Ok bored with this nonsense
It's an old feud that either needs resolving or forgetting to be honest
Either close it off or I will...
Anyone posting further on the matter is going to push their luck
CCF v Surrey
-
- Posts: 6028
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
- Location: Evesham
Re: CCF v Surrey
Cheers
Carl Hibbard
Carl Hibbard
-
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
- Location: Sutton, Surrey
Re: CCF v Surrey
This post sums up your position for the last 5 years. NOT VALID....Ian Thompson wrote:New for old is normal for most insurance policies, but that's not the case if the lender is claiming against the borrower for a loss. The law says the borrower's liability (if they are liable at all) is the value of the clocks at the time of loss. If the clocks were, say, 5 years old, you would be entitled to the value of 5 year old clocks.Scott Freeman wrote:I believe that new for old when you deal with insurance is normal, but frankly I think we would have been happy with second hand had we had guarantees that they were working.
With the confused versions of events described in this thread, It seems to me that the chances of anyone successfully claiming against anyone else for the loss of the clocks is low. It seems to me that the lesson everyone should learn from this is to agree responsibilities up front and put it all in writing.
Please stop posting nonsense.
Look I haven't any proof of what I'm about to say, but I know it's true.
One day I was at CCF for a meeting or something and I put entry forms for the 2006 Congress on the table next to CCF entry forms, under the assumption that CCF were being "helpful". Less than 5 minutes later they were all gone - in the bin. That's really helpful. Thanks.
Any postings on here represent the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,
...and by the way the world is flat.
...and by the way the world is flat.
-
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
- Location: Sutton, Surrey
Re: CCF v Surrey
Lies will always come back to haunt you.Roger de Coverly wrote:It's difficult for an outsider to keep track of all this, but I have my personal game record of playing in 2003 in the Easter event at Ashstead. From memory this was partly organised by Tony Corfe.John Constable wrote:CCF Mindgames Ltd had nothing to do with this congress other than some CCF staff running a small bookstall for us as we were at the West of England Championships at Exmouth.
The clocks went missing at Guildford? If so this was over the August Bank Holiday weekend, so it clashed with the relatively nearby Berks & Bucks, but not the West of England because that's always at Easter.
Only the 2006 Congress was at Guildford over the August Bank Holiday
http://surreychesscongress.co.uk/2007_P ... index.html
For 2007 it was at the Nonsuch school over Easter
http://surreychesscongress.co.uk/2007_P ... /open.html
Any postings on here represent the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,
...and by the way the world is flat.
...and by the way the world is flat.
-
- Posts: 284
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:42 am
Re: CCF v Surrey
Carl
I understand that some people are bored with it but look how many people are monitoring. The thread has actually been able to show to people who have read it what has really been going on - and I think that I (well, CCF) are the only people who have been accused "over the line." We are not worried about this.
This thread has already brought a new lead regarding the msising clocks - the fact that Ray Ryan is alleged to have said something about CCF not using the clocks any more. Now either he didn't say it and what Paul said isn't correct, or Paul is correct and he did say it, in which case one must ask why - and what might have been the consequences of anyone making such assumptions.
I accept that you are the moderator in charge, but this thread is under its own heading and as Jack said, it would be a shame to close it down at a time that it might bring some key information forward.
I understand that some people are bored with it but look how many people are monitoring. The thread has actually been able to show to people who have read it what has really been going on - and I think that I (well, CCF) are the only people who have been accused "over the line." We are not worried about this.
This thread has already brought a new lead regarding the msising clocks - the fact that Ray Ryan is alleged to have said something about CCF not using the clocks any more. Now either he didn't say it and what Paul said isn't correct, or Paul is correct and he did say it, in which case one must ask why - and what might have been the consequences of anyone making such assumptions.
I accept that you are the moderator in charge, but this thread is under its own heading and as Jack said, it would be a shame to close it down at a time that it might bring some key information forward.
-
- Posts: 284
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:42 am
Re: CCF v Surrey
Look I haven't any proof of what I'm about to say, but I know it's true.
One day I was at CCF for a meeting or something and I put entry forms for the 2006 Congress on the table next to CCF entry forms, under the assumption that CCF were being "helpful". Less than 5 minutes later they were all gone - in the bin. That's really helpful. Thanks.[/quote]
Sorry Paul - if anyone put them in the bin, it wasn't us. We were promting the 2006 event.
One day I was at CCF for a meeting or something and I put entry forms for the 2006 Congress on the table next to CCF entry forms, under the assumption that CCF were being "helpful". Less than 5 minutes later they were all gone - in the bin. That's really helpful. Thanks.[/quote]
Sorry Paul - if anyone put them in the bin, it wasn't us. We were promting the 2006 event.
-
- Posts: 6028
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
- Location: Evesham
Re: CCF v Surrey
Sorry but it's gone too far (my fault...) and is only going to end it tears - so for now it's closed offScott Freeman wrote:I accept that you are the moderator in charge, but this thread is under its own heading and as Jack said, it would be a shame to close it down at a time that it might bring some key information forward.
Cheers
Carl Hibbard
Carl Hibbard
-
- Posts: 6028
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
- Location: Evesham
Re: CCF v Surrey
Do we really feel that Paul and Scott are ever going to agree?
I have PM's from both less than 5 minutes after I closed it off and it's 11:21pm?
I have PM's from both less than 5 minutes after I closed it off and it's 11:21pm?
Cheers
Carl Hibbard
Carl Hibbard