From: dsthompson@twics.co.jp
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: DMC is really Don Wedding
Date: 7 Jan 93 05:12:14 GMT
Organization: TWICS, Tokyo, Japan

Warning -- this article is long and discusses DMC, who is
actually a pseudonymous virtual incarnation of and by
Don Wedding. The bulk of this post presents evidence,
overwhelming evidence, of Wedding's ruse. It contains
no chess content, and rehashes a lot of old ground. My
sole purpose is to expose, beyond a doubt, that DMC is
Don Wedding is disguise.

Like many of you, I long ago grew tired of, then irritated
with, then sick of DMC, a.k.a. Darrell M. Cosgrove. My
solution was to create a kill file for his posts. 
Unfortunately, I still must deal with replies to him
posted by others, and thanks to their liberal quoting,
find myself browsing that which I would rather not see at all. 
I will resist, for the moment, the temptation to characterize DMC
or his words -- surely they speak loudly enough for themselves -- 
but I do want to make it absolutely clear to all those giving 
him attention, whether it be patronizing, condescending,
hostile, supportive, or nurturing, that they should not
expect a response within the bounds of normal human
relations. DMC is not a person, but a persona -- 
a simulacrum created, I believe, to free Don Wedding
from the normal social inhibitions any group, even virtual
ones, imposes on its members. I'm sure many readers of
rec.games.chess have already seen through Wedding's
thinly veiled altar ego. This article intends to document
the evidence of his imposture. Let me begin.

Don Wedding seems to make his debut in this newsgroup in
early August. He soon indulges in a bit of name calling when 
someone questions his advice to a lovelorn chess player. I
quote the first message in this thread its entirety because it contains
several peculiarities that are found in nearly all of Wedding's
posts, mannerisms that mark a post as being unmistakably his:


: From dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu, University of Toledo
: 
: Date 12 Aug 92 175207 EST
: 
: > Okay, there's this girl whom I desperately like (the
: >  whole thing is rather  sick, actually) and we get
: > together and play chess every once in a while  and I wind up
: > beating her easily.
: 
: 
: ok, i think that what we have here is NOT a chess
: problem...it is a MALE-FEMALE problem. i do not profess
: to be an expert on women, but i do know enough to tell
: you....
: 
:    LET HER WIN!!!!
: 
: that will keep her interested!!! if she starts getting
: bored, then win a couple of games....just barely. that
: adds a bit of suspense!
: 
: don't rip her lungs out over the chess board and make her
: feel stupid and then expect her to be romantically
: inclined towards you.
: 
: > Needless to say, and I know I'm not the only one who
: > experiences this,  but this does not make for harmony.
:   
: 
: no kidding.
: 
: know what else you shouldn't do is if she says "do you think
: i'm gaining weight" (and she has been putting on a few
: pounds) say
: 
: NO HONEY, IN FACT YOU COULD STAND TO EAT A LITTLE 
: MORE...
: YOU'RE ALL SKIN AND BONE!!!
:
:  ----------------------------------------------
: 
: gene,
: 
: you seem to be making the mistake that all
: quiet/thoughtful people make about interacting with
: the fair sex...that is, you think it should be built on
: honesty and being forthright.  wrong. 
: 
: tell her what she wants to hear and make her feel good about
: herself.
: 
: example:
: 
: after she beats you 3 hard fought games in a row (you let her
: win), you say
: 
: "god, what a fast learner. i think i taught you too
: well!!!! i can't believe it!!! is everybody in your
: family as clever as you???? how about talking chess over
: dinner tonight???"
: 
: then let nature take its course.
: 
: good luck, don wedding
:


There are several obvious quirks here: 
 - the affectation of writing in lowercase 
 - multiple question and exclamation marks to show emphasis
 - words in uppercase to show emphasis 
 - a profusion of ellipses
 
Note that Wedding does not seem to understand the
difference between an ellipsis (...) and an ellipsis with a
period (....). He certainly does not observe their standard usage.  
Instead, he uses dots (sometimes three,sometimes four, sometimes
more) idiosyncratically to both join sentences and to end them. 
The point here is not correctness, but Wedding's *pattern* of usage.

I have found all of the above quirks in nearly every message 
posted by Wedding.

Next is an excerpt from a later message, posted in response to 
a person who warned that some women might resent 
condescension, in this same thread:


: > I'm not saying he should blow her away, but rather use the
: > time to  work on things yourself - openings, etc. 
: > developing her skills can help the relationship. 
: > Unfortunately, being apart won't help
: 
: geez, what a hypocrite!!!! your entire post is about
: being honest and forthright with the girl, then you tell
: gene not to "blow her away". well, if gene was being
: intellectually honest with her and has the ability to
: blow her away, then he is obligated to do so!!!!
: 
: [stuff deleted]
: 
: damn right!!! it's the kiss of death in any
: relationship...so work fast before she leaves....find
: out what she likes to do and invite her to do it...whether
: it be an art museum, miniature golf, or movies...then
: develop a strong interest in it!!!!!  And if you HATE
: miniature golf, then PRETEND TO LIKE IT!!!!
: 
: winning the affections of fair maidens is NOT for choir
: boys!!! 
: 

Note Wedding does not hesitate to disparage the character 
or impugn the masculinity of one who disagrees with him.
Note, too, that Wedding's orthographic mannerisms mark this
message as his even more surely than as his signature.

On December 3 (and 03:01:53 EST) Wedding posted his 
"TO THE GM'S AT CHESS CHOW/CHESS LIFE" message. 
He lambastes them for not being in Fischer's class in his 
characteristic style

:   none of you have *EVER BEEN* world chess champion
:   none of you are *CURRENTLY* world chess champion
:   none of you will *EVER BE* world chess champion

repeating variations on this theme before summarizing with

: [your] comments come off sounding like sour grapes from bitter,
: jealous, historical footnotes.


Later that evening Chess Chow's net representative, Mark
Ginsburg, replies to Wedding with a message that is sarcastic, 
funny, and a little bit cruel. Ginsburg's caustic wit is as sharp 
and cutting as Wedding's words are banal, bathetic and dull.
I guess Ginsburg isn't that far removed from his teens -- not 
that Wedding didn't ask for it -- but is it really fun to beat up
on someone much weaker than yourself, or becoming of a 
serious chess player and journalist?

If I had been Wedding, I would have been mortally embarrassed,
but if he was, he hid it well. Again in character, he responds by
repeating himself. The gist of Wedding's comeback:


: i just want to know, if you're comments are purely objective chess 
: analysis or are slanted by personal JEALOUSY and BITTERNESS???
: 
: i want to know.
: 
: do you understand my point yet????
: 


The question marks pound home Wedding's rhetorical intent. Only a fool
would answer. Wedding, by the way, does reply to rhetorical questions.
From the same response to Ginsburg:


: > And when someone disagrees with you, they are "bitter and jealous."
: > What are they when they agree with you?  Non-bitter, non-jealous,
: > non-historical-footnotes?
: >
: 
: well....ya, i guess that about sums it up.

 
The next day (7 Dec 92 20:02:06 EST) Wedding decides to tone 
down the rhetoric and even apologizes. While he's at it, he generously
advises "GM's and IM's at large" how they might best avoid raising 
the ire of Fischer's fans.


: first, i got a bunch of letters from people who were cheering me
: on [stuff deleted]
: 
: i also got some letters stating that i might have overdone it
: a bit with the last post. i reread it and i think that maybe
: they're right. my comments got down right mean at times and i'm
: sorry.
: 
: now, let me explain where the point of controversy is:
: 
: [stuff deleted]
: 
: COMMENT ON BOBBY AND BORRIS' CHESS ABILITY:
: 
: this is the sore point that we're seething mad about. for the past few
: months, every GM and IM and his brother have been saying or 
: implying that Fischer and Spassky are a bunch of over-the-hill-
: has-beens.
: 
: [stuff deleted]
: 
: HOW SHOULD YOU COMMENT WITHOUT ENRAGING 
: THE BOBBY FANS???
: 
: be blindly objective, point out good moves and bad moves and 
: nothing more.
: 
: or....
: 
: if you must editorialize and comment on their abilities...present both
: sides. you can say something like...
: 
: "that last move of bobby's really sucked...i think he's a tired old
: fraudulant has been who should have stayed in pasadena. but then 
: again, he did play one of the longest games of the match yesterday 
: and missed a win by inches...a harsh blow that could still be on 
: his mind"
: 
: [stuff deleted]
: 
: civilly.
: 
: don wedding.


If the champion of Fischer's fans seemed to be yielding the megaphone
for a quieter, kinder dialogue, never fear. In his stead came DMC to
pump up the volume (and with precision timing -- the message following
[in abridged form] was posted at 7 Dec 92 21:55:29 EST, and from the 
same host!).


: Subject: Re: TO THE GM'S AT CHESS CHOW/CHESS LIFE
: From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu, University of Toledo
: 
: Date: 7 Dec 92 21:55:29 EST
: 
: In article <1992Dec3.094833.14262@jyu.fi>, ako@jyu.fi (Antti Koponen) 
: writes:
:  
:  [stuff deleted]
: 
: >>their comments come off sounding like sour grapes from bitter, 
: >>jealous, historical footnotes.
: >>
: >>
: >>gosh, i hope nobody flames me for the above remarks.
: >>
: >>don wedding
: >>
: > 
: > So:
: > 
: > Fischer is God, and Don Wedding is his only prophet!
: > 
: 
: I'd say Fischer has 5,000,000 in prophets alone this year--plus a 
: major article in Esquire.
: 
: What have you done worth noting?
: 
: DMC
: 



Note that this message contains none of Wedding's distinctive 
mannerisms. And this new guy can make a pun! The new champion 
sports a sharpened wit and a more confident posture.

With machine-gun rapidity, DMC shoots all the heretics down:



: Subject: RE: TO THE GM'S AT CHESS CHOW/CHESS LI
: From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu, University of Toledo
: 
: Date: 7 Dec 92 21:59:33 EST
: 
: In article <1992Dec3.094039.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, 
: antonp@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
: 
: [stuff deleted]
: 
: > Do we respect Fischer's $5 mil prize? Does more money mean
: > better play? Tell me, when Madonna was awarded a $100 million
: > contract, did you throw away all of your classical albums/CD's, 
: > and advise your peers that Madonna's cash prize meant her music 
: > was far superior?
: 
: No, but the MASSES say Madonna is better. Should we respect your 
: opinion over theirs?
: 
: And, if so, why?
: 
: DMC
: 


Well, I suppose LOTS of people use uppercase for emphasis. But where
Don Wedding was soft and pleading, this DMC fella is sure curt and 
crisp. Set 'em up, he knocks 'em down. Next.


: Subject: Re: TO THE GM'S AT CHESS CHOW/CHESS LI
: From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu, University of Toledo
: 
: Date: 7 Dec 92 22:02:09 EST
: 
: In article <1992Dec3.224905.329@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) writes:
: 
:  [stuff deleted]
:
: >>did you throw away all of your classical albums/CD's, and advise
: >>your peers that Madonna's cash prize meant her music was far
: >>superior?
: >>
: >>Pete Anton
: > 
: > I just wanted to repost this part because I think it is a very good point.
: > 
: >        Sven
: > 
: 
: Why? He doens't MAKE a point. He tries to use a false analogy. One form of
: music is not better than another.
: 
: But, one player may be better than all the rest.
: 
: A fact both of you have forgotten.
: 
: DMC


After pausing only long enough to reload with a new clip, 
DMC fires away again.


: Subject: Re: TO THE GM'S AT CHESS CHOW/CHESS LIFE
: From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu, University of Toledo
: 
: Date: 7 Dec 92 22:12:30 EST
: 
: In article <33586@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU>, mginsbur@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU 
: (Mark Ginsburg) wrties:
: 
: [stuff deleted]
: 
: > In the meantime, thanks for the comedy!  I'm forwarding this to the
: > Grandmaster Prince of Laffs, GM Mike Wilder and I hope he can
: >  incorporate this glimpse of 'mind of the amateur' into his future work.
: 
: More dodging the issue. Why are you afraid to address the real points he
: raises?
: 
: DMC


The new champion strikes back at Don's tormentor! DMC won't let him
get away with guff and fluff! And a few minutes later:


: Subject: Re: TO THE GM'S AT CHESS CHOW/CHESS LI
: From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu, University of Toledo
: 
: Date: 7 Dec 92 22:16:24 EST
: 
: [stuff deleted]
: 
: Oh, what other GMs have earned 10% of what Fischer has?
: 
: 5%?
: 
: 1%?
: 
: These 'respected' GMs earn $20 to play chess with little boys.
: 
: Not exactly poor...
: 
: All you experts out there are pissed because Fischer does what 
: NONE of you can do:
: 
: 1. Play killer chess
: 2. Manipulate the media
: 3. Make money
: 4. Bang beautiful babes
: 
: DMC
: 


Well, Don Wedding isn't the only person on the net who ends 
his sentences with an ellipsis. Funny, I get the feeling I've heard
this refrain of "you're not Fischer and you're envious" before. A
little of the starch is washing out of DMC -- after all, it's been a 
long night.

There are more posts in the same vein in DMC's initial volley
against the doubters of Fischer's supremacy. The next day,
December 8, Jeff Ely is on to the ruse, but Wedding is 
disingenuous in denial:


: Subject: Re: TO THE GM'S AT CHESS CHOW/CHESS LIFE
: From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu, University of Toledo
: 
: Date: 8 Dec 92 12:54:01 EST
: 
: In article <1g1g3mINNpg2@agate.berkeley.edu>, 
: jeff@emily10.Berkeley.EDU (JeffreyC. Ely) writes:
: 
: > I can't believe it!  I took a bit of comfort in the thought that there was
: > only one Don Wedding.  Is this DMC guy for real or does Don have 
: > another account under a fake name?!?
: >
: 
: many criticisms i have had tossed in my direction during this thread...
: but this is the only one that really got to me.
: 
: i have many faults, but cowardice is not one. if i wanted to say
: those remarks, i would have used MY OWN ACCOUNT and my
:  OWN NAME.
: 
: also, if you note i'm trying to start another thread at the moment
: along the same lines but without the flaming.
: 
: 
: don wedding
: 


After this post, Wedding becomes very quiet. Not so DMC. He posts
articles at a furious rate, though most of them are quotations of someone
else's message interspersed with a one-liner or two. Gradually, however,
all of Wedding's mannerisms (except for the affectation of writing in 
lowercase) creep back in "DMC's" messages. Some examples:



: > Gee, maybe all the other GMs should just kill themselves.  The shame!
: > The same for Nobel Prize runners-up, silver medalists in the Olympics...
: 
: Second best is NEVER as good. But, Mr. Wedding, I suppose those
:  people who finish the race a mile behind the winner do have something
:  to be proud about...
: 
:               ....provided they DON'T bitch because the winner ran 'poorly'.
: 
: (Case if he did, they must SUCK!)
: 
: DMC
: 
: 
: > because different people play better against different kinds of
: > opponents.  You never disputed this at all.
: 
: Hmmm....I would have thought the person who beats his opponents
:  would qualify somehow, perhaps you would prefer we use 
: "most-dramamtic-move" to qualify someone as world champion?
: 
: And, I DID dispute it. Please read AND think before responding.
: 
:  [DMC]
: 
: 
: > You have asked the GMs to address the issues: to my mind it is  
: > you who are ignoring them by avoiding the analytical issues.
: 
: 
: Hmm... lots of posts aimed our way, not much ignoring...
: 
: Further, what do I have to do? Argue Fischer played well before
: asking the GMs to say why they believe he played poorly?
: 
: YOU get serious.
: 
: DMC


For a while the ellipses become especially abundant, then the words in 
uppercase to shout the infidel down. Wedding's penchant for name-calling
rears its head, too.  "Bucko" is the epithet of choice.


: > 2) You will have to demonstrate that the bias in 1) is due to
: > jealousy and not to something else.
: 
: Wrong BUCKO! By your own standards the people who levelled the 
: critical arrows at Fischer must be the ones to prove their remarks 
: are true. THEY are the accuseres here.


It goes on and on:


: Well, bucko, we just adopted some if their tactics.
: 
: Most of the boneheads here, like you, just
:  want to rant and rave and call names. Don't get pissed 
:  if I respond to your sarcasm with sarcasm, bucko!)
: 
: Admit it bucko, you stepped right into a massive pile of horseshit
: 
: Then use the famous kill file bucko. 
: 


Then comes the impugning of masculinity:


: Besides bucko, if you trusted me, as you have just stated, you would
:  trust I know how to play.
: 
: You are contradicting yourself in an attempt to draw attention away 
: from the fact you lack the BALLS to back up your claim
: 


Then gratuitous abuse:

: Oh, I am sorry, you are from Harvard. Maybe you'd prefer just to
: buy my silence?
: 
: I can see your are blidly ignorant on the facts
: 
: That is as insane as Khomeni [....]
: 


Eventually those unmistakable Don Wedding mannerisms -- ellipsis
working as a full stop, uppercase for emphasis, multiple questions marks --
burn through the DMC facade:


: > So that's that.  It would have been pretty funny...
: 
: That's that? You decline??? GOD! I thought this was going to be one of those
: dramtic posts where it looks like the person is declining, and then, with
John
: Wayne tone in voice, he says "Like hell I won't! Let's play!"
: 
: You let me down Bruce. You posted a belief and were unwilling to back it up.
: 
: And you didn't even do the honorable thing and say, "Maybe I was wrong, 
: maybe he can play."
: 
: That's all ya had to do...
: 
: Instead, you dropped the ball.
: 
: DMC
: 


Perhaps a sceptic remains unconvinced by this qualitative 
argument, based as  it is on similar, uncommon patterns 
in the writing of DMC and Don Wedding. Just how uncommon
 are Wedding's mannerisms, you may ask, or how frequently 
does DMC use them compared with the net as whole. 
Those questions could be answered, with a bit of
tedium, but I don't think it necessary. I have another set
of evidence if you need a quantitative argument.

Misspellings abound in posts signed "don wedding" and
"DMC". I was struck by "consistancy", which appears in
both corpora.


: Subject: FSII -- PLAYER PERFORMANCE
: From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu, University of Toledo
: 
: Date: 7 Oct 92 14:24:11 EST
: 
: i'm amazed at how chess players are rating the play of the F-S
: match. i've seen comments ranging from one extreme "they're both
: playing like gods" to the other "my grandma could beat em with one
: hand tied behind her back".
: 
: this lack of consistancy -- especially at the grand master level --
:               ^^^^^^^^^^^
: only confirms my belief that even us flunkies out here can make
: valid assessments of the play.
: 


DMC misspells the word when the root is right before his eyes,
correctly spelled.


: Subject: Re: TO THE GM's/IM's FROM DON
: From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu, University of Toledo
: 
: Date: 24 Dec 92 15:27:24 EST
: 
: In article <BzqJF5.57H@world.std.com>, ekw@world.std.com 
: (Elliott C Winslow) writes:
: 
:   [stuff deleted]
: 
: > If you want a verbal analysis of why Fischer isn't a good as he
: > used to be it would be that he is not as consistent as in the old days. 
: 
: If consistancy were the mark of good, someone who played 
:    ^^^^^^^^^^^                  
: consistantly  poor would be great.
: 
: WINNING is the mark of good.
: 
:  [DMC]
: 


We have Don Wedding, who writes "consistancy"; if take a
person on the net at random who is not Don Wedding, what are
the odds he will misspell consistency in the same way. To
estimate this probability, I counted, in the newsgroups
I read and index on my machine, the number of persons who
correctly spelled the word and those who misspelled it
"consistancy". In roughly 75 megabytes of messages, I
found 86 correct spellers and 5 misspellers. The
probability of DMC making this same error, if he were not
Don Wedding, is less than .06.

Another misspelling the "two" champions of Bobby share
is "viscious". In the same body of net messages, I found 12
correct spellers and 1 misspeller, which yields a
probability of a little more than .08. So we now have the
probability of DMC misspelling both consistency *and*
vicious, if he were not Don Wedding, as (.06) (.08), 
or .0048 -- less than one chance in two hundred. But wait, 
I'm not finished.

Both the D's spell tough as "tuff"; not so much a
misspelling as another affectation. In the same net
texts, I found no one else using the same spelling, and I
stopped counting when I got well past 200 correct
spellers. We can't calculate a finite probability using
zero, so let's assume the next poster after my sample
spelled tough as tuff. Conservatively, we then have 200
correct spellers and 1 misspeller, or a probability of .005. 
Now we can calculate the probability of both DMC and
Don Wedding using the same spelling for all three words:
(.06) (.08) (.005), or .000024 -- less than one chance in
40,000. You think it's the water in Toledo?   

There's more, but I am tired (and queasy from reading so 
much DMC in a single sitting). To enumerate briefly, there is
a similar pattern misspellings where an "e" is substituted
for an "a", or vice versa, especially before "n", as in
"consistancy". 

I find in the corpus of Don Wedding:

discriptive
artillary
veared
fradulant
weekness
apparant
apparantly

And in the corpus of DMC:

existant
existance
consistant
consistantly
intellegence
rediculous
seak
seperation
wholehartedly

Both D's use BINGO!, in that exact Weddingtion
orthography. Both D's like to use "ya" and "gonna". Both
talk about "AI people". Both use the expression "looks
good/great on paper". Both like to quote someone, then
begin their comment with the one-word sentence
"Wrong.". Both are fond of sports analogies,
particularly between chess and boxing. Both seem to 
associate menstruation with humiliation.


: > I can't comment about most of Fischer's opponents getting sick,
: >  though, and perhaps he does have this affect on players. 
: >  But given the lack of evidence of this within the past 20 years,
: >  the argument seems a little thin.  If the rumored match with Polgar
: > takes place, perhaps this would be an interesting test of the theory.
: >
: 
: ya, but then they'd probably call "Fischer PMS" :-)
: 
: don wedding


: Or are you just one of those whiners who sit back and bitch?
: 
: > 
: > Leonid Frants.
: 
: Who is doing a real good imitation of a woman approaching day 28.
: 
: [DMC]


Having satisfied my own doubts that DMC was, in fact, Don Wedding,
I asked myself why -- why the wantonness, the disregard for accepted
standards of etiquette, the medusa-like invective, the mindlessness.

The best answer I could find:


: > P.S.S. "Those guys are probably eating marinated duckbills and 
: >      deep-fried   Squidfeet." - overheard in a 
: Toledo Chinese restaurant.
: ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
: 
: 
: Which one? I *LOVE* chinese food and i'll give it a go!
: 
: don wedding
: toledo, ohio
: 
: p.s. when you're from Toledo, you get *REALLY* excited when you're
:      city's name is mentioned on a national scale. go figure.

 
I think Wedding, posing as the nihilistic tough-guy "I-seek-the-truth-
of-conflict" DMC, became addicted to the attention he received, 
and intoxicated by seeing his golem's words "mentioned on 
a[n] [inter]national scale."

I think we should help the guy go cold turkey.


David Thompson
Tokyo, Japan