Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:05:34 04/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2001 at 03:00:50, joe dean wrote: > >Factual Error Correction >======================== > >When Chris left the CCC in 1996 he did not post any password or username, >although, given later events he should have done. > >Chris left in 1996 and did not post again. As a high-profile poster he asked, >politely by email, to the Founder's Group, with copies to ICD, that his username >and password be destroyed for security reasons. This request did not receive the >courtesy of a reply, nor any action. > >Two days after, and checking that the account was still existing, he asked again >by email. This request did not receive the courtesy of a reply. > >This process went on another three times, each time not receiving the courtesy >of a reply, nor the destruction of the password-username. > >Chris continued to not post. And would never had done so again. > >Five months later, during which time Chris had not made any post at all, Ed >Schroder, Bob Hyatt, Enrique Irazoqui and various others on the Founder's Group >who have totally disappeared, put out a deliberately vindictive and quite >unnecessary and humiliatory public posting banning Chris from the CCC. your "factual description" is pretty accurate in what it says, but it is terrible in what it _omits_. You originally demanded when we formed CCC, that Rolf be excluded. Most of us were against this. We wanted to let him come, let him start his usual garbage, and then kick him out for that, rather than excluding him to start. After you "left" you started posting lots of nonsense in r.g.c.c about how _you_ were against banning Rolf here... Even when several of us produced email showing exactly who was demanding his exclusion from CCC. You then continued with lots of direct and personal attacks, including the "little hitler" metaphor among others. Eventually we _all_ had enough. We didn't remove your account originally as we had lots of "founder" discussion offline. And there was no real interest in banning you from CCC. At least not until you flew off the deep end and decided to do like many governmental dictators and rewrite history to how you thought it ought to be, not how it really was. > >At the same time the old password and username was destroyed from the server. > >Bruce Moreland is on CCC record with a public posting as having researched what >happened, and confirmed (during his first moderation period) that the mechanism >of destroying the password-username that took place at that time was by the ICD >staff member (Tim?) leaving the account in place but changing the password to >something random. > >Since Chris didn't post any username or password at that time, and since it >would be quite impossible that the five-month later ICD password change >mechanism could have taken place if Chris actually had posted his >password-username combo, *and*, since Bruce Moreland and Ed Schroder are both >perfectly well aware of this history, one has to wonder why they should find it >necessary to jointly and publicly 'agree' something different. I only remember the last time you published your username and password. When you left in a huff. After something dealing with Thorsten as I recall, but I am not certain as this stuff isn't important enough (to me) to waste brain cells trying to keep it all straight. > >With hindsight, if a high-profile poster wishes to leave the CCC, and requests >his password-username combo to be destroyed for security reasons; and there is >no agreement from the server owners to do this, let alone even the courtesy of a >reply, it seems eminently sensible to do it oneself. Chris wishes that he had >actually done this at the time, since it would have removed the ability of the >Founder's Group to make their public humilation ban. > You would have _never_ been banned if not for all your actions _after_ you first left. I would be happy to post some of your old emails between the time you "left" and the time your password was eventually clobbered. I think they would show _exactly_ why we gave up... Deja News also holds a lot of information from that period... >On returning the CCC after some years, and deciding to leave again (reason given >below), Chris decided not to give the 'establishment' the opportunity to attack >him again and destroyed his own password by posting it. > > >Reason for not wanting to be a regular poster >============================================= > >It doesn't take very long to realise that the 'senior' posters here are all on >agenda-push. There you go... make those statements that are 100% opinion, 0% fact. I don't personally have _any_ agenda but to continue to enjoy doing something I have been doing for over 30 years now. If that is an agenda, so be it. But it has nothing to do with trying to discredit everyone else (can you spell bean counters and similar attempts at insult?) > >That is to say that there is no real discussion at a high level. The only >interest is in pushing one's own agenda. The result is that there is no feedback >on new or different ideas, and a form of stagnation takes place. Don't know where _you_ read and post, but we do have technical discussions here. From evaluation ideas, to search ideas, to different approaches, to you-name-it... > >Once one has worked out the agendas of the people concerned, there seems little >point in taking part in discussions with them that go round and round the same >loops. > This sounds like what I would say about you, actually... It always comes back to something _other_ than computer chess. Usually the ICCA is somewhere in the list. Bean-counters also factors in... etc... >Hence the only purpose in being a 'member' is to use the group as read/only for >the occasional snippet of news, if one so wishes. > >Occasionally a little drama blows up and the usual suspects repeat their usual >agenda, sometimes (often) with factual inaccuracies or obvious attamepts to >mislead or allow misleading conclusions to be drawn, as in this case. > >Chris's role is puncture the bubbles of these people with satirical pins. I would change the metaphor to "toss crap hither and yon..." > >If he can be bothered he might continue, then again he might not. It will be >entirely his decision. Not really. As you return so shall you be sent back... This does get old. I prefer to work on other things myself. > > >Real name posting >================= > >If Chris were to post with his real name, he would be implicity acepting the >Group Charter. Since Chris wrote the Charter this would not be a problem for >him. > >What would be a problem, however, would be to have to accept the *interpretion* >of the Charter, which, in Chris's opinion, has been abused in the past, and >continues to be abused now. > >Chris knows perfectly well that *creative interpretation* of the Charter results >in his banning, and would result in his banning again for political reasons >(Hyatt) and hate reasons (Moreland). Quite funny. Did you not ask me to join a discussion with you on GambitSoft? Did I not do so? If I had a political agenda directed at you, _why_ would I do that? You can't have it both ways. If anybody has an agenda, it isn't me. I guess you can figure out who is left... > >Therefore, unless and until, it becomes clear to Chris that the Charter cannot >be abused in future, he has no intention at all of posting using his name, and >giving the 'establishment' the power of unappealable judge, jury and executioner >and hence the opportunity to make unacceptable ban on his name. > >End of story. > >Thank you for your time. > > Does anybody _still_ think that we need this kind of nonsense here over and over? Does anybody _still_ think Bruce should change his mind? Or me? Or other moderators or members? If it smells like crap, looks like crap, acts like crap, feels like crap, you know what? ..........
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.