|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > February 2005 > More scandals from England?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
More scandals from England?
|
|
| CRuderman 2005-02-18, 5:50 pm |
| BarbaraVilliers wrote:
quote:
> Wlodzimerz
> I get your point. I enjoy having doors opened for me and other
> gentlemanly courtesies paid to me.But then I am happy to sew repairs
in
quote:
> my husband's clothes when they are needed. I am not a strident
> femminist but one who enjoys the differences between the genders.
> However on a newsgroup such as this I would expect rough handling.
> Indeed a fine example comes from the UK congress Sutton 94 where I
was
quote:
> punched in the face by Alec Webster the arbiter and left by a number
of
quote:
> "gentlemen" on the ground unconscious. As a result my husband no
longer
quote:
> allows me to attend a chess event without him being there to protect
> me.
> The worst part of it all was the puncher trying to lie his way out of
> it.
> regards
> BarbaraVilliers
Mrs. Villiers,
It is unfortunate that this has happened to you. Again, we don't know
both sides of the story. We have only heard from you as usual just
like other accusations you have made. We do know that Mr. Berez
didn't agree with you and he got rid of you. You can't expect
kindness from people when you like to behave this way. You seem to be
very paranoid when people return fire. I agree with Mr. Innes. You
need to learn to accept or tolerate other people's views as well
instead of being so vile.
| |
| Chess One 2005-02-18, 5:50 pm |
|
quote:
>You seem to be
> very paranoid when people return fire. I agree with Mr. Innes. You
> need to learn to accept or tolerate other people's views as well
> instead of being so vile.
Mr. Innes thinks rather more than that. He thinks we have now seen two sides
of a coin. (I have not thought Louise to be 'paranoid', BTW.)
It really doesn't matter very much what we /resolve/ about these ugly
circumstances, since they are now water under the bridge. But I suggest we
should note that they exist, are common occurrences, and widespread.
Whether one sides with Louise or other women on what the consequence should
be in terms of chess development for women, a social prejudice against women
seems to be a clearly established feature here. Its no different than from
other writers.
The only difference between Louise and women who do not play in "men's"
tournaments seems to me to be how much prejudice one wishes to tolerate
while still being able to play chess. Surely this must be everyone's choice
for themselves?
One 'choice' is no choice in this instance, since this level of affront
would ensure that many women would not persist in playing chess after these
experiences. If there is any 'vile' here, that's it. I cannot agree with
Louise, therefore, that these conditions should be the only ones available
to women players.
It would be a mistake for me to continue writing publicly when issues have
become overly-personalised around a few named-characters, and a majority of
opinion comes from previously unknown 'anons'. I would resist drawing too
many inferences from too narrow and unexamined a selection of experiences.
Perhaps in the end I have wound up agreeing with nobody, however, I thank
all contributors for their contribution, and I hope that in looking at the
overall picture we all obtain a better sense of these issues by having
shared our perspectives.
Phil Innes
| |
| CRuderman 2005-02-18, 5:50 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
You[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Mr. Innes thinks rather more than that. He thinks we have now seen
two sides
quote:
> of a coin. (I have not thought Louise to be 'paranoid', BTW.)
>
> It really doesn't matter very much what we /resolve/ about these ugly
quote:
> circumstances, since they are now water under the bridge. But I
suggest we
quote:
> should note that they exist, are common occurrences, and widespread.
>
> Whether one sides with Louise or other women on what the consequence
should
quote:
> be in terms of chess development for women, a social prejudice
against women
quote:
> seems to be a clearly established feature here. Its no different than
from
quote:
> other writers.
>
> The only difference between Louise and women who do not play in
"men's"
quote:
> tournaments seems to me to be how much prejudice one wishes to
tolerate
quote:
> while still being able to play chess. Surely this must be everyone's
choice
quote:
> for themselves?
The world according to Barbara! If you look like a woman, act like a
woman, behave like a woman, and play in women's events, you must be
evil!
quote:
> One 'choice' is no choice in this instance, since this level of
affront
quote:
> would ensure that many women would not persist in playing chess after
these
quote:
> experiences. If there is any 'vile' here, that's it. I cannot agree
with
quote:
> Louise, therefore, that these conditions should be the only ones
available
quote:
> to women players.
>
> It would be a mistake for me to continue writing publicly when issues
have
quote:
> become overly-personalised around a few named-characters, and a
majority of
quote:
> opinion comes from previously unknown 'anons'. I would resist drawing
too
quote:
> many inferences from too narrow and unexamined a selection of
experiences.
We know about Ray Gordon supporting Barbara's views. How groovy!
quote:
> Perhaps in the end I have wound up agreeing with nobody, however, I
thank
quote:
> all contributors for their contribution, and I hope that in looking
at the
quote:
> overall picture we all obtain a better sense of these issues by
having
quote:
> shared our perspectives.
I have my own take: "Pro-Choice". Let each woman makes her own
decision.
quote:
> Phil Innes
| |
| BarbaraVilliers 2005-02-18, 9:48 pm |
| ah CRuderman alias Mr Truong agan. At least I don't require the aliases
you desperately seek. I'm not paranoid but you are suffering from a
personality disorder.
Joel Berez had nothing to do with anything that occurred at Sutton and
furthermore I am not paranoid. But then you are known for being
paranoid and everyone thinks you have a screw loose. Go back on your
medication lol
BarbaraVilliers
| |
| BarbaraVilliers 2005-02-18, 9:48 pm |
| Precisely! only you didn't approve of my decision did you? Thats why
you keep writing vitriolic posts about me
BarbaraVilliers
| |
| BarbaraVilliers 2005-02-18, 9:48 pm |
| "The only difference between Louise and women who do not play in
"men's"
tournaments seems to me to be how much prejudice one wishes to tolerate
while still being able to play chess. Surely this must be everyone's
choice
for themselves? "
Phil
as I'm a stubborn Celt I'm prepared to tolerate whatever level of
prejudice is required to play mixed chess.
Some of maybe the majority of women are unable or unwilling to cope
with this. That is their decision.I am not condemning them for it.I
just don't want to limit myself with female chess.
Also my pigheaded streak says why give the prejudice any victory by
opting out of the way I want to play chess.
A friend of mine was here today looking at the posts. He is also a
member of Chess-Live who witnessed the assault on me at Sutton. He
looked at your comments and agreed you made a decent contribution
(although he also disapproves of female only chess events). When he saw
CRuderman and MilChess he wondered if someonebody had a screw loose.
BarbaraVilliers
| |
| CRuderman 2005-02-18, 9:48 pm |
| Mrs. Villiers,
If you want to attack Mr. Truong, be my guest. I could not care less.
I started to play chess before you and him were born. I thought some
of the posters here were bad before but no one comes close to you.
Your attitude and your language is an embarrassment to all women out
there. If it makes you feel large to attack and insult people then
welcome.
| |
| Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod) 2005-02-18, 9:48 pm |
| CRuderman or whatever:
quote:
> You need to learn ...
Anonymous shit like you has no right
to lecture anybody who posts under
her/his own name.
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
| |
| BarbaraVilliers 2005-02-19, 5:49 pm |
| you are ridiculous.If you find me so abhorrent why do you post to
me!!!!
BarbaraVilliers
| |
|
|
"CRuderman" <CRuderman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108743807.686343.286870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> It is unfortunate that this has happened to you. Again, we don't know
> both sides of the story. We have only heard from you as usual just
> like other accusations you have made. We do know that Mr. Berez
> didn't agree with you and he got rid of you. You can't expect
> kindness from people when you like to behave this way. You seem to be
> very paranoid when people return fire. I agree with Mr. Innes. You
> need to learn to accept or tolerate other people's views as well
> instead of being so vile.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander Charlie.
|
| |
|
|