Author: jonathon smith
Date: 07:50:31 01/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2000 at 10:44:17, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On January 27, 2000 at 10:11:14, jonathon smith wrote: > >>On January 27, 2000 at 07:39:52, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >> >>>It just happens that this is exactly how it went and why we, all the founders by >>>unanimous decision, decided to "honor his request." Nothing kafkaiesque about >>>it, but I admit it was messy. Chris didn't do anything special in CCC, except >>>once that he got a yellow card, I believe. "Honoring his "request", as Bob well >>>puts it, or his banning, which in practice amounts to be the same, was based on >>>the "outrageous (quoting Bob again) statements in rgcc". >> >>Therefore what you did was a banning. As also confirmed by your email on the >>same day 17/March stating: >> >>"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" >> >>and also by the public humilation rgcc posting: >> >>>Rolf Tueschen and Chris Whittington might be on the other hand just two >>>contributors to r.g.c.c., which makes the concept of the CCC board seem even >>>more attractive, since both of them are not welcome there. >> >>ChrisW says he assumes 'not welcome' = banned. >> >> >>Now, here is the CCC Charter, taken from the FAQ on the CCC site: >> >>CCC Charter: >>What types of posts will be allowed on these message boards? >>Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and >>post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response >>messages: >> >>Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess >>Are not abusive in nature >>Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others >>Are not flagrant commercial exhortations >>Are not of questionable legal status. >> >>A panel of moderators has the power to erase specific messages that violate the >>spirit of the charter of the Computer-Chess Club, and to take, if necessary, >>suitable sanctions against offenders." >> >>End of Charter. >> >> >> >>Please explain how it was that ChrisW broke this charter and was banned when he >>hade not posted anything to the CCC newsgroup for the previous five months? >> >>Were ChrisW's posts to the CCC board during that period "within reason, on the >>topic of computer chess"? Since he didn't post anything, did ChrisW violate this >>Charter point? >> >>Were ChrisW's posts to the CCC board during that period "abusive in nature"? >>Since he didn't post anything, did ChrisW violate this Charter point? >> >>Were ChrisW's posts to the CCC board during that period "containing personal >>and/or libelous attacks on others"? Since he didn't post anything, did ChrisW >>violate this Charter point? >> >>Were ChrisW's posts to the CCC board during that period "flagrant commercial >>exhortations"? Since he didn't post anything, did ChrisW violate this Charter >>point? >> >>Were ChrisW's posts to the CCC board during that period "of questionable legal >>status"? Since he didn't post anything, did ChrisW violate this Charter point? >> >>Were ChrisW's posts to the CCC board during that period "violating the spirit of >>the charter of the Computer-Chess Club"? Since he didn't post anything, did >>ChrisW violate this Charter point? >> >>Did the Panel of Moderators / Founder's Group have "the power to erase >>messages... to take, if necessary, suitable sanctions against offenders" against >>someone who did not post into the CCC for five months? >> >>Please explain how you write this on 17 March 1998: >> >>"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" >> >>and then spent almost two years months denying it was a ban. >> >> >>Please explain how you signed the rgcc humiliation document: "[ChrisW] not >>welcome there [CCC]" >> >>and then spent almost two years denying it was a ban. >> >> >>Will any of these phrases help? >> >>"Those were the Rolf times and another Rolf seemed too much for all of us" >> >>"... but I admit it was messy" >> >>"It was not that we went witch hunting" >> >>"Nothing kafkaiesque about it" > > >All this is your usual self-serving rhetoric. > >You spent a long time insulting all of us on RGCC *before* we cancelled your CCC >password. You demanded the removal of your password. After all the insults to >your "little hitlers, the "little hitlers" didn't want anything to do with you. >Accepting your demand was the easy way out. > >Was it a ban? In practice it had the same effect. I am not denying it, I am not >accepting it. What happens is that I fail to see why this matters. You wanted >out and we slammed the door behind you, as Bob graphically put it once. Was this >case foreseen in the charter? No, and neither was your demand to have your >password cancelled. It did not happen in CCC but in the email group of the >founders of CCC. > >Because of the confusion of deciding to slam the door for reasons other than >your posts on CCC, I have been asking for a long time to readmit you and Rolf in >here. But not because you have been unfairly victimized. > >You are rewriting history by putting yourself as the victim. In fact, you are >doing exactly the same now that you did when you demanded Ed to apologize to >Rolf. It is your self-serving way to put the world upside down. > >This is the last time I answer to you. I don't want any part in your inversion >of truth. > >Enrique
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.