Vlad Drucklec Censor's My Response's to him On The CFC Discussion Boards My Response

[Steve Douglas]

Re: FIDE funding; was Stop misrepresenting Vlad!

Is this based on legal advice or is it supposition on your part? The CFC accepted KI's bribe in good faith (is it just me or did that sound odd?), before there was any hint of sanctions. Now the CFC should follow Steve Miller's advice:

"They got the money, hey
You know they got away
They headed down south and they're still running today
Singin' go on take the money and run"

p.s. And to further confuse matters, don't forget recent legal efforts (Regina's Incompetent Crown Attorneys v Duffy) which indicate that our well-paid crown attorneys believe that one can receive a bribe when no one has paid a bribe. Magical, eh?

I believe that in the case of Regina v. Duffous the judge wished he had the third option available under Scottish law: "Not Proven", which amounts to "we think you're guilty as hell but there's not enough evidence to actually convict you".

Steve

[Nigel Hanrahan]

sanctions are a can of worms and maybe only a genius can see the way forward...

Probably not. If we were, it might not be prudent to accept it at this time given the uncertainty about the implications of the U.S. sanctions.

I don't envy your difficulties. While parliamentarians in France, and possibly some other European countries, have publicly called for the end of anti-Russian sanctions, the whole situation is very complicated. I heard in the news recently that one of the forms of US arm-twisting is to suggest that Europeans won't be able to sell cars in the US if they don't go along with US versions of so-called trade law (TPP and TTIP) and agricultural rules (allowing GMOs, etc.). When the Americans want something, it's not just F-15's that do the trick.

The uncertainty around the US election is another such factor. Clinton is likely to continue Obama's policies - or even more hawkish - while Trump is so unpredictable that many view him as dangerous. [He's been compared to a deal-maker who adopts an extreme position prior to settling somewhere in the middle. But that's his real estate experience. I don't think that translates to foreign policy very well.]

Perhaps after the US election results and the World Ch in November, things will be clearer.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Stop misrepresenting Vlad!

Probably not. If we were, it might not be prudent to accept it at this time given the uncertainty about the implications of the U.S. sanctions.

Is this based on legal advice or is it supposition on your part? The CFC accepted KI's bribe in good faith (is it just me or did that sound odd?), before there was any hint of sanctions. Now the CFC should follow Steve Miller's advice:

"They got the money, hey
You know they got away
They headed down south and they're still running today
Singin' go on take the money and run"

p.s. And to further confuse matters, don't forget recent legal efforts (Regina's Incompetent Crown Attorneys v Duffy) which indicate that our well-paid crown attorneys believe that one can receive a bribe when no one has paid a bribe. Magical, eh?

[Rene Preotu]

Re: Stop misrepresenting Vlad!

Probably not. If we were, it might not be prudent to accept it at this time given the uncertainty about the implications of the U.S. sanctions.

So CFC voted for KI and got only 1/4 of the promised money with little or no chances to get the other 3/4. Nice deal.
I remember that somebody was warning you about this but I can't find that post.

[Garland Best]

Re: Stop misrepresenting Vlad!

Interesting take on matters. How does a US trade sanction affect Canadian trade if Canada has not issued the same sanction? For instance US trade sanctions against Cuba did not prevent Canada and Cuba to establish trade.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Stop misrepresenting Vlad!

What about 2016? Is CFC getting another $20K from FIDE to run 2 more norm tournaments this year?

Probably not. If we were, it might not be prudent to accept it at this time given the uncertainty about the implications of the U.S. sanctions.

[Rene Preotu]

Re: Stop misrepresenting Vlad!

The CFC was granted $80 in funding to run tournaments, with $10k each to go into separate tournaments, 2 per year. The tournaments cannot be the Cdn Open, CYCC or any Canadian Championships. Anyone in Canada can bid.

What tournaments received this grant in 2015?

What about 2016? Is CFC getting another $20K from FIDE to run 2 more norm tournaments this year?

[Peter McKillop]

Re: He ain't no scholar of Islam

lol. Be honest Peter. You have no idea of the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'a, nor that the IS terrorists and the Saudis share the same Wahhabist ideology. And yet you just claimed my mockery of a Saudi cleric who thinks chess should be banned is hate speech. Or maybe you're shamed that Canada sells billions in arms to the Saudis? No matter. All you're doing with this is advertising your own ignorance in a very loud voice.

If you really are concerned about protecting fundamentalist Saudi clerics from hate speech, maybe you should start by taking the advice of this one and abandoning chess [and chess discussion boards, of course] altogether. lol.

Nigel, your comments are a pathetic attempt to deflect attention from what I really said to you. And what do you know about what I do or don't know about Islam? What a pompous ass you are! :)

I'm sure you know damn well what I was saying to you, but, just on the slight chance that you're really as dense as you're portraying yourself, here's a re-wording for you:
1. When you're at your worst, you're a ChessTalk lowlife; just like me when I'm at my worst and just like Sid and a number of others who post here regularly.
2. So for you to copy Sid's remarks with the implication that you're somehow doing something honourable by making a more permanent record of his supposed abuse is BS. All you're really doing is confirming that you're a hypocrite.

Who do you think you are? Nigella, the dainty little princess of high etiquette and ethics? As you would say, "lol."

[Nigel Hanrahan]

our noble sport

People say things online that they wouldn't say in person because it would likely lead to unpleasant consequences and in some cases even violence. Lets turn down the rhetoric. A disagreement does not make someone the enemy. Throwing labels that you can't support throws you and the proprietor of this board in an awkward position if anyone decided to take legal action. That's all I will say for now as the library is about to close.

Sensible remarks. It seems that it's impossible sometimes to have an adult conversation on ChessTalk about the difficult, complicated, and bewildering problems facing the world [and the world of chess politics in particular]. I've tried to argue that what I (and many others that are much more expert than me) have been calling the neo conservative view of politics is bad for chess, and bad for the world generally. Our noble sport does not deserve to be dragged in the mud, or used by a declining Empire for its hegemonic aims, or turned into a political football. People who do these things do not love chess.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

He ain't no scholar of Islam

lol. Be honest Peter. You have no idea of the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'a, nor that the IS terrorists and the Saudis share the same Wahhabist ideology. And yet you just claimed my mockery of a Saudi cleric who thinks chess should be banned is hate speech. Or maybe you're shamed that Canada sells billions in arms to the Saudis? No matter. All you're doing with this is advertising your own ignorance in a very loud voice.

If you really are concerned about protecting fundamentalist Saudi clerics from hate speech, maybe you should start by taking the advice of this one and abandoning chess [and chess discussion boards, of course] altogether. lol.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: abuse from Sid B

Reason: rep power: Nigel 9 Sid 2. lol.

Well then you got the whole thing beat! Hold the poll, here is your big chance to be rid of me from chess talk and vindicate yourself!

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Abuse from someone who doesn't like heating the truth Nigel H

People say things online that they wouldn't say in person because it would likely lead to unpleasant consequences and in some cases even violence. Lets turn down the rhetoric. A disagreement does not make someone the enemy. Throwing labels that you can't support throws you and the proprietor of this board in an awkward position if anyone decided to take legal action. That's all I will say for now as the library is about to close.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Abuse from someone who doesn't like heating the truth Nigel H

For the record.

There are a number of people here who are guilty of excesses from time to time. I'm one of them. And you're no paragon of virtue yourself, Nigel. Here's just one recent example of your...handiwork (hate speech?):

Shave that Wahhabi beard and get a real job, asshole!

Saudi cleric shows why it's so good that Canada sells billions in arms to the Kingdom.

... because chess is the Devil's work! I knew it!

i.e. don't be pointing a stinky finger at Sid

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Abuse from someone who doesn't like heating the truth Nigel H

No, you are the one who has abusing everyone here for years with everything I described above and more. Especially when you were a moderator, now you don't have that power to abuse any more. Take your hateful ideaology and go elsewhere

For the record.

[Sid Belzberg]

Abuse from someone who doesn't like hearing the truth Nigel H

No, you are the one who has been abusing everyone here for years with everything I described above and more. Especially when you were a moderator, now you don't have that power to abuse any more. Take your hateful ideaology and go elsewhere