English Chess Forum

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Tue May 22, 2018 11:46 am

Also Chris, do bear in mind that if you complain about "insulting", other people are liable to recall that Nigel has spent pretty much his whole career insulting, bullying and hectoring people, from FIDE Presidential candidates downwards.

As I remarked above, there's a lot of convenient amnesia in English chess, especially at election time, but it may not be so convenient for everybody else.

You seem to be arguing that the FIDE Treasurer can make any kind of insulting remarks he likes because in your opinion Nigel Short deserves it. I don't agree with that. Not sure Nigel Short really has much chance of winning but if he did then it would be a benefit to have someone in charge who is not afraid to say what they think. Yes he's got baggage, who hasn't? Let's just move on. I would agree that strong CEO's can present an issue when there are not proper policies and procedures in place, with a Board that will challenge and a robust culture of compliance. We've seen that a lot with FIDE, Ilyumzhinov, Campo etc and that needs to be changed.

Chris Rice wrote: ↑

Tue May 22, 2018 12:12 pm

You seem to be arguing that the FIDE Treasurer can make any kind of insulting remarks he likes because in your opinion Nigel Short deserves it. .

You can't have it both ways. You can't have one side that can bully and the other that has to take it, one side which has a track record that needs to be scrutinised and the other that gets "let's move on". It's absurd, and it's an absurdity we're too familiar with.

I agree with Justin to some extent. But I don't really see an equivalency between Short's misdeeds and those of Kirsan.

I'm not really sure about Makro. My inclination is to think the worst of him, given his long association with Kirsan. He certainly seems to have been accused of a lot, notably by Danailov. BUt I don't kno how much of it is fair and/ or proven.

I suspect what many people really want is for the system where someone over-stays their time in the role (due to the election system) to be reformed. Who would want the winner of this election to still be in power 23 years later? Of course, the first FIDE President (who most people will have to look up) held the role for 25 years, and the second president held the role for 21 years, but still, is that what people really want?

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Tue May 22, 2018 12:37 pm

Chris Rice wrote: ↑

Tue May 22, 2018 12:12 pm

You seem to be arguing that the FIDE Treasurer can make any kind of insulting remarks he likes because in your opinion Nigel Short deserves it. .

You can't have it both ways. You can't have one side that can bully and the other that has to take it, one side which has a track record that needs to be scrutinised and the other that gets "let's move on". It's absurd, and it's an absurdity we're too familiar with.

I'm not having it both ways. The FIDE Treasurer (who has an official position within FIDE while Nigel Short does not) makes a number of remarks (in both his letters) alleging Nigel Short is being insulting, playing dirty tricks, mud slinging etc when in fact the Treasurer has just been asked a number of appropriate questions, directly related to the financial role he has, regarding the flow of money in FIDE. You are saying that in the past Short has made insulting comments on other issues and using it to justify the Treasurer's insulting comments. Unfortunately if we were to go along with this line it would also prevent Nigel Short asking any questions related to FIDE's finances and we are getting more answers to FIDE's finances in the last two weeks than we have for years.

Finally, I said "let's move on" because I can't see anything specific in Short's past misdeeds as you see them that would prevent him from being FIDE President. I guess if this was like a typical corporate ad for a CEO we would be listing the role, responsibilities and qualities needed to be FIDE President and then one would ask questions at the interview as to how he believed he met them. So if we are going to have a go at Nigel Short I would rather do it on what he would actually do if he got to be FIDE President as he's said pretty much nothing so far and what team he will have to help him.

Chris Rice wrote: ↑

Tue May 22, 2018 1:39 pm

a smear campaign similar to the one you have been running on your blog and this forum

I'm afraid that's a defamatory claim and it needs to be removed.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Tue May 22, 2018 2:05 pm

Chris Rice wrote: ↑

Tue May 22, 2018 1:39 pm

a smear campaign similar to the one you have been running on your blog and this forum

I'm afraid that's a defamatory claim and it needs to be removed.

Wiki's definition "A smear campaign, also referred to as a smear tactic or simply a smear, is an effort to damage or call into question someone's reputation, by propounding negative propaganda. It can be applied to individuals or groups. Common targets are public officials, politicians, political candidates, activists and ex-spouses. The term also applies in other contexts such as the workplace."

I'll certainly withdraw it if it isn't true but negative propaganda directly related to a candidate in an election seem to be consistent with what you have been saying.

It's commonly taken to mean a campaign which says things that aren't true. I suggest you draw posters' attention to anything you consider falls within that category, or remove the allegation.

Dictionary definition

a plan to discredit a public figure by making false accusations

Seems to me Chris has a defence of justinfication.

Hi Michael, I can support my claim with a range of insults running from the many things he said about Kasparov in 1993 to what he has said recently about women and feminists. It would be a very long list indeed. If you think I cannot do that, then I suggest we proceed. If not, you might like to have a think.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Tue May 22, 2018 2:31 pm

Hi Michael, I can support my claim with a range of insults running from the many things he said about Kasparov in 1993 to what he has said recently about women and feminists. It would be a very long list indeed. If you think I cannot do that, then I suggest we proceed. If not, you might like to have a think.

What are you suggesting I should think about?

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Tue May 22, 2018 2:16 pm

It's commonly taken to mean a campaign which says things that aren't true. I suggest you draw posters' attention to anything you consider falls within that category, or remove the allegation.

The three examples that come to mind first are below. I'm surprised you believe you are not trying to tarnish Nigel's reputation with this stuff. Kind of thought that was the point of the blogs.

http://lostontime.blogspot.co.uk/2018/0 ... nigel.html
http://lostontime.blogspot.co.uk/2018/0 ... dy-of.html
http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... ounts.html

Chris - you will show me what "false allegations" are made in those posts.

Chris Rice wrote: ↑

Tue May 22, 2018 2:38 pm

Kind of thought that was the point of the blogs.

Justin is a Nigel hater. I thought that was very clear and has been for years. What's more he would like to get the ECF in particular and English chess players in general to endorse his position, even at the cost of a continued Kirsan or Kirsan's deputy FIDE presidency.