English Chess Forum

Must just say I find that a very odd question indeed - coming from you, of all people, Mr Motivator.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑ What are you trying to achieve here?

That leaves you wide open to the leading forensic question of the day -

What are YOU trying to achieve here?

John McKenna wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:34 pm

I don't.
Alex H was right to retract - even if he won't come clean.

I think you've misunderstood me - I lamented the consequences of Alex's action in "doing the correct thing".

Again, I don't agree. (Last time I was disagreeing with Paul Cooksey who just happened to be agreeing with you . Thereby showing that although great minds think alike they are still different minds.)

If Alex H had done the "correct thing" in the first place he wouldn't have had to correct himself subsequently.

Quite how he managed to have a conversation without realising it was confidential escapes me. That he had to apologise and have all trace (except one it seems) of his posts relating to the conversation removed is an indication that he was not happy leaving things as they were.

Can you elaborate on exactly what course of action Alex H should have taken so that he wouldn't "simply draw added attention to it"?

What course of action should he or anybody else take now that wouldn't further "draw added attention to it"?

John McKenna wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:35 am

Can you elaborate on exactly what course of action Alex H should have taken so that he wouldn't "simply draw added attention to it"?

Certainly not. I wouldn't presume to tell someone who has made an error of judgment exactly how best to mitigate the resulting situation. Over the years I've occasionally been there myself and it can be a difficult decision.

John McKenna wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:35 am

Quite how he managed to have a conversation without realising it was confidential escapes me.

The answer to that may be that there was nothing in the conversation that was clearly of a confidential nature and the person he was speaking to didn't say it was confidential until sometime after the conversation took place. I think it pretty certain that if Alex's post had contained obviously confidential information it would be caused comment on here, which it didn't. My partial quote of his post definitely does not contain anything confidential.

Safe to say that I agree with what Ian has posted immediately above.

I also understand Roger's reluctance to elaborate in the preceeding post. I just don't agree with his (and Paul Cooksey's) walking-on--eggshells approach to the matter.

More has gone on than meets the eye here. Ignoring it or trying to sweep it under the carpet is the stock in trade of supposedly sensitive people. Oversensitive might be more descriptive of some people's reactions to many things that go bump in the night on this forum.

John is obviously entitled to his opinion and has chosen an entirely civilised approach to expressing it. As for myself, I remain [and intend to remain] in the dark - really not interested! - as to the exact nature of the indiscretion which to my mind is an entirely different question to how, if at all, one best mitigates such indiscretions.

"really not interested"

Quite! I would not object if Carl locked this thread until something new and of genuine interest occurs. It is being kept alive by artificial means right now.

Jonathan Rogers wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:28 am

"really not interested"

Quite! I would not object if Carl locked this thread until something new and of genuine interest occurs

Isn't that coming up next month?

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:42 am

Jonathan Rogers wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:28 am

"really not interested"

Quite! I would not object if Carl locked this thread until something new and of genuine interest occurs

Isn't that coming up next month?

I can wait

"Quite how he managed to have a conversation without realising it was confidential escapes me."

Maybe it wasn't confidential at the time, then someone realised later, that they didn't want it discussed, so decided retrospectively it was confidential?

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:22 pm

"Quite how he managed to have a conversation without realising it was confidential escapes me."

Maybe it wasn't confidential at the time, then someone realised later, that they didn't want it discussed, so decided retrospectively it was confidential?

A conversation either was confidential or was not. It cannot become confidential after the fact!

https://beauchess.blogspot.com/

Tim Spanton wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:10 pm

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:22 pm

"Quite how he managed to have a conversation without realising it was confidential escapes me."

Maybe it wasn't confidential at the time, then someone realised later, that they didn't want it discussed, so decided retrospectively it was confidential?

A conversation either was confidential or was not. It cannot become confidential after the fact!

https://beauchess.blogspot.com/

Think stable doors and bolting horses!