"An Open Letter to Cock de Gorter and the CSVN Board"

[Chris Whittington]

you called him a thief, repeatedly and in front of his wife

prove it. I doubt he will claim that. As it did not happen. he has never said that to anyone.

Ah, the Clinton defense!

Cock is a gentleman, he has said nothing publicly, all information is from your own mouth

from Hiarcs forum you wrote:
Cock de Gorter the Chairman of the CSVN board told me last week in Leiden that he had entered an, official, online tournament with a cracked copy of the latest Junior that was sent to him by a friend in Brazil. I was astounded by this. Surely members of the board of a Computer Chess Association should lead by example and not use cracked software? I told Cock that I was appalled by his actions.

from OpenChess you wrote:
There would have been no need to call anyone if Cock had just said sorry for stealing a product

from Hiarcs forum you wrote:
It was a shame Cock's wife was there and that she felt insulted by the conversation I had with her husband

somewhere, I can't be bothered to go look, you wrote to the effect
Cock would not let the topic drop with the result something about repeating your complaints

1 and 2 are the thievery allegations
3 is the presence of the wife
4 is the repeat

Are you denying you offended him? That the content was about stealing/theft of Junior? That his wife wasn't there? That the 'conversation' kept returning?

And if it wasn't "theft" you were complaining about, how would you term it? What were you "astounded" and "appalled" by? Why did you use the word "stealing"

[Harvey Williamson]

you called him a thief, repeatedly and in front of his wife

prove it. I doubt he will claim that. As it did not happen. he has never said that to anyone.

Ah, the Clinton defense!

Cock is a gentleman, he has said nothing publicly, all information is from your own mouth

from Hiarcs forum you wrote:
Cock de Gorter the Chairman of the CSVN board told me last week in Leiden that he had entered an, official, online tournament with a cracked copy of the latest Junior that was sent to him by a friend in Brazil. I was astounded by this. Surely members of the board of a Computer Chess Association should lead by example and not use cracked software? I told Cock that I was appalled by his actions.

from OpenChess you wrote:
There would have been no need to call anyone if Cock had just said sorry for stealing a product

from Hiarcs forum you wrote:
It was a shame Cock's wife was there and that she felt insulted by the conversation I had with her husband

somewhere, I can't be bothered to go look, you wrote to the effect
Cock would not let the topic drop with the result something about repeating your complaints

1 and 2 are the thievery allegations
3 is the presence of the wife
4 is the repeat

Are you denying you offended him? That the content was about stealing/theft of Junior? That his wife wasn't there? That the 'conversation' kept returning?

I suspect readers will have made their own minds up by now.

Sounds like you were in the same restaurant(and must have been drunk if you claim you saw what you describe) anyway prove your statement or maybe i will sue you with Cock as a witness. Where does any of that support your statement that i repeatedly called him a thief? I do not think the word thief was ever used and you can ask Cock. You are just stirring shit but hey it's a movie we left reality shortly after Jeremy started this thread. He and BB have actually contributed something to the debate. you have added the humour.

[Chris Whittington]

you called him a thief, repeatedly and in front of his wife

prove it. I doubt he will claim that. As it did not happen. he has never said that to anyone.

Ah, the Clinton defense!

Cock is a gentleman, he has said nothing publicly, all information is from your own mouth

from Hiarcs forum you wrote:
Cock de Gorter the Chairman of the CSVN board told me last week in Leiden that he had entered an, official, online tournament with a cracked copy of the latest Junior that was sent to him by a friend in Brazil. I was astounded by this. Surely members of the board of a Computer Chess Association should lead by example and not use cracked software? I told Cock that I was appalled by his actions.

from OpenChess you wrote:
There would have been no need to call anyone if Cock had just said sorry for stealing a product

from Hiarcs forum you wrote:
It was a shame Cock's wife was there and that she felt insulted by the conversation I had with her husband

somewhere, I can't be bothered to go look, you wrote to the effect
Cock would not let the topic drop with the result something about repeating your complaints

1 and 2 are the thievery allegations
3 is the presence of the wife
4 is the repeat

Are you denying you offended him? That the content was about stealing/theft of Junior? That his wife wasn't there? That the 'conversation' kept returning?

I suspect readers will have made their own minds up by now.

Sounds like you were in the same restaurant(and must have been drunk if you claim you saw what you describe) anyway prove your statement or maybe i will sue you with Cock as a witness. Where does any of that support your statement that i repeatedly called him a thief? I do not think the word thief was ever used and you can ask Cock. You are just stirring shit but hey it's a movie we left reality shortly after Jeremy started this thread. He and BB have actually contributed something to the debate. you have added the humour.

Just to correct your wildest dreams: I would never consider to be in the same restaurant as you.

As to repeating allegations of thievery, you repeated only yesterday or today: "There would have been no need to call anyone if Cock had just said sorry for stealing a product", so you continue with the repeat accusation of stealing, not only in front of his wife, but in front of all readers now. As I already said, I don't think it stealing, to use a cracked Junior for the benefit of Junior, not for the benefit of C de G.

The person in danger of being sued is you, for repetition of unsound thievery allegations coupled with blackmail; but try it if you like, I'ld be asking for an extremely large bond to be paid by you into court to ensure you can't renege on the costs after you lose.

[Harvey Williamson]

Just to correct your wildest dreams: I would never consider to be in the same restaurant as you.

As to repeating allegations of thievery, you repeated only yesterday or today: "There would have been no need to call anyone if Cock had just said sorry for stealing a product", so you continue with the repeat accusation of stealing, not only in front of his wife, but in front of all readers now. As I already said, I don't think it stealing, to use a cracked Junior for the benefit of Junior, not for the benefit of C de G.

The person in danger of being sued is you, for repetition of unsound thievery allegations coupled with blackmail; but try it if you like, I'ld be asking for an extremely large bond to be paid by you into court to ensure you can't renege on the costs after you lose.

Well it just might be worth it. As there is no way anyone involved will support your allegation that I called him a thief several times over dinner. Anything else to do with the matter is none of your business. You certainly can not sue me for anything.

[Chris Whittington]

Just to correct your wildest dreams: I would never consider to be in the same restaurant as you.

As to repeating allegations of thievery, you repeated only yesterday or today: "There would have been no need to call anyone if Cock had just said sorry for stealing a product", so you continue with the repeat accusation of stealing, not only in front of his wife, but in front of all readers now. As I already said, I don't think it stealing, to use a cracked Junior for the benefit of Junior, not for the benefit of C de G.

The person in danger of being sued is you, for repetition of unsound thievery allegations coupled with blackmail; but try it if you like, I'ld be asking for an extremely large bond to be paid by you into court to ensure you can't renege on the costs after you lose.

Well it just might be worth it. As there is no way anyone involved will support your allegation that I called him a thief several times over dinner. Anything else to do with the matter is none of your business. You certainly can not sue me for anything.

Well, your fellow mod at HIARCS appears to support the "allegation" ....

Ed Schroeder wrote:
I heard a different story from Cock de Gorter. He said he told you on beforehand, one day before the tournament started while waiting for his free-copy from ChessBase. This during a dinner you had with Cock and his wife. And you went mad and misbehaved. Cock's wife upset.

Cock wanted to do Amir a favour, so he told you, honestly. Not expecting you to misbehave and then start a public war quoting private email and all of that.

HW wrote in reply to Ed:
Yes I told him he was wrong. I changed the subject several times. Every time Cock would bring it back and try and defend his actions

Rob Osborne, you fellow mod wrote in reply to Ed:
What makes perfect sense... the topic of the cracked version Cock is using "comes up". Cock tries to convince Harvey it is "ok". Harvey is adamant in his position that it is not "ok". Mrs. de Gorter is "offended" because her husband is being accused of being a thief (which he is in essence... he is using something that does not have a legal right to use). That is what is reasonable and what makes sense, in light of all the testimony.


btw, do you understand court processes? If you try to sue someone and lose you would normally have to pay the costs of the winning side. It is an established practice to ask, especially in the case of, but not restricted to, frivolous claims, for a bond to be paid into court to cover those costs if and when you lost. Just a protection against frivolous claims thrown out where the complaining side declares bankruptcy to avoid paying up.

[Harvey Williamson]

Just to correct your wildest dreams: I would never consider to be in the same restaurant as you.

As to repeating allegations of thievery, you repeated only yesterday or today: "There would have been no need to call anyone if Cock had just said sorry for stealing a product", so you continue with the repeat accusation of stealing, not only in front of his wife, but in front of all readers now. As I already said, I don't think it stealing, to use a cracked Junior for the benefit of Junior, not for the benefit of C de G.

The person in danger of being sued is you, for repetition of unsound thievery allegations coupled with blackmail; but try it if you like, I'ld be asking for an extremely large bond to be paid by you into court to ensure you can't renege on the costs after you lose.

Well it just might be worth it. As there is no way anyone involved will support your allegation that I called him a thief several times over dinner. Anything else to do with the matter is none of your business. You certainly can not sue me for anything.

Well, your fellow mod at HIARCS appears to support the "allegation" ....

Ed Schroeder wrote:
I heard a different story from Cock de Gorter. He said he told you on beforehand, one day before the tournament started while waiting for his free-copy from ChessBase. This during a dinner you had with Cock and his wife. And you went mad and misbehaved. Cock's wife upset.

Cock wanted to do Amir a favour, so he told you, honestly. Not expecting you to misbehave and then start a public war quoting private email and all of that.

HW wrote in reply to Ed:
Yes I told him he was wrong. I changed the subject several times. Every time Cock would bring it back and try and defend his actions

Rob Osborne, you fellow mod wrote in reply to Ed:
What makes perfect sense... the topic of the cracked version Cock is using "comes up". Cock tries to convince Harvey it is "ok". Harvey is adamant in his position that it is not "ok". Mrs. de Gorter is "offended" because her husband is being accused of being a thief (which he is in essence... he is using something that does not have a legal right to use). That is what is reasonable and what makes sense, in light of all the testimony.


btw, do you understand court processes? If you try to sue someone and lose you would normally have to pay the costs of the winning side. It is an established practice to ask, especially in the case of, but not restricted to, frivolous claims, for a bond to be paid into court to cover those costs if and when you lost. Just a protection against frivolous claims thrown out where the complaining side declares bankruptcy to avoid paying up.

oh i see. 'I told him he was wrong' = i called him a thief several times. Let's get it on. The court case would be a good end to the film. Nice to know you are still reading the forum. btw your Trotsky nick is still active no one banned it. Please email cock and ask if i ever used the word thief or called it him several times. I will tell him to expect your email.

[thorstenczub]

so you were banned because you are such a nice guy

[Harvey Williamson]

so you were banned because you are such a nice guy

I am not banned even Chris understands that.

edit: brilliant Thor ths is the alternative ending in the Director's Cut.

[Uly]

so you were banned because you are such a nice guy

I am not banned even Chris understands that.

He said you were banned, not that you are banned. Weren't you banned?

[Harvey Williamson]

so you were banned because you are such a nice guy

I am not banned even Chris understands that.

He said you were banned, not that you are banned. Weren't you banned?

ah I knew you would turn up if a roll in a film was mentioned.