Originally posted by NigelDaviesThere 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.
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.
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 wormwoodWell 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 if I post "david tebb is a hack!" as a comment on your website, tebb should sue you?
So in other words there's no comparison between the two situations.
Originally posted by NigelDaviesMaybe 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.
So in other words there's no comparison between the two situations.
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI'm kind of snowed under right now, maybe later.
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]
Thanks for the reminder that this isn't going anywhere, but I do feel better about getting it off my chest!
Originally posted by CrowleyGee, I wonder which chess clubs some of you guys belong too.🙂
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 NigelDaviesApparently, your panties are simply wound far too tight. Perhaps you should switch to checkers.
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
Hi Nigel.
You are of course correct.
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).
Geoff Chandler
I am - just won 10 on the bounce at 5 min.
Stop hawking around a noticeboard like lost a soul
with nothing really to say.
come and play some blitz.
I'm using my poxy work lab top and have to move with
the finger pad - it's hopless.
(don't usually reply to anonymous messages - but as I know
whi you are - an exception was made)
Originally posted by CrowleyThe main problem, of course, is that these laws vary so much from nation to nation.
All that article showed was that there are thousands of different interpretations, laws and loopholes.
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.