FIDE Rules on ICGA - Rybka controversy

[Chris Whittington]

Bob, Just ignore them and this will all stop. Vas will still be guilty and the sentence should be examined. Otherwise it is like the 70's disco classic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9J4vEVDr5w

There is still a question you left unanswered:

Are you implying I am the leak for the whole Panel discussions?

I found the little note that came with the URL today, Ed. Ther's absolutely NO,possibility you sent it. It says, "please" do something, in the text. You NEVER say please hahaha!

[Harvey Williamson]

There's very little point is your pretending you, or Levy, or Hyatt, or ICGA have any say in whether or not there is some kind of appeal, review, retrial, whatever, for the simple reason that you are all three disbarred by the bias of self-interest. You would be very foolish to allow the possibility for a verdict reversal because the question of damages for destruction of business then arises, in spades. Hence, disbarred from deciding on "appeals".

Therefore, some suitable independent and unbiased third party will need to decide this part of the case. It is out of your and ICGA hands.

That is not going to happen and you know it so you are https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1oJuwkXr0E

[Rebel]

Bob, Just ignore them and this will all stop. Vas will still be guilty and the sentence should be examined. Otherwise it is like the 70's disco classic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9J4vEVDr5w

There is still a question you left unanswered:

Are you implying I am the leak for the whole Panel discussions?

Hmm let me think my responce is with another classic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JoSIGGOGZQ

this whole topic is really boring now accept the verdict or appeal in court.

You see, that's one of those things Bob has and you miss, guts.

[Harvey Williamson]

Bob, Just ignore them and this will all stop. Vas will still be guilty and the sentence should be examined. Otherwise it is like the 70's disco classic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9J4vEVDr5w

There is still a question you left unanswered:

Are you implying I am the leak for the whole Panel discussions?

Hmm let me think my responce is with another classic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JoSIGGOGZQ

this whole topic is really boring now accept the verdict or appeal in court.

You see, that's one of those things Bob has and you miss, guts.

i am a realist you live in this kind of world https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twICykaRRvY what a great record takes me back to when I was playing records on the radio!

[Chris Whittington]

There's very little point is your pretending you, or Levy, or Hyatt, or ICGA have any say in whether or not there is some kind of appeal, review, retrial, whatever, for the simple reason that you are all three disbarred by the bias of self-interest. You would be very foolish to allow the possibility for a verdict reversal because the question of damages for destruction of business then arises, in spades. Hence, disbarred from deciding on "appeals".

Therefore, some suitable independent and unbiased third party will need to decide this part of the case. It is out of your and ICGA hands.

That is not going to happen and you know it so you are https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1oJuwkXr0E

no point in sending me URLs, I won't bother opening them.

what is or is not going to happen is not in your hands.

[Harvey Williamson]

There's very little point is your pretending you, or Levy, or Hyatt, or ICGA have any say in whether or not there is some kind of appeal, review, retrial, whatever, for the simple reason that you are all three disbarred by the bias of self-interest. You would be very foolish to allow the possibility for a verdict reversal because the question of damages for destruction of business then arises, in spades. Hence, disbarred from deciding on "appeals".

Therefore, some suitable independent and unbiased third party will need to decide this part of the case. It is out of your and ICGA hands.

That is not going to happen and you know it so you are https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1oJuwkXr0E

no point in sending me URLs, I won't bother opening them.

what is or is not going to happen is not in your hands.

so put up or shut up you have had long enough.

[hyatt]

Sorry I was NOT the "blocking source."

Neither was Ed or anyone else except for the four of us I named above. .

To: "Robert M. Hyatt" <hyatt@.....>
From: Ed Schroder <........>
Subject: Tribunal
Date: 20:16 25-2-2011
CC: Chris Whittington <chris@.....>

Hi Bob,

Is Chris W. not allowed to enter on http://icga.wikispaces.com ?

He can't get in, perhaps you can instruct him?

Ed

-----------

The email address on the registration form is the exact as listed in CC.

Explain.

Just to be utterly pedantic:

On the 25th, Ed verifies to Hyatt my email address." CC address same as on the registration form".
On the 28th, Lefler reports that "he is waiting on Hyatt's decision".

Blocked for three days, at least, without reason. By Hyatt. Ed Schroeder was enough.
Deliberate obstruction of the fair operation of the panel process, excluding a known dissenter, by Hyatt, whose motive was to keep out effective opposition to his single-minded objective of forcing through a guilty verdict.
Is this acceptable? Is the verdict acceptable?

Just to be utterly correct, you realize that part below the ----- was NOT a part of the email? It was his post today. You ALWAYS get the details wrong. And quite often the DETAILS are the important things.

And I must admit, making you wait for THREE WHOLE DAYS is egregious conduct and should be subject to capital punishment, no doubt...

You are such a sanctimonious whiner whose perfidious behavior continues to set new lows each and every day.

Save your rude insults for Rybka Forum. If I retaliate here the thread will get closed down, so perhaps you'll stop playing the system, huh?

I'm not "whining", I'm presenting evidence to convict you of deliberately sabotaging the application with the intent of driving through a guilty verdict without having to face any effective opposition. Understand now?

Ed gave you my email address, the one you claimed you needed to link "me" with the "email". You had it for three days and sat on it, claiming you couldn't verify my email address. Very funny. Were there any more unlikely events you wish to add to the list of unlikely events, fanciful explanations and demonstrably untruthful explanations of why suddenly everything fell apart for you just as soon as I applied? When we add the rudenesses and bad opinion you seem to have of me, and I think the assertion at some point that it was a good thing I was kept off the panel plus an obvious motive for doing so, then the readers will have no great difficulty in finding you guilty of wilful obstruction of a fair process against someone whose career was then destroyed. That's when it ceases to be an internet game and gets serious. Do you understand that?

I will ask AGAIN. "Where is this 'rude insult' you refer to?" If you mean pointing out that you make elementary reading mistakes, that's not rude. As far as Ed's email goes, he didn't "give me ANY email." That cc: at the top is not visible on my email reader unless I ask for it, which I generally do not unless I am interested. So get off that wagon because it is not going ANYWHERE.

And yes, with hindsight, your NOT being there made things a lot more congenial and focused. So that WAS a good thing, but it was your OWN doing to not be a part of it. All you had to do was the same thing several others had to do as well, namely "wait for authentication."

And had I ACTUALLY blocked your admission purposefully, all I could be convicted of was "keeping a lying whiner/distorter out of the process so that it actually ran smoothly."

[Chris Whittington]

There's very little point is your pretending you, or Levy, or Hyatt, or ICGA have any say in whether or not there is some kind of appeal, review, retrial, whatever, for the simple reason that you are all three disbarred by the bias of self-interest. You would be very foolish to allow the possibility for a verdict reversal because the question of damages for destruction of business then arises, in spades. Hence, disbarred from deciding on "appeals".

Therefore, some suitable independent and unbiased third party will need to decide this part of the case. It is out of your and ICGA hands.

That is not going to happen and you know it so you are https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1oJuwkXr0E

no point in sending me URLs, I won't bother opening them.

what is or is not going to happen is not in your hands.

so put up or shut up you have had long enough.

Oh,sorry, I didn't realise we were operating to your timetable. You must be a very important person.

[hyatt]

It is so far out or YOUR hands it might as well be in another universe...

[Chris Whittington]

Sorry I was NOT the "blocking source."

Neither was Ed or anyone else except for the four of us I named above. .

To: "Robert M. Hyatt" <hyatt@.....>
From: Ed Schroder <........>
Subject: Tribunal
Date: 20:16 25-2-2011
CC: Chris Whittington <chris@.....>

Hi Bob,

Is Chris W. not allowed to enter on http://icga.wikispaces.com ?

He can't get in, perhaps you can instruct him?

Ed

-----------

The email address on the registration form is the exact as listed in CC.

Explain.

Just to be utterly pedantic:

On the 25th, Ed verifies to Hyatt my email address." CC address same as on the registration form".
On the 28th, Lefler reports that "he is waiting on Hyatt's decision".

Blocked for three days, at least, without reason. By Hyatt. Ed Schroeder was enough.
Deliberate obstruction of the fair operation of the panel process, excluding a known dissenter, by Hyatt, whose motive was to keep out effective opposition to his single-minded objective of forcing through a guilty verdict.
Is this acceptable? Is the verdict acceptable?

Just to be utterly correct, you realize that part below the ----- was NOT a part of the email? It was his post today. You ALWAYS get the details wrong. And quite often the DETAILS are the important things.

And I must admit, making you wait for THREE WHOLE DAYS is egregious conduct and should be subject to capital punishment, no doubt...

You are such a sanctimonious whiner whose perfidious behavior continues to set new lows each and every day.

Save your rude insults for Rybka Forum. If I retaliate here the thread will get closed down, so perhaps you'll stop playing the system, huh?

I'm not "whining", I'm presenting evidence to convict you of deliberately sabotaging the application with the intent of driving through a guilty verdict without having to face any effective opposition. Understand now?

Ed gave you my email address, the one you claimed you needed to link "me" with the "email". You had it for three days and sat on it, claiming you couldn't verify my email address. Very funny. Were there any more unlikely events you wish to add to the list of unlikely events, fanciful explanations and demonstrably untruthful explanations of why suddenly everything fell apart for you just as soon as I applied? When we add the rudenesses and bad opinion you seem to have of me, and I think the assertion at some point that it was a good thing I was kept off the panel plus an obvious motive for doing so, then the readers will have no great difficulty in finding you guilty of wilful obstruction of a fair process against someone whose career was then destroyed. That's when it ceases to be an internet game and gets serious. Do you understand that?

I will ask AGAIN. "Where is this 'rude insult' you refer to?" If you mean pointing out that you make elementary reading mistakes, that's not rude. As far as Ed's email goes, he didn't "give me ANY email." That cc: at the top is not visible on my email reader unless I ask for it, which I generally do not unless I am interested. So get off that wagon because it is not going ANYWHERE.

And yes, with hindsight, your NOT being there made things a lot more congenial and focused. So that WAS a good thing, but it was your OWN doing to not be a part of it. All you had to do was the same thing several others had to do as well, namely "wait for authentication."

And had I ACTUALLY blocked your admission purposefully, all I could be convicted of was "keeping a lying whiner/distorter out of the process so that it actually ran smoothly."

hahahaha!! we'll convict you for a little more than that.

your first response, "here we go" or whatever it was, was not addressed to me, that was a mistake on your part, not realising the return email went to the wi'i applicant. It was intended for Lefler and Williamson, warning them: "here comes trouble" with implication of "special processing" for the application. pretty obvious. nobody believes your convoluted excuses.

Ed contacted you asking to deal with the problem by contacting me, and giving the email address, which matched the address you were looking to "validate". Your convoluted reason for ignoring him?

You had a four-way with Levy. Williamson approved. Lefler indicated he approved. Levy approved. You said nothing when you could, if you were this honest reasonable person you suggest yourself, have just added your approval there and then.

Then we have a pause.

Lefler writes he and Levy and Williamson were approving, he was waiting for you.

Sorry, but you had multiple opportunities to agree with the others, but you just found one excuse after another to delay and prevaricate. I don't accept anything other than that you are guilty of wildul obstruction of an application that would have made it much more difficult for you to force through your desired guilty verdict.

Which is enough to invalidate rhe verdict. Don't you think?