FIDE Rules on ICGA - Rybka controversy

[Rebel]

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.

The red is a lie and the blue is a contradiction to the lie.

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."

Finally, the truth.

[Rebel]

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

Next FIDE complaint

[Chris Whittington]

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.

The red is a lie and the blue is a contradiction to the lie.

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."

Finally, the truth.

Yup. It would be kind of trivial under normal circumstances, just another internet game. Except he, and others, destroyed someone's reputation, career and business with these shenanigans. Serious business.

[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?

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!

Yep, rule #1 : on internet the truth always comes out. Surpasses rule #2

[Rebel]

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.

The red is a lie and the blue is a contradiction to the lie.

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."

Finally, the truth.

Yup. It would be kind of trivial under normal circumstances, just another internet game. Except he, and others, destroyed someone's reputation, career and business with these shenanigans. Serious business.

David maybe will again say, "not interested", but will Vas? And FIDE?

[Chris Whittington]

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.

The red is a lie and the blue is a contradiction to the lie.

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."

Finally, the truth.

Yup. It would be kind of trivial under normal circumstances, just another internet game. Except he, and others, destroyed someone's reputation, career and business with these shenanigans. Serious business.

David maybe will again say, "not interested", but will Vas? And FIDE?

Levy is clearly disbarred from deciding for the simple reason that he is biased to refuse all verdict overturns, as he then has to consider the business and reputation destruction caused from the original verdict, name, shame etc.

[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.

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

Vas is not guilty. The evidence does not support a "guilty" verdict. But, that aside, the bias of Levy, well explained by syszgy (sorry if I spelt that wrong) after examining the Chessvibes article, Attack of the Clones, is enough to invalidate the ICGA decision and entire process. As was shown, Levy should have disbarred himself.

Not guilty. Your process was so stuffed with bias from start to finish as to be a joke.

[hyatt]

Again, Ed did NOT contact me and give me your email address. NEVER happened.

As far as your "Finally, the truth" nonsense, did you read the statement?

And had I ACTUALLY blocked your admission

"and had I" or "if I had" etc. Does NOT say that "I did do so."

You guys are REALLY sad.

Complain to FIDE all you want. Last time they threw your parts out the window. I would presume the are prepared to do it again. Only Vas can do anything with FIDE, and FIDE will not listen to more whining about this specific case since they have ruled.

[hyatt]

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.

The red is a lie and the blue is a contradiction to the lie.

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."

Finally, the truth.

What lie and contradiction? Until that email was posted HERE I did not see the cc: line. I have it turned off along with EVERYTHING but the from and subject lines, so I can leave it open all the time without taking up half the screen on my office box.

So as always, you want to distort. Show me where in that email you said "Here is CW's email, contact him."

[hyatt]

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.

The red is a lie and the blue is a contradiction to the lie.

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."

Finally, the truth.

Yup. It would be kind of trivial under normal circumstances, just another internet game. Except he, and others, destroyed someone's reputation, career and business with these shenanigans. Serious business.

David maybe will again say, "not interested", but will Vas? And FIDE?

You think FIDE will REALLY be interested in a statement that says "If I had ..."? "IF" meaning "I did not, but IF I had..."

You guys are greater distorters than any black hole in existence...