PDA

View Full Version : Matt vs Bill round 974



PHAT
17-07-2004, 07:08 AM
As I said we both are.
There is no inconsistency.

I give up.

It is impossible to enguage in debate with a person who is implacabley wedded to there own correctness. :wall:

rob
17-07-2004, 11:25 AM
I give up.



Something that you are good at, so I understand :)

A major disappointment for the chess community :clap:

Bill Gletsos
17-07-2004, 11:40 AM
I give up.
About time.


It is impossible to enguage in debate with a person who is implacabley wedded to there own correctness. :wall:
Well when one is correct it would be silly for me to do otherwise.
I should of course know better than to debate a fool.

PHAT
17-07-2004, 12:52 PM
Something that you are good at, so I understand :)

A major disappointment for the chess community :clap:

He who laughs last ...

Stay tuned ;)

PHAT
17-07-2004, 12:55 PM
Well when one is correct it would be silly for me to do otherwise.


The irony of this self parody is priceless. :cool:

Bill Gletsos
17-07-2004, 02:30 PM
The irony of this self parody is priceless. :cool:
Yes well a fool like you cannot see the truth when it stares them in the face.

Bill Gletsos
17-07-2004, 02:31 PM
He who laughs last ...

Stay tuned ;)
Your total lack of any contribution to NSW chess whilst on the NSWCA is there for all to see.

All hot air, no action.

PHAT
20-07-2004, 03:40 PM
Yes, but I note fg7 didn't buy into Matt's view.
In my view that says a lot about David(fg7).

What does it say about FG7?


I don't see a single NSWCA councillor buying into your intransient positions on this BB. In fact, the only person here who comes remotely close is KB and that is only because he is a fellow pedant.

Kevin Bonham
20-07-2004, 03:47 PM
I don't see a single NSWCA councillor buying into your intransient positions on this BB. In fact, the only person here who comes remotely close is KB and that is only because he is a fellow pedant.

I'll reply to this garbage in the offtopic section.

Bill Gletsos
20-07-2004, 04:06 PM
What does it say about FG7?
It says he isnt a moron like you.


I don't see a single NSWCA councillor buying into your intransient positions on this BB.
Thats because none of them with the exception of Kerry and Trent post on the bb and very few even occasionaly read it because they consider it a waste of time.


In fact, the only person here who comes remotely close is KB and that is only because he is a fellow pedant.
Well thats better than being a moron like you.

arosar
20-07-2004, 04:29 PM
. . . they consider it a waste of time.

That's just insulting to all of us Bill - your family! If GM Rogers can spare us even just a moment, surely so can the rest of your mob.

AR

skip to my lou
20-07-2004, 04:43 PM
That's just insulting to all of us Bill - your family! If GM Rogers can spare us even just a moment, surely so can the rest of your mob.

AR

They consider communication to be a waste of time, and then wonder why things are like they are.

Bill Gletsos
20-07-2004, 05:07 PM
That's just insulting to all of us Bill - your family!
Its probably because they have generally seen posts like Matt's.


If GM Rogers can spare us even just a moment, surely so can the rest of your mob.
Yes, but no one spouts crap on here about Ian.

Bill Gletsos
20-07-2004, 05:09 PM
They consider communication to be a waste of time, and then wonder why things are like they are.
They know I post here.
Its normally clear what is my personal view and what is a council viewpoint.

skip to my lou
20-07-2004, 05:12 PM
Do they not know that this board is now properly moderated?

Bill Gletsos
20-07-2004, 05:44 PM
Do they not know that this board is now properly moderated?
Rather than moderation issues its more to do with the total crap, beatups, and mindless speculation some posters post.

skip to my lou
20-07-2004, 05:47 PM
beatups?

Bill Gletsos
20-07-2004, 05:49 PM
beatups?
Yes, taking a minor issue and blowing it up out of all proportion.

Garvinator
20-07-2004, 05:56 PM
Yes, taking a minor issue and blowing it up out of all proportion.
that doesnt happen does it :doh: ;) :whistle:

skip to my lou
20-07-2004, 05:56 PM
So if there was no "total crap, beatups, and mindless speculation" all NSWCA councillers will flock here to post?

Garvinator
20-07-2004, 05:58 PM
So if there was no "total crap, beatups, and mindless speculation" all NSWCA councillers will flock here to post?
i think it is not just nswca councillers we need here, but a couple of councillers from the other states too.

skip to my lou
20-07-2004, 05:59 PM
but we will start with nswca councillers first since bill knows them so well.

Bill Gletsos
20-07-2004, 06:14 PM
So if there was no "total crap, beatups, and mindless speculation" all NSWCA councillers will flock here to post?
Not all but I believe some would post occasionally.
It would then become like the ACF Bulletin, i.e you get used to reading it.
Therefore in getting used to reading this BB they would be more inclined to contribute.

Bill Gletsos
20-07-2004, 06:18 PM
but we will start with nswca councillers first since bill knows them so well.
Actually it would probably be more beneficial if someone from CV, the CAQ, the ACTCA and the CAWA posted here.

Trizza
20-07-2004, 08:12 PM
Actually it would probably be more beneficial if someone from CV, the CAQ, the ACTCA and the CAWA posted here.

Don't hold your breath waiting for someone from CAWA to start posting. You'll have to make do with Rob and me (obviously our personal views may differ from those of the CAWA).

Bill Gletsos
20-07-2004, 08:19 PM
Don't hold your breath waiting for someone from CAWA to start posting. You'll have to make do with Rob and me (obviously our personal views may differ from those of the CAWA).
Thats fine.
I only abuse morons and cretins and so far you have shown yourself to be neither. ;)

Cat
20-07-2004, 11:14 PM
Thats fine.
I only abuse morons and cretins and so far you have shown yourself to be neither. ;)

Bill, there is no credit in this admission and I would have been ashamed to have been the author. You abuse anyone who holds a different position to yourself, you simply lack the insight to recognise this.

To find a reason for lack of interest in this BB one has to look no further. You systematically reduce every meaningful and challenging discussion to personal abuse & vitriol.

If one is serious about increasing interest in this BB, then standards of personal behaviour must improve across the board, because this BB is a bad advertisement for chess.

One of the most ridiculous episodes was the dreadful way CL was hounded from the BB. What he was, who he was, who cares? He enriched the BB environment in his own special way. Sadly his cheerful irony has been lost, and the shameful nonsense that accompanied his departure reduced the colour and content of this forum. That the "who is CL" thread was about the longest thread in the history of the BB (just about anyone) only serves to illistrate how purile and sterile the place has become.

With Jenni about to start her junior sub-committee, my reasons for keeping in touch with the BB have reduced. If I need to lobby then another, probably more effective avenue that bi-passes the blockhead now exists. Hopefully Jenni and her group will be able to tread the open road without fear and without cowardice.

To close, I might express my admiration for George H, who I think gives hope the ACF will discover a sense of direction, to Paul B who possesses a level of integrity that is rarely seen, to Jenni and Libby for their determination to plough in the field of hopeless men, to Arosar for his witty cynicism, to Barry for his steadfastness, and to Matt for his sense of justice, humour and imagination. These individuals are the burning spears that illuminate this world, this BB world, this window on Australian Chess.

PHAT
20-07-2004, 11:15 PM
Well thats better than being a moron like you.

Good to see that you are starting to admit your and KB's pedantry.

PHAT
20-07-2004, 11:32 PM
Its normally clear what is my personal view and what is a council viewpoint.

No it isn't. Everyone knows you are the [deleted] of the NSWCA and ACF ratings Officer. As such, when you call 3/4 posters here goose(s), morons, cretins, [deleted], et cetera, you degrade the Office. You are by far the most caustic thread poisoner on this BB. The contempt you show for anyone who stands up to you, stops all but the most robust personalities from ever speaking up. You are a bully. Why?

Garvinator
20-07-2004, 11:45 PM
both of you are incorrect, your continual back and forth blaming each other is what causes threads to die cause no one else will post. Now i guess both of you will just blame the messenger, but im not scared of either of you.

Also your both of your rantings are now of a personal nature and not really related to the topic anymore, so take it to the non chess section.

Bill Gletsos
21-07-2004, 12:12 AM
No it isn't. Everyone knows you are the [deleted] of the NSWCA and ACF ratings Officer. As such, when you call 3/4 posters here goose(s), morons, cretins, [deleted], et cetera, you degrade the Office.
As usual you cannot even get simple facts right.
I have referred to about 5 people on this board as morons, cretins, gooses, dipsticks etc.
By far you and DR have been the major recipients.
CL mainly copped the goose tag after Kevin labelled him as such.
fg7 first posts on the board labelled peopel clowns. He simply got back his own. I have not referred to him in those terms for ages.
And there was a minor stint with Jeo that was fairly short lived. (a day or two). Nothing like your previous cases of abuse of Jeo and gandalf.



You are by far the most caustic thread poisoner on this BB.
Actually you would win this title hands down.


The contempt you show for anyone who stands up to you, stops all but the most robust personalities from ever speaking up. You are a bully. Why?
As usual you are sprouting rubbish.
When people disagree with you you descend into crudeness and vulgarity, sprinkled liberaly with either FO's or GF's.
I have continually abused 2 people, you and DR.
All of last year you abused CL.


As it is, most people are just to frightened of the NSWCA Pres and the ACF Ratings Officer to say a word.
Actually I would suggest they are frightend of having to contend with you.



[deleted]
This is good coming from someone who has for the whole life of the this and previous ACF BB's hurled scorn and abuse at the ACF and state associations.
You continually indulge in beatups.
You continually deal in speculation and falsehoods.
You cricicise the NSWCA and ACf but did nothing whilst on the NSWCA.
You didnt even attempt to organise the Sydney Chess Centre committees ,eetings even though you were asked a number of times.
You never saw fit to apologise for failure to attend meetings.
Like Peter Parr and his supposed new Chess centre.
Did you ask Peter about it at all. No.
Did you as me about it at all. No.
You just decided to post a completely false an untrue statement.
You are a disgrace.

skip to my lou
21-07-2004, 12:13 AM
No it isn't. Everyone knows you are the [deleted] of the NSWCA and ACF ratings Officer. As such, when you call 3/4 posters here goose(s), morons, cretins, [deleted], et cetera, you degrade the Office. You are by far the most caustic thread poisoner on this BB. The contempt you show for anyone who stands up to you, stops all but the most robust personalities from ever speaking up. You are a bully. Why?

He is a bit of a bully isn't he.. :)

The thing is he has an answer for everything, so constructive criticism is useless.

You guys should give feedback for my programs :P Atleast that way we might be somewhere on the scale for chess programs :doh:

Bill Gletsos
21-07-2004, 12:20 AM
Well I suspected you would respond to my previous post and guess what, you did. I note your tag team partner Matt has as usual jumped to support you.


Bill, there is no credit in this admission and I would have been ashamed to have been the author. You abuse anyone who holds a different position to yourself, you simply lack the insight to recognise this.
No that is incorrect.
A good example was my argument with jammo on the bulletin baord last year about the ACF Commission.
I never called him a moron or any such terms.

In fact I think I first started using it on you and Matt, because you both wont accept the facts.
The only person on this board to support you in your views on ratings is Matt.
No one else.
Matt of course just continually indulges in beatups, vulgarity and mindless speculation. He mostly posts without any clue to the facts of the situation and even when he should know the facts because he was copied on the information he simply chooses to ignore them.



To find a reason for lack of interest in this BB one has to look no further. You systematically reduce every meaningful and challenging discussion to personal abuse & vitriol.[ /quote]
Matt, spews far worse vitriol to a far greater griup than I.

[QUOTE=David_Richards]If one is serious about increasing interest in this BB, then standards of personal behaviour must improve across the board, because this BB is a bad advertisement for chess.
Then I suggest you look no further than Matt.
In fact the above paragraph makes you look like a total hypocrite.
If you truly believe what you are saying then given the vitriol Matt has spewed at others on this board over more than 12mths, you should have challenged his behaviour and condemned it.
In fact you have done worse than nothing.
You have sucked up to him because he is the only one who supports your views.
Matt used to accuse CL of being a [deleted].
Compared to your fawning support of Matt and him of you, you have both turned [deleted] into an art form.



One of the most ridiculous episodes was the dreadful way CL was hounded from the BB. What he was, who he was, who cares? He enriched the BB environment in his own special way. Sadly his cheerful irony has been lost, and the shameful nonsense that accompanied his departure reduced the colour and content of this forum. That the "who is CL" thread was about the longest thread in the history of the BB (just about anyone) only serves to illistrate how purile and sterile the place has become.
That particular thread was started and mainly fueled by others not I.
However are you sure he has stopped because of speculation over his identity or is it just that he has taken a protracted leave from the BB just like he did last year when he went overseas for many months.


With Jenni about to start her junior sub-committee, my reasons for keeping in touch with the BB have reduced. If I need to lobby then another, probably more effective avenue that bi-passes the blockhead now exists. Hopefully Jenni and her group will be able to tread the open road without fear and without cowardice.
Jenni has always been able to tread the open road.
Your problem us you have a theory, but have provided no evidence as usual that it has any bearing on chess. In fact most people on this board would say it doesnt.
No one has supported your view of giving points to juniors just because of the fact they get older.



To close, I might express my admiration for George H, who I think gives hope the ACF will discover a sense of direction, to Paul B who possesses a level of integrity that is rarely seen, to Jenni and Libby for their determination to plough in the field of hopeless men, to Arosar for his witty cynicism, to Barry for his steadfastness, and to Matt for his sense of justice, humour and imagination.
Dont forget to mention his skill at crudeness, rudeness and vulgarity.


These individuals are the burning spears that illuminate this world, this BB world, this window on Australian Chess.
Yes well you certainly havent been anything of the sort.

Kevin Bonham
21-07-2004, 02:21 AM
Re-opening this (such as it is) after numerous cuts and edits.

Continue if you must but any further posts on this thread containing unacceptable content, even once, may be deleted in full, and if there is too much more rubbish of that sort the thread will be locked or deleted.

Garvinator
21-07-2004, 02:22 AM
Re-opening this (such as it is) after numerous cuts and edits.

Continue if you must but any further posts on this thread containing unacceptable content, even once, may be deleted in full, and if there is too much more rubbish of that sort the thread will be locked or deleted.
i recommend the delete option ;)

Kevin Bonham
21-07-2004, 02:30 AM
I would rather Matt and Bill have a venue on the off-topic board where these exchanges can be sent whenever they trash an on-topic thread. That way there is no excuse for it to keep happening on the off topic section.

A note to all posters: once you want to write a post that is entirely a personal comment irrelevant to the thread you're on, it's time to take it somewhere else. Possibly even to private message or email. :eek:

Kevin Bonham
21-07-2004, 02:32 AM
beatups?

My usage of "beatup" may be a bit non-standard. Usually I use it to refer to trying to fluff up an objection that is both trivial and wrong in order to make it seem both significant and right.

Garvinator
21-07-2004, 02:36 AM
Possibly even to private message or email. :eek:now who are you trying to give a slap to here :lol: :owned:

Kevin Bonham
21-07-2004, 05:21 PM
now who are you trying to give a slap to here :lol: :owned:

I wasn't aware that that was aimed at anyone, but I'll take any collateral damage I can get. :P

Garvinator
21-07-2004, 05:23 PM
I wasn't aware that that was aimed at anyone, but I'll take any collateral damage I can get. :P
i thought it might have been aimed at arosar after his performance of asking dr a question about fta/pbs in the ratings thread i think :doh:

arosar
21-07-2004, 05:32 PM
i thought it might have been aimed at arosar after his performance of asking dr a question about fta/pbs in the ratings thread i think :doh:

Why would you even think that when this here thread is clearly labelled "Matt Vs Bill"?

I asked a coupla perfectly innocuous questions. If Bill had simply shut his trap instead of drawing attention to it - everything woulda been fine.

AR

Bill Gletsos
21-07-2004, 06:14 PM
Why would you even think that when this here thread is clearly labelled "Matt Vs Bill"?
Because it was originally in the ratings thread after you as ussal did a completely unrelated posting.


I asked a coupla perfectly innocuous questions.
Yes that had nothing to do with the topic.


If Bill had simply shut his trap instead of drawing attention to it - everything woulda been fine.
Why didnt you just PM the doc or email him yout question instead of doing your usual of asking off topic questions.

arosar
21-07-2004, 06:19 PM
I was wonderin' when you'd make a typically Gletso-esque line-by-line editorial.


Why didnt you just PM the doc or email him yout question instead of doing your usual of asking off topic questions.

Cos that woulda been too much effort 'reh!

AR

Bill Gletsos
21-07-2004, 06:24 PM
Cos that woulda been too much effort 'reh!
Yes, it was much easier for you ya lazy sod to just post as usual completely off topic.

Kevin Bonham
21-07-2004, 07:06 PM
I asked a coupla perfectly innocuous questions.

In the perfectly wrong place.


If Bill had simply shut his trap instead of drawing attention to it - everything woulda been fine.

Rubbish. Others were annoyed about it too.

You should've put your question directly to the offtopic section and sent Dave a PM if you were worried he would not see it.

Garvinator
21-07-2004, 07:16 PM
You should've put your question directly to the offtopic section and sent Dave a PM if you were worried he would not see it.
or said in the thread, dave, comment for you in non chess section

arosar
21-07-2004, 07:49 PM
You should've put your question directly to the offtopic section and sent Dave a PM if you were worried he would not see it.

That's just an over-elaboration. I don't have time for that.

AR

Garvinator
21-07-2004, 07:59 PM
That's just an over-elaboration. I don't have time for that.

AR
you have spent more time debating the point than just doing it in the first place.

arosar
21-07-2004, 08:00 PM
you have spent more time debating the point than just doing it in the first place.

No I haven't. You have!

And we know why.

AR

Garvinator
21-07-2004, 08:27 PM
No I haven't. You have!

And we know why.

AR
why is that?

Kevin Bonham
21-07-2004, 10:09 PM
That's just an over-elaboration. I don't have time for that.

AR

Then I don't have time to move your offtopic posts. In future, I shall simply delete them.

arosar
22-07-2004, 12:09 PM
In future, I shall simply delete them.

Censorious bas.tard!

AR

PHAT
22-07-2004, 07:28 PM
Censorious bas.tard!

AR

He is at that. Posting here is [snip!]. It isn't liberal enough to have some adult humour and it is to feebly policed to make discusions worth while. PC [deleted] like KB will delete your (AR's) question about the availability of "loose women", but will allow his solemate to bait and abuse with impunity.

Bill Gletsos
22-07-2004, 08:00 PM
He is at that. Posting here is like [snip!]. It isn't liberal enough to have some adult humour and it is to feebly policed to make discusions worth while. PC [deleted] like KB will delete your (AR's) question about the availability of "loose women", but will allow his solemate to bait and abuse with impunity.
Trying to deflect it as adult humour is a complete joke.
You have continually demonstrated your ability to be just plain crude and vulgar.

PHAT
22-07-2004, 08:20 PM
Trying to deflect it as adult humour is a complete joke.
You have continually demonstrated your ability to be just plain crude and vulgar.

That is what makes it adult humour, you humourless cramp.

Bill Gletsos
22-07-2004, 08:34 PM
That is what makes it adult humour, you humourless cramp.
There is no attempt by you to be clever or witty with your so called adult humour, just an excuse to be rude, crude and vulgar.

Ceratinly telling people to FO or GF sure isnt adult humour.
It nothing more than the excuse of someone who cannot win a debate with fact, so they descend into vulgarity.

Trent Parker
23-07-2004, 03:17 AM
Here we go, here we go, here we go, here we go, here we go, here we go, here we go, here we go,here we go, here we go, HERE WE GO! :owned: :devious: :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
23-07-2004, 04:15 AM
He is at that. Posting here is [snip!]. It isn't liberal enough to have some adult humour and it is to feebly policed to make discusions worth while. PC [deleted] like KB will delete your (AR's) question about the availability of "loose women", but will allow his solemate to bait and abuse with impunity.

Matt, we've been through this more than once ... my snipping of vulgar material cannot possibly be PC-motivated because I also moderate another forum where I would not snip material of the kind you post here. You continue with this frankly stupid PC accusation no matter how many times it is debunked and without anything new to back it up, so you must be either a very dumb troll or else the proud recipient of a freshly minted goosemaster norm. How does it feel to get hints even slower than chesslover?

Furthermore, the relevance of your post to what I was discussing with AR above is zero.

May have asked it before but don't remember the answer - are you this vulgar around your children too?

PHAT
23-07-2004, 07:42 AM
You continue with this frankly stupid PC accusation no matter how many times it is debunked and without anything new to back it up ...

Fully untrue. You have not provided even one piece of evidence to debunk my asertion thta you are a PC Nazi. What you have done is merely say that you are not, and then expect us all to agree with you. {i]that[/i] is not debunking, that is not evidence, that is not worth the paper it is written on - in this particular case , = zero.

Further more there is more matterial produced every day that evidences you PC Nazi status. You snip and delete daily, without explaination, anything that you, as a PC Nazi, think may be the slightest bit uncomfortable for women, or you, or men, or you, or homosexuals, or you, or ethnic minorties, or you.


May have asked it before but don't remember the answer - are you this vulgar around your children too?

And I have answered it before. Yes.

Kevin Bonham
23-07-2004, 04:44 PM
Fully untrue. You have not provided even one piece of evidence to debunk my asertion thta you are a PC Nazi. What you have done is merely say that you are not, and then expect us all to agree with you. {i]that[/i] is not debunking, that is not evidence, that is not worth the paper it is written on - in this particular case , = zero.

Actually it's written on a screen, dummy. :rolleyes:

Why not just ask for the other forum URL, dear Henry, it is www.thenakeddwarf.com.au/forum/. Go and read the sex threads in the "Dwarf Tossing" section, such as they are, to see some of the "crude" material I don't moderate, material I would certainly cut here. Also, read the "Moderation" thread in "General Discussion" to see what I do. (This is a general forum for people loosely associated with the Hobart rock scene. Not really recommended for under-16s.)

(Incidentally, the reason I post explanations of what I moderate there and not here is that, the standards being tighter here and there being more cases of wilful/lazy violation here, explaining them all here would be way too time-consuming. I can't usually be bothered putting the reason in when snipping yours, Matt, because it is almost always the same old things - crudity or wishing people dead. If you're too lazy to change, I'm too lazy to explain myself over and over. :hand: )


Further more there is more matterial produced every day that evidences you PC Nazi status. You snip and delete daily, without explaination, anything that you, as a PC Nazi, think may be the slightest bit uncomfortable for women, or you, or men, or you, or homosexuals, or you, or ethnic minorties, or you.

You really are an idiot about this, quite aside from your egregious violation of the normative misstatement/variant of Godwin's Law. Any true "PC Nazi" would find Bill's constant use of intellectual-disability-based insults like "moron" and "cretin" far more offensive than your seemingly obsessive crudity, much of which is not actually "politically incorrect" at all. The portion of my moderation here that has anything to do with supposed PC issues like sexism, racism, homophobia or similar is very, very small indeed.

PHAT
23-07-2004, 06:00 PM
Why not just ask for the other forum URL, dear Henry, it is www.thenakeddwarf.com.au/forum/. Go and read the sex threads in the "Dwarf Tossing" section, such as they are, to see some of the "crude" material I don't moderate, material I would certainly cut here. Also, read the "Moderation" thread in "General Discussion" to see what I do. (This is a general forum for people loosely associated with the Hobart rock scene. Not really recommended for under-16s.)

There's a hole in your head dear Liza. The very reason for the stupid snips you make are because this BB is sopposed to be kiddy friendly ( :lol: ) yet you stupidly go and post a link to something distinctly kiddy un-friendly. In your rush to finally put some evidence on the table, you have broken your own rules, stupid.


I can't usually be bothered putting the reason in when snipping yours, Matt, because it is almost always the same old things - crudity or wishing people dead. If you're too lazy to change, I'm too lazy to explain myself over and over.

Not good enough. If you are going to wear the mantle of BB mod. you also have to put in the effort to explain your actions. If you are to "lazy" to do so, step down and POQ.


Any true "PC Nazi" would find Bill's constant use of intellectual-disability-based insults like "moron" and "cretin" far more offensive than your seemingly obsessive crudity, much of which is not actually "politically incorrect" at all.

Well then, I demand that you snip/delete all further references by BG to cretins morons idiots et cetera, because it have a sister-inlaw who is an actual cretin [true]. So. give BG a public warning or admit that you are playing favourites with your ACF bosum-buddy pedant.


The portion of my moderation here that has anything to do with supposed PC issues like sexism, racism, homophobia or similar is very, very small indeed.

That is because nobody here would apear to be a true nasty.

Bill Gletsos
23-07-2004, 06:30 PM
Well then, I demand that you snip/delete all further references by BG to cretins morons idiots et cetera, because it have a sister-inlaw who is an actual cretin [true]. So. give BG a public warning or admit that you are playing favourites with your ACF bosum-buddy pedant.
As usual you miss the point.
You accused Kevin of being a "PC Nazi".
He replied that any true "PC Nazi" would have a problem with my use of moron and cretin.
However as Kevin has demonstrated he is no "PC Nazi" so he has no problem with my use of the terms.

Kevin Bonham
23-07-2004, 07:04 PM
There's a hole in your head dear Liza. The very reason for the stupid snips you make are because this BB is sopposed to be kiddy friendly ( :lol: ) yet you stupidly go and post a link to something distinctly kiddy un-friendly. In your rush to finally put some evidence on the table, you have broken your own rules, stupid.

I did post it with a disclaimer saying it was not really suitable for the under 16s, so I don't think I've broken anything except your argument. Anyway I'll assume that you've conceded the point about me not being PC, so I can now remove the link if you wish. (Edit: This is not an invitation to people to post links to really "adult" material, with or without disclaimers.)

Also, if the forum I linked to is kiddy un-friendly because there is crudity on it then this completely contradicts your own behaviour in, by your own admission, being crude in front of your own children. :rolleyes: (Talk about a gimme!)

So I suggest you direct your feeble petulant bleating to somebody who cares.


Not good enough. If you are going to wear the mantle of BB mod. you also have to put in the effort to explain your actions. If you are to "lazy" to do so, step down and POQ.

OK, all further snips of Matthew Sweeney's material I make are for crudeness, either of language or imagery, except where stated otherwise, until further notice. :owned:


Well then, I demand that you snip/delete all further references by BG to cretins morons idiots et cetera, because it have a sister-inlaw who is an actual cretin [true].

Sorry, I will not bow to an instance of political correctness just because M. Sweeney (who has been known to lie about his family background and generally doesn't care how much he offends others) might get offended.


That is because nobody here would apear to be a true nasty.

So? You still haven't answered my point.

PHAT
23-07-2004, 07:44 PM
Sorry, I will not bow to an instance of political correctness just because M. Sweeney (who has been known to lie about his family background and generally doesn't care how much he offends others) might get offended.

I have nevr lied about my background - although I had a hilarious stab at suckering the absent chesslover and the omnipresent BG. However, it is true that my sister inlaw is a "cretin" due to undiagosed infantile hypothyroidism. However, it is a real pity that I am not genuinely offended by Bill's use of the term as an abuse. Nevertheless, someone might be! In fact, my wife gives me curry if I use it. Lucky she can't be bothered reading this BB bollocks.

Bill Gletsos
23-07-2004, 09:31 PM
I have nevr lied about my background - although I had a hilarious stab at suckering the absent chesslover and the omnipresent BG.
I would hardly say I was suckered.
My only comment was that "I figured it was a load of crap, but that I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on the mistaken belief that even you would post a lie like that".

In fact all you demonstrated was how absolutely low you can be.


However, it is true that my sister inlaw is a "cretin" due to undiagosed infantile hypothyroidism. However, it is a real pity that I am not genuinely offended by Bill's use of the term as an abuse. Nevertheless, someone might be! In fact, my wife gives me curry if I use it. Lucky she can't be bothered reading this BB bollocks.
Why would she need to read any BB bollocks when she obviously can listen to a nonstop torrent of bollocks coming from you at any time.

PHAT
24-07-2004, 11:28 AM
I would hardly say I was suckered.
My only comment was that "I figured it was a load of crap, but that I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on the mistaken belief that even you would post a lie like that".

In fact all you demonstrated was how absolutely low you can be.



1. It wasn't a lie any more than any joke is a lie.
2. You gave me thew benefit of the doubt, ie. you were suckered. Admit it, laugh, and get over it.



Why would she need to read any BB bollocks when she obviously can listen to a nonstop torrent of bollocks coming from you at any time.

True.

But she does listen because of little gems that come out from time to time. She has a filter that you obviously should develop.

PHAT
24-07-2004, 11:42 AM
Also, if the forum I linked to is kiddy un-friendly because there is crudity on it then this completely contradicts your own behaviour in, by your own admission, being crude in front of your own children. :rolleyes: (Talk about a gimme!)

If you are going to rebut, at least try to find a real contradiction. My own use of the term "kiddy un-friendly" is no more than an adjectival phrase to communicate a style. I personally do not think such a sight fits the bill, and you must know it. Please don't waste any more of my time with such low quality arguement.


...who has been known to lie about his family background and generally doesn't care how much he offends others ...

You know there was no "lie". You are just getting into bed with Bill Gullable on this one. Be a man and cut the silly "lie" accusation. (See my responce to BG)

Kevin Bonham
24-07-2004, 04:25 PM
If you are going to rebut, at least try to find a real contradiction. My own use of the term "kiddy un-friendly" is no more than an adjectival phrase to communicate a style. I personally do not think such a sight fits the bill, and you must know it.

In that case you cannot possibly have a problem with me linking to it, and should shut up.


You know there was no "lie". You are just getting into bed with Bill Gullable on this one. Be a man and cut the silly "lie" accusation. (See my responce to BG)

You have made more silly accusations than I can count and have cut very, very few of them - I can only remember one retraction from you out of hundreds and hundreds of furphies, beat-ups and wastes of everyone's time.

I do, of course, acknowledge that your lying about your background was clearly for the sake of trolling and amusement in that case (and I knew that one was trolling from the start, so don't bother even half-inferring otherwise). However since you have lied for that reason once, it is clearly possible for you to do so again.

Incidentally, despite your suggestions that I don't moderate Bill, I have removed the odd word from Bill's posts here and there. The difference between you and Bill is that when the standards change, Bill learnswhat the new standards are and adapts to them, and hence very, very rarely needs to be moderated. You, however, never seem to learn anything. :wall:

firegoat7
24-07-2004, 08:45 PM
Incidentally, despite your suggestions that I don't moderate Bill, I have removed the odd word from Bill's posts here and there. The difference between you and Bill is that when the standards change, Bill learnswhat the new standards are and adapts to them, and hence very, very rarely needs to be moderated. You, however, never seem to learn anything.


The usual MO, Bonham draws conclusions then re-afirms them as facts, the same old tired responses that aim to justify his opinions.

Now Matt, most intelligent people would recognise that this is not evidence, it is mere grandstanding. Most intelligent people would recognise that all Bonham is doing here is psychologically puting "others" down (sadly without humor aswell!). This of course is the usual respite for people who draw conclusions without engaging in questions.

Yes, Matt your questions about double standards are obviously relevant.

May I ask some more questions in support of your claim Matt?
1/Why do you feel it is necessary to create, move, censor and general administer a thread like this Bonham? Is it because you like power or authority?
2/ How many times has BG used the words morons or cretins during the life of this BB?
3/ Have you ever felt like you apply double standards on this BB Bonham?

Cheers FG7

Kevin Bonham
24-07-2004, 11:07 PM
The usual MO, Bonham draws conclusions then re-afirms them as facts, the same old tired responses that aim to justify his opinions.

After I have drawn a conclusion based on the evidence I am aware of, why should I not so affirm it?


Now Matt, most intelligent people would recognise that this is not evidence, it is mere grandstanding.

No wonder you talk to your tag-team-mate, he is almost the only person here you have the slightest chance of convincing. :hmm:

I've got far better things to do with my time, but if anyone did care to check the record they could see that if Bill used certain words he used on the more roughhouse ACF BB as frequently here, he would have been censored here more times than he actually has been. If it bothers you, go check it out, it'll take you a few days, but as one of the ones doing the censoring, I already know it is true. The old board has a search function which will assist you, as does this one.


Most intelligent people would recognise that all Bonham is doing here is psychologically puting "others" down (sadly without humor aswell!).

Actually this is what you are doing in the above claim - you are implying that anyone who does not agree with you is unlikely to be intelligent. Such debating methods are so obviously invalid that only a very weak debater or very poor troll would stoop to them. Please specify how my response to Matt is "psychological", as I am always keen to learn more about my methods. :rolleyes: :lol:


This of course is the usual respite for people who draw conclusions without engaging in questions.

This is actually an eloquent description of your entire post and indeed most of your ineffectual trolling career. :lol:


1/Why do you feel it is necessary to create, move, censor and general administer a thread like this Bonham? Is it because you like power or authority?

I felt it necessary to move existing debate to a new thread because posters were complaining that this rubbish was disrupting debate about something related to chess, a game you may have heard of that is sometimes talked about here. We received a post report from a neutral party in the argument.

I felt it necessary to censor parts of it because it is board policy that crude content of the type frequently employed by Matt is to be strongly discouraged. The board is privately owned and anyone not liking this policy is free to take it up with the admins, vent pointlessly about it, get themselves banned by breaching it too often, or leave.


2/ How many times has BG used the words morons or cretins during the life of this BB?

I cannot say how many times he has used the words individually, but I can tell you he has used "morons" in 19 posts and "cretins" in 11. Furthermore, he has used "cretin" in 17 posts and "moron" in 60, although I am unsure whether these tallies also include the plural case, and other conjugations such as "moronic". I trust this information is helpful.


3/ Have you ever felt like you apply double standards on this BB Bonham?

It would be disappointing if I had not done so at least once just to give beat-up merchants like yourself something to be right about for a change - however I cannot think of any specific case where I have feared I might have done so.

If you think the use of abusive terms like "cretin", "moron" and "clown" shouldn't be allowed, take it up with the admins and I will act based on their advice in the matter. Really though, the only valid objection I can see to "cretin" and "moron" as used by Bill is that they are far too mild to use against posters who have brains but choose to switch them off before posting. :wall: :wall: :wall:

Bill Gletsos
25-07-2004, 12:54 AM
Although the word cretin/cretins appears in 17 of my posts I have actually called someone a cretin/cretins in only 9 posts. This has been directed to Matt 5 times, DR once, Matt and DR in 1 post at the same time and CL twice.

Similarly I have used the word moron/morons in 60 posts but only called someone a moron/morons in 41 posts. This was directed at Matt 11 times, Matt twice in the one post, DR 5 times(all ratings related), Matt and DR in 1 post at the same time, CL 17 times(mainly over his self nomination for best BB prize and whether KB called him a goose or not), Antichrist twice, Jeo twice and Keyha and BoogChoob once each.

Given I have 2213 actual posts on this board then 50 with cretin/moron in them means I have a 2.25% cretin/moron hit ratio.

Kevin Bonham
25-07-2004, 01:10 AM
See firegoat, look what you've started now. :owned:

Gandalf
25-07-2004, 04:08 AM
Hmm... perhaps I should address some of the issues raised in this thread.

The "policing" of this forum is confirmed to be at the discretion of the administrators and their authorised representatives, the moderators. Every single member agreed to this condition upon registration. Some (most frequently Matt) complain that the forum is not liberal enough, and that more expletives and references to loose women should be allowed.


The answer is NO.

The reason for this is quite simple - this is not a forum for adults alone. A primary function of this site and forum is to encourage the development of chess as a love for young people, something I'm sure everyone can agree we desperately need to do in Australia. Making parents uncomfortable with our site by swearing at each other and swapping prostitutes is definitely NOT the way to progress, and I will NEVER allow it.

In this forum I direct policy, and that policy is permanently geared against anything that my mother would not approve of. I suppose you could say she has the ultimate veto. Such words as "cretin", "moron", and "clown" are obviously preferable to the less mild insults.

To Bill, congratulations on discovering the power of the search function! Nothing is quite so effective as irrefutable evidence.

Now all of you, stop fighting and take it to the board. Lighting matches all around!

PHAT
25-07-2004, 07:38 AM
In that case you cannot possibly have a problem with me linking to it, and should shut up.

I personally don't care if you link to your sexdrugsnrocknroll site or not. I am pointing out your flagrant hypocracy. Every reading here can see it, and thus, you have lost credability as a mod.



The difference between you and Bill is that when the standards change, Bill learnswhat the new standards are and adapts to them, and hence very, very rarely needs to be moderated. You, however, never seem to learn anything. :wall:

OK, so BG is a lamb to the slaughter. I will not bend over for you or 'aldalf. This is a case of site owership gone mad. This BB belongs not to 'aldolf, it belongs to ALL OF US. For 'aldolf to be so disrespectful of the chess commuity and to impose his mother's standards on it, proves that he has no understanding of the responcability of editorship in the media in a monopoly position.

As for you, you are a stinking jackbooted henchman, doing your job because you like the power it gives you. You use this power to get back at your demons - top dollar private school bullies at your top dollar private school. Grow up and be a man instead of a gutless creep.

Bill Gletsos
25-07-2004, 12:12 PM
I will not bend over for you or 'aldalf. This is a case of site owership gone mad. This BB belongs not to 'aldolf, it belongs to ALL OF US. For 'aldolf to be so disrespectful of the chess commuity and to impose his mother's standards on it, proves that he has no understanding of the responcability of editorship in the media in a monopoly position.
What monopoly you moron.
Anyone can run a BB.
If you dont like the rules in place then just leave and start your own BB.
I'm sure everyone will flock to it.

Ghost
25-07-2004, 01:36 PM
Is it just me or does everyone else think this Sweeny character is an absolute tool? This isn't the mass media, distributing news to the people at large - it's a private discussion forum run by a bunch of guys for no pay and no appreciation. I say if you don't like their rules then p--s off and start your own site for underinformed, foul-mouthed commies.

Oh, and my five year old son spells better than you. He doesn't wish death on people's mothers either, you [deleted].

Garvinator
25-07-2004, 01:38 PM
Is it just me or does everyone else think this Sweeny character is an absolute tool?
i dont think it is just you. :owned:

Bill Gletsos
25-07-2004, 01:40 PM
Is it just me or does everyone else think this Sweeny character is an absolute tool? This isn't the mass media, distributing news to the people at large - it's a private discussion forum run by a bunch of guys for no pay and no appreciation. I say if you don't like their rules then p--s off and start your own site for underinformed, foul-mouthed commies.

Oh, and my five year old son spells better than you. He doesn't wish death on people's mothers either, you [deleted].
Well come to the board Ghost.

It seems you have managed to sum up Matt fairly quickly.

Of course now you can expect to be abused by moron Matt.

Bill Gletsos
25-07-2004, 01:55 PM
In this forum I direct policy, and that policy is permanently geared against anything that my mother would not approve of. I suppose you could say she has the ultimate veto. Such words as "cretin", "moron", and "clown" are obviously preferable to the less mild insults.

The word cretin has two distinct meanings as follows:

1: one afflicted with cretinism
2 : a stupid, vulgar, or insensitive person

When I use it I am using it as defined by 2 above.

The word moron also has two meanings as follows:

1 usually offensive : a mildly mentally retarded person
2 : a very stupid person

Again I am using it as defined in 2 above.


To Bill, congratulations on discovering the power of the search function! Nothing is quite so effective as irrefutable evidence.
Yes the search function is a great feature.


Now all of you, stop fighting and take it to the board. Lighting matches all around!
Looks like the master moron isnt listening to you and has instead decided to include you in his rants.

PHAT
25-07-2004, 02:06 PM
Is it just me or does everyone else think this Sweeny character is an absolute tool? This isn't the mass media, distributing news to the people at large - it's a private discussion forum run by a bunch of guys for no pay and no appreciation. I say if you don't like their rules then p--s off and start your own site for underinformed, foul-mouthed commies.

Oh, and my five year old son spells better than you. He doesn't wish death on people's mothers either, you [deleted].

:lol: :clap:

Ask your genius 5 y.o. why this here "foul-mouthed commie [deleted]", doesn't p--s off. He might tell you, it is because I enjoy provoking ironic posts such as yours.

Gandalf
25-07-2004, 02:09 PM
I'm not sure whether I should ban him for saying that about my mother or just laugh at his juvenile responses to everything. "I want to do it MY way! You can't stop me! You're not my mummy!"

On second thoughts, I've got more important things to do. If he says anything too offensive just report it as usual.

(note to self - prohibit posts about other people's mothers in new forum rules)

PHAT
25-07-2004, 02:16 PM
I'm not sure whether I should ban him for saying that about my mother or just laugh at his juvenile responses to everything.

Try laughing, it helps you to live longer.


(note to self - prohibit posts about other people's mothers in new forum rules)

Since close to 100% of our character, and hence our behaviour, is genetically inherited, any critism of another person is an attack on their mother. Are you going to ban all attacks?

Gandalf
25-07-2004, 02:20 PM
Really! I was informed that current studies indicate that though character disposition may be genetic, character development is almost totally environmentally determined. Thus while we may be more likely to develop certain attitudes, modes of thought etc, how we actually turn out is determined by our own experiences.

Have you read otherwise?

PHAT
25-07-2004, 02:23 PM
Well come to the board Ghost.


My enemy's enemy is my friend, eh.




I recall a few months back, defending you from an anomomous poster's vicious attack. More fool me.

Bill Gletsos
25-07-2004, 02:25 PM
I recall a few months back, defending you from an anomomous poster's vicious attack. More fool me.
I remember defending you when Gandalf first banned you.
More fool me.

Gandalf
25-07-2004, 02:28 PM
I remember defending you both, when either was losing unjustly.

I argue for the point, not for the person.

PHAT
25-07-2004, 02:39 PM
Really! I was informed that current studies indicate that though character disposition may be genetic, character development is almost totally environmentally determined. Thus while we may be more likely to develop certain attitudes, modes of thought etc, how we actually turn out is determined by our own experiences.

Have you read otherwise?

Yep. I just finished reading "The Blank Slate" - Steven Pinker.


Apparently meta analysis of the literature (mostly twin studies) shows that our upbringing is worth about 50% of our behaviour during our childhood which slips to nearly zero by the time one is an independant adult.

I found/find this very confronting because it indicates that all the hard work I (we parents) put into developing our children into happy, ethical, valued individuals mean bugger all in the long term.

There is a rider to this. The evidence applies to "normal" families. When there is acute abuse or neglect, the enviroment does lead to perminant changes in behaviour patterns.

But the book has more to it than just that ...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670031518/qid=1090730098/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-5505228-5516859#product-details

Gandalf
25-07-2004, 02:49 PM
Ah yes, Tabula Rasa studies :D

The fact that it applies to "normal" families tells me something though, since "normal" families are socially defined as those with only a meted share of relationship difficulties etc, where members aren't affected by excessive alcoholism, physical abuse, crippling financial hardship etc. Thus your "happy suburban 5.3 person cell", though exposed to the expected occasional marital squabble, doesn't get the crazy brainbending one receives in all those other, surreal families we see on Today Tonight.

It's so hard to form conclusve studies because "ideal conditions" are socially unacceptable - rearing identical people in totally controlled environments from birth to death.

PHAT
25-07-2004, 02:58 PM
Ah yes, Tabula Rasa studies :D

The fact that it applies to "normal" families tells me something though, since "normal" families are socially defined as those with only a meted share of relationship difficulties etc, where members aren't affected by excessive alcoholism, physical abuse, crippling financial hardship etc.

I think that you are defining "normal" rather more narrowly than Pinker. Therefore, those invaluable twin studies are more applicable than the tabula rasa fans would like them to be.

Gandalf
25-07-2004, 03:14 PM
I admit I haven't read his book, so I don't know how he defined it. Sounds very good though.

PHAT
25-07-2004, 08:46 PM
I admit I haven't read his book, so I don't know how he defined it. Sounds very good though.

I cannot recall if actually "defines" it as he is only quoting the studies themselves.

BTW, why "admit" that you haven't read the book. Crikey, how could anyone read everything :eek: Then again, I get the feeling that you think you should have read it. If you are in the psych field, it would not be nearly detailed enough, it isn't a text or reference book - even though it is well referenced.

Kevin Bonham
25-07-2004, 10:29 PM
I personally don't care if you link to your sexdrugsnrocknroll site or not. I am pointing out your flagrant hypocracy. Every reading here can see it, and thus, you have lost credability as a mod.

I'll wait for people who I consider to have credibility to comment on that.

You have none.


This BB belongs not to 'aldolf, it belongs to ALL OF US.

This is legally incorrect.


For 'aldolf to be so disrespectful of the chess commuity and to impose his mother's standards on it, proves that he has no understanding of the responcability of editorship in the media in a monopoly position.

You don't even understand what a serious monopoly is. Go start your own BB and whine about the censorship over there. The entry costs are nonexistent, promotion is easy.


As for you, you are a stinking jackbooted henchman, doing your job because you like the power it gives you.

If I was that power-mad I would have started my own BB


You use this power to get back at your demons - top dollar private school bullies at your top dollar private school.

Rubbish. None of those bullies are here. Barnyard psychology = forfeiture of debate - and you are saying I should grow up?

You're several years older than me and you very clearly do not know the first thing about it. :hand:

Jai
25-07-2004, 10:47 PM
I personally don't care if you link to your sexdrugsnrocknroll site or not. I am pointing out your flagrant hypocracy. Every reading here can see it, and thus, you have lost credability as a mod.

You are proof that evolution does go in reverse.

PHAT
25-07-2004, 11:06 PM
This is legally incorrect.


But it is morally correct.



You don't even understand what a serious monopoly is. ... The entry costs are nonexistent, promotion is easy.

There is, as far as I know one "seller" of a BB that can offer the product which can be described as the online line chess community of Australia.

As far as I recall, one seller = monopoly. The opportunity for competition does not proclude Chesskit from being the current holder of the monopoly.




If I was that power-mad I would have started my own BB

Oh you do want the power, you are just don't want to take on the monopoly which is your carapace.




Rubbish. None of those bullies are here.


OOooooo. Touch a raw nerve did we. Boy, you realy do have some baggage. Now that you aren't being snotted in the quad, you have found a nice warm little hollow to live in where you can be as much of a pretty point scorer as you like without having to pay for it in claret.

Jai
25-07-2004, 11:11 PM
There is, as far as I know one "seller" of a BB that can offer the product which can be described as the online line chess community of Australia.

As far as I recall, one seller = monopoly. The opportunity for competition does not proclude Chesskit from being the current holder of the monopoly.

what exactly is Chesskit trying to sell you?

PHAT
25-07-2004, 11:11 PM
You are proof that evolution does go in reverse.

Like dolphins and whales?

Perhaps you are living proof that most genetic novelties are dead ends.

Jai
25-07-2004, 11:14 PM
Like dolphins and whales?

Perhaps you are living proof that most genetic novelties are dead ends.

You splatter more BS than a bulls intestines being thrown through a turbine engine.

PHAT
25-07-2004, 11:29 PM
You splatter more BS than a bulls intestines being thrown through a turbine engine.

Techically, it is mostly chyme.

PHAT
25-07-2004, 11:32 PM
Asshat, what exactly is Chesskit trying to sell you?

An online chess community. We just don't know what the price is yet.

PHAT
25-07-2004, 11:52 PM
Hi Shitstain,

Hopefully the price will be your piss filled head.

When only the best will do.

Jai
26-07-2004, 12:01 AM
Only in your own s*** filled world. Here, on Earth, you are nothing more than a redneck rump ranger.

PHAT
26-07-2004, 12:23 AM
Only in your own s*** filled world. Here, on Earth, you are nothing more than a redneck rump ranger.

First you say I'm a commie then you say I'm a redneck.

Give up.

I probably won't reply to you any further, you are just pip-squeak.

Jai
26-07-2004, 12:26 AM
First you say I'm a commie then you say I'm a redneck.

Asshat, I never called you a commie. That was "Ghost".


Give up.

NEVAR.


I probably won't reply to you any further, you are just pip-squeak.

Can't handle the heat eh? Giving up so early?

Garvinator
26-07-2004, 12:29 AM
Can't handle the heat eh? Giving up so early? jai, you see, matthew cant abuse you as easily as he does with bill cause he probably doesnt know you. We all know that he just loves to abuse bill, but cant handle it when someone else gets stuck into him.
:cool:

PHAT
26-07-2004, 12:32 AM
Can't handle the heat eh? Giving up so early?

I'm constrained in what I can do all over you and if I did, I might be sin binned. You are not worth the trouble.

Cya, boy.

Jai
26-07-2004, 12:33 AM
Bill is too polite. Too bad you couldn't put up with "fool", "cretin", etc. Now you have to put up with much worse. Infact you already gave up, according to your post above. You are the dumbest piece of sissy s*** I have ever seen.

Take your bandwidth wasting verbal diarrhea elsewhere.

Bill Gletsos
26-07-2004, 12:35 AM
.


So, Bill, are you still going to claim Jai as one of your mob with quotes like these:
I never claimed him as one of my mob.
I just said it was good to see someone else giving it to you.
I'm not a fan of his particular use of language.
That said, you have dished it out far worse to others on this and the previous ACF BB therefore I find it amusing that you who excel at rudeness, crudity and vulgarity have the hide to complain.

Garvinator
26-07-2004, 12:37 AM
excel
excel?? i really think you should have used descends. Matt excels at nothing.

PHAT
26-07-2004, 12:39 AM
We all know that he just loves to abuse bill, but cant handle it when someone else gets stuck into him.
:cool:

HO HO HO. You must be kidding. Out of BG me it would be close as to who has the thickest skin, but I think it would be me. However, I probably I spit the dummy more often.

The problem is, Jai is an ant.

Bill Gletsos
26-07-2004, 12:40 AM
excel?? i really think you should have used descends. Matt excels at nothing.
Maybe I was confusing him with a spreadsheet full of empty cells.

PHAT
26-07-2004, 12:43 AM
I find it amusing that you who excel at rudeness, crudity and vulgarity have the hide to complain.


I am not complaining. Jai can continue to whip me with a feather all he likes.

Garvinator
26-07-2004, 12:43 AM
Maybe I was confusing him with a spreadsheet full of empty cells.
with many program design faults too :whistle:

Jai
26-07-2004, 12:44 AM
Maybe I was confusing him with a spreadsheet full of empty cells.
Good one, however it should be noted that the spreadsheet full of empty cells is more useful than Matt.

PHAT
26-07-2004, 12:46 AM
Matt excels at nothing.

Are you realy sure that you want to start something that has no prospect of paying dividends.

Bill Gletsos
26-07-2004, 12:48 AM
Are you realy sure that you want to start something that has no prospect of paying dividends.
That sounds suspiciously like your stint on the NSWCA Council.

Jai
26-07-2004, 12:49 AM
Jai can continue to whip me with a feather all he likes.

Feather? Come on... You gave up. You, the biggest asshat of all time, do not even give up when you are wrong, yet you gave up this time.

Sounds more like a bull whip.

PHAT
26-07-2004, 12:51 AM
with many program design faults too :whistle:

I have no quarrel with you. I don't want to quarrel with you. What are you trying to achieve? Realy graygray, do you have a plan or are you just jumping on the bandwagon with the other ninnies. I expect more of you than that.

Garvinator
26-07-2004, 12:54 AM
I have no quarrel with you. I don't want to quarrel with you. What are you trying to achieve? Realy graygray, do you have a plan or are you just jumping on the bandwagon with the other ninnies. I expect more of you than that.
i just have a real problem with ppl who complain about others doing nothing, but then when they are given an opportunity to do something, they do nothing themselves and then blame others for it.

PHAT
26-07-2004, 12:54 AM
Feather? Come on... You gave up. You, the biggest asshat of all time, do not even give up when you are wrong, yet you gave up this time.

Sounds more like a bull whip.

Hmmm. Sounds a bit like peanbrain speak. [yawn] I'm off to bed.

Jai
26-07-2004, 12:58 AM
Heh, quite ironic that this is all you can come up with. I am not peanbrain nor am I Ghost. You are still replying to me after giving up, which further proves your [deleted] status.

Kevin Bonham
26-07-2004, 01:27 AM
But it is morally correct.

No such thing. Moral beliefs are arbitrary and have no priveleged rational status. Yours are the most arbitrary, least priveleged and least rational of all.


There is, as far as I know one "seller" of a BB that can offer the product which can be described as the online line chess community of Australia.

Rubbish. Build and they will come, if it is good enough.


As far as I recall, one seller = monopoly. The opportunity for competition does not proclude Chesskit from being the current holder of the monopoly.

Hmm, you accuse me of pedantry and avoiding the issue but here we see you attempting to engage in the same.

The issue is one of context - the idea that a monopoly "needs" to be controlled only has any bite where there are barriers to cheap entry to the market for a competitor. In this case there are no such barriers. Indeed your whole monopoly analogy is stupid because this is a voluntary service not a product.


Oh you do want the power, you are just don't want to take on the monopoly which is your carapace.

I will admit that thwacking upstart insects like you provides the odd passing moment of light relief. Can't say it's that important to me though.


OOooooo. Touch a raw nerve did we. Boy, you realy do have some baggage.

Not at all - had you touched a raw nerve you would have got a hysterical reaction of the kind I get from you over virtually everything on a now seemingly daily basis. :P

I did get bullied quite a bit at school though I think I was only actually injured in the process three or four times, only one of them significant.

Those involved are nothing to me and have been forgiven and forgotten, with the exception of one who was idiot enough to pursue aspects of his former behaviour a few years into adulthood. He'll keep, at least until he attempts to actually amount to anything in this city. :rolleyes:


Now that you aren't being snotted in the quad, you have found a nice warm little hollow to live in where you can be as much of a pretty point scorer as you like without having to pay for it in claret.

Did you mean petty, not pretty? In any case you are wrong. I do remember being competitive at school, but only with those who were actually a challenge to me.

I must have gone downhill since then because I am now actually bothering to compete with and demolish pointless frothheads like you. :eek:

Kevin Bonham
26-07-2004, 02:08 AM
HO HO HO. You must be kidding. Out of BG me it would be close as to who has the thickest skin, but I think it would be me. However, I probably I spit the dummy more often.

You spit the dummy because you are thin-skinned. You have a major hang-up about censorship and your supposed right to be vulgar. You try to act the bully boy but you are actually just a wimp and a sook.


The problem is, Jai is an ant.

That would make you the rubber tree plant on its way to the novelty self-eraser factory.

arosar
26-07-2004, 11:43 AM
Hey Mr Sweeney mate....I wouldn't miss with Jai if I were you. He's pretty high up and can play better chess than you I think. You should see his whopper in the sixth round - very nice done indeed!

AR

PHAT
26-07-2004, 03:32 PM
i just have a real problem with ppl who complain about others doing nothing, but then when they are given an opportunity to do something, they do nothing themselves and then blame others for it.

1. Everyone has the opportuntiy to ... So, you should met out a serve to everyone.
2. I haven't laid blame on anyone for my behavior. That is not my style.

Therefore you have no "real problem with me". I am asking you to remain on the nuetral ground that you have occupied safely with some success.

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2004, 01:25 AM
1. Everyone has the opportuntiy to ... So, you should met out a serve to everyone.

Not everyone complains as readily over as little as you.


2. I haven't laid blame on anyone for my behavior. That is not my style.

You certainly expect existing structures to adjust to accommodate your behaviour - no matter how erratic, obnoxious or inconsistent. Basically there is no system to your behaviour or ideas about chess - it is, too often, all about Matthew Sweeney. Matthew is comfortable wearing business dress to tournaments to present a good impression, so everyone should do it. Matthew likes swearing on the BB no matter how bad an impression he creates, so no-one should stop him. Matthew wants the ACF to be run like a business, so it should run itself like a business, and if not he will abuse it. Matthew wants to skip meetings without apologising, and woe betide anyone who responds appropriately to such discourteous and unprofessional conduct.

Also, I did think that your pointless insertion of negative comments about the NSWCA Council into your comments about skipping its meetings was an implicit attempt to blame it for your own non-attendance. Why don't you just be honest about your own failings: you are an armchair wafflebag who endlessly talks pie-in-the-sky idealistic schemes (so you can abuse others for not doing so?) but seldom has the heart to actually see them through. In those very rare cases when you try to actually do something practical, the results range from average to abysmal. These efforts, in isolation, are commendable nonetheless - but their scarcity and poor track record hopelessly undermines your attempts to hold others to your unrealistic standards.

PHAT
27-07-2004, 06:42 AM
You certainly expect existing structures to adjust to accommodate your behaviour - no matter how erratic, obnoxious or inconsistent. Basically there is no system to your behaviour or ideas about chess - it is, too often, all about Matthew Sweeney. Matthew is comfortable wearing business dress to tournaments to present a good impression, so everyone should do it. Matthew likes swearing on the BB no matter how bad an impression he creates, so no-one should stop him. Matthew wants the ACF to be run like a business, so it should run itself like a business, and if not he will abuse it. Matthew wants to skip meetings without apologising, and woe betide anyone who responds appropriately to such discourteous and unprofessional conduct.

Also, I did think that your pointless insertion of negative comments about the NSWCA Council into your comments about skipping its meetings was an implicit attempt to blame it for your own non-attendance. Why don't you just be honest about your own failings: you are an armchair wafflebag who endlessly talks pie-in-the-sky idealistic schemes (so you can abuse others for not doing so?) but seldom has the heart to actually see them through. In those very rare cases when you try to actually do something practical, the results range from average to abysmal. These efforts, in isolation, are commendable nonetheless - but their scarcity and poor track record hopelessly undermines your attempts to hold others to your unrealistic standards.

Not a bad description of a normal/average person - although, it does have a jaundiced "glass half empty" flavour. :cool:

PHAT
04-08-2004, 12:40 AM
You are basically correct there AR.


BG is now a world expert in atmospherics too. :rolleyes:

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 12:42 AM
BG is now a world expert in atmospherics too. :rolleyes:
I'm more of an expert in all things chess related than you will ever be.

PHAT
04-08-2004, 12:54 AM
I'm more of an expert in all things chess related than you will ever be.
And I in biochemistry, physiology et cetera, PLUS being a normal human being rather than a control freak with a pathalogical hatred of ordinary people.

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 12:59 AM
And I in biochemistry, physiology et cetera, PLUS
Dont forget to add your an expert in being a moron and a a-hole.


being a normal human being
Ha. If you represent normal then the human race is heading down the sewer.


rather than a control freak with a pathalogical hatred of ordinary people.
I have nothing against ordinary people.
I just dont tolerate fools and especially do nothing blowhards like you.

PHAT
04-08-2004, 01:00 AM
Why dont you just go back to doing whatever it was you did before ever deciding to play competitive chess.
I bet whatever it was they are sure glad to have seen the back of you.

At least I play chess. which is more than your record shows.

And why don't you leave this BB, because we are sure to be glad to see the back of you, ya pair of spam castanets.

PHAT
04-08-2004, 01:09 AM
Ha. If you represent normal then the human race is heading down the sewer.

And you are the white mice.



I have nothing against ordinary people.
I just dont tolerate fools and especially do nothing blowhards like you.

You just don't get it do you. Ordinary people are fools and blowhards - that is part of being normal, ya elitist quarter-million-dollar-Jaguar hot-shot cruiser.

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 01:14 AM
At least I play chess. which is more than your record shows.
Well you certainly didnt do anything whilst you were on the NSWCA Council so I suppose you had all that free time to do something.
Unlike you I am actually doing things for NSW and Australian Chess.


And why don't you leave this BB, because we are sure to be glad to see the back of you, ya pair of spam castanets.
You contributed nothing to the NSWCA in 6 mths.
You are just a joke.

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 01:19 AM
You just don't get it do you. Ordinary people are fools and blowhards
Ordinary people are not fools and blowhards you moron.


- that is part of being normal, ya elitist quarter-million-dollar-Jaguar hot-shot cruiser.
Sounds like your just jealous.
Then again its clear from your posts on here that you have an issue with rewarding skill.

It is blatantly obvious to all and sundry that you dont represent the common man.
You are more the bog at the bottom of the gene pool.

PHAT
04-08-2004, 01:22 AM
1% of my annual gross to 1% of yours says you cannot do me 0/7. :cool:

PHAT
04-08-2004, 01:33 AM
Ordinary people are not fools and blowhards you moron.

You don't read much do you.



Sounds like your just jealous.

You couldn't pay me enough to drive a car that signifies utter contempt for world poverty.



Then again its clear from your posts on here that you have an issue with rewarding skill.

yeah, I have an issue with rewarding Allan Bond, QCs, used car salesmen, CEOs, and Big Brother winners.


It is blatantly obvious to all and sundry that you dont represent the common man.
You are more the bog at the bottom of the gene pool.

Snearing elitist.

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 01:33 AM
1% of my annual gross to 1% of yours says you cannot do me 0/7. :cool:
What has that to do with anything being discussed.

Anyway why would I want 1% of your annual gross.
It wouldnt even cover my car insurance. :hand:

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 01:39 AM
You couldn't pay me enough to drive a car that signifies utter contempt for world poverty.
Whats more accurate is you couldnt afford it.
The car was purchased with legitimately earned money.
I would guess I pay far more than you in both direct and indirect taxes.
On that basis I contribute more to the social structure than you do.


yeah, I have an issue with rewarding Allan Bond, QCs, used car salesmen, CEOs, and Big Brother winners.
Nice try at deflection.
You rejoice in mediocrity, exhibit behaviour from the bottom of the barrel and deride excellence.



Snearing elitist.
Crude vulgar boor.

Alan Shore
04-08-2004, 01:40 AM
What has that to do with anything being discussed.

Anyway why would I want 1% of your annual gross.
It wouldnt even cover my car insurance. :hand:

Why don't you try 10%.. both of you put your money where your mouths are instead of venting here and creating clutter.. it would be a truly great exhibition match :)

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 01:50 AM
Why don't you try 10%.. both of you put your money where your mouths are instead of venting here and creating clutter.. it would be a truly great exhibition match :)
I wouldnt waste my time on him.

Matt was the first to be abusive in post 495 in the Mt. Buller thread.
I just returned the favour.

antichrist
08-08-2004, 06:04 PM
Yes well a fool like you cannot see the truth when it stares them in the face.

Is this something like "even the fool knows there is a god"??? who may be staring them in the face but can't see him/it -- I don't know I am all confused, I am getting out of here

antichrist
13-08-2004, 04:08 PM
Bill, I was expecting my third Moron norm for my previous post. Aren't you handing out the gongs anymore?? Make my day, bring it on.