Originally posted by NigelDavies I've already detailed my complaints against SBCC. They were the publishers, there's a degree of incitement in their review and then one of their members spread this story far and wide.
B%^%$rds as far as I'm concerned.
There is a difference between publishers of a book and someone who hosts a website. Publishers of a book have the chance to review what is to be published before it gets printed.
It will also be like trying to sue Royal Mail for being the medium for sending a letter which contained libelous content.
Originally posted by wormwood so if I post "david tebb is a hack!" as a comment on your website, tebb should sue you?
Well first of all I wouldn't incite comments like that with the sort of article SBCC published. I certainly wouldn't approve them - like SBCC I'm moderated. If I wasn't moderated I'd delete it the minute I spotted it. He also wouldn't be too damaged by it because his livelihood isn't at stake.
So in other words there's no comparison between the two situations.
Do you have time to play a couple of games on this site, Nigel?
(Not with me I add!)
Under the T.O.S of this site you may refer to your own books!
😀
Originally posted by NigelDavies So in other words there's no comparison between the two situations.
Maybe not, but the bottom line is: You're still an apparent bully prone to over-reaction coupled with misunderstanding of basic linguistic concepts, as you aptly display on the previous page, and if I did actually give a damn about my chess - I for one wouldn't buy your book after seeing your silly rants in these forums.
Originally posted by Squelchbelch I think this is just going round & round.
Do you have time to play a couple of games on this site, Nigel?
(Not with me I add!)
Under the T.O.S of this site you [b]may refer to your own books!
😀[/b]
I'm kind of snowed under right now, maybe later.
Thanks for the reminder that this isn't going anywhere, but I do feel better about getting it off my chest!
Originally posted by Crowley Maybe not, but the bottom line is: You're still an apparent bully prone to over-reaction coupled with misunderstanding of basic linguistic concepts, as you aptly display on the previous page, and if I did actually give a damn about my chess - I for one wouldn't buy your book after seeing your silly rants in these forums.
Gee, I wonder which chess clubs some of you guys belong too.🙂
Originally posted by NigelDavies Here we go again, I've already had to answer this stuff in several other forums.
Just to set the record straight, the S&BCC blog published several comments that said I'd 'ripped off' and 'plaigarised' Ray Keene's Flank Openings. All that’s left is the negative, anonymous review that rather deliberately sparked them. I was well within my rights to get ...[text shortened]... . Libel and other damaging actions are a more serious matter entirely.
Nigel
Apparently, your panties are simply wound far too tight. Perhaps you should switch to checkers.
If you want to review a book (good or bad) then it must be done
under your own name - I dislike all this anonimity nonsense but
go along with it on sites like this as I'm only here to kick ass
at five minute chess and not say anything controversial.
I'd forget it all- I often do when I upset someone on Chandler Cornered.
The Exciting Reti Hmmmm is that not an oxymoron?
I tell what chess book needs written.
An explanation in layman's terms why some chess players are
better than others.
Is it born intelligence, will to win, luck, the result of study,
personal defects, nationality, coaches & trainers?
It has always intrigued me.
I know guys read books and study, read books and study yet
they seem to progress.
I think you need to prepare a questionairre (best book, age taught, etc etc and send it to the top 100 players in Britain - then analyse the results.
There that will keep you busy over the Summer (and out of trouble).
Originally posted by Crowley All that article showed was that there are thousands of different interpretations, laws and loopholes.
The main problem, of course, is that these laws vary so much from nation to nation.
For example, it is much easier for a public figure to sue for libel in the UK than in the US, which is probably part of the reason the USCF is willing to risk getting rid of their cyberliability insurance, as one of the first posts in the thread mentioned.
GM Davies threatens S&BCC blog with legal actio...
21 May '08 16:09
Back to Top