Ed's e-mail misery

[Rebel]

From - That would sound reasonable if Ed wasn't firmly in Quentin's camp...

And - No, I was referring to an e-mail Ed sent me when we were discussing how to fix the forum. Ed said my plan to test on another server, directing all traffic there, could not be attempted without Quentin's permission, because he owns TalkChess, and would sue us.

I did not respond on your first (and untrue) provocation (me in Quentin's camp?) as if I am an obstacle to the transition of another forum, which I am not. But then you could not resist to muddy the waters even more. Hence my reply after all.

I will leave your reaction as is but with the remark it's false, the email shows a different story and I will not hesitate to quote from it, you better first read what you wrote about Quentin and your outrageous plans with him, the disrepect after 24 years of hosting us.

I don't really see any answer to the crucial question there. Yet it was not rocket science. Do you agree with Quentin that he owns the board, or do you agree with Chris that he just hosts it?

As to the other points you raise: I really am not in the mood to argue about those. So I will just post copies of the emails you sent me here, as well as their Google translation, so that people can judge the matter for themselves:

Message from Sep. 7, 2021 20:59

Hoi,

Thanks to Sjrda we now have a clone of TalkChess (as it was a few days ago), at http://212.114.109.12/forum3/ !

Gefeliciteerd met de conversie! Wat was the truuk van Sjrda?

You are encouraged to browse it, to see if you can discover any irregularities. You could also try to post there. Beware, though, that this is not the real TalkChess, and that whatever you post there will sooner or later disappear. Because I intend at some point to make a completely up-to-date backup of the real forum, after locking it, and restore the state of the test forum to that.

Dit vind ik een brug te ver. We moeten eerst de zegen van Quentin hebben. Je wilt toch geen proces aan je broek. Niet dat hij overigens veel keus heeft.

Wat zijn de FTP inlog gegevens?

Groet,

Ed

Hi,

Thanks to Sjrda we now have a clone of TalkChess (as it was a few days ago), at http://212.114.109.12/forum3/ !

Congratulations on the conversion! What was Sjrda's trick?

You are encouraged to browse it, to see if you can discover any irregularities. You could also try to post there. Beware, though, that this is not the real TalkChess, and that whatever you post there will disappear sooner or later. Because I intend at some point to make a completely up-to-date backup of the real forum, after locking it, and restore the state of the test forum to that.

I think this is a bridge too far. We must have Quentin's blessing first. You don't want a lawsuit. Not that he has much choice anyway.

What are the FTP login details?

Greeting,

Ed

Message from Sep. 8, 2021 09:42

Hoi Harm-Geert,

Ik schrik wel een beetje van je houding naar Quentin en hoop dat ik je kan overtuigen om het zo niet te doen en wel om de volgende redenen -

1. Ten eerste hebben we te maken met een commercieel bedrijf dat 24 jaar geinvesteerd heeft in het forum als reclame en dat daar bestellingen uit voortvloeien.

2. forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=67083 Quentin's vraag om donaties. We weten niet hoeveel hij binnen krijgt. En eigenlijk is de hoeveelheid ook niet belangrijk. Quentin kan simpelweg inkomstenderving claimen over [1] en [2].

3. Quentin is m.i. ook slachtoffer, net zo als wij. +/- 2 jaar geleden kreeg Sam een forum update door zijn strot geduwd zonder dat daarom gevraagd werd. De echte namen van mensen waren plots verdwenen, de poll optie werkte niet meer, enz. En daarmee begonnen m.i. ook de 403-Forbidden problemen, eerste slachtoffers de Polen. En zoals Quentin aangaf heeft de provider geklaagd over het aantal IP-deblock verzoeken. M.a.w, hij zit ook shocking klem.

4. Bovendien heb ik voordat ik jou de FTP toegang gaf aan Quentin beloofd dat in het geval het forum niet meer te fixen was en we zouden uitwijken naar een andere server dat niet zonder zijn zegen zou gebeuren. Als ex-commercial heb ik natuurlijk oog voor zaken zoals genoemd in [1] en [2].

Laten we het gewoon netjes afhandelen. Quentin is een geschiikte peer en het komt wel goed. Hij zal maar al te blij zijn dat hij van het gedoe af is en dat het opweegt tegen het verlies van [1] en [2]. Bovendien kunnen we de pijn verzachten door d.m.v. een plaatje plus link naar zijn shop hem te bedanken voor 24 jaar sponsorship.

Een heel verhaal....

Overigens, heb je mijn tip nog geprobeerd?

En kan je als admin wat met de mod_security settings? Lijkt me de lijst met verboden woorden. Zie het phpBB forum -
https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=2547341
https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=2475811

Groet,

Ed

Hi Harm-Geert,

I'm a bit shocked by your attitude towards Quentin and hope I can convince you not to do it that way for the following reasons -

1. First, we are dealing with a commercial company that has invested 24 years in the forum as advertising and that orders are generated from it.

2. forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=67083 Quentin's solicitation for donations. We don't know how much he gets. And actually the amount is not important. Quentin can simply claim loss of income on [1] and [2].

3. I think Quentin is also a victim, just like us. +/- 2 years ago Sam got a forum update shoved down his throat without being asked. The real names of people suddenly disappeared, the poll option no longer worked, etc. And with that the 403-Forbidden problems started, in my opinion, the first victims were the Poles. And as Quentin pointed out, the provider has complained about the number of IP deblock requests. In other words, he is also shockingly stuck.

4. In addition, before I gave you the FTP access, I promised Quentin that in case the forum was unfixable and we would move to another server that wouldn't happen without his blessing. As an ex-commercial I naturally have an eye for things as mentioned in [1] and [2].

Let's just get it right. Quentin is a nice guy and it will be fine. He'll be all too happy to get rid of the hassle and outweigh the loss of [1] and [2]. In addition, we can alleviate the pain by using a picture plus link to his shop thanking him for 24 years of sponsorship.

Quite a story....

By the way, have you tried my tip yet?

And can you as admin what with the mod_security settings? Sounds like a banned word list to me. See the phpBB forum -
https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=2547341
https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=2475811

Greeting,

Ed

In a reply I pointed out that [1] and [2] were of course bullshit, because while we were running tests on the mockup the latter would just as much direct business to Chess U.S.A. and generate donations, as it would be completely indistinguishable, so that no one would even notice. Least of all Quentin.

You never replied to point 1-4. Not even after a reminder.

Instead you went for a forum of your own, ignored my proposal about ownership by democratic elections.

Your person is not to be trusted.

But never mind, the forum is running fine and your hijack try has failed.

[dkappe]

Your person is not to be trusted.

But never mind, the forum is running fine and your hijack try has failed.

Ed, why all this drama? And do you think the fundamental issues with the forum have been fixed long term? I encourage you to be proactive instead of ascribing dark motives to those trying to fix the problem.

[Rebel]

Your person is not to be trusted.

But never mind, the forum is running fine and your hijack try has failed.

Ed, why all this drama? And do you think the fundamental issues with the forum have been fixed long term? I encourage you to be proactive instead of ascribing dark motives to those trying to fix the problem.

The current situation is that HGM needs the blessing of chessusa. Just as it was agreed before Quentin gave FTP access to the Talkchess server.

[hgm]

I am not sure why you try to bury youself in such a swamp of lies. From the mails above people can see why the statement that you consider Quentin the owner of TalkChess simply follows from what you wrote to me, or is a 'provocation'. I can add that I am in no way obliged to respond to your silly questions, but that in fact I did promptly pointed out their irrelevance, without any reminder:

Hoi Ed,

Ik denk dat het niet erg zinvol is om hier onderling over te discussieren. TalkChess is van de leden, en die moeten beslissen wat we gaan doen. Als Quentin een geschikte peer is zal hij zich daar zonder slag of stoot bij neerleggen.

Bovendien zie ik de relevantie van je punt 1 en 2 niet. Of Quentin/ChessUSA bestellingen of donaties krijgt via het forum is op geen enkele wijze afhankelijk van waar de forum server staat. Het hele idee dat TalkChess voor hem een verdienmodel zou zijn vind ik trouwens al stuitend, en dat je suggereert dat hij zou kunnen overwegen continuering daarvan via de rechter af te dwingen is nogal incompatibel met het begrip "geschikte peer". (Nog afgezien van de juridische lachwekkendheid hiervan...)

Toen ik Quentin hier voor het eerst over mailde, zei hij dat hij maar weer eens naar het forum moest komen om de problemen (in eerste instantie met de moderators) te bespreken. Dat heeft hij tot nu toe niet gedaan. Mijn voorgestelde plan van actie, waar jij je bedenkingen tegen hebt, is op het openbare deel van het forum gepubliceerd. Als Quentin daar bezwaar tegen zou hebben, of in het algemeen invloed wil uitoefenen op de gang van zaken, kan hij zich daar uitten. Dat lijkt mij een betere gang van zaken dan handjeklap spelen via de e-mail. Dus ik zou zeggen, als je je zorgen maakt of het tegen zijn belangen ingaat als wij doen wat nodig is om een goed werkend forum te krijgen, wijs hem dan even op die discussie. Dan kunnen we verder werken volgens het "wie zwijgt stemt toe" principe.

Groetjes,
Harm Geert

Hi Ed,

I don't think there's much point in discussing this amongst ourselves. TalkChess belongs to the members, and they have to decide what we are going to do. If Quentin is a nice guy, he will accept it without a fight.

Also, I don't see the relevance of your point 1 and 2. Whether Quentin/ChessUSA receives orders or donations through the forum is in no way dependent on where the forum server is located. I find the whole idea that TalkChess would be an earning model for him shocking, and that you suggest that he might consider enforcing it through the courts is rather incompatible with the concept of "suitable peernice guy (Not to mention the legal ridiculousness of this...)

When I first emailed Quentin about this, he said he should come back to the forum and discuss the issues (initially with the moderators). He hasn't done that so far. My proposed plan of action, which you have reservations about, has been published in the public section of the forum. If Quentin would object to this, or would generally like to influence the course of events, he can express himself there. That seems to me to be a better course of action than doing our bidding via e-mail. So I'd say if you're concerned whether it would be against his best interests for us to do whatever it takes to get a good working forum, point him out at that discussion. Then we can continue to work according to the "who is silent consents" principle.

Greetings,
Harm Geert

As I see it, the only thing that needs a blessing is if we would permanently want to move the forum to another host. Which, to succeed, would obviously require Chess U.S.A.'s permission, as they would have to be willing to transfer registration of the talkchess.com domain to 'us'. (Or they might want to keep it, and just assign it to the I.P. of a new server.) Since this was never the plan, and the actual plan was designed to be essentially unnoticeable to both Quentin and the operation of the forum (except that at some point all existing problems would suddenly have disappeared as if by magic), there is just nothing to ask permission for. I also don't ask permission to my mortgage bank when I want to move my dining table from one room to another.

So the actual situation is that you have been lying to Quentin about my intentions, in order to prevent I can continue to fix things at his server, and that you now are lying to the forum to scare people away from helping to solve the problems in the mockup. Note that we only have your word for what Quentin is supposed to think, Quentin hasn't said anything about this here.

[Rebel]

Never received that email.

How far are you willing to go.

[hgm]

Well, it is in the 'sent' box of my webmail, as you can see in the screenshot below. And I did not receive it back as 'undeliverable'. So look better, or complain to your e-mail provider. But don't bother us with your failures.

[Rebel]

Ridiculous, email never fails.

You never sent it.

Or made it up.

[willmorton]

Ridiculous, email never fails.

You never sent it.

Or made it up.

and you are running for moderator?

you publicly accuse a well known forum member like HG of faking a screenshot.....shame on you

[Rebel]

The screenshot doesn't add-up, I only received one mail on September 8 and not 3 as listed in his sent box.

Definitely a fake.

Missing 2 emails?

Oh, the irony....

[hgm]

The screenshot doesn't add-up, I only received one mail on September 8 and not 3 as listed in his sent box.

Definitely a fake.

Missing 2 emails?

Oh, the irony....

That you are willing to accuse others of vile deeds just because you overlooked an e-mail or you have a crummy provider is very revealing about your character. It reminds me of the Dutch saying "Zoals de waard is vertrouwt hij zijn gasten" ("The character of the innkeeper determines how much he trusts his guests"). Unfortunately for you, the e-mail record is on a webmail site over which I have no control myself, so everything I say here is provable by the standards that would apply in a court of law. So it might be wise to tune down a bit on your libelous accusations.

But since the later messages of our e-mail exchange suggest that you indeed missed some messages, let me bring you up to speed:

The second e-mail on Sept. 8, sent 13:02, was an afterthought to the previous mail, sent because I realized I had not commented on the mod_secure point you had raised yet.

Ik had nog geen tijd gehad hier eerder naar te kijken. Het beschreven probleem in de 1e link lijkt inderdaad heel veel op wat ik ervaar. Maar wat ik van mod_security begrijp is dat het een deel van de Apache HTTP server is, en op talkchess.com hebben we daar geen toegang toe. (En Quentin ook niet, denk ik. Daarom wilde ik graag een VPS gebruiken i.p.v. een gewone provider te nemen; dan weten we zeker dat we beheersing hebben over alle betrokken componenten.)

Op wo., sep. 8, 2021 om 09:42, Ed Schroder <rebel777@...> schreef:
>
> Overigens, heb je mijn tip nog geprobeerd?
>
> En kan je als admin wat met de mod_security settings? Lijkt me de lijst met verboden woorden. Zie het phpBB forum -
> https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=2547341
> https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=2475811
>
> Groet,
>
> Ed

I hadn't had time to look at this before. The problem described in the 1st link is indeed very similar to what I'm experiencing. But what I understand about mod_security is that it's part of the Apache HTTP server, and on talkchess.com we don't have access to that. (And neither should Quentin, I think. That's why I wanted to use a VPS instead of a regular provider, so we know for sure that we have control over all the components involved.)

On Wed, Sept. 8, 2021 at 09:42, Ed Schroder <rebel777@...> wrote:
>
> By the way, have you tried my tip yet?
>
> And can you, as an admin, do something with the mod_security settings? Sounds like a banned word list to me. See the phpBB forum -
> https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=2547341
> https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=2475811
>
> Greeting,
>
> Ed

The third mail, send 15:27, was a response to your response of this mail.

Op wo., sep. 8, 2021 om 15:27, Ed Schroder <rebel777@...> schreef:
>
> Mee eens, maar zijn we het eveneens eens over te volgen procedure, het gedeelte dat je verwijderd hebt zonder commentaar?
>

Je bedoelt het laten staan van de ChessUSA advertentie/link? Dat is wat mij betreft prima; ik ben nooit van plan geweest wat dan ook te wijzigen aan inhoud en uiterlijk van het forum. Ik wil alleen dat het zonder problemen werkt en voor iedereen bereikbaar is, en op het domein talkchess.com blijft. Als we daarvoor definitief naar een andere server moeten vertrekken kunnen we dat niet zonder medewerking van Quentin doen, want de domeinnaam staat op zijn naam (of die van ChessUSE) geregistreerd. Maar als we denken dat het nuttig is voor testdoeleinden tijdelijk http://talkchess.com door te verwijzen naar http://212.114.109.12/forum3 i.p.v. forum3, dan vind ik niet dat Quentin daar enige zeggenschap in hoeft te hebben. Als hij op de hoogte wil blijven van wat wij doen, prima, dan volgt hij het forum maar. Ik was niet van plan iets te doen zonder dat vantevoren openbaar te maken.

>
>> Ik had nog geen tijd gehad hier eerder naar te kijken. Het beschreven probleem in de 1e link lijkt inderdaad
>> heel veel op wat ik ervaar. Maar wat ik van mod_security begrijp is dat het een deel van de Apache HTTP
>> server is, en op talkchess.com hebben we daar geen toegang toe. (En Quentin ook niet, denk ik. Daarom wilde
>> ik graag een VPS gebruiken i.p.v. een gewone provider te nemen; dan weten we zeker dat we beheersing
>> hebben over alle betrokken componenten.)
>>
>> Op wo., sep. 8, 2021 om 09:42, Ed Schroder <rebel777@...> schreef:
>
> Overigens, heb je mijn tip nog geprobeerd?
>
> En kan je als admin wat met de mod_security settings? Lijkt me de lijst met verboden woorden. Zie het phpBB forum -
> https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=2547341
> https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=2475811
>
> Groet,
>
> Ed

On Wed, Sept. 8, 2021 at 3:27 PM, Ed Schroder <rebel777@...> wrote:
>
> Agree, but do we also agree on the procedure to follow, the part you deleted without comment?
>

You mean leaving the ChessUSA ad/link? That's fine with me; I never intended to make any changes whatsoever to the content and appearance of the forum. I just want it to work flawlessly and be accessible to everyone, and stay on the talkchess.com domain. If we have to move permanently to another server, we can't do that without Quentin's cooperation, because the domain name is registered in his name (or that of ChessUSE). But if we think it's useful for testing purposes temporarily http://talkchess.com by pointing to http://212.114.109.12/forum3 instead of forum3, then I don't think Quentin has any need to have any say in it. If he wants to stay informed about what we do, fine, then he can follow it on the forum. I had no intention of doing anything without making it public beforehand.


>
>> I hadn't had time to look at this before. The problem described in the 1st link is indeed very similar to what I'm experiencing.
>> But what I understand about mod_security is that it's part of the Apache HTTP server,
>> and on talkchess.com we don't have access to that. (And neither should Quentin, I think.
>> That's why I wanted to use a VPS instead of a regular provider, so we know for sure that we have control over all the components involved.)
>>
>> On Wed, Sept. 8, 2021 at 09:42, Ed Schroder <rebel777@...> wrote:

By the way, have you tried my tip yet?

And can you as admin what with the mod_security settings? Sounds like a banned word list to me. See the phpBB forum -
https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=2547341
https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=2475811

Greeting,

Ed

It already puzzled me what you mean by "the part you deleted without comment", as the only thing I had deleted in the mail you quoted was already commented on extensively in the previous mail. So that sets the record straight.

But, as I said, all this is really completely off topic. The issue is whether you and Chris, claimed to be the only remaining members who witnessed events at the time, agree on those events. Chris unequivocally has stated ICD was just host and sponsor, not owner. And I think that your remark "... and your hijack try has failed.", preposterous as it is, in any case leaves little doubt that you think exactly the opposit.