|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 50 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Aug-20-22
 | | moronovich: The bore has spoken. |
|
| Aug-21-22 | | whiteshark: <The Bore> has done his duty - <The Bore> may go. |
|
| Aug-22-22 | | 2071 S Milwaukee: chess o rama is telling the truth.
Since when is it a crime to comment on the pun of the day? I was placed on KIBITZ RESTRICTION for commenting about the pun of the day Aug. 15, which was a personal invitation song that had nothing to do with the 1908 game. Such a pun would not have been approved by MissScarlett on any other day. She did not meet her usual standards. Marshall vs Rubinstein, 1908 perfidious made a false remark toward me on August 18 but I was restricted and could not reply. I replied with the facts of the matter on August 19. perfidious then responded with another remark. Then the last three posts were deleted in a short time. perfidious may not have deleted the three posts himself but he certainly knew. He denied any knowledge of what happened with his "don't have the vaguest idea" remark. Is it really necessary to delete honest posts and put users on RESTRICTED KIBITZ?? This incident was clearly an overreaction by the managers. They are the ones who created this incident. If managers are going to post puns or messages, they should not expect everyone to agree instead of punishing and deleting the users. I am still on RESTRICTED KIBITZING. Please take me off restrictions. |
|
| Aug-22-22 | | 2071 S Milwaukee: Here it is - perfidious comment after the three messages were deleted: <Aug-19-22 perfidious: <chess.o.rama>, never knew I was quite so powerful--I have not the vaguest notion what you are on about.> Also NOTE that chess o rama posted above perfidious' response but chess o rama's post on Aug 19 has been deleted from this page. Some people are telling you the truth Susan Freeman and some are not. |
|
Sep-01-22
 | | OhioChessFan: I recognize you're on okay legal ground on the banishment. And if the accusations on <steve's> forum are correct, it's all good. But if they are wrong, I think you're on shaky legal ground, as those claims trend toward libelous. And to allow one of your admins to make such claims in an open forum but subsequently refuse to address them is really poor form. |
|
Sep-01-22
 | | Willber G: <OhioChessFan: But if they are wrong, I think you're on shaky legal ground, as those claims trend toward libelous.> Is it possible to libel an anonymous internet forum name? |
|
Sep-01-22
| | OhioChessFan: I'll get my crack research team on that question. |
|
Sep-01-22
 | | Susan Freeman: If that’s the case, then anyone who calls another poster a name is libelous. ie pedophile, homo, etc. let’s not get too dramatic, folks. |
|
| Sep-01-22 | | stone free or die: <<OCF> And to allow one of your admins to make such claims in an open forum but subsequently refuse to address them is really poor form.> "such claims in an open forum but subsequently refuse to address them is really poor form" Hmm, did <OCF> raise even a squawk when <KSore> was maligning me on the <chessgames> forum? I don't think so - and <KS> was obviously making his rubbish accusations out of complete whole cloth. Looks like there's two standards at play - one for thee and one for me. The thee-standard would likely never be satisfied, even if the TCP/IP log files
were released...
"It's nothing but political persecution."
* * * * *
<<Willber G> Is it possible to libel an anonymous internet forum name?> Well, there is this actual case:
https://nsmedialawyer.wordpress.com... Now, if it's possible to view a corporation as a person, it just might be possible to view an anonymous pseudonym as a person legally as well - e.g. a handle could have a brand identity, and even enjoy generated income via the handle. But it would need some novel arguments in court. * * * * *
<<Susan Freeman>: If that’s the case, then anyone who calls another poster a name is libelous. ie pedophile, homo, etc. let’s not get too dramatic, folks.> Again, <Susan> and <Steve> know there's no connection whatsoever between me and the recent network hacking on <CG> - well no connection as me being the perpetrator, though I might have been a possible target. Given the slanderous, libelous and completely false accusations from <KS> it would be nice to have <Susan> set the record straight here. It's sad to consider how much cost <CG> has had to bear from the antics of <bippy>, and his supporters (like <KS> - who tried to excuse <bippy> by falsely attacking me). |
|
Sep-01-22
| | Willber G: Thanks <Z>, interesting article. I think the key point of the ruling is this: <In the end, the court concluded that Baglow’s name was sufficiently linked to the Dr. Dawg on-line pseudonym so as to make it known to readers that the defamatory comments about Dr. Dawg identified Baglow personally. It could make this finding because Baglow made no effort to hide his real identity. He openly identified himself as his on-line pseudonym. His name was linked to Dr. Dawg by others in the political blogosphere.> Not applicable here, I think. |
|
| Sep-01-22 | | stone free or die: Yes, <WG> an accurate reading. But courts will rule narrowly as a matter of principle, and so big issues are often left hanging, unresolved, after a technical ruling decide a particular case. |
|
| Sep-01-22 | | stone free or die: (Of course, there are exception - like the recent overturning of Roe, where Roberts wanted to make a narrow ruling, but was, err, overruled) |
|
| Sep-01-22 | | Rdb: <OhioChessFan: I recognize you're on okay legal ground on the banishment. And if the accusations on <steve's> forum are correct, it's all good. But if they are wrong, I think you're on shaky legal ground, as those claims trend toward libelous. And to allow one of your admins to make such claims in an open forum but subsequently refuse to address them is really poor form.> I do not understand this post of <ohiochessfan> at all. Can somebody please explain it to me what <ocf> is asking , what he wants now? <Ocf> and couple of other 'buddies' of <gw>/<bp> asked for the details that admins did not want to share but admins eventually disclosed when these people were not moving on. So , is this matter still not closed ? What more does <ocf> want ? Does anybody know ? Thanks. |
|
Sep-01-22
| | OhioChessFan: The online world is always evolving legally. I think most people have a handle on that. I will point out the owner was boasting that she's on safe legal ground. Apparently she thinks that's the same safe ground as calling someone a pedophile. I can't work myself up to being impressed with that. |
|
| Sep-01-22 | | Rdb: <Premium Chessgames Member OhioChessFan: I recognize you're on okay legal ground on the banishment. And if the accusations on <steve's> forum are correct, it's all good. But if they are wrong, I think you're on shaky legal ground> If they are wrong ? How can they be wrong ? You mean if admins/owner lying ? . |
|
Sep-02-22
 | | saffuna: <Apparently she thinks that's the same safe ground as calling someone a pedophile. I can't work myself up to being impressed with that.> <Ocf> You think that's bad? Someone who who was posting on chessgames claimed in a blog that I am a pedophile. I don't remember that bothering you. |
|
Sep-03-22
| | Susan Freeman: <Rbd> I don’t thinking lying. That is a pretty harsh word. I think mistaken or wrong would be better. |
|
| Sep-03-22 | | Rdb: <
Premium Chessgames Member Susan Freeman: <Rbd> I don’t thinking lying. That is a pretty harsh word. I think mistaken or wrong would be better.>I think it is very unlikely to be mistaken about ip in such a scenario , nonetheless , it is always good to double check. So ,i think we must thank <ohiochessfan> for cautioning/reminding and presumably admins have double checked . Well , matter closed then to everyone's satisfaction , i guess.... . |
|
Sep-03-22
| | Susan Freeman: Except George Wallace
I have been wrong before in my life. I am not a tech person. |
|
Sep-03-22
| | OhioChessFan: <Rdb: Well , matter closed then to everyone's satisfaction , i guess....> No. And I figure <Miss Scarlett> likewise. <Susan: Except George Wallace
I have been wrong before in my life. I am not a tech person.> Working in the dark here, but how hard would it be to impersonate another kibitzer, yada yada yada. Working in the dark here, but the case was so airtight your admin appealed for help identifying the perpetrator. Working in the dark here, but creating a lot of accounts doesn't amount to hacking a site in my view. And you nailed it in terms of me thinking you may be mistaken but not lying. |
|
| Sep-03-22 | | stone free or die: <OCF> is pretty much trolling at this point - yada, yada. |
|
Sep-03-22
 | | chancho: He ardently defends Wallace/BP's toxicity, but when I criticized Trump's incompetence as president, he went off with: <OhioChessFan: <Tiggler> is a bit of an effeminate RINO and Trump's masculinity and crudeness bother him. I can't begin to express what I think of <chancho>. It's been very disappointing to see what he's become.> As long as someone is like-minded like him, I guess he has no problems, but when differing opinions are presented? <"Very disappointing to see what he's become."> People who think they can bully someone else into their way of thinking, well, I cannot respect that. |
|
| Sep-03-22 | | diceman: <chancho: He ardently defends Wallace/BP's toxicity, but when I criticized Trump's> GW, GW, GW, GW, GW, GW, GW, GW,
GW, GW, GW, GW, GW, GW, GW, GW,
GW, GW, GW, GW, GW, GW, GW, GW!!!
Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump,
Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump,
Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump!!!
What great victories look like!
Cry it out ladies! |
|
| Sep-04-22 | | Rdb: As <ohiochessfan> still dissatisfied about <gw>/<bp> issue , i am reposting his post from <Susan freeman> forum to <stevemcd87> forum , in case Steve chooses to spend some more time to satisfy <ocf> <OhioChessFan: <Rdb: Well , matter closed then to everyone's satisfaction , i guess....>
No. And I figure <Miss Scarlett> likewise.
<Susan: Except George Wallace I have been wrong before in my life. I am not a tech person.>
Working in the dark here, but how hard would it be to impersonate another kibitzer, yada yada yada. Working in the dark here, but the case was so airtight your admin appealed for help identifying the perpetrator. Working in the dark here, but creating a lot of accounts doesn't amount to hacking a site in my view. And you nailed it in terms of me thinking you may be mistaken but not lying
> |
|
| Sep-04-22 | | Rdb: Steve may or may not respond . Meanwhile , i respond to <ohiochessfan> even though i do not think any response would satisfy <ocf> 1) in many cases in courts , there may not be 100 percent proof for the culpability of convict . Friends/family of convict may always say (without substantiation) things like : DNA was planted at crime scene , witnesses were paid and coached and so on. 2) that is what <ocf> is doing , as i see it. Someone impersonated <gw>/<bp> ? How ? Attacking the server from ip of <gw> and sending those messages , email stuff ... ? Come on ! Someone with such skills would be doing something much more profitable than to frame <gw> in a case for which the only penalty for <gw> is to get banned from cg.com for the time being . 3) appeal made by Steve ? It was not appeal as Steve explained in his forum in the response of a post of <miss Scarlett> 4) this is too embarrassing guys...just move on please .... |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 50 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
