European Individual championships

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Given that Robbie seems to consider my views irreparably 'biased' on account
of gender, he should avoid asking me directly for my views in the first place -
Duchess64

Why should I avoid asking anyone anything simply because of bias? We have all
formed our own evaluations through having a bias towards some position or
another. If I was concerned about bias i would never read another editorial in a
newspaper or magazine, ever again, would I? To me 'bias', is not a dirty word, and
please do not construe this as back peddling, its to what extent and why a bias has
arisen that is the interesting thing.

I tried my very best to remain detached from the arguments and time and again
attempts were made to make it personal, notwithstanding , i was subject to,

1. If you're unable to control yourself then that is your problem - DCpoc1985
2. He is a religious fundamentalist - Proper Knob
3. Are you on drugs? - Proper Knob
4. Only someone who is mentally impaired - Proper Knob
5. Your poor impressionable mind from such perversions - Shallow Blue

Please note and it has been my position from the start that these reprobates have
FAILED to understand as is evidenced by their personal remarks, ITS NOT ABOUT
ME! nor my morality, nor my religious bias, nor my view of women, nor my view of
women chess players, nor my view of women's cleavage, nor my self control, nor
my ability to read, nor my ability to survive in Glasgow, nor my cognitive processes,
ITS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME, can you understand.

My position which i have asserted in unequivocal terms from the beginning is that
FIDE has the right to impose, as the governing body, a dress code. If those
persons who wrote their personal insults would simply take the time to understand
this rather important facet, they may do better instead of constantly dragging the
discussion to a personal level with tabloid style journalism and sensationalistic
accusations!

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Your opinion of "modesty" does not conform to that of most of your compatriots, but it does seem quite similar to that of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. If the mere sight of a woman's chest is so traumatising to you, I'm surprised you manage to survive in today's Glasgow. Perhaps you should start wearing a blindfold, to protect your poor impressionable mind from such perversions as, shock horror, a woman who is not ashamed of herself?

Richard

Its not about me, you may want to take this rather important detail into consideration
when forming your poisoned darts and dragging the discussion to the level of a tabloid
newspaper with this sensationalistic style journalism.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

FIDE is NOT a democracy. It is up to "the governed" to join FIDE and nowhere does it say that you will have the right to vote on FIDE decisions upon joining FIDE.


If I provide a service it is not up to the people enjoying this service to tell me how to run this service. If they don't want it they shouldn't order it. If people stop using my service I may be persuaded to change it but as long as business is booming I'm not going to cow-tow to a handfull of naysayers.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Understanding is the primary objective, if I can understand your position, then even if I
do not agree with it, I know why you have adopted that position. You are concerned
with, violation of personal freedoms, lack of transparency, lack of consultation and lack
of due democratic process.

As i have asserted and it has yet to the best of my knowledge not been refuted, why is
asking one to be modest an infringement of ones personal freedoms? I myself have no
real issues, FIDE as tomo has pointed out is not a democracy and their demands to be
modest dont appear to me to be draconian in the least.

1. If you're unable to control yourself then that is your problem - DCpoc1985

I'm not re-entering the debate, but I thought I'd point this out.

I was using you in the more general sense, admittedly though it is easy to see why you would interpret this as a remark specifically aimed at you.

Originally posted by DCpoc1985
I'm not re-entering the debate, but I thought I'd point this out.

I was using you in the more general sense, admittedly though it is easy to see why you would interpret this as a remark specifically aimed at you.

that's because it was, no back peddling and no excuses, a public apology will suffice.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
that's because it was, no back peddling and no excuses, a public apology will suffice.

Yes, a public apology for calling me a liar might be enough.

I'm not sure tho.

How's about you say sorry and we'll find out.

Originally posted by DCpoc1985
Yes, a public apology for calling me a liar might be enough.

I'm not sure tho.

How's about you say sorry and we'll find out.

ok i am sorry that your pants are on fire, where's my apology! here are your words, again,

Why would I need to play blindfold chess? I'm not the one trying to tell my opponents what to wear.

If you're unable to control yourself then that is your problem.

how are we to understand your back peddling? that the initial statement aimed at
me directly with reference to a comment I made regarding playing blindfold should
somehow miraculously and suddenly change and become a generic abstract
statement made with reference to no one in particular. Plueeeeze, it stretches the
imagination of even the most imaginative and dedicated daydreamer. Never the
less, seeing that I am a kind hearted and benevolent individual, humble and good
looking as well, willing to impute pure motives to you, i say sorry, your not a liar.