Hey guys,what do you think about Magnus Carlsens accusation against Niemann because of cheating and Hans Niemanns advertisement and fine of min. 100.000.000$?Tell me,what do you think about it.But please don’t write hating things
What a refreshing topic.
@MM007 said in #1:
> Hey guys,what do you think about Magnus Carlsens accusation against Niemann because of cheating and Hans Niemanns advertisement and fine of min. 100.000.000$?Tell me,what do you think about it.But please don’t write hating things
Before accusing someone you need proofs, otherwise is defamation.
> Hey guys,what do you think about Magnus Carlsens accusation against Niemann because of cheating and Hans Niemanns advertisement and fine of min. 100.000.000$?Tell me,what do you think about it.But please don’t write hating things
Before accusing someone you need proofs, otherwise is defamation.
I think this has gone way out of hand.
But oh well, people at work now ask: "Don't you play chess?" "Yes." "Have you heard about the cheating scandal?" "Which one?" "The one with the anal beads!" "Oh, yeah, that one. Let me explain-" "Did he really use anal beads to win? Or is the world champion such a sore loser?" It would be nice to have so many people interested in chess, but without some controversy or cheating scandal. I mean, most people now know of the worldchampion as a sore loser and of some random teenager using anal beads to give him the best moves, but they of course don't know that neither one is proven/ true. But they don't care, as long as it is a scandal and it envolves anal beads.
But oh well, people at work now ask: "Don't you play chess?" "Yes." "Have you heard about the cheating scandal?" "Which one?" "The one with the anal beads!" "Oh, yeah, that one. Let me explain-" "Did he really use anal beads to win? Or is the world champion such a sore loser?" It would be nice to have so many people interested in chess, but without some controversy or cheating scandal. I mean, most people now know of the worldchampion as a sore loser and of some random teenager using anal beads to give him the best moves, but they of course don't know that neither one is proven/ true. But they don't care, as long as it is a scandal and it envolves anal beads.
@george_mcgeorge said in #4:
> I think this has gone way out of hand.
>
> But oh well, people at work now ask: "Don't you play chess?" "Yes." "Have you heard about the cheating scandal?" "Which one?" "The one with the anal beads!" "Oh, yeah, that one. Let me explain-" "Did he really use anal beads to win? Or is the world champion such a sore loser?" It would be nice to have so many people interested in chess, but without some controversy or cheating scandal. I mean, most people now know of the worldchampion as a sore loser and of some random teenager using anal beads to give him the best moves, but they of course don't know that neither one is proven/ true. But they don't care, as long as it is a scandal and it envolves anal beads.
Well in a world where the twit in chief his obsessed with others' sexual I guess with can't complain when coworkers are bring the subject of Chess and anal beads? Right?
;-P
> I think this has gone way out of hand.
>
> But oh well, people at work now ask: "Don't you play chess?" "Yes." "Have you heard about the cheating scandal?" "Which one?" "The one with the anal beads!" "Oh, yeah, that one. Let me explain-" "Did he really use anal beads to win? Or is the world champion such a sore loser?" It would be nice to have so many people interested in chess, but without some controversy or cheating scandal. I mean, most people now know of the worldchampion as a sore loser and of some random teenager using anal beads to give him the best moves, but they of course don't know that neither one is proven/ true. But they don't care, as long as it is a scandal and it envolves anal beads.
Well in a world where the twit in chief his obsessed with others' sexual I guess with can't complain when coworkers are bring the subject of Chess and anal beads? Right?
;-P
<Comment deleted by user>
@pappet365 said in #3:
> Before accusing someone you need proofs, otherwise is defamation.
Fine! Nieman should sue him. It would make a nice Reality TV Show!
The caveat being that this time he'll have to answer questions. He can ask the twit in chief if it is fun. Also I'm not sure he can afford lawyers as efficient than the twit in chief did.
> Before accusing someone you need proofs, otherwise is defamation.
Fine! Nieman should sue him. It would make a nice Reality TV Show!
The caveat being that this time he'll have to answer questions. He can ask the twit in chief if it is fun. Also I'm not sure he can afford lawyers as efficient than the twit in chief did.
@RAMSESXIII said in #6:
> Or freedom of speech.
> First US amendment.
Freedom of speech means something else, not that you can talk shite about everyone just because
> Or freedom of speech.
> First US amendment.
Freedom of speech means something else, not that you can talk shite about everyone just because
@bfchessguy said in #7:
>
Not to really start the topic, but he didn't have to answer to anything.
Luckily it's not Middle Ages anymore, anyone is innocent until proven guilty and not the other way round.
So it's Carlsen that has to prove what he is saying, not Niemann
>
Not to really start the topic, but he didn't have to answer to anything.
Luckily it's not Middle Ages anymore, anyone is innocent until proven guilty and not the other way round.
So it's Carlsen that has to prove what he is saying, not Niemann
@pappet365 said in #9:
> Not to really start the topic, but he didn't have to answer to anything.
> Luckily it's not Middle Ages anymore, anyone is innocent until proven guilty and not the other way round.
> So it's Carlsen that has to prove what he is saying, not Niemann
Not sure you're familiar with rules of civil procedure for the courts in USA.
Last time I read about it, it was written that *** both parties *** will have a certain amount of time in which to answer the questions, dictated by the rules of civil procedure for the court hearing the case.
Sometimes some persons or companies will avoid suing because they do not want having to answer questions that would bring to the light some things.
> Not to really start the topic, but he didn't have to answer to anything.
> Luckily it's not Middle Ages anymore, anyone is innocent until proven guilty and not the other way round.
> So it's Carlsen that has to prove what he is saying, not Niemann
Not sure you're familiar with rules of civil procedure for the courts in USA.
Last time I read about it, it was written that *** both parties *** will have a certain amount of time in which to answer the questions, dictated by the rules of civil procedure for the court hearing the case.
Sometimes some persons or companies will avoid suing because they do not want having to answer questions that would bring to the light some things.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.