Author: jonathon smith
Date: 03:08:56 01/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2000 at 19:52:40, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On January 26, 2000 at 10:45:32, jonathon smith wrote: > >>On January 26, 2000 at 10:07:30, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>>Tell your alter ego that he demanded the deletion of his password/username. We >>>kindly obliged. > >>Enrique Irazoqui, on 17/March/1998, by email: "They told me to ban you, but I >>refused, then I saw your post on rgcc and I ran back to them [Founder's Group] >>as fast as my legs would carry me. Now I have to do it". >> >>Ed Schroeder etc., on 17/March/1998, by public post in rgcc: "Chris Whittington >>is not welcome in the CCC" >> >>Password/username combination was changed 17/March/1998. >> >>Bruce Moreland during his first moderation period: "Chris was banned". >> >>The ban is a relatively trivial matter. It's the endless lies afterwards that >>ChrisW says he despises. > >I think that I would stipulate the facts you present. I don't see any reason to >doubt them. > >I have never understood why Enrique keep trying to justify Chris' current ban by >suggesting that he asked to be banned. Because Enrique was one of the banners. The banning was unjustified, wrong, outside the CCC Charter, done for personal reasons, was a misuse of power by people who had been entrusted to use that power wisely and fairly. Enrique was wrong. Period. If Enrique admits he was wrong then he admits that he knows that he behaved fascistic. Therefore he makes a cover story and pins his hopes on it being believed. This cover story has now lasted since March 1998 when ChrisW was first banned and continues to this day when ChrisW is still banned. > We had a case of the same thing today, >where Chris Carson asked to have his account deleted. What that means to him is >that he expects to get "no such account" when he tries to log on. Of course, he >would be free to create a new one, at a time of his own choosing. Five minutes >from now, next year, never, it's *his* choice. This is a lot different from >changing someone's password, which is how a ban is executed. Exactly. > >I don't have anything personal against Enrique, but I think that his argument is >Kafkaesque, and having to endure a Kafkaesque situation by yourself is torture, >and I don't wish that on anyone. Correct. ChrisW says that he thanks you for making it plain. > >I tried to give those guys the opportunity to admit that this had been done by >mistake, and that what had been done was not what had been intended, that what >they had intended to do was delete the account, but that Tim had misinterpreted >what he had been told, and banned it instead. This would resolve this whole >thing immediately, as nothing more than an honest mistake, compounded by a >little bit of hatred. But this would not be the true reason. It was not a mistake, it was quite deliberate and part of a pattern that some people are on the other side of an arbitrary line and can be treated without the normal human considerations. This started with Rolf Teuschen, went on the Chris Whittington, and has visited itself on Thorsten Czub. Who will be next? > >I got Bob to admit at one point that he never realized that Chris had been >banned, he thought that his account had been removed, as he had asked. So Bob >bought into my thesis and I thought everything would be fine. Bob bought into your thesis, and then bought himself out again. Two days ago he was back to the old cover story. > >But Enrique wouldn't admit that it was a mistake. I don't know what his motive >is for repeating what is in effect a "Chris asked to be banned" argument, Because his reputation depends on it. Because he is a contracted worker in the computer chess industry. Because he has a life-stake in all this. > but >regardless of how poor the relationship is between Chris and I, I will not allow >him to repeat this without denouncing this use of what amounts to rhetorical >torture. Agreed. However poor is the relationship between Bruce and ChrisW, ChrisW recognises that Bruce will stand up, in the last resort, for what he believes to be right. ChrisW is waiting for Bruce to come to the other necessary conclusion that a belief in freedom of speech is only valid if you are prepared to argue it for those that you strongly dislike and who have opinions that you strongly disagree with. > >bruce
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.