sport....chap.....
 
Rabbit said:
Nope, I don't take myself too seriously. I just find you terribly offensive.



Your idea of fun differs vastly from the norm that I am used to.

With regard to unwelcomed responses, I would suggest in the future not baiting posters by including their names in your "for fun" threads. You see, that is your motus operandi. You throw something out there and after the melee starts, you claim the high road. Sorry, but I think everyone sees through what you consider a clever little ploy. You are the single most egocentric poster on these boards and just can't help going back to the well.
Click to expand...

Grow up. "Terribly offensive" my rump!
 
Last edited:
P.S. Rabbit, I've removed your name from the OP in a gesture of respect. Show me the same respect and stop personally attacking me.
 
Sentinel said:
we don;t know you, dear Chops. please tell us something about yourself rather than avoid the question. (No offence taken to the link, i was just puzzled).

Best
Sentinel.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. People do know about me on the Boards and the type of arguments I make; the type of stands that I make.
 
Chopin said:
I respectfully disagree. People do know about me on the Boards and the type of arguments I make; the type of stands that I make.
Click to expand...

You tend to hover around the Former Players Forum.

Some posters have not really seen your true potential.

Maybe you could describe yourself in a few words?

Benevolent, omniscient, graceful?
 
Chopin said:
Grow up. "Terribly offensive" my rump!
Click to expand...

Terribly offensive, yessiree.

Chopin said:
P.S. Rabbit, I've removed your name from the OP in a gesture of respect. Show me the same respect and stop personally attacking me.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that. The next step is to quit referring to the "historians" simply because a group of people (people with perspective mind you) have a different opinion than you do (however misguided yours is). You and I covered all this ground in a previous thread and the general consensus was you were roundly and soundly defeated by logical replies from me. Upon viewing the tenor of the thread, you quit replying and promptly bailed and then started another thread. Another thread I might add that was identical to the previous one. As a matter of fact, all your "Laver" threads are the same despite your claims to intellecutal greatness.

I attack you only as you attack the historians.
 
Rabbit said:
Terribly offensive, yessiree.



Thank you for that. The next step is to quit referring to the "historians" simply because a group of people (people with perspective mind you) have a different opinion than you do (however misguided yours is). You and I covered all this ground in a previous thread and the general consensus was you were roundly and soundly defeated by logical replies from me. Upon viewing the tenor of the thread, you quit replying and promptly bailed and then started another thread. Another thread I might add that was identical to the previous one. As a matter of fact, all your "Laver" threads are the same despite your claims to intellecutal greatness.

I attack you only as you attack the historians.
Click to expand...

That's some revisionist history I've ever heard it. Sure, the "general consensus" was that I was "roundly and soundly defeated"; I guess that's why the vast majority of posters side with me and not you in, let's see, almost every single poll I create. Nice try, old sport. If you wish to ignore popular opinion (as you've done before), fine, but don't try to pick and choose.

I deleted your name, and that's all I'm going to do. I will continue to argue against the Historians for the rest of my life.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Gear Up For the Big Day
Replies
7
Views
970
accidental
A
C
Club Chopin Announcement: Poly Shirts Suck
2
Replies
62
Views
11K
Chopin
C
C
  • Poll Poll
Hewitt versus Connors!! (Special Edition Thread)
Replies
27
Views
3K
Tina
Tina
C
The Official APology Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
Bud
Bud
C
  • Poll Poll
The Masterpiece Collection: Nadal v. Laver: A Matter of Greatness
2
Replies
53
Views
3K
Deleted member 21996
D
Back
Top