ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 629 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-15-13 | | MarkFinan: I have a question.. Is it illegal for one member of this site to obtain a 4 figure sum from another member here, by saying for instance, "Hey L####t. Im planning on writing a book. Ill give you a signed copy when its published but....im going to need a bit of money from you for research purposes first", knowing (and thats the key word-knowing) full well you arent having a book published, theres no release date, theres absolutely nothing but one user telling another hes writing a book and needs money?
Is it just morally a terrible thing to do, because the person giving the money is more than likely mentally ill, or is it illegal?? |
|
| Sep-15-13 | | SugarDom: No way, i'm giving you any money, dude. |
|
Sep-15-13
 | | chessgames.com: Ooops, sorry... here you go: World Junior Championship (Girls) (2013). |
|
Sep-15-13
 | | chessgames.com: <MarkFinan: I have a question.. Is it illegal...> Ultimately that's a question for a lawyer. It's not against our rules for members to engage in business with one another but if you believe the <<Nothing in violation of United States law>> rule is being breached we would like to know. |
|
| Sep-15-13 | | TheFocus: <Mark> I never asked <Lamont> for any money. He offered me and <jessicafischerqueen> $1,000 each to help in our work. We both accepted. Is she also guilty? |
|
| Sep-15-13 | | TheFocus: It's all a matter of public record here.
Or you can ask <jess> herself. |
|
| Sep-15-13 | | TheFocus: Poor <Mark>. You hate <TheFocus> so much that you are willing to come here and lie. |
|
Sep-15-13
 | | Domdaniel: Sigh. Private Eye magazine used to have a column of small ads, where people would tell sob stories ("legless armless minority graduate student needs £1000 urgently") in order to raise finance. My all-time favourite was "Give me a fiver and I'll keep it." |
|
| Sep-15-13 | | MarkFinan: Foci.. not here.
Wow!! You "ratted" Jess out before anyone even had a chance to say anything!
And you’ve taken money from him on more than one occasion, right?
You know full well he’s mentally ill, so on that basis you’ve obtained money by deception in the eyes of the law, and hell yeah.. its morally disgusting too. |
|
| Sep-15-13 | | TheFocus: <Markie> You're beginning to bore me. |
|
| Sep-15-13 | | MarkFinan: <Admins>.. Yeh, ive decided now. Ill email you telling you what i know to be 100% true and you can decide whether there are any laws that have been broken, or its just morally appalling. |
|
Sep-15-13
 | | jessicafischerqueen: <Mark, TheFocus>
You are both good mates of mine, so it's painful to see you guys scrapping all of a sudden? Just a few days ago you guys were laughing and having a good time with each other. Anyways as you know, I don't like to get in the middle of mates scrapping, so please forgive me butting my old bat nose in here. But my name was mentioned here, and in that context, I can confirm that <lamont> has emailed me that he's seen <TheFocus'> book draft. I also know from <lamont> emailing me that he confirms <TheFocus> never approached him for money, nor did I. <lamont> offered it to us out of the blue. He's also a multimillionaire eh? At any rate- two good mates the pair of you.
All the best to you both,
-Jess |
|
| Sep-15-13 | | TheFocus: I'll stop if he will. Of course, now we get your confirmation that <Sparkie> is a liar. |
|
| Sep-15-13 | | SugarDom: He's literally green with envy.
If he also got 1000$, he would have stayed quiet.
hehe |
|
| Sep-15-13 | | MarkFinan: <TheFocus: I'll stop if he will.> How old are you???
Dont pick up the ball if you dont play tough guy. Ive lied about nothing, I always come with facts, I dont need to lie about some little idiot that fakes illness for sympathy, and has full blown conversations with his other handle. And ive done nothing to "stop"!! I understand some people want to see what other people may look like if they’ve started a conversation with them via the internet, ive done it myself, but ive been here 2 and a half years!! And were not friends!! Dont be a coward, if you want to talk via facebook, get on there and message me?? But like two users before you, youve gone there *then* you come here commenting afterwards. Youre grown men!
I know im a handful, i know my faults, but trust me when i say this.. None of you would dare say what you say on here to me to my face.. What i say, id say it to your faces..I guarantee that.
So ok, you want to play games.. Then lets play?
And for all those who have looked on my facebook then come here, why didnt you send me a message?
Because youre cowards and wimps, and focus you’re the poster boy LOL :-) <SugarDom: He's literally green with envy.
If he also got 1000$, he would have stayed quiet.> On my fathers life, me he drop dead if i lie, i just told myself that if *someone* were to say that, given its common knowledge ive had run ins with the law, that that *someone* would be the lowest scum to ever disgrace this site!
And as you can imagine... thats up against some pretty stiff competition.
Get back to stalking that young boy you little moron! And thats me over and out for this weekend :-)
hehe |
|
Sep-15-13
 | | chessgames.com: This affair is none of Chessgame.com's business and should not be discussed on this forum. Thank you. |
|
| Sep-15-13 | | twinlark: Hi <ceegee>
May I suggest you open a dedicated discussion page on cheating in chess? The Ivanov page is being overrun, and despite the allegations against the guy, his player page is probably not the most appropriate place for such discussions. Especially as the discussion's been branching out into broader if related topics, and is not one that is about to go away. |
|
| Sep-15-13 | | Blunderdome: <twinlark> maybe A Crook? |
|
Sep-16-13
 | | Domdaniel: <CG> -- <This affair ... should not be discussed on this forum>
Yes, absolutely. Take it to Grand ... |
|
| Sep-16-13 | | Kinghunt: <So sometimes we get an email, "Why don't you ban user XYZ their posts offer nothing constructive to your site!" And in this case XYZ is a sincere chessgames fan, who other members actually like. Of course I won't ban XYZ, but I hate to tell a member "Tough, you have to live with them."> Not to mention any names, but I've put "a few" users who clearly aren't interested in a serious discussion on ignore, and for the most part, it works really well. However, other users often respond to and quote their posts, so I am forced to see them indirectly. Asking people not to feed the trolls helps, but again, not completely. So, here is my idea: add a setting so that not only do you not see posts by people on your ignore list, but you also don't see any posts mentioning their name. This would allow people to block most posts responding to users on our ignore lists and allow us to make them actually invisible without needing to change the behavior of anyone else. Would this be feasible to implement? I would certainly appreciate it, and it is the logical next level of the ignore list. |
|
Sep-16-13
 | | Annie K.: <Reigning World Champion Anna Ushenina of Ukraine <defends her title> against challenger Hou Yifan in a 10-game match. Discussion forum now open.> I dunno, she doesn't seem to be doing that... "Tries to", maybe. :s BTW, this weekend's batch of audios still not up? ;) |
|
Sep-16-13
 | | Domdaniel: This -- <"Why don't you ban user XYZ their posts offer nothing constructive to your site!" > -- is the old problem of consistency. If you ignore a kibitzer because you have a negative reaction to one of their posts, you then obviate the possibility that their other posts may be different. Or, as others have said, that they may wish to apologize or offer an explanation of earlier posts. I don't like to use the ignore function, and it seems to me that those who want more elaborate versions of it are not very interested in dialogue. The reduction ad absurdum, for them, is a site where their own utterances are the only ones visible. I don't know ... maybe some people would like that? |
|
| Sep-16-13 | | Kinghunt: <Domdaniel> I agree with you, for the most part. For several years, I had nobody on my ignore list at all. Even if I disagree with someone, I'm always up for intelligent discussion. But I am completely fed up with the antics of <tolengoy> et al, as are many other members of this site. I'm sure I don't need to elaborate on why. I understand that <chessgames> doesn't want to ban people for being trolls, but I think it's quiet reasonable to want to be able to ignore them <completely>. |
|
| Sep-16-13 | | MarkFinan: <Domdaniel> <I don't like to use the ignore function, and it seems to me that those who want more elaborate versions of it are not very interested in dialogue.> I think that sum’s it up just about perfectly. There are some of course who abuse it as it gives them a sense of power in their lives, where otherwise theyd be none.
I think ive given some good suggestions about the ignore feature in the past, but ive never had any feedback nor do i expect any.. Dom.. Ill bet when Daniel started this site up he didnt envisage these kind of problems, because were all adults, right.
Well i had the same thoughts when i joined this site! But hey, when in Rome..... :-) |
|
| Sep-16-13 | | tbentley: <Kinghunt>One problem with your request is that this would not be feasible if you wanted to ignore the user THE (THE chessforum), for example (this user has never kibitzed, but there's probably a contributing user with a common word as the username, or worse, some troll could create such an account). |
|
 |
 |
ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 629 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |