CJ banned from presenting the prizes.

Originally posted by patrickrutgers
Well, this is just an ignorant thing to say. Homosexuality is quite different from bestiality, pedophilia, homophobia, or racism. Advocating for a group to have the same rights that other people have, as the T-shirt did, is not the same as discrimination or advocating for rights that nobody else has.

gay rights, what rights have gays not got in britain that other people have? they can adopt (smokers cant) get married work in any job, have gay only pubs and clubs and have more marches than a million callendars. how are they discriminated against?

Originally posted by greenerpawn
It's de mooi, not Mahmood.

He wasn't banned. He got upset when an arbiter suggested the shirt may be inappropriate for the prize giving (as juniors were present), and withdrew. Then he made a statement on twitter and another via Ray Keene that it was disgraceful he had been "banned". He has since admitted to overreacting.

Making false statements pu ...[text shortened]... us side he has been a hard working president putting a lot of miles and money into the job.

The vain t**t, (and I don't mean twit) changed his name to de mooi, which, apparently, means 'handsome man'.

T**T !!!!!

There's enough sex in chess as it is, there's no reason to be blatant about it.

This thread will go places.

Spot for sale!

Edit: Spot sold to The American Gay Rights Movement

Originally posted by adramforall
The gay rights movement just want to change laws and peoples point of view to make what they do legal and acceptable.

If you had a group of paedos looking to change the law to make what they do legal and acceptable would you find the T shirt offensive?

The fact that you still have the chutzpah to compare gay rights and paedophilia ((and use that abbreviation, just like your mates at the Daily Hate), says more about you than anybody should ever have to know.

You disgust me.

Richard

Originally posted by michael liddle
The vain t**t, (and I don't mean twit) changed his name to de mooi, which, apparently, means 'handsome man'.

It doesn't. He thinks he speaks Dutch; he is wrong.

Richard

'mooi' means 'pretty'
'de mooi' would mean 'the pretty' but you can't say that.It's meaningless

Did he really change his name for that reason?Or is it just a rumor?
If he did he should wear a FAIL t-shirt instead 😀

Originally posted by adramforall
You just didn't get the point of my post.

The gay rights movement just want to change laws and peoples point of view to make what they do legal and acceptable.

If you had a group of paedos looking to change the law to make what they do legal and acceptable would you find the T shirt offensive?

Wearing the T shirt was the wrong thing to do.

I also didn't get the point of your post, and you do a bad job explaining it. You probably (hopefully) meant no harm, but the way you put it is very wrong indeed!

Whatever gay people do (other than hetero), no one gets hurt emotionally or physically. No one must do anything against his/her will. With the examples you gave (sex with children/animals) it is a whole different matter. Therefore you cannot compare this. So please don't.

And you use the word offensive. I fail to see how anyone can be offended by a t-shirt about gay rights/organisation. You may find it inappropriate or whatever, but offensive no. Not if you respect other people and accept the fact that other people may think and feel different than yourself.

Next time explain yourself better, or refrain from such false comparisons.

Adje.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
The fact that you still have the chutzpah to compare gay rights and paedophilia ((and use that abbreviation, just like your mates at the Daily Hate), says more about you than anybody should ever have to know.

You disgust me.

Richard

What does it say about me?

I wasn't comparing gay rights to paedophilia, just comparing two minority groups fighting for their apparent rights.

I dislike gays and I dislike paedos, the latter group, however, in my opinion should be shot. I also dislike people who use drugs and am no lover of religion.

Guess what I have the ability to make these choices.

If that disgusts you, or anyone else, so be it. I won't lose any sleep.

After all you have the choice whether you find me disgusting or not.

Originally posted by adje
I also didn't get the point of your post, and you do a bad job explaining it. You probably (hopefully) meant no harm, but the way you put it is very wrong indeed!

Whatever gay people do (other than hetero), no one gets hurt emotionally or physically. No one must do anything against his/her will. With the examples you gave (sex with children/animals) it is a ...[text shortened]... urself.

Next time explain yourself better, or refrain from such false comparisons.

Adje.

I was comparing minority group with minority group, not the activities of either.

Please don't tell me whether I should think things are just inapproriate rather than offensive.

If I stopped and had a pee in a busy street would it be

a. inappropriate
b. disgusting
c. offensive
d. funny

It could be any of the above depending on how the individual views the situation.

Originally posted by adramforall
What does it say about me?

I wasn't comparing gay rights to paedophilia, just comparing two minority groups fighting for their apparent rights.

I dislike gays and I dislike paedos, the latter group, however, in my opinion should be shot. I also dislike people who use drugs and am no lover of religion.

Guess what I have the ability to make the ...[text shortened]... won't lose any sleep.

After all you have the choice whether you find me disgusting or not.

What's the name of the 'paedophile rights' movement?

Originally posted by adramforall
I was comparing minority group with minority group, not the activities of either.

Please don't tell me whether I should think things are just inapproriate rather than offensive.

If I stopped and had a pee in a busy street would it be

a. inappropriate
b. disgusting
c. offensive
d. funny

It could be any of the above depending on how the individual views the situation.

And I was saying that your comparison was not a good one, actually based on the activities of both. But apparently we disagree on that one, that's ok.

About the peeing example, you can add e. illegal.

As you point out, you are free to think what you want. I only hope that when you look at a gay person, that you accept the fact that it may or may not be a (very) nice person apart from being gay.

Maybe somewhere along the way you will change your point of view, or maybe I do. We just should keep our minds open, more we cannot do.

Enough said? If not, we should take it to another forum.

Adje

Originally posted by greenpawn34
I supported his stance (withdrawing from the prize giving) no room for
anything like that in Chess. But now all the facts are out I think a bit of
give and take on this one would have sorted things out.

So is he the chairman of the gay rights group or the chairman of the ECF? So he really wasn't there to present any prizes or promote chess but just to stir controversy. That is what is expected of an ECF chairman isn't it? 😉

Originally posted by kopatov
So is he the chairman of the gay rights group or the chairman of the ECF? So he really wasn't there to present any prizes or promote chess but just to stir controversy. That is what is expected of an ECF chairman isn't it? 😉

no,that's the FIDE president's job