PDA

View Full Version : BB insults/metadebate



Alan Shore
24-08-2004, 09:48 PM
Lets call a truce on the insults, it adds nothing to debate.

For goodness sake, yes! Maybe Kevin and Bill don't realise it but they both look like the jerks when they give out insults.

Kevin Bonham
24-08-2004, 11:22 PM
Lets call a truce on the insults, it adds nothing to debate.

Typical craven trolling tactic from Dr Dave here:

1. Insult opponent (eg by calling their endeavour "completely pretentious" without remotely adequate supporting arguments).
2. Get insulted in return.
3. Call for truce on insults and say that they add nothing to debate.

Dave, so long as you keep spewing dismissive rubbish that you should have the intellect to know is rubbish, there will be no truce to the insults, because you deserve them all. If you don't want to sleep in that bed then stop making it. :hand: That should be simple enough even for you to grasp.


For goodness sake, yes! Maybe Kevin and Bill don't realise it but they both look like the jerks when they give out insults.

Hmmmm, I may have missed the stage of your excuse for an argument when you attempted to convince me that this pointless unoriginal trollswill has any more intellectual merit than the oft-repeated oxymoron "If you can't say anything nice about anyone, don't say anything at all". (NB This is only an oxymoron when said by itself with no other comments ... as it very often is. :lol: )

Care to try again, both of you, perhaps without the self-defeating cheapos?

Bill Gletsos
24-08-2004, 11:58 PM
Typical craven trolling tactic from Dr Dave here:

1. Insult opponent (eg by calling their endeavour "completely pretentious" without remotely adequate supporting arguments).
2. Get insulted in return.
3. Call for truce on insults and say that they add nothing to debate.

Dave, so long as you keep spewing dismissive rubbish that you should have the intellect to know is rubbish, there will be no truce to the insults, because you deserve them all. If you don't want to sleep in that bed then stop making it. :hand: That should be simple enough even for you to grasp.
Considering the number of times he has done it, it appears he really likes lying in that bed.



Hmmmm, I may have missed the stage of your excuse for an argument when you attempted to convince me that this pointless unoriginal trollswill has any more intellectual merit than the oft-repeated oxymoron "If you can't say anything nice about anyone, don't say anything at all". (NB This is only an oxymoron when said by itself with no other comments ... as it very often is. :lol: )
BD should understand if DR continues to repeat the same things over and over again even after it has been shown to be based on no facts then he can expect to have his intelligence questioned.


Care to try again, both of you, perhaps without the self-defeating cheapos?
Some how I doubt it.

Alan Shore
25-08-2004, 12:33 AM
Put the reply to the on-topic parts of David's post here in case the rest blows up and needs to be moved - as, given the abysmally weak position Dave and Bruce have kicked off from, I'm rather hoping that it will.


Hmmmm, I may have missed the stage of your excuse for an argument when you attempted to convince me that this pointless unoriginal trollswill has any more intellectual merit than the oft-repeated oxymoron "If you can't say anything nice about anyone, don't say anything at all". (NB This is only an oxymoron when said by itself with no other comments ... as it very often is. :lol: )

Care to try again, both of you, perhaps without the self-defeating cheapos?

Kevin, why must everything be a war for you? Is there some kind of deep-seated psychological reason for your propensity to argue the point when there is nothing even there to argue? I did say you wouldn't realise you come off in such a way but even after I make it clear you keep on going. You call 'my' argument (??) abysmally weak? You're obviously not a good judge of how other people perceive you - my point. Funny that... but more amusingly all you're doing is continuing to make my case stronger. Attack the argument, not the person - it's friendly advice, nothing more, nothing less.

P.S. I think Dave Richards is exceedingly polite given the crap you and Bill heap against him. Even if you think his points aren't well made, some of the things you've called him are incredibly childish. Soon you'll be driving him away and everyone else.

Kevin Bonham
25-08-2004, 01:04 AM
Kevin, why must everything be a war for you?

It doesn't have to. In this case, you decided to have a go at me, and it was a very lame and boring go of the kind I have seen dozens if not hundreds of times before in my wanderings upon the net.

I have a low patience level with the same old invalid trash being vomited at me over and over again - whether in seriousness or in a lame attempt at a joke. I prefer to see things that remind me that the people who surround me (metaphorically) are capable of having a clue.


Is there some kind of deep-seated psychological reason for your propensity to argue the point when there is nothing even there to argue?

There was something to argue - even if you provided no evidence for it.


You're obviously not a good judge of how other people perceive you - my point.

If their perceptions are based on a failure to comprehend the situation then their opinions on the topic are worthless and I do not care what they think of me. For what it's worth though, nearly every complaint has been from a past antagonist rather than from a neutral party anyway.


Funny that... but more amusingly all you're doing is continuing to make my case stronger.

Amuse yourself with that perception if you like.


Attack the argument, not the person - it's friendly advice, nothing more, nothing less.

I don't think you're being entirely honest there ... in general in debates I will attack the argument but where a person makes stupid arguments over and over again and even after they have been refuted, then that indicates a personal failing, and I will also attack that.

It's quite incredible - and indeed reflects poorly on you - that you don't make any explicit reference to the personal attacks Dave often makes on Bill and I in your post above. I look forward to you criticising David personally for his past personal attacks on me. Failure to do so with equal conviction to the above will result in you being considered hopelessly biased and will be used against you every time you raise such points again in the future. :lol:


P.S. I think Dave Richards is exceedingly polite given the crap you and Bill heap against him.

Then you have not been paying attention to the amount of (actual) crap he has spouted at us, and the number of times he has been the one to divert the debate into personal attacks upon being disproven. Go and reread every ratings thread ever posted on this board and come back when you realise what has really been going on.


Even if you think his points aren't well made, some of the things you've called him are incredibly childish.

I'm not taking any maturity lessons from you and your shrill, thin-skinned pseudo-precocious "look how adult I am now" nonsense, sunshine. Many of the things Dave's said are incredibly childish. He has frequently been treated with more respect than he deserves by both Bill and I. Bill, in particular, under a constant barrage of ineffectual but tiresome near-defamation over a role he puts a lot of work into voluntarily for the ACF, has been a lot more patient than he needs to be. He would be more than justified in refusing to speak to Dave at all by now, and I suspect he only restrains himself from this action because of the minute risk that Dave's blather on ratings might actually convince some poor sap somewhere sometime in the next million years.

Granted, Bill enjoys rubbing it in by calling Dave a moron and a goose at almost every opportunity, and there is a kind-of game-like element to flaming skill that I enjoy practicing - it is useful in more public and important debates too. Neither of these were hanging offences last time I checked.


Soon you'll be driving him away and everyone else.

Nonsense - this has been going on for years and would have driven him (and everyone else) away long ago if it was going to. Given the extraordinary volume of rubbish he sprouts, I can't say that I'd be suicidally depressed if he did drive himself away one day. :lol: I would prefer that he cleaned up his act instead of deliberately arguing below his capacity.

PS I interpret your entire post as an attempt to stir me up, but I am replying as if it is serious on the off chance that someone out there finds it convincing.
Better leave it here for now - been nice chatting to you but it looks like I've got a thread to split. :lol:

Alan Shore
25-08-2004, 01:10 AM
Kevin, I'm gobsmacked dude.. you turn a throwaway remark into a holy war. I expected you to kick up something but of this magnitude? You make a mockery of the phrase making a mountain out of a molehill! You really need to spend your time more productively.

Best wishes,
Bruce

Bill Gletsos
25-08-2004, 01:33 AM
Then you have not been paying attention to the amount of (actual) crap he has spouted at us, and the number of times he has been the one to divert the debate into personal attacks upon being disproven. Go and reread every ratings thread ever posted on this board and come back when you realise what has really been going on.
In fact to get a true appreciation BD would need to read the rating threads on the old ACF BB including the "lost threads" when the board was "hacked".
David has been repeating the same rubbish since April last year.

In fact the final nail in his coffin on the ratings debate seemed to come from ChessMum in the Planned Ratings Changes thread.
After she posted good ol' DR suddenly fell silent after what had been a sustained period of another of his attempted beatups

Kevin Bonham
25-08-2004, 01:33 AM
Kevin, I'm gobsmacked dude.. you turn a throwaway remark into a holy war.

Sure you're not overestimating how seriously I'm taking it there?


I expected you to kick up something but of this magnitude? You make a mockery of the phrase making a mountain out of a molehill!

It's a universal law of flaming that sometimes the most modest and ordinary material is the most inspirational. Strange but true. Not that the above is anything like what I'd do if I really got warmed up.


You really need to spend your time more productively.

Ooooh, show me the way, tell me how, do. :lol:

PS How fast do you type?

Alan Shore
25-08-2004, 01:48 AM
Sure you're not overestimating how seriously I'm taking it there?

Well it appears you're taking it very seriously, which left me quite bemused.


It's a universal law of flaming that sometimes the most modest and ordinary material is the most inspirational. Strange but true. Not that the above is anything like what I'd do if I really got warmed up.

A universal law of flaming, lol... true geekspeak there :P


Ooooh, show me the way, tell me how, do. :lol:

Try getting a girlfriend :rolleyes:

Failing that, I'm sure you could discover many great new things by reading, pondering, experimenting.. but pedantically defending your honour on a BB can't qualify. I'm sure it's fine once in a while when you're bored but I'm sure you could come up with something you'd rather be doing, right?


PS How fast do you type?

Um, fastish.. on this BB I don't really take much care in what I say, just rap it out.. it's only a BB after all.

I'm actually writing an assignment at the moment and writing a story too! So I've been posting here tonight during my break periods I guess..

PHAT
25-08-2004, 02:25 AM
Typical craven trolling tactic from Dr Dave here:


I have had you sussed for yonks, ya little wanker. It is you who is the troll and have always been.

You have honed your skills in finding and highlighting the apparent inconsistancies in posts and then flogging the poster for it. You never explore a topic, you only engage in didactic intercourse. Your skin is thin - every time someone exposes your ravenous ego, you aim for theirs. You are a little boy with a big brain and no morals. I fully expect to see you go to gaol one day for something underhand, or be justifiably murdered by some Taswegen bogan whom you have unwisely shat on.

David, Bruce, FG7 and I all know you for what you are - the big C word.

Kevin Bonham
25-08-2004, 02:36 AM
Well it appears you're taking it very seriously, which left me quite bemused.

Whatever leads you to that conclusion? :P

By the way, your last post was much longer than my last, so what conclusion should I draw?


A universal law of flaming, lol... true geekspeak there :P

This from the person who holds two forum computer gaming titles, so :P back to you.


Try getting a girlfriend :rolleyes:

Bzzzt - presuming things about other people online is a remarkably error-fraught business. Actually I have a partner, who I've been with since the start of 1998. However she is currently working in England.


Failing that, I'm sure you could discover many great new things by reading, pondering, experimenting..

Bzzzt again - you just don't know what you're talking about. I did much of my reading and pondering over the years when I was off at Uni doing a philosophy/politics degree and otherwise goofing about. I didn't even start using the 'net until I was in my mid-20s. And I'm still very active as a scientist, but looking for my little friends at 2:30 am is rather difficult, they're a bit on the small side to spotlight. :lol:


I'm sure it's fine once in a while when you're bored but I'm sure you could come up with something you'd rather be doing, right?

If there was something I'd rather be doing, by definition I'd be doing it.

I'm usually doing other things at the same time too, like listening to music or even (shudder) watching TV. Now that's a waste of time if ever there was one. Sometimes I work in other windows on and off while posting here and elsewhere.


on this BB I don't really take much care in what I say, just rap it out.. it's only a BB after all.

I've noticed.

Alan Shore
25-08-2004, 02:42 AM
Fine Kev, looks like you've got the time to waste then. I on the other hand, do not. Consider this the final time I'll engage in pointless idle banter with you. Good night.

Kevin Bonham
25-08-2004, 03:13 AM
I have had you sussed for yonks, ya little wanker. It is you who is the troll and have always been.

Actually I don't do that much trolling here - unlike you.


You have honed your skills in finding and highlighting the apparent inconsistancies in posts and then flogging the poster for it.

The inconsistencies must be real enough or else my errors would be demonstrated. In general I only bag posters personally for habitual fact-aversion, unfair attacks on others and so on - often after a fair amount of personal bagging from them too.


You never explore a topic, you only engage in didactic intercourse.

Anyone casually flicking through the BB will see that I often "explore topics", even rubbish ones raised by you, so the only one engaging in "didactic intercourse" here is you ... leaving only the question: "with who?" :eek:


Your skin is thin - every time someone exposes your ravenous ego, you aim for theirs.

I have never denied having a substantial ego; I need to give you something to exaggerate about. But what do you mean by the latter - explain - do you mean I accuse them of being egomaniacs themselves, that I seek to destroy their egos, or both? Give examples.

As for thin skin, if someone runs away bleating about how unfairly they are being treated from our little exchanges over the last 18 months, it really does tend to be you. You like to portray yourself as a big bully boy but once a dent is casually inflicted on that exterior there is often not a lot beneath it.


You are a little boy with a big brain and no morals.

I'm no more little than my brain is large, and I don't have to take "boy" from some armchair legend whose post-kindy maturity lessons appear to have been learnt largely from earnest conversation with a stubbie and listening to jokes with naughty words in them. So this is all just water off the goose's back and will avail you nought.

Morals, however, are always a fun topic to discuss with you, because despite your supposed breadth of academic experience, you only ever think in shallow pop cliches on this subject. I indeed have no objective morals, but I am free to have standards if I wish, and it would appear that I have acquired a few along the way. They are limiting in a sense, but they also give definition to a person's character. As suggested on another thread, judging someone on their record is probably a better way to judge anyone's "moral" behaviour than by listening to what blather they spout about what they supposedly believe.


I fully expect to see you go to gaol one day for something underhand

Very unlikely. I enjoy many aspects of my freedom, am not financially greedy, and tend to be quite cautious when it comes to legal risk.


, or be justifiably murdered by some Taswegen bogan whom you have unwisely shat on.

Some risk there - I have a certain cheekiness, and tend to talk back if some random idiot abuses me, though I am not especially hostile to bogans and haven't had any real bogan trouble for a while. But my guess (and experience) is that I would have the sense to run away in situations where your machismo would make you stay and fight like an idiot.


David, Bruce, FG7 and I all know you for what you are - the big C word.

The mind boggles. I take it as a compliment and note with amusement your transparent attempt to recruit BD to your tagteam. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
25-08-2004, 03:14 AM
Consider this the final time I'll engage in pointless idle banter with you.

I think it would be most unwise to consider any such thing.

You'll be back. :lol:

PHAT
25-08-2004, 04:45 PM
The inconsistencies must be real enough or else my errors would be demonstrated.

The errors are often not significant to the debate. They are throw away lines or liguistic imprecitions. Because you often cannot see the forest for the trees, you have to veiw every thing through a microscope. Your brain has no telescope.


I have never denied having a substantial ego; I need to give you something to exaggerate about. But what do you mean by the latter - explain - do you mean I accuse them of being egomaniacs themselves, that I seek to destroy their egos, or both? Give examples.

I mean, that your ravenous ego needs feeding, so you kill and digest others.


As for thin skin, if someone runs away bleating about how unfairly they are being treated from our little exchanges over the last 18 months, it really does tend to be you. You like to portray yourself as a big bully boy but once a dent is casually inflicted on that exterior there is often not a lot beneath it.

Yes, I am usually the one to pull the press the full flush on your contributions.
Yes, I guess I am a kind of bully-boyon the BB. But unlike real bullies, I don't pick on the weak, I only fight the real bullies, like you and BG. And I don't creep off like a mongel curr when belted. I front up for the next round.
As for dents, I can live with them. [snip]


Morals, however, are always a fun topic to discuss with you, because despite your supposed breadth of academic experience, you only ever think in shallow pop cliches on this subject.

To talk of cliches is so cliche.
The breadth of my academic experiance is not as wide as yours. However, my practical knowledge in everything from building construction to ski coaching, blue water yatch racing to bring up children ... makes your esoteric wanking, plain wanking.


I indeed have no objective morals, but I am free to have standards if I wish...

Psychopath.


Very unlikely [gaol]. I enjoy many aspects of my freedom, am not financially greedy, and tend to be quite cautious when it comes to legal risk.

It is your false sense of freedom that will lead you to gaol.


I would have the sense to run away in situations where your machismo would make you stay and fight like an idiot.

Wrong. Unless trapped, I would fly like bullit. Trapped, I fight.


I take it as a compliment and note with amusement your transparent attempt to recruit BD to your tagteam. :lol:

With time, the tag team will continue to grow, becoming a whole football team plus fans. You sh.t on too many people to stay alive.

Kevin Bonham
26-08-2004, 12:16 AM
The errors are often not significant to the debate. They are throw away lines or liguistic imprecitions.

If they were really so insignificant then it would be easy for the other person to simply drop them as they would still have a case without them. If you look at substantial arguments like the ratings thread (to give a chess example) or the existence of God (to give an off-topic example) I'd suggest that I kick the ball right in the middle at least as often as you do, probably quite a deal more. Please try to reply to this point without any testicular analogies for a change - perhaps you might give at least five examples of threads where my criticism of another poster has been dominated by irrelevancies, instead of just asserting a stereotype without evidence? :hmm:

It's true that I will sometimes jump on the way someone has expressed a case as much as the case itself (eg firegoat's clowns rubbish) but so what? Is it such a bad thing to believe that people should refrain from making false statements about innocent parties in the course of making their case? Or is it all a bit too ethical for you? :lol:


Because you often cannot see the forest for the trees, you have to veiw every thing through a microscope. Your brain has no telescope.

Total rubbish, Matt. Unlike you I understand that the big picture is composed of lots of little dots. If far too many of the dots are wrong or missing then the picture is wrong. This does not mean I cannot see the picture, or what it is meant to be. It is just the case that any fool can spout visionary drivel but to be useful a vision needs to be sound.


I mean, that your ravenous ego needs feeding, so you kill and digest others.

If that was all there was to it, I would start arguments on points where I knew I was wrong to do the same thing. I could quite easily do that and often get away with it if I wanted to. I don't.

I do enjoy the game aspects of flamewars between consenting combatants, but does people playing chess mean that their ravenous ego needs feeding too?


Yes, I am usually the one to pull the press the full flush on your contributions.

Do you run away from the toilet offended and hurt every time you go there too? (Please try not to be too graphic in your reply or I may alas have to delete it.)


Yes, I guess I am a kind of bully-boyon the BB. But unlike real bullies, I don't pick on the weak, I only fight the real bullies, like you and BG.

So I pick on the weak, do I? As Matthew Sweeney says, name names. Who do I pick on?


And I don't creep off like a mongel curr when belted.

Oh yes you do. Don't fib, it will not serve. We've had your dummy spits on "leaving" the bulletin board and your hurt little sulks about my conduct post a few threads in the past 18 months.


I front up for the next round.

You return because you are addicted and weak.


As for dents, I can live with them. [personal rubbish deleted]

No, you are the naive one - you make assertions about my personal life while knowing nothing of what the agreed sexual rules and boundaries of it are and very little if anything about my past in similar regards. And I'm not about to educate you, because it is none of your business. Despite your moronic attempts to portray me as lacking life experience, I had actually already had relationship experiences which would make me laugh at your stupid shallow comment when I was half your age. And by the way, whatever you say about me, material that is potentially insulting to third parties who do not post here will not necessarily be allowed ... unless you would like me to return the compliment tenfold. :lol: :lol: :lol:


The breadth of my academic experiance is not as wide as yours. However, my practical knowledge in everything from building construction to ski coaching, blue water yatch racing to bring up children ... makes your esoteric wanking, plain wanking.

Sweeney, this is perhaps the harshest thing I've said about anyone all year, but you talk like the stereotypical "mature age student", the sort who turns up at University and goes into tutorials raving about their wonderful life experiences and how relevant they are to the subject at hand, and wonders why all the vacuous little 20-somethings fidget, mutter and stare at the ceiling during their soliloquies yet still get higher marks. Your life experience is only relevant when we're discussing something that relates to it, and you come across like a boisterous idiot by pretending otherwise. Ski coaching is not relevant to whether morality is objective or subjective. End of story. :hand:


Psychopath.

Once again you expose your pathetic ignorance - indeed your position is that labelled the "naturalistic fallacy" by the philosopher G.E. Moore over a century ago, and Moore's view in turn has a philosophical pedigree going back (somewhat arguably) to Hume and doubtless before. It is a typical cop-out from the struggling objectivist camp to try to diagnose the subjectivist position instead of attempting to refute it. It is especially funny because if you looked at the actual behaviour of objectivists and subjectivists you would not find many, if any, empirical differences. You should try even reading a basic first year text on moral philosophy.

Now, if you would like to debate whether morality is objective or subjective I would be only too happy to kick your carcass around the park once more.

The irony is that most of your behaviour on this BB would revolt nearly every objective moralist on the planet. So since you believe morals are objective, you will now please tell me which morals.


It is your false sense of freedom that will lead you to gaol.

This is rubbish, I was talking about freedom in institutional terms.


Wrong. Unless trapped, I would fly like bullit.

Try doing that while drunk. :owned:


With time, the tag team will continue to grow, becoming a whole football team plus fans. You sh.t on too many people to stay alive.

Matt, I have a lot of experience in taking on large crowds singlehanded, and I know that where the crowd is in the wrong, every number they gain is just another zero. It is not a popularity contest.

Alan Shore
26-08-2004, 12:58 AM
Hey Kev, one more thing before I leave you to it.. I've found a decent source to back me up on my throwaway comment:

"How many people know how to observe something? Of the few who do, how many people observe themselves? Everybody is farthest away from himself, all who try the reins know this to their chagrin and the maxim 'know thyself' addressed to human beings by a god, is almost malicious" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Briefly reading your remarks to Matt I believe you really do see this as a game, almost like chess simply played with words instead of pieces, arguments instead of tactics. It is a shame that for all the technicality present, your words are devoid of the art and beauty one may find in a game of chess. In some ways Matt is spot on about you not seeing the forest for the trees.

Anyway, that wasn't idle.. it just came up from my reading Nietzsche. Be warned, knowing you I most likely won't be responding to your reply post (and I will guarantee there will be one too - psychologically, you're very easy to read) :cool:

Kevin Bonham
26-08-2004, 03:18 AM
"How many people know how to observe something? Of the few who do, how many people observe themselves? Everybody is farthest away from himself, all who try the reins know this to their chagrin and the maxim 'know thyself' addressed to human beings by a god, is almost malicious" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Gee whiz, throwing Nietzsche back, presumably knowing I have some liking for some of his thought. Never seen that trick before, no siree. :lol:

I don't want to sound too introspective, but I do know myself - strengths and weaknesses alike - a lot better than the average young BB tryhard pretending to know that much about me is likely to know about either of us. Goes with the territory, so to speak.


Briefly reading your remarks to Matt I believe you really do see this as a game, almost like chess simply played with words instead of pieces, arguments instead of tactics.

Actually at most 20% of that post was of anything like that nature, the remaining 80% (at least) was played with a completely straight bat. Matt will fall over himself if he tries to work out which is which as usual, as he does in characterising my debating on other threads.


It is a shame that for all the technicality present, your words are devoid of the art and beauty one may find in a game of chess.

The skill in BB combat often lies not in what is actually there but in what is perceived or what traps are avoided. The skills involved are similar to those involved in making or defending speculative attacks, or making or avoiding swindles. It isn't the same kind of technicality as a game involving "best play". An actual proper debate - simply arguing the facts with a quality opponent with good lateral thinking skills - is the nearest analogy there, but sadly many are not up to that standard or choose to drift into personal trashing whenever they come off second best.

All the same, if I had to choose to be remembered by my best "combative writing" and my best chess games, I know which one I'd take.


In some ways Matt is spot on about you not seeing the forest for the trees.

I can't even work out from your vagueness which forest or trees you're referring to here, but somehow I doubt that makes you right, and I don't doubt you were trolling.


Be warned, knowing you I most likely won't be responding to your reply post (and I will guarantee there will be one too - psychologically, you're very easy to read) :cool:

Yes, it is indeed predictable that if someone posts an argument that has relative novelty but is nonetheless weak, I will enjoy the challenge of squashing it. You don't get a PhD in psychology for noticing that. You came back for more when I predicted you would, so don't bother talking to me about predictability. :lol: In any case, you don't have a clue how to exploit it.

PHAT
26-08-2004, 04:59 PM
If they were really so insignificant then it would be easy for the other person to simply drop them as they would still have a case without them.

If there were so simply dropped:
1. They would be, or
2. The person is a weak debater - the very kind that I said you belittle for the sake of your ego.



...perhaps you might give at least five examples of threads where my criticism of another poster has been dominated by irrelevancies, instead of just asserting a stereotype without evidence? :hmm:

Too easy. Not worth persuing.


Is it such a bad thing to believe that people should refrain from making false statements about innocent parties in the course of making their case? Or is it all a bit too ethical for you? :lol:

I read this this morning and for once I can say I literally "choked on my cornflakes." :lol: Read more below.





Total rubbish, Matt. Unlike you I understand that the big picture is composed of lots of little dots.

Unlike you, I connect the dots. Unlile you, I know which dots are abitary and which are real and which are essential. You treat every dot as your own plaything to be lampooned or revered according to your amoral schema.


Do you run away from the toilet offended and hurt every time you go there too? (Please try not to be too graphic in your reply or I may alas have to delete it.)

Why must you smuggly tack on the School Prefect's threat? What sought of a person takes delight in in flaunting their position? When will you start behaving like a man in stead of peacock.


So I pick on the weak, do I? As Matthew Sweeney says, name names. Who do I pick on?

Everyone you pick on, is in your mind, weaker. Therefore you are knowingly picking on, as you see them the weak. The trouble is, this BB is packed to the gunnels with very bright and articulate posters - I wish I was half as sharp as many of them. This means that you have to be very careful with you you pick. You only attack at those who are willing to go toe to toe. Fortunately for you, not everyone here has that predeliction, else you would be up to your gills in gore.


Oh yes you do. Don't fib, it will not serve. We've had your dummy spits on "leaving" the bulletin board and your hurt little sulks about my conduct post a few threads in the past 18 months.

OK, yes I admit to the odd sulk. However, it is not due to some BB issue - I am probably in a snit about other things and my emotions bleed over into my posts.


You return because you are addicted and weak.

I come back for niether of these reasons.

BC (before kids), I and most other parents know, having lively conversations is to have. You are master of your own life. With kids, such opportunities are much fewer. The BB provides a highly flexable avenue for lively exchanges. WTF are you doing here. Can't you handle real people. :hand:


No, you are the naive one - you make assertions about my personal life while knowing nothing of what the agreed sexual rules and boundaries of it are...

There is only one rule, there is only one boundry. Anything else is doomed. If you don't know that, you are profoundly mistaken.



...and very little if anything about my past in similar regards. And I'm not about to educate you, because it is none of your business.

I know you are a wanker. :owned:



Despite your moronic attempts to portray me as lacking life experience, I had actually already had relationship experiences which would make me laugh at your stupid shallow comment when I was half your age.

Your dog doesn't count.


And by the way, whatever you say about me, material that is potentially insulting to third parties who do not post here will not necessarily be allowed

I didn't see you go all nobel whan BG suggested that DRs children weren't worth sh.t. I note, that that particular sentance has been deleted.


... unless you would like me to return the compliment tenfold. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Laugh all you like. At least my father is known.


Sweeney, this is perhaps the harshest thing I've said about anyone all year, but you talk like the stereotypical "mature age student",

I am devistated by the harshness.


the sort who turns up at University and goes into tutorials raving about their wonderful life experiences and how relevant they are to the subject at hand, and wonders why all the vacuous little 20-somethings fidget, mutter and stare at the ceiling during their soliloquies yet still get higher marks.

Not only have you insulted all mature age students, like the brat you are, but are also wrong about their marks. MAS consistantly out perform their whipper-snapper know-all class mates, with both lower drop out rates and higher marks. You realy are a worm.


Ski coaching is not relevant to whether morality is objective or subjective. End of story. :hand:

You mean end of your comfort zone. Education is only good if it leads to a greater degree of happiness for individuals and society. As such, it is the practical application of knowledge that matters. Your antipathy toward those who place greater importance on the practical application of knowledge rather than academic navel gazing, shows that you do not yet qualify as an adult.




You should try even reading a basic first year text on moral philosophy.

and you should just try being moral.


Now, if you would like to debate whether morality is objective or subjective I would be only too happy to kick your carcass around the park once more.

Firstly, I think you may be thinking of someone else. I don't recall debating it with you.


So since you believe morals are objective, you will now please tell me which morals.

Again you demonstrate your inability to use your knowledge. It realy does not matter all that much whether a/some morals are objective or subjective. It is the practical application of a moral framework that matters to our species. Without morals, subject or objective, we have no hope of living in a happy sustainable society.

Wake-up to yourself, Amoralman.



Matt, I have a lot of experience in taking on large crowds singlehanded, and I know that where the crowd is in the wrong, every number they gain is just another zero.
That's right, a crowd's arguements are no more difficult to debunk than an individual. ln fact it is easier because it is usually some hothead that takes the floor with imoderate methods that are easly neutralised. However, this BB ain't a crowd. It is a group of clever individuals, many of whom have had a gut full of your gamesmanship (and a gut full of BG's bombastic intransegance.)



It is not a popularity contest.

And that's also right - it is a community, that is becoming increasingly frustrated with your pedantry, posturing and polemic.

Kevin Bonham
26-08-2004, 09:45 PM
If there were so simply dropped:
1. They would be, or
2. The person is a weak debater

They are not so simply dropped because they are relevant. Of course, here you are admitting that your tag-team buddies are weak debaters. Talk about letting down the side. Gonna sue him, Dave?


Too easy. Not worth persuing.

Cop-out speak for unable to do it because on your previous attempts to do so you have lost the debate about whether my points were irrelevant. :hand:


Unlike you, I connect the dots.

This is just blather - you are not presenting evidence or examples. If a plan is generally sound and only has minor defects I will say so - and have said so (eg in cases like your coaching accreditation scheme). Making stuff up wastes both our time and doesn't rejuvenate your absent credibility, so don't bother.


Why must you smuggly tack on the School Prefect's threat?

I just thought it would save me some effort. :lol:

Or maybe the more you inaccurately caricature me, the more I will pretend to live up to that caricature, just for the effect that it has on you.


Everyone you pick on, is in your mind, weaker.

I asked you to name names, and you did not do it. You are therefore a coward by your own standards and a disgrace to yourself. I ask again: which posters do I "pick on" because they are "weak" (remember this was your word, not mine)? Name as many as you can think of.

You're busted here - you have to either admit that your tag-team buddies are deficient (this is hardly news of the world stuff) or else argue that they are strong and can take it, thus destroying your attack on me as a nasty bully.


OK, yes I admit to the odd sulk. However, it is not due to some BB issue - I am probably in a snit about other things and my emotions bleed over into my posts.

Thank you. Of course, if I let my emotions on another matter cause me to say something dumb or melodramatic, I would apologise for it or otherwise clear it up later.


BC (before kids), I and most other parents know, having lively conversations is to have. You are master of your own life. With kids, such opportunities are much fewer. The BB provides a highly flexable avenue for lively exchanges. WTF are you doing here. Can't you handle real people. :hand:

On the contrary, I'm involved in some kind of sociable activity at least a couple of nights a week on average, even if it's more often than not connected to some interest or other. At most of the times I post, people I know here tend to be either asleep or or out on the town. I generally prefer people's company when they're somewhere under 0.10.


There is only one rule, there is only one boundry. Anything else is doomed. If you don't know that, you are profoundly mistaken.

I am reluctant to reply to that until you say which rule or boundary you refer to (I think I know, but don't trust you not to switch). Whatever it is, how does this sit with your understanding of human sexual biology based on all the Dawkinsian stuff you like to peddle?

I'll say this much: to me, what is most important in any intimate relationship between two or more people is that any rules that exist be clearly understood, that they exist for the right reasons (whatever those are), and that they be adhered to (or else renegotiated) rather than made on the run through violations.


I know you are a wanker. :owned:

It was so predictable you would say that sooner or later that I didn't even bother to anticipate it. Really amazes me that an intelligent person would think an act that way over 90% of men engage in at some stage of their life amounts to an effective insult. What can I say, at least I'm not compulsive. :lol:


I didn't see you go all nobel whan BG suggested that DRs children weren't worth sh.t. I note, that that particular sentance has been deleted.

When did Bill say that?


Laugh all you like. At least my father is known.

So's mine (although, to be true, on meeting him one ex-flatmate said that I should be asking my mother some serious questions.) Indeed all my ancestors are known for at least three generations, and in some cases a few dozen.


Not only have you insulted all mature age students,

Not at all, which part of the word "stereotypical" was too long for your attention span?


but are also wrong about their marks. MAS consistantly out perform their whipper-snapper know-all class mates, with both lower drop out rates and higher marks.

Of course I know that MAS's as a group perform very well - the stereotypical example I referred to is merely a very obvious and (anecdotally, at least) less skilled subset of the group.


You mean end of your comfort zone.

Not at all. If you can provide a completely sound argument for objective morality based on ski coaching, it will bring me great delight as one of the most brilliant works of the human mind ever seen.


Education is only good if it leads to a greater degree of happiness for individuals and society.

Sounds clumsily utilitarian, and very simplistic at best. What do you even mean by the happiness of society, and what if the happiness of individuals runs up against it?


As such, it is the practical application of knowledge that matters. Your antipathy toward those who place greater importance on the practical application of knowledge rather than academic navel gazing, shows that you do not yet qualify as an adult.

You are completely missing the point and your attempt to throw a maturity slur is feeble, stupid and slow. If people believe practical knowledge is more important than academic knowledge, that's fine. Indeed across the totality of human endeavour I suspect that this is true. But it comes with a critical caveat - practical knowledge is valid in those practical fields it relates to. Being an expert relationship consultant does not tell you how to build a particle accelerator. And none of Matthew Sweeney's life experience is the slightest use to him in answering the question: is morality objective or subjective.

The irony is that you are one of the biggest spewers of armchair-idealist schemes on this BB, and often the first to knock those who use their practical chess-admin experience to splatter your sillier pies in the sky.


and you should just try being moral.

But I do have standards or patterns of behaviour - the only differences are that they are different from yours and I don't falsify reality by pretending they have the sanction of objective logic.


Firstly, I think you may be thinking of someone else. I don't recall debating it with you.

That's funny, I certainly recall debating it in your presence. Maybe all you were offering was mindless insults. :hmm: Well, if you would then care to debate it for the first time, maybe ... it is all the same to me.


Again you demonstrate your inability to use your knowledge. It realy does not matter all that much whether a/some morals are objective or subjective.

Actually that is very much what I was already saying, so you are again demonstrating your inability to use your ignorance. :P Since we both accept that it's no big deal, your attempts to label me a sociopath etc just for believing morals are subjective, with no other evidence, are groundless and you were just being an unoriginal idiot troll. Although I think the issue does matter, because the realisation of subjectivity often makes people less inclined to impose their standards on others by force (generally, but not absolutely always, for the better).


It is the practical application of a moral framework that matters to our species. Without morals, subject or objective, we have no hope of living in a happy sustainable society.

You use the word "morals", others use "ethics", I use "standards", it is all very much the same thing. It is very probably true that social order depends on at least minimal civility from nearly everyone. It is not necessarily true that it depends on everyone having the same standards - that could even be counterproductive.

Incidentally, whether belief in a moral statement makes life in a happy sustainable society possible has no bearing on whether that moral statement is logically true (at least, not without conditions.) Many people make that error.


Wake-up to yourself, Amoralman.

You wake up. You've just started saying much the same thing I was but you're too bent on trolling me to realise it. When I say I'm amoral what I mean is that I don't believe in objective morality as a concept, and have some points of difference with the baggage it frequently carries. It doesn't mean I'm into random killing sprees.


That's right, a crowd's arguements are no more difficult to debunk than an individual. ln fact it is easier because it is usually some hothead that takes the floor with imoderate methods that are easly neutralised.

Doesn't follow - are you saying the individual is the "hothead" - in which case the reverse of your first sentence would make more sense.


However this BB ain't a crowd. It is a group of clever individuals, many of whom have had a gut full of your gamesmanship (and a gut full of BG's bombastic intransegance.)

And that's also right - it is a community, that is becoming increasingly frustrated with your pedantry, posturing and polemic.

I've posted on BBs where most of the posters are against me, and would do so here if the same was true, but it isn't. FWIW I am only having regular conflict with 3.2 posters and they are the same 3.2 they've been for yonks. So quit the propaganda, it only makes you look like a desperately wishful dill.

Oh ... and I do like to save a little gimme for last:


Your dog doesn't count.

Sorry Matty dear, but the only dog I've ever owned is you. :boohoo:

Cat
27-08-2004, 12:08 AM
Psychopath.



Although KB's behaviour seems to border on sociopathic at times, he may seem psychopathic, he is actually displaying aggressive behaviour with poor self-control.

This is a common behavioural trait in boys, who are driven by aggressive, egocentric needs to display anti-social behaviour. They lack the ability to show empathy and it often leads to conflict in their personal relationships. They're often the kids who are never invited to parties, the loners who tire their peers.

This trait can be used to advantage if it can be controlled. Often the individuals are ambitious and can take on positions of leadership. However, if poor self-control persists it leads to unhappiness and frustration. They simply don't understand why they experience repeated rejection, they blame others for their failings, they believe the world is against them.

Some individuals can't develop beyond the childish tendancies, this aspect of their behaviour fails to mature, and they are beset by conflict in their lives.

The best way to handle this kind of aggressive behaviour is to put up clear 'stop' signals, to try to warn the individual when their behaviour is becoming unacceptable. Some will stop at this point, they become disturbed at the poor outcomes that are the consequences of their behaviour. Others alas, fail to heed the signals, they are oblivious to the consequences of their poor behaviour, they become slaves to their ego and cannot help themselves. They want it all and they want it now!

In this situation it's better to desist communication. If it were a child, you'd send them to their room to cool off. If they won't go, then you simply point out the bad behaviour and demonstrate that it's socially unacceptable to all.
For example you might say something like 'OK guys, KB's lost his rag again, its time to break up, we'll play later', that kind of thing.

In some situations, the individual will start to modify his behaviour and learn some self-control. For some however, the behaviour will continue to be repeated, and they will sadly continue to experience rejection and isolation.

Kevin Bonham
27-08-2004, 03:22 AM
Although KB's behaviour seems to border on sociopathic at times, he may seem psychopathic, he is actually displaying aggressive behaviour with poor self-control.

With your habit of making aggressive unfounded accusations in my direction all the time, you would know all about that.


This is a common behavioural trait in boys, who are driven by aggressive, egocentric needs to display anti-social behaviour.

Oddly enough my ongoing spats with Matt and firegoat started with displays of antisocial behaviour by both, which I took objection to. So they are the ones you should be targeting your little beat-up at, once you have done a bit of "physician: heal thyself" for practice. Trust me, just this once, self-treatment is the ethical thing to do. :owned:


They lack the ability to show empathy and it often leads to conflict in their personal relationships.

Hasn't been any unusual amount of conflict in my personal relationships for ages. In this respect I'm just like others, perhaps a little less volatile than some.


They're often the kids who are never invited to parties, the loners who tire their peers.

I don't really fit that stereotype either. I can take parties or leave them, but I 've never had problems getting invited to them.


They simply don't understand why they experience repeated rejection, they blame others for their failings, they believe the world is against them.

I don't believe the Australian chess world is against me in the slightest - "blame others for their failings" would be you vs Bill in the ratings debate, and indeed your post above.


The best way to handle this kind of aggressive behaviour is to put up clear 'stop' signals, to try to warn the individual when their behaviour is becoming unacceptable.

Let's try it, and see if it works. If you shut up then it works, if you don't then you're talking rubbish as usual. Either way, you lose. :cool:

David, your tryhard hack psychology is making you look like an idiot and a hypocrite. STOP!

Your ratings debates are one of the most spectacular wastes of human endeavour in the history of the internet. STOP!

Your attempts to "debate" almost anything other than medicine are an embarrassment to the human brain. STOP!

http://www.teensite.org/images/stop.h1.gif


For some however, the behaviour will continue to be repeated, and they will sadly continue to experience rejection and isolation.

I haven't experienced a bit of that here, but I've come across three or four very straaaaaange people. Even by my standards. :P

arosar
27-08-2004, 09:09 AM
Relax boys.

AR

Alan Shore
27-08-2004, 09:36 AM
Relax boys.

AR

LOL!

Careful Amiel, KB will probably have a page-long response prepared, rubbishing your throwaway remark! :owned:

Bill Gletsos
27-08-2004, 11:59 AM
I didn't see you go all nobel whan BG suggested that DRs children weren't worth sh.t. I note, that that particular sentance has been deleted.
I have never made any comments regarding DR's family in any way shape or form.
I demand you unequivocally retract this.

antichrist
27-08-2004, 12:18 PM
I have never made any comments regarding DR's family in any way shape or form.
I demand you unequivocally retract this.

Hey Bill, I only entered this thread because I seen your name. I have developed an obcession(?) for making you flip your lid. Make my day. I need that S & M session desparately!

Bill Gletsos
27-08-2004, 12:25 PM
Hey Bill, I only entered this thread because I seen your name. I have developed an obcession(?) for making you flip your lid. Make my day. I need that S & M session desparately!
That just confirms what a sick individual you are.

Just go and waste your time in the other threads, you poor moronic fool.

PHAT
27-08-2004, 04:58 PM
I have never made any comments regarding DR's family in any way shape or form.
I demand you unequivocally retract this.

No. I read it. I was surprised that you had done so. I will not retract unless DR says he cannot recall it. If he does not recall it it means I am very very mistaken. Until then, it stands.

arosar
27-08-2004, 05:00 PM
I know Bill. He wouldn't have said something like that man. Why were his approximate words exactly?

AR

PHAT
27-08-2004, 05:15 PM
I know Bill. He wouldn't have said something like that man. Why were his approximate words exactly?

AR

I know, that is why I was so suprised.

Cannot racall the exact words. I searched genes, genetic, offspring, share, et ectera and come up empty handed. It was the last sentance in a post. I will wait for DR's say.

antichrist
27-08-2004, 06:12 PM
Do you boys need an umpire?? You are having a marathon, is it the Olmypic spirit?

Bill Gletsos
27-08-2004, 06:20 PM
No. I read it. I was surprised that you had done so. I will not retract unless DR says he cannot recall it. If he does not recall it it means I am very very mistaken. Until then, it stands.
The correct procedure would have been for you to have asked DR aboout it before making an unsubstantiated claim.
Then again you are just a disgrace and you have made unsubstantiated claims in the past, so your behaviour does not surprise me at all.

antichrist
27-08-2004, 06:29 PM
Originally Posted by antichrist
Hey Bill, I only entered this thread because I seen your name. I have developed an obcession(?) for making you flip your lid. Make my day. I need that S & M session desparately!

BG

That just confirms what a sick individual you are.

Just go and waste your time in the other threads, you poor moronic fool.


AC
It worked. I am cured! Thanks

Cat
27-08-2004, 06:31 PM
The correct procedure would have been for you to have asked DR aboout it before making an unsubstantiated claim.
Then again you are just a disgrace and you have made unsubstantiated claims in the past, so your behaviour does not surprise me at all.

Matt, I suspect you are referring to Bill's reference to my progeny sharing genetic material with me, which was of course on the BB for all to see. However, I won't ask him to retract it, as it damages him more than it damages me.

Cat
27-08-2004, 06:36 PM
With your habit of making aggressive unfounded accusations in my direction all the time, you would know all about that.



Oddly enough my ongoing spats with Matt and firegoat started with displays of antisocial behaviour by both, which I took objection to. So they are the ones you should be targeting your little beat-up at, once you have done a bit of "physician: heal thyself" for practice. Trust me, just this once, self-treatment is the ethical thing to do. :owned:



Hasn't been any unusual amount of conflict in my personal relationships for ages. In this respect I'm just like others, perhaps a little less volatile than some.



I don't really fit that stereotype either. I can take parties or leave them, but I 've never had problems getting invited to them.



I don't believe the Australian chess world is against me in the slightest - "blame others for their failings" would be you vs Bill in the ratings debate, and indeed your post above.



Let's try it, and see if it works. If you shut up then it works, if you don't then you're talking rubbish as usual. Either way, you lose. :cool:

David, your tryhard hack psychology is making you look like an idiot and a hypocrite. STOP!

Your ratings debates are one of the most spectacular wastes of human endeavour in the history of the internet. STOP!

Your attempts to "debate" almost anything other than medicine are an embarrassment to the human brain. STOP!

http://www.teensite.org/images/stop.h1.gif



I haven't experienced a bit of that here, but I've come across three or four very straaaaaange people. Even by my standards. :P

Need I say more? Of course this demonstrates another trait of aggressive individuals; an inability to take responsibility and ownership of their poor behaviour, instead prefering to deflect the issue away from themselves onto something or somebody else. There's aalways someone else to blame for their behaviour, 'he made me do it'.

Bill Gletsos
27-08-2004, 06:53 PM
Matt, I suspect you are referring to Bill's reference to my progeny sharing genetic material with me, which was of course on the BB for all to see. However, I won't ask him to retract it, as it damages him more than it damages me.
I 've heaped scorn upon you many times but I dont recall ever referring to your kids.
Therefore put up or retract the claim.
Provide a reference to the supposed quote.

Alan Shore
27-08-2004, 08:12 PM
I 've heaped scorn upon you many times but I dont recall ever referring to your kids.
Therefore put up or retract the claim.
Provide a reference to the supposed quote.

That of course could prove impossible due to the wonders of the edit button... the quote I do recall about DR was:


You are the bog at the bottom of the gene pool.

Therefore, the implication is there I guess.. I'd tell you all to just apologise, shake hands and forget it all but goodness me, Kevin might step in and write a dissertation again :confused:

Bill Gletsos
27-08-2004, 08:19 PM
That of course could prove impossible due to the wonders of the edit button... the quote I do recall about DR was:
I believe you are mistaken.

My quote was

You are more the bog at the bottom of the gene pool.
BUT

it was directed at Matt.

This is in thread Matt vs Bill round 974 and is post #134.

I maintain I never mentioned DR's kids in any thread.

Alan Shore
27-08-2004, 08:27 PM
Well the quote was close enough, I was doing it from memory. If it was directed at Matt, then the implication is there for him instead :P

Bill Gletsos
27-08-2004, 08:37 PM
Well the quote was close enough, I was doing it from memory. If it was directed at Matt, then the implication is there for him instead :P
Say what you like, I did not refer to his kids.

FWIW I have actually met one of Matt's daughters.
She seems a really nice kid.

PHAT
27-08-2004, 08:40 PM
Matt, I suspect you are referring to Bill's reference to my progeny sharing genetic material with me, which was of course on the BB for all to see. However, I won't ask him to retract it, as it damages him more than it damages me.

Thanks DR, I was very sure that I remembered it correctly, and your recall confirms it.

Bill, just ware it, cuz if you don't, you are in for hiding for denying.

Bill Gletsos
27-08-2004, 08:42 PM
Thanks DR, I was very sure that I remembered it correctly, and your recall confirms it.

Bill, just ware it, cuz if you don't, you are in for hiding for denying.
As if I'm going to take DR's word for it.
I maintain I never said it.
I want an unbiased independant witness.

PHAT
27-08-2004, 08:48 PM
As if I'm going to take DR's word for it.
I maintain I never said it.
I want an unbiased independant witness.

I choose to believe that you honestly do not recall typying it. Further I choose to believe that during some normal editing, you accidently deleted the offending text.

Now, ware it, and we can move on.

Kevin Bonham
27-08-2004, 08:51 PM
LOL!

Careful Amiel, KB will probably have a page-long response prepared, rubbishing your throwaway remark! :owned:

I think you've already rubbished it enough in a single word!

Bill Gletsos
27-08-2004, 08:54 PM
I choose to believe that you honestly do not recall typying it. Further I choose to believe that during some normal editing, you accidently deleted the offending text.

Now, ware it, and we can move on.
Although I dont agree, if what you say is true then someone other than you two must have seen it.
I want a credible witness to step forward.
N.B. the likes of fg7, antichrist need not apply. ;)

Kevin Bonham
27-08-2004, 08:57 PM
Need I say more?

No, you need to learn to quote. It is not necessary to quote an entire (fairly long) post for the sake of a few-lines of so-called "reply". Brilliant as my posts undoubtedly are, even they do not deserve this level of immortality. This is just another way in which you waste bandwidth. :eek:


Of course this demonstrates another trait of aggressive individuals; an inability to take responsibility and ownership of their poor behaviour, instead prefering to deflect the issue away from themselves onto something or somebody else. There's aalways someone else to blame for their behaviour, 'he made me do it'.

Well, you've just repeated your genuinely poor behaviour after having the stop sign very clearly and explicitly waved in your face.

I guess I made you do it, right? :rolleyes:

Kevin Bonham
27-08-2004, 08:58 PM
Do you boys need an umpire?? You are having a marathon, is it the Olmypic spirit?

This isn't a marathon. 300+ posts on whether I called chesslover a goose or not was a marathon.

Kevin Bonham
27-08-2004, 09:10 PM
Well the quote was close enough, I was doing it from memory. If it was directed at Matt, then the implication is there for him instead :P

Yes. However the point of Matt's comment was to accuse me of a double standard with respect to something Bill had supposedly said about DR's offspring. If what Bill said was really about Matt, then Matt's accusation about double standards on my part collapses in a heap, because the issue was about unkind comments about third parties, not other posters.

I don't recall Bill saying it.
Bill doesn't remember saying it.
Matt and Dave both say Bill said it, but neither can prove this occurred.
Unless Matt can prove Bill said it, then he owes both Bill and I a retraction.

Even if he can prove Bill said it, it doesn't necessarily follow that I saw it (although this would be very likely - excluding the bots I reckon I read well over 90% of posts here.)

PHAT
27-08-2004, 11:07 PM
I don't recall Bill saying it.
Bill doesn't remember saying it.
Matt and Dave both say Bill said it, but neither can prove this occurred.
Unless Matt can prove Bill said it, then he owes both Bill and I a retraction.


In all the time I have been part of this circus, I cannot recall anyone telling outright lies. There has been plenty of stretching, convenient omittions, practical jokes and mistakes, but no outright lies. I trust trust everyone here. I cannot not trust - it alternative would be too personally distressing.

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2004, 12:02 AM
In all the time I have been part of this circus, I cannot recall anyone telling outright lies. There has been plenty of stretching, convenient omittions, practical jokes and mistakes, but no outright lies. I trust trust everyone here.

You conveniently omitted "unsubstantiated total fabrications" from the list above. :P

It is possible that David honestly thinks he remembers said comment but is mistaken. For instance it may have been made about, or by, someone else. It is also possible that Bill honestly doesn't remember writing it and is also mistaken.

However:

(i) the onus of proof is on the accuser.
(ii) Bill seems to me to have a very good memory for fine details generally, including of past posts here.
(iii) Dave has misrepresented Bill's past statements on ratings threads before ... frequently.


I cannot not trust - it alternative would be too personally distressing.

I am at the stage with several posters here where I treat factual claims they make as very unreliable unless later proven true, and I can't say this has caused me any personal distress at all. At least there is no-one here whose claims I assume to be false. (Yes, there really are people online who are wrong more than 99% of the time. :rolleyes: )

I had a look for the post you mention too using various search terms, but couldn't find it either. Maybe one of you could narrow the field with some info about which thread it was or when? That way it would at least be possible to look at whether Bill posted anything that he might have "accidentally edited".

If both of you saw it, why did neither capture it by replying?

Bill Gletsos
28-08-2004, 12:45 AM
Having just re-read my last 900 posts in there entirity (Matt and DR sure posted a lot of crap that i replied to), I cannot find a place where I was even remotely likely to mention DR's kids in any reply to him.

PHAT
28-08-2004, 12:51 AM
Having just re-read my last 900 posts in there entirity (Matt and DR sure posted a lot of crap that i replied to), I cannot find a place where I was even remotely likely to mention DR's kids in any reply to him.

That's because it aint there anymore. :rolleyes:

PHAT
28-08-2004, 12:56 AM
However:

(i) the onus of proof is on the accuser.


Like sexual harassment claims? :P

Bill Gletsos
28-08-2004, 01:01 AM
That's because it aint there anymore. :rolleyes:
That is totally irrelevant to what I said.
For once pay attention and dont be an idiot. :hand:

I said I cannot find any place where I was even remotely likley to have responded in the way you claim.

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2004, 01:40 AM
Like sexual harassment claims? :P

Doesn't look like you'll even get near preponderance of evidence on this one, so that's not going to help you.

I believe that sexual harassment claims under law do technically place the onus of proof on the accuser, but many (typically men) think that a gender-biased view is taken of whether the offence has really been proven or not.

Cat
28-08-2004, 07:42 AM
There is a subtle slight of hand at work here. Bill was referring to 'anyone who shared genetic material with you'. By implication, it could be my kids, but of course he could have been referring to my sister, my parents, aunts, uncles or cousins - so on this occasion Bill is as close to the truth as he's ever been, so well done Bill!

Bruce I can confirm that it was Matt he was referring to in the 'bottom of the bog comment', so again Bill's integrity has been preserved.

One can understand this behaviour from Bill, he has repeatedly demonstrated his inability to show restraint or manners. What is disturbing is that anyone should have tried to defend this appalling behaviour, that requires ill-manners and stupidity.

PHAT
28-08-2004, 10:51 AM
Doesn't look like you'll even get near preponderance of evidence on this one, so that's not going to help you.


I am happy to accept a stinking lawyer's correction to the following - after all, they are the filth who make lucur drafting and enterpretting law.

Sexual harrassment charges are the only ones on the books, where the say so and feelings of the victum are all that is required to make the elledged actions, deemable as harrasment. Of course, the usual rules of evidence applies to determination of whether or not the action actually occured. But remember, it is the only charge, where the victum decides if the action was criminal.

Stacked? You bet!

Bill Gletsos
28-08-2004, 12:59 PM
There is a subtle slight of hand at work here. Bill was referring to 'anyone who shared genetic material with you'. By implication, it could be my kids, but of course he could have been referring to my sister, my parents, aunts, uncles or cousins - so on this occasion Bill is as close to the truth as he's ever been, so well done Bill!
I dont recall saying it.
However if I were to use those words I would have said something like "I pity anyone who shared genetic material with you.".
That is not an attack on those people. In fact it is a sympathetic view with regards them.
After all you have demonstrated your complete lack of veracity on numerous occasions.


Bruce I can confirm that it was Matt he was referring to in the 'bottom of the bog comment', so again Bill's integrity has been preserved.
It was preserved with or without your confirmation.


One can understand this behaviour from Bill, he has repeatedly demonstrated his inability to show restraint or manners.
If anyone has demonstrated their complete lack of restraint or manners it is you.
You deliberately tried to mislead on the Planned rating changes thread by suggesting that comments made by others were yours. You also as usual deliberately took comments that were two years old out of context in an attempt to cause a beatup.

You have falsely called me a liar.
A case of the pot calling the Kettle black.

In fact if anyone on this board has come close to defaming anyone its you.


I consider you a disgrace. What is disturbing is that anyone should have tried to defend this appalling behaviour, that requires ill-manners and stupidity.
Yes, you have continually attempted to defend you appalling behaviour.
You are a disgrace.

Garvinator
28-08-2004, 01:30 PM
Sexual harrassment charges are the only ones on the books, where the say so and feelings of the victum are all that is required to make the elledged actions, deemable as harrasment. Of course, the usual rules of evidence applies to determination of whether or not the action actually occured. But remember, it is the only charge, where the victum decides if the action was criminal.

Stacked? You bet!
this is incorrect, just like any other charge of harassment, the alleged victim can make a complaint and then it is looked into by the relevant authority.

For a parallel, i can go to the police or other relevant authority and make a complaint if i believe someone has say, assaulted me. I can make that complaint, then all the other factors are investigated before further action is taken.

The victim doesnt decide if the action is criminal, that is for the courts or relevant authority to decide.

PHAT
28-08-2004, 05:09 PM
For a parallel, i can go to the police or other relevant authority and make a complaint if i believe someone has say, assaulted me. I can make that complaint, then all the other factors are investigated before further action is taken.


The parallel is an not there.

Except for the self defence defence and mutual agreement (eg boxing), if A deliberately punches a few of B's teeth out, it IS an assult - or GBH for all his teeth :) It does not matter if the victum notifies the police or not. The DPP could lay charges without a complaint being made, as the case is the Crown Vs Bloggs, not Mr A Vs Bloggs. In practise they don't because the victum and princple witness is unlike to cooperate in the box, thus making a successful prosecution highly unlikey. It is the court that finds the punching an assault based on legal argument and precident and what a reasonable person would concider an assault.

Now, in the case of sexual harrassment, the court does not use legal argument and precident and what a reasonable person would concider. It uses one criterium - did the alledged victum feel harrassed. Thus, it is the only crime where particular incident(s) only becomes a crime if the victum say it is a crime.

... and lawyers wonder why they are hated.


EDIT: PS Could some legal scum please correct me if/where I am wrong.

PHAT
28-08-2004, 05:53 PM
They are not so simply dropped because they are relevant. Of course, here you are admitting that your tag-team buddies are weak debaters. Talk about letting down the side. Gonna sue him, Dave?

Not so simply dropped because they are pert of everyday speech - not because they are irrelevant.



I just thought it would save me some effort. :lol:

Thinking of your self rather than the fact that your threat indicates your empathy.



Or maybe the more you inaccurately caricature me, the more I will pretend to live up to that caricature, just for the effect that it has on you.

Now that is what I call prime vindictiveness and a a sure sign that you are on the edge of a personal abiss. You are what you do - since you are ina feed-forward loop, you may well slip into the state where you are your own caricature. (Start reporting your observations to the headmaster now, and don't forget to flush a Yr7's head down the sh.tter at recess.)


I asked you to name names, and you did not do it. You are therefore a coward by your own standards and a disgrace to yourself. I ask again: which posters do I "pick on" because they are "weak" (remember this was your word, not mine)? Name as many as you can think of.

Names" MS DR, FG, CL, BD.
Are we "weak"? No, not in reality. However, in your mind we are, therefore you are knowingly picking on the weak.


You're busted here - you have to either admit that your tag-team buddies are deficient (this is hardly news of the world stuff) or else argue that they are strong and can take it, thus destroying your attack on me as a nasty bully.

Read above - then realise that you are the one that is busted, buster.



On the contrary, I'm involved in some kind of sociable activity at least a couple of nights a week on average, even if it's more often than not connected to some interest or other.

Arguing my point for me now? Twice a week with people who are there for a purpose, not for the company? Geezuz, you're in worse shape than I thought.


I am reluctant to reply to that until you say which rule or boundary you refer to (I think I know, but don't trust you not to switch). Whatever it is, how does this sit with your understanding of human sexual biology based on all the Dawkinsian stuff you like to peddle?

In this society, the rule is called (the veneer of) monogamy. Nothing else works in this society.


It was so predictable you would say that sooner or later that I didn't even bother to anticipate it. Really amazes me that an intelligent person would think an act that way over 90% of men engage in at some stage of their life amounts to an effective insult. What can I say, at least I'm not compulsive. :lol:

When a standard joke is made at your expense, it is best to keep your council. If you react by attempting a deconstruction in a feeble attempt to appear aloof, you only look like even more of a wanker.




When did Bill say that?

A few weeks back. DR would probably remeber better than I. Nevertheless, I will paraphrase. "... I would think that someone unlucky enough to share your genes would be just like you [an idiot/fool/moron] ..."



So's mine (although, to be true, on meeting him one ex-flatmate said that I should be asking my mother some serious questions.)

What is your problem? Your mother wouldn't be the first woman to out source her entertainment.


Not at all, which part of the word "stereotypical" was too long for your attention span?

WWould your response above, be sufficient to extract you from the mire had you said "steriotypical gay" or "steriotypical aborigini"? No. We you say, "X is a steriotypical Y" you lend credence to the stereotype and are guilty of the insult.




Of course I know that MAS's as a group perform very well - the stereotypical example I referred to is merely a very obvious and (anecdotally, at least) less skilled subset of the group.

Ohhhh, now we are back tracking and saying you only ment an anecdotal subset. Cut you losses. Shut-up on the topic before the hole you're digging swallows you completely.



If you can provide a completely sound argument for objective morality based on ski coaching, it will bring me great delight as one of the most brilliant works of the human mind ever seen.

You haven't seen much, have you. Simple replace the term "ski coach" with the phrase "observation of the practical," and you will find yourself on very shakey ground. In fact, you will not be on any ground at all as you do 9.8ms^-2 in free fall toward duncehood.


Sounds clumsily utilitarian, and very simplistic at best. What do you even mean by the happiness of society, and what if the happiness of individuals runs up against it?

Listen, pinhead, all I said was "Education is only good if it leads to a greater degree of happiness for individuals and society." It might be utilitarin, it might be simplistic, it might also be basically true! In fact I would bett good money that nobody on this BB would disagree seriously with my statement about eduction.

This is typical of you. Deflect attention away from your roasting toward some petty critisism of a small off-topic statement. Remember, the topic at hand is you beviour in flamewars.


You are completely missing the point ... Being an expert relationship consultant does not tell you how to build a particle accelerator.

No, you miss the point. Partical acceleraters would need be built without relationships.


And none of Matthew Sweeney's life experience is the slightest use to him in answering the question: is morality objective or subjective.

It doesn't matter if the morals are objective or subjective :wall: It only matters that what ever morals we have, work well. But even that does not matter to this thread. So stick to the topic - flamewars.


But I do have standards or patterns of behaviour - the only differences are that they are different from yours

Nope. You do not have standards in the real sense. You match your standards to your behaviour, when real morality is the molding of your behaviour to your standards.



That's funny, I certainly recall debating it in your presence. Maybe all you were offering was mindless insults. :hmm: Well, if you would then care to [b]debate it for the first time, maybe ... it is all the same to me.

I will take you on - on neutral ground. Rules are:
1. No quoting fillosofaz, dead or alive
2. No no jargon - plain English only.
3. Only weapon is a dictionary.
4. I do not pay for your medical expenses.



When I say I'm amoral what I mean is that I don't believe in objective morality as a concept, and have some points of difference with the baggage it frequently carries. It doesn't mean I'm into random killing sprees.

It means that you think you are free to invent your own subjective personal morals. But you are not. You must adopt the morals of your society, or society will "shun" you.


Oh ... and I do like to save a little gimme for last:

Sorry Matty dear, but the only dog I've ever owned is you. :boohoo:

You can tell a lot about a person from the dog they own and how they treat it. :snooty:

antichrist
28-08-2004, 06:53 PM
Although I dont agree, if what you say is true then someone other than you two must have seen it.
I want a credible witness to step forward.
N.B. the likes of fg7, antichrist need not apply. ;)


I saw it

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2004, 08:05 PM
Sexual harrassment charges are the only ones on the books, where the say so and feelings of the victum are all that is required to make the elledged actions, deemable as harrasment. Of course, the usual rules of evidence applies to determination of whether or not the action actually occured. But remember, it is the only charge, where the victum decides if the action was criminal.

I am only familiar with my own state's legislation, which includes a list of unwelcome conduct and the following formula:

"in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated that the other person would be offended, humiliated, intimidated, insulted or ridiculed."

I assume therefore that if the conduct is proven, if the victim says it was unwelcome, and if a reasonable person could have anticipated that it would be unwelcome, then the burden of proof would be on the defendant to show that the victim wasn't really offended.

If so, I actually can't see anything wrong with this.

Bill Gletsos
28-08-2004, 08:28 PM
I saw it
Even at the best of times you are not considered a reliable witness.

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2004, 10:57 PM
Not so simply dropped because they are pert of everyday speech - not because they are irrelevant.

Sometimes when it comes to discussing some subjects, everyday speech has serious limitations that really are worth pointing out in the interests of a clearer discussion.

However for the most part you are just stereotyping me as picking on the way people say things rather than their content, and ignoring the fact that a large proportion of my disagreements with various posters are over factual claims.


Thinking of your self rather than the fact that your threat indicates your empathy.

For you to whimper about not getting empathy from me is a sad sign of your ability to dish it out but not take it. Want it? Earn it. :hand:


Now that is what I call prime vindictiveness and a a sure sign that you are on the edge of a personal abiss.

More stupid, melodramatic hack psychology - and since I've been doing much the same thing much of my life I must have been on the edge of this abyss for quite a while without falling into it. :P


You are what you do - since you are ina feed-forward loop, you may well slip into the state where you are your own caricature. (Start reporting your observations to the headmaster now, and don't forget to flush a Yr7's head down the sh.tter at recess.)

What nonsense. On other BBs I frequently defend posters of school age against hypocrites of my own age bagging them out in various areas in which they are not themselves perfect.


Names" MS DR, FG, CL, BD.
Are we "weak"? No, not in reality. However, in your mind we are, therefore you are knowingly picking on the weak.

You said that I pick on the weak. You did not say that I pick on those who I think are weak. And this apparent hair-split does make a difference, because the strong can stand up for themselves.

Your line-up is shabby anyway. chesslover and I generally got on quite well, and it was only during some of his more hysterical trolling efforts on a few particular issues that I got stuck into him, whereas I remember you being far more "bullying" towards him yourself, including trying to diagnose him with Asperger's Syndrome.

All the rest have been at least as personally critical/abusive to me as I have to them. In your much-beloved schoolyard analogy terms, you are the kind who starts a fight with someone bigger than you, gets thumped, then runs to the teacher complaining that you were bullied. There is no teacher, so it looks like you will just have to suffer. :lol:


Read above - then realise that you are the one that is busted, buster.

Bluster.


Arguing my point for me now? Twice a week with people who are there for a purpose, not for the company?

No, for both. I make a lot of friendships through common interests and generally (but not exclusively) catch up with those friends through common activities. If I was only going to the chess club to play chess, for instance, I could stay at home and get stronger games online or by cc.


Geezuz, you're in worse shape than I thought.

It looks like it is you whose understanding of friendship is unsophisticated - so how about you back off and admit that the above was trolling? :lol:


In this society, the rule is called (the veneer of) monogamy. Nothing else works in this society.

That is what I thought you were referring to. You haven't answered my question about how this relates to Dawkins etc. Now, define what you mean by "works". Works how and for whom?

Matt - I have edited out another reference from your post which again can be read as making false inferences about a person who does not post here. If you make any further references of this nature you risk me raising it with the admins. If you are really concerned about my sexual wellbeing and want to raise your concerns with me offline, you may do so. I will only bother responding (and enlightening you as to the true situation) subject to very strict conditions that ensure and enforce that you will definitely not republish the material in any form, including summaries.

Suffice to say that you have jumped to the wrong conclusions in two incorrect directions already, and that the only naive one here is you with your bizarre combination of gutter mind and conventional family values. :uhoh:


When a standard joke is made at your expense, it is best to keep your council. If you react by attempting a deconstruction in a feeble attempt to appear aloof, you only look like even more of a wanker.

But I am aloof Matt - how could a word that any five year old can say about anyone else for any reason whatsoever possibly be any more than water off the goose's back? Get a broader vocab and more original insults. And learn what deconstruction is, because that wasn't it. :wall:


A few weeks back. DR would probably remeber better than I. Nevertheless, I will paraphrase. "... I would think that someone unlucky enough to share your genes would be just like you [an idiot/fool/moron] ..."

Not very convincing.


What is your problem? Your mother wouldn't be the first woman to out source her entertainment.

My problem is simply that there is no actual evidence that this occurred. Unlike some, I have no particular prejudice for or against parents being married. I could have easily deleted some of your comments about this too, except that casting aspersions on people's parentage is a pretty ancient and generally harmless form of jocular abuse - no one would ever take your questioning my parentage seriously.


[big rasberry] WWould your response above, be sufficient to extract you from the mire had you said "steriotypical gay" or "steriotypical aborigini"?No. We you say, "X is a steriotypical Y" you lend credence to the stereotype and are guilty of the insult.

Incorrect - the expression "stereotypical gay" is used primarily to point out that the stereotype is empirically false and that only a subset (or in many cases an outright fiction) is being discussed. "Stereotypical Aborigine" is a very rare expression (a Google search found only one hit cf. thousands for "stereotypical gay") but I expect it would be the same there. Why would anyone wanting to insult a group undermine their case by pointing out that aiming their insult at the whole group would be stereotyping? Just doesn't make sense. :hmm:

In any case it is pleasing to see that you have seen the light and now agree that attacking gays through stereotypes is unacceptable. There is hope for you yet.


Ohhhh, now we are back tracking and saying you only ment an anecdotal subset.

False. I was referring to a very real subset among the MASs but admitting that one part of my claim - that this subset performs poorly - was only anecdotal (and given the small sample size it was probably flippant as well).

I stand completely by my core case, which was that this subset irritates many other students (and some staff) by misapplying "personal experience" to irrelevant subjects, and that you are behaving in exactly the same manner. UTAS has a very large proportion of MASs and this subset (but not the rest) are a constant source of complaint from the under-25s (and the odd fellow MAS as well.)


You haven't seen much, have you. Simple replace the term "ski coach" with the phrase "observation of the practical," and you will find yourself on very shakey ground. In fact, you will not be on any ground at all as you do 9.8ms^-2 in free fall toward duncehood.

Rubbish, I will gladly call your silly bluff: If you can provide me with a completely sound argument for objective morality based on observation of the practical, it will bring me great delight as one of the most brilliant works of the human mind ever seen.

If you could do this you would be overturning at least 230 years of failure by some of the greatest philosophical minds that have lived. (NB by completely sound argument I mean that you must prove that there is an objective moral code that is "right", such that any person who does not follow it has made a logical error.)

The reality is that all your "practical knowledge" is equally irrelevant to answering this philosophical issue.


Listen, pinhead, all I said was "Education is only good if it leads to a greater degree of happiness for individuals and society." It might be utilitarin, it might be simplistic, it might also be basically true! In fact I would bett good money that nobody on this BB would disagree seriously with my statement about eduction.

There is nothing much to think about agreeing or disagreeing with until you pin it down a bit more precisely. Some of this parallels the debate I'm having with Dave on the God issue, where he was trying to make the happiness of individuals the criterion of truth, and I was questioning this, pointing out that in the long term it is counterproductive.

Furthermore, being more libertarian than simplistically utilitarian, I'd argue that anything leading to the greatest happiness of the greatest number was not necessarily good if minorities were trampled to get there.


This is typical of you.

Yet the first time it has come to your attention during all this? Hardly typical - and as it happens your accusation is false:


Deflect attention away from your roasting toward some petty critisism of a small off-topic statement. Remember, the topic at hand is you beviour in flamewars.

Roasting? You couldn't even turn the oven on.

A quick recap to show how you abuse relevance claims to falsely blame me when you get whipped on off-topic issues:

As part of your attack on my behaviour in flamewars, you chose to call me a psychopath on account of my moral philosophy.
I defended this by pointing out that not only did moral subjectivism have a long philosophical tradition but also that subjectivists did not behave like psychopaths in general.
You made no attempt to contest the latter - and in fact explicitly accepted my point that it does not much matter - but unwisely attempted to make a major effort on contesting the former using your "life experience". :rolleyes:
When this was challenged you tried to spin some line about the purpose of education to prop up your nonsense. This I have challenged in turn.
Either your comment is irrelevant to the purpose of the debate and you should drop it, or my reply is relevant and you have no business objecting to it as being off topic.
Of course, the day will never come when Matthew Sweeney abides by more than 5% of the standards he attempts to hold others to on this BB.


No, you miss the point. Partical acceleraters would need be built without relationships.

Fix up this sentence and then I will explain to you why it is irrelevant nonsense.


It doesn't matter if the morals are objective or subjective :wall: It only matters that what ever morals we have, work well. But even that does not matter to this thread. So stick to the topic - flamewars.

Again, you stick to it, dummy. If morals are irrelevant to the issue, then admit that my moral subjectivity is irrelevant to the issue of my conduct in flamewars (one of your original contentions), retract and apologise for calling me a psychopath, and we will get on with disposing of any other rubbish you have left to throw.

Actually I am taking the above as a typically ungracious resignation by king-hurl on that point.


Nope. You do not have standards in the real sense. You match your standards to your behaviour, when real morality is the molding of your behaviour to your standards.

Something you clearly do not display on this BB, where you constantly attack others for doing things that you do yourself, yet continue to do this even after this has been pointed out, so we now know that you have neither standards nor morality in any sense other than a facade for you to use to pretend to be more principled than others.

I avoid the word "moral" to describe what standards I have mainly to avoid contaminated meaning baggage of the sort you refer to. Of course, because you don't know me, you don't know what my standards are or when and why they have changed, so the above is just an assumption on your part. As it happens, it's wrong - I mainly construct my standards to avoid behaviour that I notice and disapprove of in others.


I will take you on - on neutral ground. Rules are:
1. No quoting fillosofaz, dead or alive
2. No no jargon - plain English only.
3. Only weapon is a dictionary.
4. I do not pay for your medical expenses.

Rule 4 is just Matthew being stupid. Again.

Rules 1-3 are an attempt to load the debate in your direction by eliminating a field in which you are clueless and terms that you do not understand, and increasing the power of playing on the inadequacies and contradictions of ordinary English. We might just as well have a debate about how to build a house in which you are not allowed to mention the words: hammer, nail, glass, brick, floorplan, wall ...

I would be happy to agree to rule 1 as a needless and generous gift (akin to giving pawn odds to a total patzer), because I can whip you very easily on this subject without quoting, or even mentioning, any philosopher by name. (Pedantic NB - I usually just mention them, not quote.)

However rules 2 and 3 are just attempts by you to turn it into not a neutral ground debate, but rather a handicap race, and are rejected. :hand: The internet is your friend; if I use jargon, look it up.

Of course this is a common tactic by a know-nothing when challenged to a debate - to attempt to evade it by proposing stupid conditions. If your view was true and you knew enough to prove it, you would be able to do so no matter what jargon I used in reply.

That you are afraid of the jargon used by those who spend their lives studying this field does not bode well for your ability to debate it.


It means that you think you are free to invent your own subjective personal morals. But you are not. You must adopt the morals of your society, or society will "shun" you.

But I already know that my conformity or otherwise to the morals of others matters in practical terms - and because my behaviour is civil in general, this is really not a problem, especially as most people are concerned with my practical adherence more than my actual belief. In fact there is not one set of "morals of your society" but rather a diverse pluralist spectrum. There is plenty of room for an amoralist to move around in without getting into trouble with the law.


You can tell a lot about a person from the dog they own and how they treat it. :snooty:

Yes Matthew, and when a dog, due to some unknown disorder or caninality defect it had before its owner got it, urinates on the furniture, barks pointlessly, chases its own tail and eats it, and attacks innocent passersby for no reason at all, any responsible owner would take it to the vet or to the pound. :hand:

Cat
28-08-2004, 11:40 PM
I saw it

Now I want to make this quite clear, Bill did not say he threw my children overboard, he said he just didn't have the intellegence to think otherwise.

Bill Gletsos
28-08-2004, 11:44 PM
Now I want to make this quite clear, Bill did not say he threw my children overboard, he said he just didn't have the intellegence to think otherwise.
You really are a complete moron.
I maintain I never said what you claim.
I also maintain that I have never mentioned your children in any post.

Kevin Bonham
29-08-2004, 12:39 AM
I think the whole thing about Bill having supposedly said this is looking very tatty. It's irrelevant anyway, because as Bill points out, such an insult is really an insult to the person against who it is used, and not at all comparable to Matt making unsubstantiated statements about the sexual character of someone who does not post here.

It is not sufficient that although three people claim to have seen this post, none of them can find it even by searching, none of them can recall which thread it was on, and all of them have a personal interest as known foes of BG.

Matt's claim that he "chooses to believe" that Bill accidentally deleted it is far-fetched. It would be very very rare for a poster to accidentally delete anything and especially rare for this to be a point that later became contentious. It is far more likely that those claiming Bill wrote this are in error in some way, such as remembering a comment by a different poster, or misremembering exact details of it.

So, Moral Matt, going to retract your unsubstantiated and unprovable claim?

Cat
29-08-2004, 01:24 AM
I think the whole thing about Bill having supposedly said this is looking very tatty. It's irrelevant anyway, because as Bill points out, such an insult is really an insult to the person against who it is used, and not at all comparable to Matt making unsubstantiated statements about the sexual character of someone who does not post here.

It is not sufficient that although three people claim to have seen this post, none of them can find it even by searching, none of them can recall which thread it was on, and all of them have a personal interest as known foes of BG.

Matt's claim that he "chooses to believe" that Bill accidentally deleted it is far-fetched. It would be very very rare for a poster to accidentally delete anything and especially rare for this to be a point that later became contentious. It is far more likely that those claiming Bill wrote this are in error in some way, such as remembering a comment by a different poster, or misremembering exact details of it.

So, Moral Matt, going to retract your unsubstantiated and unprovable claim?

What is tatty is your & Bill's continued bad behaviour. You are both ACF office-holders, the face of the ACF to the BB public and what they see is simply dreadful, there's no other word to describe it.

You both endlessly insult individuals who make valid and often well-meant, constructive criticism. You have no regard for your constituency. You act like members of a polit-bureau, not elected officials of a chess club. And when you feel unhappy about the criticisms, instead of taking it on board and attempting to deal with the difficulty, you attempt to isolate and discredit the individual.

KB, to attempt to defend Bill's terrible lack of self-control in this way is disgraceful. It's also damaging to the ACF that you lack the balls to be honest with him. You know it, you just can't bring yourself to say it. Your misplaced loyalty is prepetuating an antedeluvian autocracy you seem so ready to deride in the religious sphere. Shame on you!

Bill Gletsos
29-08-2004, 02:23 AM
What is tatty is your & Bill's continued bad behaviour. You are both ACF office-holders, the face of the ACF to the BB public and what they see is simply dreadful, there's no other word to describe it.
Actually if anyone is dreadful its you.


You both endlessly insult individuals who make valid and often well-meant, constructive criticism.
All we have done is insult 1 clown, 2 morons, and a few geese.
In virtually all cases their criticism has been neither valid, well-meant or constructive. All they have been doing is pushing their own barrows.


You have no regard for your constituency. You act like members of a polit-bureau, not elected officials of a chess club. And when you feel unhappy about the criticisms, instead of taking it on board and attempting to deal with the difficulty, you attempt to isolate and discredit the individual.
You have pretty much discredited yourself.


KB, to attempt to defend Bill's terrible lack of self-control in this way is disgraceful.
I've disagreed with many posters, including Barry Cox over his interpretation of capturing the king in blitz.
However I have only regularly abused Matt and you.
You and Matt have continually made false claims or accusations and just been content to generate beatups.

Kevin Bonham
29-08-2004, 02:52 AM
What is tatty is your & Bill's continued bad behaviour. You are both ACF office-holders, the face of the ACF to the BB public and what they see is simply dreadful, there's no other word to describe it.

It has been said here many times before in response to similar beat-ups - all posts we make here are in a personal capacity unless specified otherwise. I am sure if the BB public really thought the above (rather than four or five protagonists pretending it) the ACF would be getting complaint letters about both of us on a regular basis.


You both endlessly insult individuals who make valid and often well-meant, constructive criticism.

Actually the ones who get insulted do everything but.


You have no regard for your constituency.

My constituency is the TCA - the rest of you don't vote for me so any concerns about my performance in ACF roles (selection co-ordination and constitutional committee) should be directed to your state delegates.


You act like members of a polit-bureau, not elected officials of a chess club.

Actually the one who sounds like the Ministry of Propaganda would be you - I say so because you do not engage with opposing opinion very well but simply repeat pet rants ad nauseum without paying much attention to what the other person has posted.


And when you feel unhappy about the criticisms, instead of taking it on board and attempting to deal with the difficulty, you attempt to isolate and discredit the individual.

If a criticism is worth making a change in response to it is an improvement and I am very happy to receive it. If someone is proposing worthless changes those changes deserve to be discredited. If an individual does so persistently and offers relatively little of value, they deserve it too. :hand:


KB, to attempt to defend Bill's terrible lack of self-control in this way is disgraceful.

Where did I defend anything? To say Bill didn't do something is hardly defending the act, one can hardly defend an act that doesn't exist. And, sad to say, with the low standards displayed by Matt, saying that something would not be comparable to Matt's behaviour is really not a defence.

For what it is worth though, with the abysmal rubbish that you have flung at Bill and the amount of his time you have wasted, I would not consider such a comment about you a "terrible lack of self-control". Actually I would consider it mild.


It's also damaging to the ACF that you lack the balls to be honest with him. You know it, you just can't bring yourself to say it.

If I disapproved of Bill's conduct I would say so, but the reality is that he is subject to a lot of frankly idiotic, mindless, and repetitive beat-ups on this BB and it is hard to think of a flame too harsh for those responsible. He could be a lot more indignant about it before I would have any problem with it.


Your misplaced loyalty is prepetuating an antedeluvian autocracy you seem so ready to deride in the religious sphere. Shame on you!

The ACF is a democracy not an autocracy. Its structure is so generous that through the state associations, even geese get to vote. Peter Singer, eat yer heart out. :owned:

PS David - I interpret your entire post above as an attempt to shift the focus because your buddy Matt is under serious fire for making weak accusations and doesn't look like getting out of it any time soon.

PHAT
29-08-2004, 07:09 AM
All we have done is insult 1 clown, 2 morons, and a few geese.


Bill, FFS LISTEN!

David is pointing out that for the ACF Ratings Officer and an Olympiad Selector to enguage in trench warfare with the rank and file is not good for the image of chess.

I guess it is too late now, but perhaps you two (BG + KB) should have had two IDs each - real name and an anon.

Now respond to this post with the dignity and deplomacy that is expected from the President of the NSWCA. You could try to emulate starter for a start.

PHAT
29-08-2004, 07:54 AM
It's irrelevant anyway, because as Bill points out, such an insult is really an insult to the person against who it is used, ...

That is nonsence. When the insult involves pity for a third party for having a morons genes ... :rollseyes: ... you try to connect the dots.


It is not sufficient that although three people claim to have seen this post, ...

You have to be joking, right?


... none of them can find it even by searching, none of them can recall which thread it was on, and all of them have a personal interest as known foes of BG.

I paraphrsed, "... I would think that someone unlucky enough to share your genes would be just like you [an idiot/fool/moron] ..."
David recalls "'anyone who shared genetic material with you'"

The orginal material is gone.


Matt's claim that he "chooses to believe" that Bill accidentally deleted it is far-fetched.

I am telling you that I choose to believe it.


So, Moral Matt, going to retract your unsubstantiated and unprovable claim?

"How about, no, Scott" - E

PHAT
29-08-2004, 07:59 AM
I am only familiar with my own state's legislation, which includes a list of unwelcome conduct and the following formula:

"in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated that the other person would be offended, humiliated, intimidated, insulted or ridiculed."

I assume therefore that if the conduct is proven, if the victim says it was unwelcome, and if a reasonable person could have anticipated that it would be unwelcome, then the burden of proof would be on the defendant to show that the victim wasn't really offended.

If so, I actually can't see anything wrong with this.

Fair enough. For Tassie, it would seem that the stituation is "normal".

If some billable-minute-monger-ral wants to call it for NSW ...

ursogr8
29-08-2004, 08:28 AM
Bill, FFS LISTEN!

David is pointing out that for the ACF Ratings Officer and an Olympiad Selector to enguage in trench warfare with the rank and file is not good for the image of chess.

I guess it is too late now, but perhaps you two (BG + KB) should have had two IDs each - real name and an anon.

Now respond to this post with the dignity and deplomacy that is expected from the President of the NSWCA. You could try to emulate starter for a start.

Was that a TAG?
Anyone, did you see if his hand touched mine?
Ref. ..... did his hand touch mine to TAG?


Who is on our side? :uhoh:
Who is on their side. :hmm: :eek:

Err, umm, what thread are we on?


Next channel please.....poster surfs off to another thread.


starter

Alan Shore
29-08-2004, 08:36 AM
In light of all these comments about users having no manners, especially those who are supposed to be 'respectable in person' I would like to propose the following: that non-chess be officially unmoderated, where you can say whatever the hell you like and it be kept separate from the chess section, where people can get some proper and decent answers to their questions without being mouthed off at like we've seen.

What say ye?

PHAT
29-08-2004, 08:46 AM
However for the most part you are just stereotyping me as picking on the way people say things rather than their content, ...

You do both.


You said that I pick on the weak. You did not say that I pick on those who I think are weak. And this apparent hair-split does make a difference, because the strong can stand up for themselves.

Non sequitor. I said you "pick on the week" because I believe that you don't pick on those whom you believe you might get snotted by them. The critical point is that you "pick on the week (i your eyes)" because they are not strong in your eyes.


Your line-up is shabby anyway.[/qoute]

You realy don't know how deep the hole you're digging is.

[quote]chesslover and I generally got on quite well, ... where as I remember you being far more "bullying" towards him yourself, including trying to diagnose him with Asperger's Syndrome.

I would bet money on it.


In your much-beloved schoolyard analogy terms, you are the kind who starts a fight with someone bigger than you, gets thumped, then runs to the teacher complaining that you were bullied.

Sorry to disappoint, but I am not the dobbing kind. :hand:


Now, define what you mean by "works". Works how and for whom?

Later.


Matt - I have edited out another reference from your post which again can be read as making false inferences about a person who does not post here. If you make any further references of this nature you risk me raising it with the admins.

GF. You raised the question first as to who your father might be. To use a Billism, you're a disgrace.


If you are really concerned about my sexual wellbeing and want to raise your concerns with me offline, you may do so. I will only bother responding (and enlightening you as to the true situation) subject to very strict conditions that ensure and enforce that you will definitely not republish the material in any form, including summaries.

Thanks for the invit, but honestly, while I may be as curious as anyone else, it realy isn't nay of my business - except to publically speculate about :wink:



Rubbish, I will gladly call your silly bluff: [i]If you can provide me with a completely sound argument for objective morality based on observation of the practical, it will bring me great delight as one of the most brilliant works of the human mind ever seen.

If you could do this you would be overturning at least 230 years of failure by some of the greatest philosophical minds that have lived. (NB by completely sound argument I mean that you must prove that there is an objective moral code that is "right", such that any person who does not follow it has made a logical error.)

Thank you in advance.


Roasting? You couldn't even turn the oven on.

How could you possibly know? You're the headless chook doing the self-basting 360's at 360 F.


A quick recap to show how you abuse relevance claims to falsely blame me when you get whipped on off-topic issues:

As part of your attack on my behaviour in flamewars, you chose to call me a psychopath on account of my moral philosophy.
I defended this by pointing out that not only did moral subjectivism have a long philosophical tradition but also that subjectivists did not behave like psychopaths in general.
You made no attempt to contest the latter - and in fact explicitly accepted my point that it does not much matter - but unwisely attempted to make a major effort on contesting the former using your "life experience". :rolleyes:
When this was challenged you tried to spin some line about the purpose of education to prop up your nonsense. This I have challenged in turn.
Either your comment is irrelevant to the purpose of the debate and you should drop it, or my reply is relevant and you have no business objecting to it as being off topic.
Of course, the day will never come when Matthew Sweeney abides by more than 5% of the standards he attempts to hold others to on this BB.

[yawn] save it for the right thread.




Fix up this sentence and then I will explain to you why it is irrelevant nonsense.

Partical acceleraters would never* be built without relationships.




...retract and apologise for calling me a psychopath, and we will get on with disposing of any other rubbish you have left to throw.

You will have to settle for a correction. You are a sociopath.


I mainly construct my standards to avoid behaviour that I notice and disapprove of in others.

The tail does not wag the dog.


Rules 1-3 are an attempt to load the debate in your direction by eliminating a field in which you are clueless and terms that you do not understand, and increasing the power of playing on the inadequacies and contradictions of ordinary English.

That oven is pretty hot, eh.


I would be happy to agree to rule 1 as a needless and generous gift (akin to giving pawn odds to a total patzer),

Idiot. This patzer is giving up the same pawn. Idiot.


However rules 2 and 3 are just attempts by you to turn it into not a neutral ground debate, but rather a handicap race, and are rejected.

:lol: I think the thermostat is stuck on. The smoke detector is about to go off


Of course this is a common tactic by a know-nothing when challenged to a debate - to attempt to evade it by proposing stupid conditions.

What is so rotten about plain english? Pinhead.


That you are afraid of the jargon used by those who spend their lives studying this field does not bode well for your ability to debate it.

I am not afraid if jargon, I simply wish for two things. 1. to keep the bedate accessable, 2. to reduce the ammount of time I need to find/learn/decode it and tern it back into plain english.


In fact there is not one set of "morals of your society" but rather a diverse pluralist spectrum.

BUT, there is a core set.


There is plenty of room for an amoralist to move around in without getting into trouble with the law.

Tell that to the magistrate.


Yes Matthew, and when a dog, due to some unknown disorder or caninality defect it had before its owner got it, urinates on the furniture, barks pointlessly, chases its own tail and eats it, and attacks innocent passersby for no reason at all, any responsible owner would take it to the vet or to the pound. :hand:

Touche. :D

Bill Gletsos
29-08-2004, 09:34 AM
Bill, FFS LISTEN!

David is pointing out that for the ACF Ratings Officer and an Olympiad Selector to enguage in trench warfare with the rank and file is not good for the image of chess.

I guess it is too late now, but perhaps you two (BG + KB) should have had two IDs each - real name and an anon.

Now respond to this post with the dignity and deplomacy that is expected from the President of the NSWCA. You could try to emulate starter for a start.
You and DR are the worst offenders.
You generate beatups.
You make false claims and accusations.
based on that behaviour you both dont deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.

Bill Gletsos
29-08-2004, 09:41 AM
In light of all these comments about users having no manners, especially those who are supposed to be 'respectable in person' I would like to propose the following: that non-chess be officially unmoderated, where you can say whatever the hell you like and it be kept separate from the chess section, where people can get some proper and decent answers to their questions without being mouthed off at like we've seen.

What say ye?
It isnt going to happen.
This is because it is in the chess threads where both Matt and DR continually make false and incorrect claims and try to generate beatups.
As such thats where they are going to get responses they deserve.

Bill Gletsos
29-08-2004, 09:52 AM
That is nonsence. When the insult involves pity for a third party for having a morons genes ... :rollseyes: ... you try to connect the dotsI paraphrsed, "... I would think that someone unlucky enough to share your genes would be just like you [an idiot/fool/moron] ..."
David recalls "'anyone who shared genetic material with you'"
The point is I dont recall saying it.
However one thing I am damn sure of is that I have never mentioned his kids.
therefore for you and he to suggest I did is just another beatup and false accusation.
However if I were to suggest I felt pity for anyone sharing DR's genes that is not an attack on those people. It is an expression of sympathy for them.


The orginal material is gone.
I maintain it was never there.
Both you and DR have demonstrated on numerous occasions that your verasity leaves a lot to be desired.



I am telling you that I choose to believe it.
I never accidently delete anything.
It is also highly unlikely I would deliberately delete the sentence you claim because I dont see it as a criticism of anyone but DR.

PHAT
29-08-2004, 03:57 PM
I never accidently delete anything.

:eek: Big claim! Are you sure you don't want to, perhaps, bung a qualifier on to that statement?

Kevin Bonham
29-08-2004, 04:12 PM
David is pointing out that for the ACF Ratings Officer and an Olympiad Selector to enguage in trench warfare with the rank and file is not good for the image of chess.

You absolute, utter goose.

You seem to have forgotten that you are also an ACF officebearer. Hardly surprising since you haven't given any public sign of activity in that role for ages - maybe it's time Council asked you for a progress report.

Your coaching accreditation position holds exactly the same kind of status as my selection co-ordination role, which is not a Council-specific position, it just happens that I am also the TCA rep on Council at the same time. (And incidentally, my current position is selection co-ordinator, not selector, although I am still on the broader selection panel.)

Therefore anything you say about me in this light has to apply to yourself as well. Since you are the biggest disgrace here you have just shot your own foot off. Again. The blunders you make here, and your failure to anticipate obvious weaknesses in your arguments, are remarkable. I am guessing you play like this too - all attack and no defence - and that is why your rating is so low.

Give up.

Kevin Bonham
29-08-2004, 04:18 PM
In light of all these comments about users having no manners, especially those who are supposed to be 'respectable in person' I would like to propose the following: that non-chess be officially unmoderated, where you can say whatever the hell you like and it be kept separate from the chess section, where people can get some proper and decent answers to their questions without being mouthed off at like we've seen.

What say ye?

We had a vote on whether to start an uncensored section for over 18s (it would still be moderated for legal stuff like defo and so on). It was Matthew's idea, I supported it, the tribe has spoken with a resounding "no" vote so that's it for that one for now.

I think anyone who wants a completely unmoderated board should set one up themselves, I don't believe it's all that hard to do. Won't be seeing me there though.

As for hoping that the abuse would be kept off the chess sections, I think this is too much to expect while some people continue to discuss chess topics in a vexatious manner, but I am trying to move the worst excesses of abusive meta-debate and slanging here, and on the Mt Buller thread I've been deleting any completely off-topic posts for a while now.

Kevin Bonham
29-08-2004, 05:14 PM
You do both.

At times I do - my point is that you have tried to over-emphasise the extent to which I call people on their expression, and even to portray it as if this is all I do. That was very misleading.


I said you "pick on the week" because I believe that you don't pick on those whom you believe you might get snotted by them.

Rubbish Matt. There is no-one in that category here. Indeed there is no one in the entire world who I would be afraid to take on in a public debate if I believe they are wrong. I have taken on academic philosophers, politicians, scientists, authors, broadcasters, activists, religious figures, crowds of hundreds of people ... it all makes no difference to me at all. Find anyone who disagrees with me on any subject and I will take them on in public provided it is reasonably physically safe to do so.

When I disagree with Bill, which is relatively rare, I say so, as I did over aspects of the ACF Commission debate, and as did recently on the Zonal, as I have sometimes on some arbiting issues. The difference is that Bill does not engage in beat-ups so these debates do not escalate into flamewars.


You realy don't know how deep the hole you're digging is.

More bluster - only hole here is the one between your ears.


would bet money on it.

I wouldn't. Asperger's is one of those fashionable diagnoses that unqualified people go around claiming "oooh, I know someone with that". NPD is another one. 5-10 years ago it was ADHD (then ADD).


Sorry to disappoint, but I am not the dobbing kind. :hand:

You can say that all you like but on here you are causing me to doubt it. Perhaps you are a closet dobber? :lol:


You raised the question first as to who your father might be.

You are either lying or both forgetful and lazy - I made that comment in reply to you saying "at least I know who my father is".


Thank you in advance.

Don't get your hopes up - you haven't delivered the goods and never will. Far better and more qualified men and women than you have failed. So which is coming first - your proof of objective morality or your new rating system? :hmm:


How could you possibly know? You're the headless chook doing the self-basting 360's at 360 F.

Brilliant line. :clap: :clap:

But only you would put the chicken in the oven before it had stopped moving.

And the only head you've been hacking off here is yours.


[yawn] save it for the right thread.

This is the right thread, bozo. The thread is called "BB insults/metadebate." And from this point on, all relevance claims you make on this thread are off-topic by your own admission.


Partical acceleraters would never* be built without relationships.

As expected. Irrelevant because the issue was whether the skills from different fields are useful in answering questions from other fields, not whether it would be possible to explore other fields without them.


You will have to settle for a correction. You are a sociopath.

That is not a correction. :rolleyes:

(For the uninitiated, "sociopath" and "psycopath" are both obsolete terms for a person with very similar conditions to what is now called "antisocial personality disorder". Something which Matthew will happily "diagnose" anyone who rebukes him with, but appears to know very little about. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath to learn more about how far wide of the mark Moral Matthew really is.)


The tail does not wag the dog.

But from your account of morality, morality is exactly that, the tail wagging the dog, so either you are wrong or else nobody is moral and therefore your claimed difference between me and a person with morals is sunk.


That oven is pretty hot, eh.

What are you frothing about?


Idiot. This patzer is giving up the same pawn. Idiot.

The idiot is you - that's a pawn you wouldn't have moved anyway because you know next to nothing about philosophy. How many philosophers have you ever quoted before?


:lol: I think the thermostat is stuck on. The smoke detector is about to go off

More pointless blustering babble with no evidence. Looks like your oven runs on gas and you are out of it.


What is so rotten about plain english? Pinhead.

The "pinhead" (stupid or foolish person) is you. Actually in this debate you have been both stupid and foolish. There is nothing rotten about plain English but it lacks some of the subtle distinctions needed to discuss specialised subjects precisely. Perhaps you would care to define what "jargon" consists of anyway, and which "jargon" terms that I have used in the past you have failed to understand.


I am not afraid if jargon, I simply wish for two things. 1. to keep the bedate accessable, 2. to reduce the ammount of time I need to find/learn/decode it and tern it back into plain english.

Re 1 anyone else with a problem with jargon can look it up too, or ask me to define it. I do my best to only use specialised terms where there is no easier way of explaining things. In the past, AR has said that he often looks up stuff that people post here. If AR can do it then I think most readers here can.

Re 2 I look up all kinds of stuff online in conducting debates with everyone here. You're just too lazy to do your research.


BUT, there is a core set.

Convince me. Very few people actually commit murder, but what proportion of those who do not, actually decline to do so out of fear of retribution, rather than because they are morally opposed to it. It is an open question.

In any case if there is a core set it is very limited and there is heaps of room to move.


Tell that to the magistrate.

Let's compare notes here Matthew. Have you ever been fined or convicted on any offence? This should be interesting ...

PHAT
29-08-2004, 05:27 PM
You absolute, utter goose.

You seem to have forgotten that you are also an ACF officebearer ...

Therefore anything you say about me in this light has to apply to yourself as well.


So, you think that pointing out that my living in a glass house means that I should not throw stones. OK, I am being hypercritical. That does not excuse you for being an embarrassment to the face of chess. Attacking me, does not save you.



... and that is why your rating is so low.

Give up.

As far as I know, you have not had a look at my games. As such, you might be suprised as to the reason(s) I have am a twelve hundred player. It has nothing to do with having no defences.

antichrist
29-08-2004, 05:32 PM
KB (ages ago)
Sweeney, this is perhaps the harshest thing I've said about anyone all year, but you talk like the stereotypical "mature age student", the sort who turns up at University and goes into tutorials raving about their wonderful life experiences and how relevant they are to the subject at hand, and wonders why all the vacuous little 20-somethings fidget, mutter and stare at the ceiling during their soliloquies yet still get higher marks. Your life experience is only relevant when we're discussing something that relates to it, and you come across like a boisterous idiot by pretending otherwise. Ski coaching is not relevant to whether morality is objective or subjective. End of story.

Hey listen KB
I was a mature age phil student and when the good doc put up a problem of mathetical logic I was the only one of 77 students who worked it out. My mate thought I was brilliant. It is even said about my chess sometimes but too infrequently.

I don't often get the chance to boast much so must grab when can.

Kevin Bonham
29-08-2004, 06:04 PM
So, you think that pointing out that my living in a glass house means that I should not throw stones. OK, I am being hypercritical. That does not excuse you for being an embarrassment to the face of chess. Attacking me, does not save you.

My point is that you do not really believe such behaviour is an embarrassment, otherwise you would make at least a half-hearted attempt to change your own behaviour, rather than your current effort which is rather less than none at all.


As far as I know, you have not had a look at my games. As such, you might be suprised as to the reason(s) I have am a twelve hundred player. It has nothing to do with having no defences.

Actually I have seen a small number of your games posted here (albeit generally rubbish games at short time limits such as the one with Jeo.) Also I have seen your comments suggesting which moves we should play in our game against starter's mentor. However, what I said was only a hypothesis. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
29-08-2004, 06:06 PM
I was a mature age phil student and when the good doc put up a problem of mathetical logic I was the only one of 77 students who worked it out. My mate thought I was brilliant.

Congratulations. Was this in a lecture situation where people did not have to answer but just responded if they wanted to, or in a formal test?

Kevin Bonham
29-08-2004, 06:26 PM
That is nonsence. When the insult involves pity for a third party for having a morons genes ... :rollseyes: ... you try to connect the dots.

I think anyone trying to connect the dots here would realise that claims linking IQ to genes in such a context are generally not to be taken seriously, and also that the term "moron" here does not refer to genuine morons but rather to a lower kind of human beings - the kind that has the odd glimmer of intelligence but is too lazy/biased to put it to full use.


You have to be joking, right?

Not at all. Let's consider our three witnesses more carefully.

Dodgy Dave - Cannot remember what he posted about validity of religious belief just a few days ago.
Moral Matt - Cannot remember what he posted about my parentage within a similar time scale.

Both therefore unreliable, leaving only one witness, antichrist, who has not elaborated. It's his word against Bill's, and also mine that I read almost everything and did not see it. Plus there is the fact that you cannot even find a conversation in which it occurred.


The orginal material is gone.

You should still be able to find the context in which it occurred, if it exists. Bill would presumably have been replying to a comment about genetic material or pity for relatives from another poster.


I am telling you that I choose to believe it.

I am telling you that you pretend to believe it. :hand:


"How about, no, Scott" - E

How about I conclude that your pretence to morality is a joke?

Actually I don't need your permission to conclude that. :doh:

Kevin Bonham
29-08-2004, 09:46 PM
Fair enough. For Tassie, it would seem that the stituation is "normal".

If some billable-minute-monger-ral wants to call it for NSW ...

The NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 has the same pattern as Tasmania except the list of prohibited harassment is much shorter and the formula:

"in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated that the other person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated."

is almost identical except has less words on the end.

It would therefore seem that the NSW regime is, if anything, slightly milder than the one in Tas.

antichrist
30-08-2004, 01:11 PM
KB
Both therefore unreliable, leaving only one witness, antichrist, who has not elaborated. It's his word against Bill's, and also mine that I read almost everything and did not see it. Plus there is the fact that you cannot even find a conversation in which it occurred.

AC reply:
I did not even what you were talking about, I was just stirring Bill. Just as I have no idea if there is a transgender toilet at the Gay Mardi Gra where I claimed I saw a chess official.

But my word is more reliable than those fools who reckon they saw Jesus after the so-called Resurrection.

antichrist
30-08-2004, 01:16 PM
Congratulations. Was this in a lecture situation where people did not have to answer but just responded if they wanted to, or in a formal test?

Yes, was a lecture actually on phil of science by Peter Slezak, a top chap in Sydney.

PHAT
30-08-2004, 05:39 PM
The NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 has the same pattern as Tasmania except the list of prohibited harassment is much shorter and the formula:

"in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated that the other person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated."

is almost identical except has less words on the end.

It would therefore seem that the NSW regime is, if anything, slightly milder than the one in Tas.

It would seem that my impression of the situation is not born out by the wording of the act. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/aa1977204/s22a.html

However, this means little, once the lawyers mangle it and the courts create precidents. The phrase "having regard to all the circumstances" is material from which such precidents are made. I maintain that, the way the act functions in reality, is that it is the victum that says that the actions were harassment. To do otherwise would suggest that the "victum" was unreasonable - and we couldn't have that, now could we.

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2004, 10:40 PM
I did not even what you were talking about, I was just stirring Bill.

Thanks, your candour is refreshing. :thumbsup:

So Matt, there are now no reliable witnesses.


Yes, was a lecture actually on phil of science by Peter Slezak, a top chap in Sydney.

Slezak is good, I read some stuff about his debate with everybody's favourite apologist William Lane Craig.

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2004, 11:22 PM
However, this means little, once the lawyers mangle it and the courts create precidents. The phrase "having regard to all the circumstances" is material from which such precidents are made. I maintain that, the way the act functions in reality, is that it is the victum that says that the actions were harassment. To do otherwise would suggest that the "victum" was unreasonable - and we couldn't have that, now could we.

The impression I get is that the victim says the actions are unwelcome and the defence has a very hard time proving otherwise. Even in relationships involving consensual sex, harassment claims have sometimes been sustained if the other party consented out of fear of reprisal.

However as for the other component, whether a reasonable person would have found the conduct offensive, I can't find any useful examples to support or oppose your comments above. Do you have any examples?

PHAT
31-08-2004, 06:08 PM
Rubbish Matt. There is no-one in that category here. Indeed there is no one in the entire world who I would be afraid to take on in a public debate if I believe they are wrong.

I don't doubt it for a moment, but there are plenty you won't take on for sport.


When I disagree with Bill, which is relatively rare, I say so, ... The difference is that Bill does not engage in beat-ups so these debates do not escalate into flamewars.

It takes two to tango and you always reteat to the powder room when Bill starts stepping on your toes.


I wouldn't. Asperger's is one of those fashionable diagnoses that unqualified people go around claiming "oooh, I know someone with that". NPD is another one. 5-10 years ago it was ADHD (then ADD).

Along with RSI, Munchausen's by Proxy and Caesar-able. However, these terms are useful in a social sence for describing a person's behaviour.

I showed CL's posts to a mental health professional whoo said straight away, that he was likely to be toward the normal end of the spectrum of Asperger's, but on the spectrum nonetheless.


Don't get your hopes up - you haven't delivered the goods and never will. Far better and more qualified men and women than you have failed.

And who the F are you to say that they failed, hense. how the F can you say that I will.


So which is coming first - your proof of objective morality or your new rating system? :hmm:

NCCAS and then rating system. Proof of objective morality is too easy to be bothered with.


For the uninitiated, "sociopath" and "psycopath" are both obsolete terms for a person with very similar conditions to what is now called "antisocial personality disorder".

I suppose you like the term "differently abled" to "disabled".



But from your account of morality, morality is exactly that, the tail wagging the dog, ...

No, the brain running the body.



There is nothing rotten about plain English but it lacks some of the subtle distinctions needed to discuss specialised subjects precisely.

It is plain english that is used to define those subtle distinctions in the first place.


Perhaps you would care to define what "jargon" consists of anyway, and which "jargon" terms that I have used in the past you have failed to understand.

My opinion as to what should be called "jargon" is, if the subeditor of the broardsheet redlines it, it is jargon.

There have been a a handfull of terms you've used that I couldn't be bothered looking up.


Very few people actually commit murder, but what proportion of those who do not, actually decline to do so out of fear of retribution, rather than because they are morally opposed to it. It is an open question.

I have read 5% would murder if they would not be punished for it.


In any case if there is a core set it is very limited and there is heaps of room to move.

Like the laws of physics are quite few - but there are heaps of room in them for life to develop.


Let's compare notes here Matthew. Have you ever been fined or convicted on any offence? This should be interesting ...

Yes. Fare evation. Offensive Language. Speed Dangerous. Of course there was plenty of other stuff I was never caught doing :cool:

Bill Gletsos
31-08-2004, 06:19 PM
Yes. Fare evation. Offensive Language. Speed Dangerous. Of course there was plenty of other stuff I was never caught doing :cool:
Offensive Language.
I guess the majority of posters on this BB wouldnt be surprised by that.

Kevin Bonham
31-08-2004, 10:56 PM
I don't doubt it for a moment, but there are plenty you won't take on for sport.

Of course not, that would be sadistic and antisocial. While it has a sporting side, I only take on those who I believe deserve it.


It takes two to tango and you always reteat to the powder room when Bill starts stepping on your toes.

Rubbish. Look at some of the arbiter's corner debates where Bill and I have maintained different positions for very lengthy discussions, and probably still do (eg the king capture debate.) Furthermore Bill has never behaved aggressively or personally in any debate I have had with him - he has simply stated and argued his view.


Along with RSI, Munchausen's by Proxy and Caesar-able. However, these terms are useful in a social sence for describing a person's behaviour.

No they are not - they lead to laypeople becoming confused about the symptoms of the disorders and the disease of popular overdiagnosis thus spreads further. What is ignored is that these conditions often have long lists of requirements of which several must be met, and that many people will meet one or two on any such list by chance without being psychologically abnormal. Ultimately the crypto-reactionary effect is to stereotype all who are even mildly eccentric as insane. You should be more concerned about this risk than most.


I showed CL's posts to a mental health professional whoo said straight away, that he was likely to be toward the normal end of the spectrum of Asperger's, but on the spectrum nonetheless.

I would love to know how any mental health pro can diagnose a person from their posts. We know that chesslover acted a lot and varied his online persona.


And who the F are you to say that they failed, hense. how the F can you say that I will.

This is amusing. You query my fitness to say they failed, but that seems to be an appeal to a more qualified authority holding the same views - yet you proposed that the quoting of philosophers be disallowed in a debate. :rolleyes:

Of course there is not philosophical consensus on this issue ... yet. But it's not like philosophy is sitting around waiting for new technology to emerge. Those believing you can get an unconditional "ought" from an "is" have had 230 years to get their act together and convince the rest of their field, and haven't been able to do it. That is not an argument to say it can't be done, but should give you some idea of the mountain you have ahead of you.

Ironically, while "refusing" to debate me, you've actually covered quite a few of the trite points usually made by objective moralists in the course of other parts of this thread.


NCCAS and then rating system. Proof of objective morality is too easy to be bothered with.

If it was too easy it would be very little bother - you could do it in 1/100th of the time you waste repeating yourself here over pointless NSWCA trivia of no likely interest to anyone on the BB but you. This is simply another one of your stupid cop-outs which just expose you as a braggart with nothing to back it up.


I suppose you like the term "differently abled" to "disabled".

Couldn't care less (I think the trendy PC term is "living with a disability" actually, what a mouthful - though this is better than "differently abled" which is misleading). I was giving the proper DSM name for the disorder at this time. The other terms are former official names not now in official use.


No, the brain running the body.

Which part of the brain - are you suggesting that all amoral inclinations mysteriously appear only in parts of the body below the neck? For instance, if a person is driven by a lust for money then thinks better of it, was that the brain overruling the left kneecap? :P


It is plain english that is used to define those subtle distinctions in the first place.

You could try breaking down all technical terms into plain English, true, but sometimes you would get long expressions when you did so. In any case the way to break down those terms will not always be found in any given dictionary - even when the terms themselves are (in some different context).


My opinion as to what should be called "jargon" is, if the subeditor of the broardsheet redlines it, it is jargon.

And your expertise in what the subeditor of a broadsheet redlines, as opposed to the journalist not using the word in the first place, is? I've seen stacks of jargon in newsprint, including broadsheets. I've used it myself in letters published in tabloids. You use as much jargon here as I do, at least.


I have read 5% would murder if they would not be punished for it.

Would, or say they would? Not the same thing at all.


Like the laws of physics are quite few - but there are heaps of room in them for life to develop.

Irrelevant analogy. The laws of physics apply across a wide range of scales. If there is a core moral consensus shared by ninety-something percent of people it probably only applies to a few big-ticket items like don't kill, don't rape, don't steal - and even then with numerous qualifiers attached to some of these, once you start asking people questions about extreme situations. And then that consensus is only what they say - what they do in those cases may be very different. When you look at contentious moral issues the "consensus" disappears and provides ambiguous (or no) clues on how to proceed.


Yes. Fare evation. Offensive Language. Speed Dangerous. Of course there was plenty of other stuff I was never caught doing :cool:

My sympathies on #2, this is a totally stupid law which should be struck off the books immediately. Interesting though that you've been busted a few times yet still think that I am a greater risk of gaol. Either through luck or caution, I've never been charged with anything, and I'm very careful to avoid offences carrying potential prison sentences. (I was almost charged with jaywalking once but the cop dropped it when I threatened to contest it if he charged me. My reason for threatening to contest it was that I was, in fact, innocent. Whether I could have proven that if charged, I don't know.)

arosar
01-09-2004, 09:17 AM
First day of spring boys. Take it easy.

AR

Rincewind
01-09-2004, 09:21 AM
First day of spring boys. Take it easy.

They say that in Spring, a young man's thoughts turn to love. But don't bet on it. ;)

antichrist
03-09-2004, 04:27 PM
AC: Is triple check possible on "games and analysis" thread

Originally Posted by Greg_Canfell
Here's a hint, schit-for-brains, you're not welcome on this thread, and you're not welcome on any thread. You're so stupid you even have to ask why your obviously defamatory remarks were deleted by mods. You're checked by atheists; you're checked by agnostics; you're checked by believers.

Triple check, so FO
_______________________________________________
And I thought he loved me!

Does anyone else have anything to add. I don't you to feel left out.

arosar
03-09-2004, 04:35 PM
Man, until you learn how to quote properly, you have no business posting here.

AR

Kevin Bonham
03-09-2004, 09:13 PM
AC: Is triple check possible on "games and analysis" thread

[..]

Does anyone else have anything to add.

Yeah, I do - you brought that one on yourself by posting completely off topic. Should've started a new thread.

antichrist
04-09-2004, 04:11 PM
Yeah, I do - you brought that one on yourself by posting completely off topic. Should've started a new thread.

I expected one simple answer like Bruce or David answered. why create another thread?

Kevin Bonham
04-09-2004, 06:57 PM
Why not create another thread? Works fine for the rest of us.