Search "user:somethingpretentious"

@dankdane said in #627: > Did lichess ban A FUCKIN LOT of people or what happened? Chess community used to be pretty level headed, slightly skeptic people, now this debate reads like something off red…

@sgtlaugh said in #611: > Even if we take the higher number here, the probability that all the women are making false allegations would be 0.1^6, which is 1 in a million. Still, think this is a witch …

@friggidyfrank said in #580: > This is a truly dangerous road to go down. This article sounds like it is saying allegations alone ought to be sufficient to charge someone and take away their livelihoo…

@Pashut said in #512: Sure, change the subject completely when you have a good point made against you. Mature and convincing.

@Pashut said in #509: > Which is NOT the case here, because a significant part of the facts (exact dates, names of witnesses, witness statement, police reports, outcomes of court cases, minutes of USC…

@CyberShredder said in #376: > I don't pretend anything, but it is still words. She say, he say, he denies etc. etc. You know that witness testimony is used in courts of law right? > I base my claim t…

@CyberShredder said in #371: > You can decide it's not enough proof if you like, but don't pretend it's just one person making each claim. Frankly the number of people in this thread willing to believ…

@CyberShredder said in #369: > If I understand these cases correctly, it is basically a word against a word. Gareyev and Ramirez are accused, while they themselves deny allegations. If US chess would'…

The stupidest thing about the innocent until proven guilty arguments here is that US Chess and STLCC did find sufficient evidence to take action. The problem was the years of inaction and dismissal be…

@JoJoBonnette said in #217: > The title and prevailing article? Where does it say it isn't permanent? However, in our opinion, both US Chess and STLCC have failed to demonstrate an important aspect of…