Rebel wrote:hyatt wrote: I omitted a word. A 10 year old could figure it out...
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle........
You said -
As far as Ed's email goes, he didn't "give me ANY email.
I don't like puzzles, you are not Harvey.
hyatt wrote:Did you notice my comment about not having the to:, cc:, bcc: and other header stuff turned on.
Sure I noticed, so let's discuss that.
1. We have been talking since 1996/97 in email. I went through all the old email stuff, there are quite some juicy cases we went through, private and in groupmail and we weren't always in opposition
but that aside. Point is that not in one occassion you did not respond to my mails when I addressed a new subject. And it's the ONLY email you never responded. This one, once again, for clarity sake -
Code: Select all
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
Why didn't I get the courtesy of a reply?
Not important enough?
Why ?
What ?
2. Not having CC visible is just stupid (you are many things, but you are not stupid) and also for another reason your "CC not visible" statement (excuse) is not very trustworthy. I went through the same old stuff all the way to the present. In all those group discussions people often are used to divide the many email addresses over the two "TO" and "CC" columns. And not in one single case when you replied you missed a CC email address. But how typical you missed the CW email address of Chris in CC that matched with the email address on the subscription form in THIS ONE PARTICULAR CASE.
With all the other evidence (the email correspondence) it's time you tell the truth. You did preemptive a critical voice. Manipulating a for you favorite outcome.
It's straightforward.
Cut away Hyatt's fatuous and multiple excuses and look at the raw data.
1. The initial rude "here we go" reply to the original application. Almost certainly meant to be an "alarm signal" to HW and ML that this case required "special processing".
2. Hyatt was sent the matching email that he was supposedly hunting for. He ignored it.
3. Hyatt took it apon himself to be the email hunter with ensuing delay period.
4. There was four-way, including Levy, in which three of them approved the application, and Hyatt remained silent on approval.
5. Days pass. Weekends don't usually get in the way of Hyatt postings
6. Hyatt has motive. He stated it himself.
7. Hyatt was untruthful when he claimed "little hitler" referred to ICGA or anyone connected.
8. He continues with the above untruth.
9. Liars trapped in corners very often say: "if I had done it, it would have been good and right." Ask a psychologist.
All delays and prevarications created by Hyatt. First opportunity to quote out of context to justify a ban - taken.
Hyatt deliberately set out to sabotage the application, the easier to make it, by excluding a known dissenter, to drive through the false guilty verdict. Given the subsequent ramifications, possibly a criminal act. Lawyers can argue that point.
This anti-Vas Rajlich case is so shot through with unacceptable bias from start to Levy's finish (Levy should have recused himself on the basis of bias shown in the ChessVibes article "Attack of the Clones" cf. Syzsgy analysis). The verdict simply can't stand and can't be allowed to stand.
6.
