starting a flame (to paulisfree2b)

You should advise to anyone that they are accepting a 3 days move
timeout, you are not the first usinng this tool. You have the right to
do it but dont look like well.

......yawn.......

Well Schliemann has passed his verdict on the subject, I guess the case is closed. Now that Dave
has enlightened me with his wisdom on the matter, I feel foolish for ever having had a dissenting
opinion. For as every reader of these forums knows, Dave is never wrong.

Alright, here is the crux of the matter: During these recent series of posts Paulisfree2b has been
accused of plotting to take advantage of Bagger and gain an easy victory at his expense. He has
been accused of unsportsmanlike conduct from several quarters. And since he responded
negatively to a couple of the posts in this thread (and who could blame him?) he has been cast as
a pariah to be avoided. For what? Why should Paulisfree2b have to endure such slanders upon his
character when he has done nothing wrong. You prattle on about "sportsmanlike conduct" but the
amount of abuse, both direct and implied, directed toward Paulisfree2b has been most
unsportsmanlike in my opinion. Am I really the only one who feels that Paulisfree2b has been
treated shabbily by the "upstanding" members of RHP?

As for my previous post to you Dave, I agree that it was uncalled for and I withdraw any
insinuations that may have been contained therein.

I consider Dave to be one of my friends on this site, but by no means
does that mean that he and I are always in agreement. But, as most
of us learned in grade school, there is a way to express your
disagreement with someone without adding to the mudslinging. Just
disagree, and get back to your games. You want to sling mud? Get
into politics. Sorry to keep adding to the silliness here-- I just keep
hoping that if I attempt to bring some common sense into the
discussion, maybe things will settle down a little. Good god, just think
what a newcomer to the board would think after looking at the past
couple of weeks worth of posts. If for no one else's sake than Russ
and Chris', let's get our s--t together.
Tim
Tim

I, personally, don't agree.

It would be NICE for all chessplayers to exhibit gentlemen type
behavior, but it is far from required. And since it is not, faulting a
player for timing another out when the time control has expired is not
proper. What is proper is for Chris and/or Russ to include the time
control along with a challenge so the invited player would be fully
aware at the time of acceptance.

I e-mailed Chris and Russ about this issue in the hopes that it will
simply be corrected so the invited player will know up front what the
time control will be. This way we can all play at the time controls we
would like, and with full knowledge.

Just some points.
<ul>
<li>Technically, paulisfree2b had the right to claim victory, and I should have checked the time-out before accepting.
<li>I think several other people already made their point about the distinction between 'have to' versus 'could'. You can also find my view on this matter in there. My thanks to those who took the trouble developing their view .
<li>To paulisfree2b : putting yourself under such a pressure you don't have the time to click the 'send a warning' link is a rather subjective perspective. And nobody has been checkmated.
<li>This discussion leads (again) to personal attacks, and ......yawn....... reactions don't bring a solution. I suggest we stop right here.
<li>I might not be checking the forums for reactions the next 3 day TO.
</ul>
(and I hope the HTML-tags I used don't mess up this post)

If this was a VB board, they wouldn't... (hint, hint)

Rein

Did the same to me, a starting game less than six moves....

This is a good way to get points, I dont know how well plays but....bad
signs.