PDA

View Full Version : David's debating abilities, etc.



Rhubarb
08-09-2004, 04:49 PM
Greg, maybe KB could do with your help? However, to engage in the debate you'd need to use your brain instead of your spleen.

Well, David, I wasn’t engaging in the debate as such, but rather giving my opinion as to who won it between you and Kevin. It occurs to me that although you were flogged on every single point of contention, there is usually no third party on this BB who could be bothered to tell you as much. Kevin can hardly himself proclaim that he won, as then he looks like antichrist on the Blood on Hands thread. As Kevin has already pointed out, however, rather than admit you have lost a debate, your usual tactic is to offer an olive branch containing a different form of your original contention, then accuse your opponent of being a bad sport when it is rejected.

I wouldn’t claim to have any skills as a moderator, it just seemed to me that his arguments were supported by examples, whereas each time you were asked to provide an example you shifted the debate towards your starry-eyed, mystical view of the world, at the same time attempting to portray anyone who disagreed with you as bigoted or blinkered (or, even worse, somehow less “human”), and, gee!, if only they could have the same comprehensive, metaphysical understanding as you, they would have no need to ask for those tiresome facts.

A recent amusing example was your initiation of the Fathers Day thread (happy Fathers Day to you, btw, I’m happy for you that you evidently have a loving and happy family). Barry simply asked for some evidence to support your claim that Fathers Day is religious in origin, but to date you haven’t even provided “a pagan antecedent in antiquity”. When it was suggested that such celebrations have been encouraged by the retail industry in recent times, you immediately attempted to claim the moral high ground by dismissing such claims as cynical, as if even the admission of this somehow precludes people from nevertheless finding good in Fathers Day.

This being a chess forum, however, far more serious are your sorties with Bill regarding ratings. Time and time again you have been asked for factual evidence to support your claims that juniors are underrated on the Gold Coast (and even if they are, to get them to play more rated games), and time and time again you have not.

[As a personal aside, when I was a junior 15-23 years ago, I always thought I was underrated, simply because my rating was going up most of the time. It’s only now that I can look back and see that some lists my rating didn’t improve at all, and I lacked the overall philosophy to understand that according to my results (no matter what I thought in my head) I simply had not improved! And this was under the old system, which by all accounts was less responsive to improving juniors than the current one.]

When someone questions some facet of the ratings system, the discussion usually goes like this:

1. Bill (an unpaid volunteer who has no obligation to discuss anything with anyone on this BB) gives an abrupt response because he and Graham have already thought about or tested the less absurd of these ideas and have rejected them, but he can hardly be expected to spell out why in every case to every ignoramus.

2. Demanding satisfaction, the persistent questioner asks for clarification, at which point Bill is likely to refute the questioner’s claims and/or ask for evidence to support the original claim.

3. At this point, if the questioner fails to understand either the refutation or the need to give evidence, Bill invokes the <billbot>™ [pax], which is (entirely understandably) dismissive and sometimes insulting (but, hey, this is an online bb).

4. At this point, the questioners resolve themselves into three types:

a) The intelligent questioner, who understands mathematical systems, but may possibly find their suggestions of improvements destined to be impracticable or to have negligible beneficial effects.

b) The rolling questioner, who expressively comes up with a series of new perceived improvements, regardless of having failed to address the deficiencies in previous perceived improvements, but who in his defence at least provides some entertainment when engaging the <billbot>. “You sober bully,” for example.

c) The insidious questioner, who, failing to understand even the most basic mathematical concepts behind the rating system, deliberately provokes the <billbot> in the hope that the occasional or less discerning BB reader will side with him, simply because he couches his crap in putatively plausible metaphysical hogwash.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2004, 05:08 PM
Great post Greg.
Its about time people spoke out against clowns like DR and Matt.
Perhaps if more did it they would be less inclined to post the crap they do.

pax
08-09-2004, 05:12 PM
...simply because he couches his crap in putatively plausible metaphysical hogwash.

That's a fine quote Mr Canfell.

ursogr8
08-09-2004, 05:34 PM
Great post Greg.
Its about time people spoke out against clowns like DR and Matt.
Perhaps if more did it they would be less inclined to post the crap they do.

Good post Greg, I agree.

Bill.........to be honest, I tune out a bit on some of these rating threads. In general I think you are winning hands down, but I obviously don't pay as close attention as Greg. So I am not inclined to pass judgement given that I am not paying close attention.

starter

Cat
08-09-2004, 11:50 PM
[QUOTE=Greg_Canfell]Well, David, I wasn’t engaging in the debate as such, but rather giving my opinion as to who won it between you and Kevin.

Greg, your pitiful intellect is now on display for all to see. I've encountered some shallow souls on this BB, but you have surpassed every expectation I could possibly imagine. The only credit I can give you is that at least you endeavour to vent your abuse with more than an unimaginative syllable summoned from the dark recesses of the bowels.

And what exactly do you mean 'by won' as percieved in your myopic trance? On what point, on what caveat was exactly the discussion won? Empty words from a very empty vessel.


It occurs to me that although you were flogged on every single point of contention, there is usually no third party on this BB who could be bothered to tell you as much. Kevin can hardly himself proclaim that he won, as then he looks like antichrist on the Blood on Hands thread. As Kevin has already pointed out, however, rather than admit you have lost a debate, your usual tactic is to offer an olive branch containing a different form of your original contention, then accuse your opponent of being a bad sport when it is rejected.

Frankly, I rather tire of the obssessive insomniac. There is a limit to which his pedantic diatribe can be tolerated - I have a very happy life and at times his infantile demands grow weary, even though at heart he possesses a core of humanity. If you have a single syllable which you are able to throw into the debate that demonstrate you have anything of value to add, let us hear it. No one asked you to involve yourself, you chose that all by yourself. You see, you can be more than a coward Greg.


I wouldn’t claim to have any skills as a moderator, it just seemed to me that his arguments were supported by examples, whereas each time you were asked to provide an example you shifted the debate towards your starry-eyed, mystical view of the world, at the same time attempting to portray anyone who disagreed with you as bigoted or blinkered (or, even worse, somehow less “human”), and, gee!, if only they could have the same comprehensive, metaphysical understanding as you, they would have no need to ask for those tiresome facts.

I can see the debate went entirely over your head, didn't it Sonny? Why don't you try reading it again, you might learn something. There's nothing mystical or starry-eyed in my world, what I consider bigoted is to deny others the right to their beliefs, what I disclosed was KB's arrogant obssession to marginalise those with faith. Any right minded individual should stand to defend this principle. Dr Bonham's emotions sometimes cloud his ability to provide reasoned argument. You clearly don't even understand I am an atheist, I have no inclination to the metaphysical, but I do defend the rights of others to their belief. Greg, you are displaying the same prejudicial behaviour.



A recent amusing example was your initiation of the Fathers Day thread (happy Fathers Day to you, btw, I’m happy for you that you evidently have a loving and happy family). Barry simply asked for some evidence to support your claim that Fathers Day is religious in origin, but to date you haven’t even provided “a pagan antecedent in antiquity”. When it was suggested that such celebrations have been encouraged by the retail industry in recent times, you immediately attempted to claim the moral high ground by dismissing such claims as cynical, as if even the admission of this somehow precludes people from nevertheless finding good in Fathers Day.

Greg I'm glad you were amused, what you saw was something called humour, obviously an emotion quite alien and foriegn to you - very sad, old man. You really are such a gullible person aren't you?


This being a chess forum, however, far more serious are your sorties with Bill regarding ratings. Time and time again you have been asked for factual evidence to support your claims that juniors are underrated on the Gold Coast (and even if they are, to get them to play more rated games), and time and time again you have not.

Wow, that's pretty serious, the thought police will be right onto me for that one. Time and time again I have disclosed my opinions, my findings, the truth buddy, and you know, slowly, gradually things are actually changing. Reason doesn't work with the blockhead, that's been tried many times - and you know, many people agree with me! I am a very reasonalbe, diplomatic individual, but reason doesn't work with the ACF Ratings Committee. Their capacity for understanding is limited to microbytes of information. If you were more aware, you would indeed be cognisent of Bills shifting stance. What Bill says and what Bill does, never the twain shall meet.


[As a personal aside, when I was a junior 15-23 years ago, I always thought I was underrated, simply because my rating was going up most of the time. It’s only now that I can look back and see that some lists my rating didn’t improve at all, and I lacked the overall philosophy to understand that according to my results (no matter what I thought in my head) I simply had not improved! And this was under the old system, which by all accounts was less responsive to improving juniors than the current one.]

Save me the sob story, go tell it to your mother.



When someone questions some facet of the ratings system, the discussion usually goes like this:

1. Bill (an unpaid volunteer who has no obligation to discuss anything with anyone on this BB) gives an abrupt response because he and Graham have already thought about or tested the less absurd of these ideas and have rejected them, but he can hardly be expected to spell out why in every case to every ignoramus.

Bill's life is the BB. He has to respond to every comment, because he can't help himself. Somewhere in that muddled cerebrum the control switch broke.


2. Demanding satisfaction, the persistent questioner asks for clarification, at which point Bill is likely to refute the questioner’s claims and/or ask for evidence to support the original claim.

God man, the process is a lot more sophisticated than that! You simply have no idea, do you? The disastrous management (or lack of) strategies of BG have been discussed in much greater depth, probably at a level your feeble mind will never ever understand.


3. At this point, if the questioner fails to understand either the refutation or the need to give evidence, Bill invokes the <billbot>™ [pax], which is (entirely understandably) dismissive and sometimes insulting (but, hey, this is an online bb).

At this point, Bill devoid of any real explanation, understanding or insight, completely looses control of his tiny language centre, mysteriously consigned to his hind brain and a series of appalling expletives emerge. He hasn't even got the good grace to admit to his bad behaviour, tries to excuse it as intellectual superiority. Sadly, there a few intellectually inferior individuals who actually believe him.


4. At this point, the questioners resolve themselves into three types:

a) The intelligent questioner, who understands mathematical systems, but may possibly find their suggestions of improvements destined to be impracticable or to have negligible beneficial effects.

The sycophant incapable of displaying any backbone



c) The insidious questioner, who, failing to understand even the most basic mathematical concepts behind the rating system, deliberately provokes the <billbot> in the hope that the occasional or less discerning BB reader will side with him, simply because he couches his crap in putatively plausible metaphysical hogwash.

The person who has been gaining most from this exchange is Bill. I reckon he's actually beginning to understand something about the limitation of this fabulous system. There was no rating deflation, no one outside Canberra has raised the problem of junior ratings, there is no need to link the ACF ratings with the FIDE ratings, there are no pooling effects in the system, there is no need to perform any housekeeping functions to prevent drift - all mantras that Bill has spouted out one by one over the last 18 months, all tasks he knows he is now having to grapple with.

Cat
09-09-2004, 12:42 AM
Great post Greg.
Its about time people spoke out against clowns like DR and Matt.
Perhaps if more did it they would be less inclined to post the crap they do.


Bill, call off your Goon, it will only make things more unpleasant for you.

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 12:57 AM
Bill, call off your Goon, it will only make things more unpleasant for you.
You really are a fool and obviously dont know Greg very well.
He is nobodys goon especially mine.

So go off like a good fool and play with your moronic mate Matt.

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 01:33 AM
Greg, your pitiful intellect is now on display for all to see. I've encountered some shallow souls on this BB, but you have surpassed every expectation I could possibly imagine. The only credit I can give you is that at least you endeavour to vent your abuse with more than an unimaginative syllable summoned from the dark recesses of the bowels.

And what exactly do you mean 'by won' as percieved in your myopic trance? On what point, on what caveat was exactly the discussion won? Empty words from a very empty vessel.



Frankly, I rather tire of the obssessive insomniac. There is a limit to which his pedantic diatribe can be tolerated - I have a very happy life and at times his infantile demands grow weary, even though at heart he possesses a core of humanity. If you have a single syllable which you are able to throw into the debate that demonstrate you have anything of value to add, let us hear it. No one asked you to involve yourself, you chose that all by yourself. You see, you can be more than a coward Greg.
Your are a complete and utter fool if you believe this drivel.




I can see the debate went entirely over your head, didn't it Sonny? Why don't you try reading it again, you might learn something. There's nothing mystical or starry-eyed in my world, what I consider bigoted is to deny others the right to their beliefs, what I disclosed was KB's arrogant obssession to marginalise those with faith. Any right minded individual should stand to defend this principle. Dr Bonham's emotions sometimes cloud his ability to provide reasoned argument. You clearly don't even understand I am an atheist, I have no inclination to the metaphysical, but I do defend the rights of others to their belief. Greg, you are displaying the same prejudicial behaviour.
The only person whose head the debate never seemed to actually enter was your excuse for a melon.



Greg I'm glad you were amused, what you saw was something called humour, obviously an emotion quite alien and foriegn to you - very sad, old man. You really are such a gullible person aren't you?
What a loser you are.
It was clear you were making no attempt at humour.



Wow, that's pretty serious, the thought police will be right onto me for that one. Time and time again I have disclosed my opinions, my findings, the truth buddy, and you know, slowly, gradually things are actually changing.
You have provided nothing but dodgy data and unsupported theories.
You are just a joke.



Reason doesn't work with the blockhead, that's been tried many times - and you know, many people agree with me!
You really shouldnt call yourself a blockhead. You cant help being a fool.
As for people agreeing with you, there was a time when people thought the world was flat. That didnt make it so.



I am a very reasonalbe, diplomatic individual, but reason doesn't work with the ACF Ratings Committee.
What reason.
You have never backed up you claims with anything like sound data.
Every attempt by you has been flawed one way or another.


Their capacity for understanding is limited to microbytes of information. If you were more aware, you would indeed be cognisent of Bills shifting stance. What Bill says and what Bill does, never the twain shall meet.
You really are a complete joke.



Save me the sob story, go tell it to your mother.
You may regret that statement.
Then again we already know you are a complete joke.


Bill's life is the BB.
How little you know.
In fact you demonstrate just how little you know about many things everytime you open your mouth.


He has to respond to every comment, because he can't help himself. Somewhere in that muddled cerebrum the control switch broke.
I just respond to morons like you who continually sprout false and misleading indoemation.
In fact if anyone has something broken its you.
You and your rating theories sound like a broken record.


God man, the process is a lot more sophisticated than that! You simply have no idea, do you? The disastrous management (or lack of) strategies of BG have been discussed in much greater depth, probably at a level your feeble mind will never ever understand.
Gregs, ability to comprehend far and away exceeds any capacity you might have.


At this point, Bill devoid of any real explanation, understanding or insight, completely looses control of his tiny language centre, mysteriously consigned to his hind brain and a series of appalling expletives emerge.
You need to check your dictionary you fool.
The words moron, fool, goose, dispstick are not expletives.

If you want to reference expletives in posts then check out you mate Matt's crude, vulgar and foul mouthed replies to anyone who disagrees with him.


He hasn't even got the good grace to admit to his bad behaviour, tries to excuse it as intellectual superiority.
If you believed any of the crap you are sprouting you would have publically castigated Matt for his behaviour on the BB.
The fact you never have just shows what a complete hypocrite you are.


Sadly, there a few intellectually inferior individuals who actually believe him.
You poor deluded fool.



The sycophant incapable of displaying any backbone

No. Unlike you they the ones who demonstrate they actually have brains.



The person who has been gaining most from this exchange is Bill. I reckon he's actually beginning to understand something about the limitation of this fabulous system.
Anything I may have learnt was certainly not due to any crap you have sprouted.


There was no rating deflation,
You finally got something right.


no one outside Canberra has raised the problem of junior ratings,
Certainly neither you, anyone from the Gold Coast or Box Hill had raised the issue eother directly with the ACF Rating Officers or via their State Associations up until it was raised in the ACF Bulletin last year.


there is no need to link the ACF ratings with the FIDE ratings,
There isnt except to try and give some indication of how the two lists compare.


there are no pooling effects in the system,
We dont believe thre is. Certainly no evidence has been provided to prove it.


there is no need to perform any housekeeping functions to prevent drift
What housekeeping to prevent drift are you talking about you fool.
There has been no houskeeping to do this.



all mantras that Bill has spouted out one by one over the last 18 months, all tasks he knows he is now having to grapple with.
I'm not grappling with any of them.

All up you have absolutely no clue about ratings or rating systems.

Kevin Bonham
09-09-2004, 05:03 AM
Frankly, I rather tire of the obssessive insomniac.

Failed diagnosis, doc. I sleep an average of 7-8 hours a day, thanks very much. That those 7-8 hours currently happen to be 6-7 am to 1-2 pm about five days a week is no concern of yours.


There's nothing mystical or starry-eyed in my world, what I consider bigoted is to deny others the right to their beliefs, what I disclosed was KB's arrogant obssession to marginalise those with faith. Any right minded individual should stand to defend this principle. Dr Bonham's emotions sometimes cloud his ability to provide reasoned argument.

This rubbish has already been dismembered, stomped on and fed to the geese on the "Does God Exist?" thread. I do not deny others any political right to their beliefs, even when those beliefs are plainly wrong.

Rather than bother dispatching your latest batch of trollopy trolling fiction at length, I'll invite any poster who is not a known troll to quote from it any statement you have made which they see any merit in and would like me to address.

Greg is absolutely right. Based on your past record, it would be most improper indeed for me to claim victory on any thread after debating any matter with you.

The proper time for such a claim would be before. :hand:

Cat
09-09-2004, 08:36 AM
Certainly neither you, anyone from the Gold Coast or Box Hill had raised the issue eother directly with the ACF Rating Officers or via their State Associations up until it was raised in the ACF Bulletin last year.



Don't worry Bill, I've already pushed you as far as I dare. Despite your obsequiousness, you are an invaluable resource for the ACF and it would serve no purpose for me to push you any further. That's why I've been so soft on you of late.

However, I will respond to this line. The reason I became entangled on the BB in the first place was followig the published lie to Ian Rogers you had had no correspondence from any other region over the matter of junior ratings. I had already sent you 5 personal e-mails at that stage, clearly in my capacity of GCCC Vice President. It was appalling behaviour Bill, you should feel thoroughly ashamed. You were clearly prepared to say anything expedient, even to the No 1 Australian Chess Player, rather than accept or admit the obvious. Your paper thin denials had a transparency that simply provoked disgust. All that has happened since you brought on yourself. Honesty is always the best policy.

Cat
09-09-2004, 08:38 AM
Failed diagnosis, doc. I sleep an average of 7-8 hours a day, thanks very much. That those 7-8 hours currently happen to be 6-7 am to 1-2 pm about five days a week is no concern of yours.



This rubbish has already been dismembered, stomped on and fed to the geese on the "Does God Exist?" thread. I do not deny others any political right to their beliefs, even when those beliefs are plainly wrong.

Rather than bother dispatching your latest batch of trollopy trolling fiction at length, I'll invite any poster who is not a known troll to quote from it any statement you have made which they see any merit in and would like me to address.

Greg is absolutely right. Based on your past record, it would be most improper indeed for me to claim victory on any thread after debating any matter with you.

The proper time for such a claim would be before. :hand:

Sorry KB, you really didn't deserve to be embroilled in this. I do apologise.

Rhubarb
09-09-2004, 11:03 AM
Greg, your pitiful intellect is now on display for all to see. I've encountered some shallow souls on this BB, but you have surpassed every expectation I could possibly imagine. The only credit I can give you is that at least you endeavour to vent your abuse with more than an unimaginative syllable summoned from the dark recesses of the bowels.
Sorry, was it me that was venting abuse?


And what exactly do you mean 'by won' as percieved in your myopic trance? On what point, on what caveat was exactly the discussion won? Empty words from a very empty vessel.

You evaded every question you couldn't answer, and you resorted to personal attacks when losing the discussion. Just read the thread again. If you have any intellectual honesty whatsoever, you'll admit these two points to yourself.


If you have a single syllable which you are able to throw into the debate that demonstrate you have anything of value to add, let us hear it. No one asked you to involve yourself, you chose that all by yourself. You see, you can be more than a coward Greg.
As I said before, I didn't enter the debate, I merely gave my opinion as to who won. Please try and understand this. It is not a difficult concept.


what I consider bigoted is to deny others the right to their beliefs, what I disclosed was KB's arrogant obssession to marginalise those with faith.

No one, least of all Kevin, was denying anyone the right to their beliefs. Are you really incapable of understanding that?


You clearly don't even understand I am an atheist, I have no inclination to the metaphysical, but I do defend the rights of others to their belief. Greg, you are displaying the same prejudicial behaviour.

I do understand you are an atheist. I think you mentioned it yourself on that thread. You don't seem to understand the principal definition of metaphysical, and how it is not necessarily incompatible with atheism. My dictionary gives "1. of or relating to metaphysics 2. based on abstract general reasoning." Only a later definition says it can mean incorporeal or supernatural.

Actually, now that I think about it, there's little reason in your abstract general reasoning, so just replace every instance of "metaphysical" with "woolly blathering".


Greg I'm glad you were amused, what you saw was something called humour, obviously an emotion quite alien and foriegn to you - very sad, old man. You really are such a gullible person aren't you?

That was humour??? Man, you should take up stand-up comedy. You'll have them rolling in the aisles with material like that.


Save me the sob story
Huh? It wasn't a sob story. It was, as I said, a personal aside to demonstrate that when I was a junior I thought I was more underrated than I actually was, and I wonder how many other juniors think like this. I am not suggesting that there are in fact no underrated juniors.


go tell it to your mother.
You couldn't know how hurtful this comment is. It's interesting to see how spiteful you become after I question your intelligence. On the other hand, when you deliberately provoke Bill by recycling the same crap over and over again, the worst he does is call you a moron or a goose, and sometimes he even acknowledges your skill in other fields ("Stick to medicine, Doc").


God man, the process is a lot more sophisticated than that! You simply have no idea, do you? The disastrous management (or lack of) strategies of BG have been discussed in much greater depth, probably at a level your feeble mind will never ever understand.
Yes, they have been discussed in much greater depth. My feeble mind is of the opinion that whenever you and Bill have a debate, he completely whips you. When asked to provide evidence to support your assertions, you use statistics that are completely invalid, and when Bill points this out to you, you go looking for a way to troll him.


The sycophant incapable of displaying any backbone
Your definition of backbone seems to be to ignore the many experts in the field of ratings who tell you that you're wrong.

Cat
09-09-2004, 11:17 AM
You couldn't know how hurtful this comment is.

You throw stones you're going to get hurt. I don't know anything of your personal life, but if you live by the sword you die by the sword. Don't vent your personal anger out on me. I have never made personal abusive comments, I have been the recipient of abuse for my views. Leave me alone Greg and I'll leave you alone. If you think you are going to help Bill by your interjections, you're sadly mistaken.

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 12:17 PM
Don't worry Bill, I've already pushed you as far as I dare. Despite your obsequiousness, you are an invaluable resource for the ACF and it would serve no purpose for me to push you any further. That's why I've been so soft on you of late.
You really are a deluded fool.


However, I will respond to this line. The reason I became entangled on the BB in the first place was following the published lie to Ian Rogers you had had no correspondence from any other region over the matter of junior ratings. I had already sent you 5 personal e-mails at that stage, clearly in my capacity of GCCC Vice President.
This is just a blatant lie on your part and a complete attempt to alter historical facts. I can find no reference in any of the emails where you state you were the Gold Coast Vice President or that you were emailing me on behalf of the Gold Coast Chess Club Committee.

I stand by the statement that until Ian raised the issue of ratings in the ACF Bulletin #206 there had been no correspondence from you, the Gold Coast or Box Hill.

Here is the sequence of events.

1) Ian Rogers letter appeared in the ACF Bulletin #206 dated March 3rd. This was the first Graham or I had seen it. At that Stage neither Graham or I had ever heard of you or had any correspondence with you.
2) Graham and I replied to Ian in the following bulletin #207.
3) In Bulletin #208 Ian first mentions the Gold Coast and Box Hill clubs.
It was also in that bulletin that your first letter appeared. I replied to your letter in the same bulletin and acknowledged at the time that you had sent me a copy of it, which I received the day before your letter was published in the bulletin.
The internet header of the email you sent me was as follows:

Sender: davidr@nerang.net
Received: from gol-mro1.austar.net.au (gol-mro1.austar.net.au
[203.22.8.213])
by siaag1ab.compuserve.com (8.12.8/8.12.7/SUN-2.6) with ESMTP id
h2FLvxQc011615
for <76702.3153@compuserve.com>; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 16:58:01 -0500
(EST)
Received: from gol-msw2.austar.net.au (gol-msw2-i.austar.net.au
[172.18.91.219])
by gol-mro1.austar.net.au (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA)
with ESMTP id BCR02908;
Sun, 16 Mar 2003 07:57:46 +1000 (EST)
Received: from richards
(dialup-140.161.221.203.acc04-john-stp.comindico.com.au [203.221.161.140])
by gol-msw2.austar.net.au (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA)
with ESMTP id AKT00767 (AUTH david_r);
Sun, 16 Mar 2003 07:57:40 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <001201c2eb3d$deeafdf0$8ca1ddcb@richards>
From: "David Richards" <davidr@nerang.net>
To: <76702.3153@compuserve.com>
Subject: ratings
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 07:57:25 +1000

In that email, the first part of it was solely to do with you claiming to be a victim of injustice with regards the 150 points increase from April 2000.
Of course what you were saying was a load of rubbish.

Here is the that part of the letter:

Dear Bill

I believe I am the victim of an injustice. When the ratings were increased
by 150 pts, I had only played a handful of rated games and was not a
beneficiary of the 150 pts. Nevertheless, the games I had played were
calculated into my rating, even though the players were essentially
under-rated by 150 pts. Subsequently, my initial rating was 1240. Since
then my rating has increased 100pts/ yr and is now 1536. However, all the
players I have beaten have probably lost points unnecessarily, and my rd is
probably unnecessarily high.

I would ask that I either have my 150 boost, and my performance and that of my opponents be recalculated, or alternatively discount the games I played prior to the ratings increase and then make all the recalculations.

The following sentence of your email then said:

I have submitted a letter to the ACF newsletter in regards the ratings
debate:
after which followed the letter you submitted to the ACF Bulletin.

Our email exchange lasted from 16th March to the 19th March.

4) In bulletin #209, Graham Saint and I responded to Ian's mention of Gold Coast and Box Hill as follows:

As for Box Hill and Gold Coast chess clubs if they are so concerned about under-rated juniors how come they have not raised the issue either with us directly or to the ACF via Chess Victoria or the CAQ?
This statement was correct.

At no stage in any of your emails did you sign the email as anything other than David Richards. At no stage did you state you were speaking on behalf of the Gold Coast Chess Club Committee.

In fact it was I who stated the following:

I'm not unsympathetic to the issue of junior ratings. In fact we are doing a major study of ACT juniors. If Gold Coast Chess Club would like to submit a report citing and documenting specific examples of juniors they believe are under-rated they should forward this to the CAQ. If the CAQ agree, they can raise the issue at a ACF Council meeting and the claim will be investigated
In fact I had forgotten I had mentioned the study of the ACT juniors to you at that time otherwise I would have used it to show what a pathetic attempt your recent beatup was by suggesting I was doing nothing about it until it had been raised by the ACT people on the ACF mailing list in August 2003.
It is clear that a good 5 months prior to that we were investigating the issue.
This just demonstrates what an absolute disingenous fool you are.


Now even after this appeared in the bulletin in March no correspondence was forthcoming from the Gold Coast Club via CAQ or its committee until I sent an email to the Gold Coast Committee on May 6th.
I received a reply the following day from Sue Kimura who identified herself as the Secretary. This was followed up with a number of further emails between us and conversations over the phone.



It was appalling behaviour Bill, you should feel thoroughly ashamed. You were clearly prepared to say anything expedient, even to the No 1 Australian Chess Player, rather than accept or admit the obvious.
If anyones behaviour was appaling it was yours.
What started out as private emails between us, you saw fit to copy to others, including Ian Rogers.
As such Ian was aware of our email discussions. To therefore suggest that I lied to Ian is plainly incorrect.



Your paper thin denials had a transparency that simply provoked disgust.
What utter rubbish.
What you are doing is simply attempting to manipulate the facts.
Your lack of veracity in the matter is there for all to see.
Your behaviour is disgusting.


All that has happened since you brought on yourself. Honesty is always the best policy.
It would appear you and honesty are not on speaking terms.

Cat
09-09-2004, 12:51 PM
You really are a deluded fool.


This is just a blatant lie on your part and a complete attempt to alter historical facts. I can find no reference in any of the emails where you state you were the Gold Coast Vice President or that you were emailing me on behalf of the Gold Coast Chess Club Committee.


You knew damn well who I was, who I was representing. You even phoned the Chess Club to make enquiries, you spoke to Graeme and Sue Kimura. I e-mailed Ian information as a courtesy as he was mentioned in some of the dispatch. You simply lied Bill, you told Ian you had no information regarding junior ratings unrest, outside of Canberra. At the very least - and I know you know more than that, you knew I was from the Gold Coast. In the correspondance I told you I was acting on behalf of the GCCC. Why don't you simply put up the exchange in full, and all can see for themselves?

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 01:12 PM
You knew damn well who I was, who I was representing.
Untrue.
You never stated in your emails you were speaking in any official capacity.


You even phoned the Chess Club to make enquiries, you spoke to Graeme and Sue Kimura.
Yes, but this was a long time after the emails (16th-19th March) and the discussion in the ACF Bulletin of March 24th. I spoke to Graeme about a week before my email to the Gold Coast Committee. He emailed me the names of the committee on May 1st. In fact my records show I did not speak with Sue Kimura till May 8th which was the day after she replied to my email of May 6th.



I e-mailed Ian information as a courtesy as he was mentioned in some of the dispatch.
Your original email to me did not copy anyone.
After I replied to it your next email to me which included the previous emails was cc'ed to others.


You simply lied Bill, you told Ian you had no information regarding junior ratings unrest, outside of Canberra.
There had been no complaints by the Gold Coast club or Box Hill at the time I said so in the ACF Bulletin.
Your attempts to distort it dont change the facts.


At the very least - and I know you know more than that, you knew I was from the Gold Coast.
So what.
You never stated you were representing the Gold Coast.



In the correspondance I told you I was acting on behalf of the GCCC.
Incorrect.
You never mentioned it.


Why don't you simply put up the exchange in full, and all can see for themselves?
You are the one making the claim that you said you were representing the GCCC. Back it up with an actual extract from one of the emails in the March 16th-19th period.
The balls in your court.

Cat
09-09-2004, 01:37 PM
The balls in your court.

Bill, you couldn't lie straight in bed. I'm really not interested in carrying this on, it really just serves to create a sour atmosphere - I wasn't even posting on this thread anymore, before the Goon's vitriol, simply a pointless attack whereby the assailant seems to have sustained some injuries.

Over the last few months you have taken every opportunity you can to attack me. Most of the time it simply makes you look extremely foolish. Get a life!

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 01:51 PM
Bill, you couldn't lie straight in bed.
Correct, i'm 1.98metres (6'6") so more often than not I'm liking on an angle.


I'm really not interested in carrying this on,
You could have fooled everyone here.


it really just serves to create a sour atmosphere - I wasn't even posting on this thread anymore, before the Goon's vitriol, simply a pointless attack whereby the assailant seems to have sustained some injuries.
Greg is about as far away from a goon as you are from a FIDE GM title(i.e not in this lifetime).


Over the last few months you have taken every opportunity you can to attack me.
Yes, well you will post the most amazing rubbish.



Most of the time it simply makes you look extremely foolish. Get a life!
I have a life.
When it comes to looking foolish, you win hands down.
Interetingly enough at the first round of the NSW Championships a couple of weeks ago now a couple of people asked me who this fool DR was on the bulletin board.
In particular I was asked what sort of Doctor you were.
I informed them I had no idea.
Perhaps I should have said witch doctor because your prognostications on ratings looks like you have been searching for inspiration from the entrails of dead animals.

arosar
09-09-2004, 02:57 PM
Hey boys!! First lemme say, take it easy. Just calm down. Don't get so personalised. And you Dr DR, you make a foul play on Mr Canfell mate. We should have you red carded.

Anyways, I'm having a bit of a break from study (here at state Library). Guess what I did? Went to state parliament next door. I been here in this country for so long I dunno why I never visited the House. And guess who I saw? Fred Nile of all people!! I was gonna say hi but I felt a bit shy and all that.

Now I checked out the picture gallery too. I tell youse what - that second premiere of NSW, Charles Wade, looks like Michael Caine! Couldn't believe me eyes. . .

Anyways, gotta get back to me books.

Bazza mate, crepe il lupo!

AR

antichrist
09-09-2004, 03:02 PM
AR
Anyways, I'm having a bit of a break from study (here at state Library). Guess what I did? Went to state parliament next door. I been here in this country for so long I dunno why I never visited the House. And guess who I saw? Fred Nile of all people!! I was gonna say hi but I felt a bit shy and all that

Reply: I am usually able to think on my feet and land a beauty on them.

Rincewind
09-09-2004, 03:25 PM
Bazza mate, crepe il lupo!

;)

PHAT
09-09-2004, 03:57 PM
Great post Greg.
Its about time people spoke out against clowns like DR and Matt.
Perhaps if more did it they would be less inclined to post the crap they do.

Hey, Dumbo. GC did not speak out "against" me as a "clown" who posts "crap."

You can kid yourself that you are faultless and I am error personified, but you are setting an unattainable goal for yourself, that not even a "Colgate Ring of Confidence" can give you.

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 04:04 PM
Hey, Dumbo. GC did not speak out "against" me as a "clown" who posts "crap."
You fool.
I never said he did speak out against you.
He spoke out against that clown DR.
I said it was about time people spoke out against clowns like DR and you.



You can kid yourself that you are faultless and I am error personified, but you are setting an unattainable goal for yourself, that not even a "Colgate Ring of Confidence" can give you.
I know I'm not faultless, but unlike you I dont indulge in sprouting falsehoods, beatups and when called to back them up with actual facts revert to rudeness and vulgarity to abuse others.

Kevin Bonham
09-09-2004, 06:25 PM
You throw stones you're going to get hurt. I don't know anything of your personal life, but if you live by the sword you die by the sword.

All Greg was doing was making some pertinent observations about the abysmal standard of your contributions to the debate. Looks like you went into personal spite mode even faster with him than you do with me. You should apologise.


I have never made personal abusive comments, I have been the recipient of abuse for my views.

Craven gibberish.


I'm really not interested in carrying this on, it really just serves to create a sour atmosphere - I wasn't even posting on this thread anymore, before the Goon's vitriol, simply a pointless attack whereby the assailant seems to have sustained some injuries.

You're showing serious signs of turning into a flat-out worthless troll now, with rubbish like the above. How amusing that you accused Bill of lying when it was you who couldn't remember, Bill proved you couldn't remember, and instead of saying "Sorry Bill, I was wrong" like anyone with an ounce of integrity, you say "it really just serves to create a sour atmosphere" as if it is the other person's fault. Not good enough. Apologise.

Cat
09-09-2004, 07:26 PM
You're showing serious signs of turning into a flat-out worthless troll now, with rubbish like the above. How amusing that you accused Bill of lying when it was you who couldn't remember, Bill proved you couldn't remember, and instead of saying "Sorry Bill, I was wrong" like anyone with an ounce of integrity, you say "it really just serves to create a sour atmosphere" as if it is the other person's fault. Not good enough. Apologise.

These BB pages are full of comments bemoaning the lack of involement in Australian Chess, can anyone seriously wonder why? With you 2 crackpots at the helm the whole ship is surely heading for the rocks.

Without George I seriously wonder whether anyone would be daft enough to waste their time with such a pair of hopeless, gutless fools.

If you didn't like what you saw, it's simply because I held a mirror up to you. Horrible isn't it? Australian Chess is destined to be trawling at the lower echlons of Australian society, that much is clear. You throw away Good Will as if it's in abundance, the truth is that its disappearing fast. I reckon anyone privy to this thread will be running away from the ACF as if it's got leprosy. You have about as much nouse as the average GI in Iraq. RIP ACF killed by KB & BG.

Kevin Bonham
09-09-2004, 07:36 PM
Thank you David, more unsubstantiated idiotic abuse. The universe is not large enough to contain the irony of you referring to people who actually know what they are talking about as "crackpots". Your criticisms are so ridiculous that if you were hired as John Kerry's campaign manager, Dubya would be re-elected with a 99.999% vote.

Just shut up and do us all a favour.

Cat
09-09-2004, 07:43 PM
Thank you David, more unsubstantiated idiotic abuse. The universe is not large enough to contain the irony of you referring to people who actually know what they are talking about as "crackpots". Your criticisms are so ridiculous that if you were hired as John Kerry's campaign manager, Dubya would be re-elected with a 99.999% vote.

Just shut up and do us all a favour.

Did the truth hurt you that much?

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 07:50 PM
Did the truth hurt you that much?
You wouldnt know the truth if it met you face to face.

Cat
09-09-2004, 08:00 PM
You wouldnt know the truth if it met you face to face.

Look at the pages of this BB! Hardly is there a post without malice and spite. Even the normally affable Amiel has at times posted the odd grouchy remark on the Mt Buller thread. George Howard won't even come here any more and barely any threads run to completion without acrimony.

There is one fingerprint of shame just about everywhere; that endless, pointless, withering little finger of BG.

And why is there so much anger? From Doc, to firegoat, even the great CL. Because your endless, acerbic malevolence has created a putrid atmosphere that has spawned a vicious cycle of contempt.

Matt once said he liked the BB, the inhabitants. Sad isn't it Matt?

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 08:16 PM
Look at the pages of this BB! Hardly is there a post without malice and spite.
The most vulgar and perennial offender is you mate Matt.


Even the normally affable Amiel has at times posted the odd grouchy remark on the Mt Buller thread. George Howard won't even come here any more and barely any threads run to completion with acrimony.
More due to him being busy actually doing something rather than wading through the crap you and others post.


There is one fingerprint of shame just about everywhere; that endless, pointless, withering little finger of BG.
The only morons I have continually absed are you and Matt for your perennial stupidity.


And why is there so much anger? From Doc, to firegoat, even the great CL. Because your endless, acerbic malevolence has created a putrid atmosphere that has spawned a vicious cycle of contempt.
Just more of your crap.
Doc has obvious vested intrests regarding Mt. Buller.
firegoat has issues with CV in particular and and the ACF in general. One should remember that his first posts on the original ACF BB labelled people clowns.
Some of the most virulent abuse CL received was back on the old CAF BB from your mate Matt.
My biggest argument with CL was over his self nominating for the best BB post and whether Kevin called him a goose.


Matt once said he liked the BB, the inhabitants. Sad isn't it Matt?
The only thing sad is that fools like you and Matt continue to post your crap here and try and misrepresent the facts with misinformation.

Cat
09-09-2004, 08:20 PM
The most vulgar and perennial offender is you mate Matt.
.

What a gutless little ponce you are! You cannot even take responsibility for your appalling behaviour. Transfer it all to Matt. Blame DR, blame Firegoat, blame Doc, but don't blame Bill.

Kevin Bonham
09-09-2004, 08:22 PM
Did the truth hurt you that much?

You have no truth to hurt me with. Shut up.

Or answer my question. Incidentally I had a theoretical answer to it that I worked out without any use of ratings formulae. I asked Bill to run the problem through Glicko. Glicko and Glicko2 gave answers that were more or less identical and very similar to mine. We have Matthew's answer which is not even close to right, we also have one for the ELO system with k=15 which doesn't look very flash at all.

Time for yours. I am going to keep asking you this until you answer because I want you to put some numbers behind your drivel and give constructive alternatives.

Kevin Bonham
09-09-2004, 08:24 PM
Look at the pages of this BB! Hardly is there a post without malice and spite. Even the normally affable Amiel has at times posted the odd grouchy remark on the Mt Buller thread. George Howard won't even come here any more and barely any threads run to completion without acrimony.

George left because of some Victorian trolls whose methods of debate uncannily resemble slimmed-down versions of yours. I'm afraid some troll control may be required soon if you persist in posting such utter nonsense.

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 08:29 PM
What a gutless little ponce you are! You cannot even take responsibility for your appalling behaviour. Transfer it all to Matt.
The only gutless ponce is you.
Where have I told anyone to FO, or to get cancer and die or resorted to blatant crude and vulgar language.
The perennial offender is your dopey mate Matt. Yet not once have you seen fit to publically criticise him for this behaviour.
Youa re a complete hypocritical fool.


Blame DR,
You deserve everything you get.
You are nothing but a trolling hypocrite.



blame Firegoat, blame Doc,
I didnt blame them.
I simply stated their apparent raison d'etre for posting.
In fact I havent had a serious argument with either of them for ages.



but don't blame Bill.
Yes, I blame myself for having put up with your drivel for so long.

Cat
09-09-2004, 08:30 PM
George left because of some Victorian trolls whose methods of debate uncannily resemble slimmed-down versions of yours. I'm afraid some troll control may be required soon if you persist in posting such utter nonsense.

You are shameful!

Cat
09-09-2004, 08:32 PM
The only gutless ponce is you.
Where have I told anyone to FO, or to get cancer and die or resorted to blatant crude and vulgar language.
The perennial offender is your dopey mate Matt. Yet not once have you seen fit to publically criticise him for this behaviour.
Youa re a complete hypocritical fool.


You deserve everything you get.
You are nothing but a trolling hypocrite.



I didnt blame them.
I simply stated their apparent raison d'etre for posting.
In fact I havent had a serious argument with either of them for ages.



Yes, I blame myself for having put up with your drivel for so long.

You still can't do it can you? You can't take responsibility for your behaviour!!

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 08:42 PM
You still can't do it can you? You can't take responsibility for your behaviour!!
What is clear is that you cannot acknowledge you are a complete hypocrite.

Cat
09-09-2004, 08:46 PM
What is clear is that you cannot acknowledge you are a complete hypocrite.

This isn't about Matt's behaviour, it's not about Firegoat's behaviour, CL r anyone else. I'm not commenting in anyway about them. I'm talking about you, BG, Obe won, The Jedi. Don't try to divert away from you, thats the kind of thing my kids would do. Your responsibility. Your abject failure to conduct yourself with any grace or decency.

Alan Shore
09-09-2004, 08:50 PM
I think it'd be a nice stat to see how many posts would remain on this BB if you deleted every post that contained an insulting remark. In fact, Bill's post count might be reduced from 3,000 to 3. Reading this thread is like being back in kindy.

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 09:05 PM
I think it'd be a nice stat to see how many posts would remain on this BB if you deleted every post that contained an insulting remark. In fact, Bill's post count might be reduced from 3,000 to 3. Reading this thread is like being back in kindy.
I would suggest you would be wrong.
Back on the 25th July I pointed out the following:


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

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

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

Since then any increase is due I believe soley to the contributions of the two fools Matt and DR.

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 09:09 PM
This isn't about Matt's behaviour, it's not about Firegoat's behaviour, CL r anyone else. I'm not commenting in anyway about them.
Without a doubt, you are a fool.
With regards firegoat or CL, I wasnt commenting on their behaviour except to show what a hypocrite you are.

In fact you cannot bring yourself to critice the crude and vulgar behaviour exhibited by Matt.
Until you do you are nothing but a hypocrite.

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 09:09 PM
Matt's friend the witch doctor, he taught him crap to say
Matt's friend the witch doctor, just could not be nice
And then the witch doctor, he gave Matt this advice
He said that ....

Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang...
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang


BG told the witch doctor, he didnt have a clue
BG told the witch doctor, his ideas were rubbish too
And then the witch doctor, he did not know what to do
So he said..

Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang...
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang

KB then showed the witch doctor, his views were all astray
KB then showed the witch doctor, his brain had wasted away
So then the witch doctor could only just mumble away
He said ...

Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang...
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang

GC told the witch doctor, he was full of crap
GC told the witch doctor, he was just a sap
So finally the witch doctor just had to snap
He said...

Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang...
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang


(with apologies to David Seville) ;)

Alan Shore
09-09-2004, 09:14 PM
Song lyrics

If it wasn't for the continued quips about DR and MS I'd swear someone else was on Bill's account.. he's evolved from being one-dimensional and starting to expand his horizons, good to see :P

Maybe Greg can put forward another Hydra theory

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 09:16 PM
If it wasn't for the continued quips about DR and MS I'd swear someone else was on Bill's account.. he's evolved from being one-dimensional and starting to expand his horizons, good to see :P
I just had some time on my hands. ;)


Maybe Greg can put forward another Hydra theory
I think all my posts can easily be seen to be mine.

Paul S
09-09-2004, 09:37 PM
If it wasn't for the continued quips about DR and MS I'd swear someone else was on Bill's account.. he's evolved from being one-dimensional and starting to expand his horizons, good to see :P


Bruce, didn't you read Bill's Post about "BB Poster Particle Theory" (post #139 in "Does God Exist" thread)?

Bill is OK, and he is easily winning the Ratings "debate" against Matt and Dr Richards. After the last 3 months or so I would score "the ratings debate" as Bill 85% versus the "tag team" (Matt and Dr Richards) 15% at this stage! :lol:

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 09:43 PM
Bill is OK, and he is easily winning the Ratings "debate" against Matt and Dr Richards. After the last 3 months or so I would score "the ratings debate" as Bill 85% versus the "tag team" (Matt and Dr Richards) 15% at this stage! :lol:
I think you are underrating me as that would imply I only "outrate" them by 300 points. ;)
I think the "rating" difference is at least 800 points. :owned:

Perhaps I should change my avatar over to a wrestling motif.
Maybe the Undertaker. ;)

Paul S
09-09-2004, 09:46 PM
I think you are underrating me as that would imply I only "outrate" them by 300 points. ;)
I think the "rating" difference is at least 800 points. :owned:

Don't be too "greedy", Bill! ;)

85% to 15% is almost a 6 to 1 ratio - pretty good IMHO!

Nobody is perfect - not even you!!! ;) :lol: :P

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 09:47 PM
Don't be too "greedy", Bill! ;)

85% to 15% is almost a 6 to 1 ratio - pretty good IMHO!

Nobody is perfect - not even you!!! ;) :lol: :P
I know that why I said 800 points.
It leaves that 1% of doubt. ;)

Alan Shore
09-09-2004, 10:02 PM
Bruce, didn't you read Bill's Post about "BB Poster Particle Theory" (post #139 in "Does God Exist" thread)?

That's part of the reason why I made my above comment, I liked that post too.

Kevin Bonham
09-09-2004, 10:40 PM
You are shameful!

Yeah, ashamed that I waste time on you and your rubbish.

You, of course, are a shameless troll.

PHAT
09-09-2004, 11:30 PM
We have Matthew's answer which is not even close to right,

Not close to right? What is the criterion for deciding that, smartRs. Where is the test of predictiveness.

PHAT
09-09-2004, 11:37 PM
Since then any increase [in my abuse quotient] is due I believe soley to the contributions of the two fools Matt and DR.

Stupid me. Here I was, thinking that we each control the words that we use, and all along, it has been DR and me who are controlling your words. How could I have been so stupid. :doh:

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 11:42 PM
Stupid me. Here I was, thinking that we each control the words that we use, and all along, it has been DR and me who are controlling your words. How could I have been so stupid. :doh:
If you believe that you really are stupid.
Virtually everytime either of you post you confirm you are a moron, clown or fool and my pointing this out adds to my increase.

PHAT
09-09-2004, 11:44 PM
...the crude and vulgar behaviour exhibited by Matt.


Yes, I am a little crude and a little vulgar at times. But I wear all the social consequences, fair and square.

You on the other hand are immune to the oprobrium that you draw to yourself with your caustic manner of dealing with any person whom you disagree with.

PHAT
09-09-2004, 11:49 PM
Perhaps I should change my avatar over to a wrestling motif.
Maybe the Undertaker. ;)

Narr, you are more like the one of the four posts.

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 11:55 PM
Yes, I am a little crude and a little vulgar at times. But I wear all the social consequences, fair and square.
No you dont you bleat and carry on like a big girl.

You on the other hand are immune to the oprobrium that you draw to yourself with your caustic manner of dealing with any person whom you disagree with.[/QUOTE]
Thats opprobrium, and I reserve my as you call it caustic manner for the truly deserving like you and DR.

I have disagreed with a number of people including Barry quite vigourlousy regarding some Chess rules in particular his views on king captures in blitz, Greg Canfell's original post regarding the 150 and 70 points give to inactives and as well as starter and garvin on a couple of occasions.
I have not been abusive to them because they act in a reasonable manner.
They dont take part in beatups, they dont post misleading and false information and dont resort to crude and vulgar language.

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2004, 11:57 PM
Narr, you are more like the one of the four posts.
That would be better than being the wrestling matt. :owned:

PHAT
10-09-2004, 12:01 AM
That would be better than being the wrestling matt. :owned:

Touche :lol:

PHAT
10-09-2004, 12:05 AM
No you dont you bleat and carry on like a big girl.


SIN BIN, NOW!

I demand a moderater give BG a warning for this offensive sexist remark.

Alan Shore
10-09-2004, 12:27 AM
No you dont you bleat and carry on like a big girl.

Remarkably similar to:


I call them girlie men.

:clap:

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2004, 12:38 AM
SIN BIN, NOW!

I demand a moderater give BG a warning for this offensive sexist remark.

AR would have been banned at least a dozen times over if we did that. :eek:

Garvinator
10-09-2004, 12:55 AM
interesting, in about eight hours of back and forth crap on a rating thread, i could only count one post about ratings. why hasnt this trash been moved to a non chess section already :evil:

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2004, 05:34 AM
interesting, in about eight hours of back and forth crap on a rating thread, i could only count one post about ratings. why hasnt this trash been moved to a non chess section already :evil:

It's OK, it's here now.

arosar
10-09-2004, 12:55 PM
I thought we already established the principle that no one thread should be dedicated to attacking one member? I demand that this here thread be deleted immediately. It's highly inappropriate.

KB - I have not been impressed with your last 2 thread efforts recently (both in relation to Dr DR).

AR

Bill Gletsos
10-09-2004, 01:08 PM
I thought we already established the principle that no one thread should be dedicated to attacking one member? I demand that this here thread be deleted immediately. It's highly inappropriate.
What principle is that.
I didnt see you complaining about the following long established threads:
Matt Vs Bill Round 974
Pointless Flame wars rubbish II Bonham Vs sweeney

In line with those the only thing that should happen is to chnage the thread title to something like "david vs greg round 1"


KB - I have not been impressed with your last 2 thread efforts recently (both in relation to Dr DR).
Perhaps DR should just stop posting his crap and others wouldnt have to take him to task.

arosar
10-09-2004, 01:16 PM
Matt did complain about a thread that was dedicated to you Bill. And those other threads are a tango of two - so no prob there. This thread is clearly for the sole purpose of attacking DR. It's not right. I don't feel comfy about it. Delete this thread immediately.

AR

Bill Gletsos
10-09-2004, 01:32 PM
Matt did complain about a thread that was dedicated to you Bill.
Did I complain about it.
No.
It didnt worry me.



And those other threads are a tango of two - so no prob there.
Not totally correct as others joined in.
Just look at the bb insults/matadebate.



This thread is clearly for the sole purpose of attacking DR. It's not right. I don't feel comfy about it. Delete this thread immediately.
Just look at the thread.
1) Greg responded to DR's comment which went "However, to engage in the debate you'd need to use your brain instead of your spleen." and he commented on DR's posting style.
2) DR attacks both Greg, KB and me in his reply.
3) We respond.
4) DR makes entirely false remarks regarding his email correspondence.
5) I respond.

The majority of the thread is essentially a 1 on 1 between DR and me.

PHAT
10-09-2004, 02:30 PM
Matt did complain about a thread that was dedicated to you Bill. And those other threads are a tango of two - so no prob there. This thread is clearly for the sole purpose of attacking DR. It's not right. I don't feel comfy about it. Delete this thread immediately.

AR

You took the words right out of my mouth.
It must have been when you were telling Bill. :whistle:

PHAT
10-09-2004, 02:33 PM
Did I complain about it.
No.
It didnt worry me...

The majority of the thread is essentially a 1 on 1 between DR and me.

It worries me and several others.

If the thread is essentially BG Vs DR, your name should be in the thread title.

Bill Gletsos
10-09-2004, 03:10 PM
It worries me and several others.

If the thread is essentially BG Vs DR, your name should be in the thread title.
This thread came out of a ratings thread.
The title it has been given quite correctly describes the issue at the heart of it.

Kevin Bonham
13-09-2004, 03:22 AM
I thought we already established the principle that no one thread should be dedicated to attacking one member?

Do remind me of when such a resolution occurred.

This thread is irrelevant material split from a ratings thread - I simply gave it a title that described its contents.


KB - I have not been impressed with your last 2 thread efforts recently (both in relation to Dr DR).

Given your blatant trolling all over the Mt Buller issue, I neither know nor care whether the above comment is serious. If I want feedback on my efforts I will take it from those who display some kind of consistency in the standards they display and expect. The opinions of others will carry zero weight. :hand:

PHAT
13-09-2004, 05:42 AM
If I want feedback on my efforts I will take it from those who display some kind of consistency in the standards they display and expect.

That would be me.

Kevin Bonham
13-09-2004, 09:11 PM
That would be me.

:eh:

Don't call me. I'll call you.

Arrogant-One
15-07-2006, 01:40 PM
Matt's friend the witch doctor, he taught him crap to say
Matt's friend the witch doctor, just could not be nice
And then the witch doctor, he gave Matt this advice
He said that ....

Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang...
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang


BG told the witch doctor, he didnt have a clue
BG told the witch doctor, his ideas were rubbish too
And then the witch doctor, he did not know what to do
So he said..

Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang...
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang

KB then showed the witch doctor, his views were all astray
KB then showed the witch doctor, his brain had wasted away
So then the witch doctor could only just mumble away
He said ...

Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang...
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang

GC told the witch doctor, he was full of crap
GC told the witch doctor, he was just a sap
So finally the witch doctor just had to snap
He said...

Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang...
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang


(with apologies to David Seville) ;)
Are you saying that Matt Sweeney, using and employing his own abilities, mind, and consideration, would not have come to the same self evident conclusions as Cat and myself? Just because these conclusions elude yourself does not mean they are invalid or ungenuine.

Arrogant-One
15-07-2006, 01:45 PM
Time and time again you have been asked for factual evidence to support your claims that juniors are underrated on the Gold Coast (and even if they are, to get them to play more rated games), and time and time again you have not.
OMG!!!!

Shirty,

You are a ridiculous clown/joker/pop star/ twit/ who would probably want 'proof' that the sky is blue!

Obviously Gold Coast juniors are heavily underrated!!!! My experience is proof enough.

bergil
15-07-2006, 01:57 PM
OMG!!!!

Shirty,

You are a ridiculous clown/joker/pop star/ twit/ who would probably want 'proof' that the sky is blue!

Obviously Gold Coast juniors are heavily underrated!!!! My experience is proof enough.
ROTFL :wall:

Bill Gletsos
15-07-2006, 02:04 PM
Are you saying that Matt Sweeney, using and employing his own abilities, mind, and consideration, would not have come to the same self evident conclusions as Cat and myself? Just because these conclusions elude yourself does not mean they are invalid or ungenuine.Perhaps before making comments you should actually try reading what has gone before.
Until then you are just clueless and show you have no understanding of the issues whatsoever.

Arrogant-One
15-07-2006, 02:24 PM
Perhaps before making comments you should actually try reading what has gone before.
Until then you are just clueless and show you have no understanding of the issues whatsoever.
I think I have a strong grasp of the issues Bill.

But, I will indulge you. Please refer me to any posts/threads you think will protrait you in a better light, or offer greater insight into the issues aforementioned.

Bill Gletsos
15-07-2006, 02:31 PM
I think I have a strong grasp of the issues Bill.I think you have no grasp of the issues at all.

But, I will indulge you. Please refer me to any posts/threads you think will protrait you in a better light, or offer greater insight into the issues aforementioned.I am not your research assistant.

Rhubarb
15-07-2006, 02:45 PM
:eek: Bill, now look what you've done by linking to your classic post.

You are a ridiculous clownOkay.


jokerOkay.


twitOkay.


pop starBut this is beyond the pale. Not even Shirty should be required to bear such abuse.
who would probably want 'proof' that the sky is blue!Well it is completely overcast in Sydney today...
Obviously Gold Coast juniors are heavily underrated!!!! My experience is proof enough. Bill, you have my deepest sympathy having to deal with people like this, but I've got enough on my plate with FIDE ratings these days.

Arrogant-One
15-07-2006, 02:53 PM
:eek: Bill, now look what you've done by linking to your classic post.
Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

But this is beyond the pale. Not even Shirty should be required to bear such abuse.Well it is completely overcast in Sydney today...Bill, you have my deepest sympathy having to deal with people like this, but I've got enough on my plate with FIDE ratings these days.
Shirty,

Please refresh my memory, what did you get banned for recently?

Bill doesn't have to deal with anybody if he doesn't want to. He just doesn't like being taken to task with an unofficial (yet truthful) BB job performance evaluation which - on this particular topic - he flunked!

Bill Gletsos
15-07-2006, 02:56 PM
Shirty,

Please refresh my memory, what did you get banned for recently?Another false claim by you AO.
Kevin has already warned you about this.
Shirty has never been banned.

Arrogant-One
15-07-2006, 02:57 PM
Another false claim by you AO.
Kevin has already warned you about this.
Shirty has never been banned.
Didn't say he did Bill, learn how to read. I was unsure, and hence, asked Shirty a question.

The ? may have indicated that a question was being asked. Thats usually what they are used for.

Bill Gletsos
15-07-2006, 03:03 PM
Didn't say he did Bill, learn how to read.I can, unfortunately you canbnot even comprehend what you write yourself.

I was unsure, and hence, asked Shirty a question.

The ? may have indicated that a question was being asked. Thats usually what they are used for.Incorrect.
You didnt ask him if he was banned, you asked him what he was banned for.

Arrogant-One
15-07-2006, 03:14 PM
I can, unfortunately you canbnot even comprehend what you write yourself.
Incorrect.
You didnt ask him if he was banned, you asked him what he was banned for.
Its still a question and not a statement of fact.

Bill Gletsos
15-07-2006, 03:18 PM
:eek: Bill, now look what you've done by linking to your classic post.As far as classic posts go, it pales in comparision to yours at the start of this thread.

Bill, you have my deepest sympathy having to deal with people like this, but I've got enough on my plate with FIDE ratings these days.It is the cross all Ratings Officers have to bear. ;)

Rhubarb
15-07-2006, 03:57 PM
It is the cross all Ratings Officers have to bear. ;)Nice one :) but I'd say your cross is significantly heavier. I usually only have to deal with polite and reasonable enquiries, not have to continually refute the misinformation posted here.

Bill Gletsos
15-07-2006, 04:14 PM
Its still a question and not a statement of fact you incompetent boob!The incompetent tit here is you.
It is a question asking him what he was banned for. That unequivically makes it clear you are saying he was banned and just want to know what for.
It isnt enquiring if he was banned or not.

Basil
15-07-2006, 04:21 PM
:uhoh:

So its not just me, then?

Arrogant-One
15-07-2006, 05:42 PM
It is a question asking him what he was banned for. That unequivically makes it clear you are saying he was banned and just want to know what for.
It isnt enquiring if he was banned or not.
So the line of inquiry may have been flawed, but no statement of fact was made.

A question cannot be used to express a statement of fact, only to query one.

Bill Gletsos
15-07-2006, 05:45 PM
So the line of inquiry may have been flawed, but no statement of fact was made.

A question cannot be used to express a statement of fact, only to query one.Alert, Mop and Bucket required
Alert, Mop and Bucket required
Alert, Mop and Bucket required

Bill Gletsos
15-07-2006, 05:52 PM
:uhoh:

So its not just me, then?No.

WhiteElephant
15-07-2006, 06:11 PM
Alert, Mop and Bucket required
Alert, Mop and Bucket required
Alert, Mop and Bucket required

During my chess school holiday program, I had one kid come along who tried to bully other kids to win chess games. His MO would be to start playing his game and when he thought he was in trouble, he'd go: 'you suck, you suck, you suck'. Or: 'you're fat, your're fat, you're fat.' He managed to intimidate a couple of the younger players but when he played the kids his age, they just ignored him or stared at him, and he'd be forced to look away in embarrassment. Anyway, my point is, Bill, GET A NEW LINE. :)

Bill Gletsos
15-07-2006, 06:15 PM
During my chess school holiday program, I had one kid come along who tried to bully other kids to win chess games. His MO would be to start playing his game and when he thought he was in trouble, he'd go: 'you suck, you suck, you suck'. Or: 'you're fat, your're fat, you're fat.' He managed to intimidate a couple of the younger players but when he played the kids his age, they just ignored him or stared at him, and he'd be forced to look away in embarrassment. Anyway, my point is, Bill, GET A NEW LINE. :)Its clear AO was saying Shirty had been banned and was enquiring as to what for.
His responses since have been nothing but dribble.
As such you need to get a mop and bucket to clean it up.

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2006, 06:58 PM
During my chess school holiday program, I had one kid come along who tried to bully other kids to win chess games. His MO would be to start playing his game and when he thought he was in trouble, he'd go: 'you suck, you suck, you suck'. Or: 'you're fat, your're fat, you're fat.'

Was any disciplinary action taken? If a child started doing this and there was no provocation I would warn him. If he continued I would probably send him home.

AO is being a twit about all this no matter what you think of Bill's response. AO was clearly asserting that Shirty has been banned, which is false. AO's wriggling to try to get out of it is ridiculous.

Garvinator
15-07-2006, 07:09 PM
AO's wriggling to try to get out of it is ridiculous.
what is most sad is that he hasnt worked out that each time he makes a big claim, posters are going to pounce on him to back up each and every claim he makes :eek: :cool:

Bill Gletsos
15-07-2006, 07:11 PM
what is most sad is that he hasnt worked out that each time he makes a big claim, posters are going to pounce on him to back up each and every claim he makes :eek: :cool:He cant even back up the small claims. ;)

WhiteElephant
15-07-2006, 09:33 PM
Was any disciplinary action taken? If a child started doing this and there was no provocation I would warn him. If he continued I would probably send him home.

Yes, of course. I am tough on things like that, I stretched the story a little bit, he didn't get as far as doing it more than twice. :) I generally like to have a relaxed, social atmosphere at holiday prgrams, with the emphasis on fun rather than serious chess. But to maintain this, I make sure that anyone taking advantage of this knows what the consequences will be. Especially for name-calling and bullying, I hate that.


AO is being a twit about all this no matter what you think of Bill's response. AO was clearly asserting that Shirty has been banned, which is false. AO's wriggling to try to get out of it is ridiculous.

It is possible AO is being a twit but he is doing it with flair.

Arrogant-One
15-07-2006, 10:25 PM
Yes, of course. I am tough on things like that, I stretched the story a little bit, he didn't get as far as doing it more than twice. :) I generally like to have a relaxed, social atmosphere at holiday prgrams, with the emphasis on fun rather than serious chess. But to maintain this, I make sure that anyone taking advantage of this knows what the consequences will be. Especially for name-calling and bullying, I hate that.

It is possible AO is being a twit but he is doing it with flair.
I have a lot of flair, but deny the part about being a twit. Kevin and Bill are showing themselves to be a closed shop, and I can't break through yet. But I will persevere! :)

Basil
15-07-2006, 10:52 PM
It is possible AO is being a twit but he is doing it with flair.

Leaving AO out of my commentary and my inference, can I just tackle WE by asking isn't that like the cop telling you not be upset with the crim that just cleaned out your house because he was well dressed or was a pleasant bloke on arrest?

Alan Shore
16-07-2006, 12:23 AM
Leaving AO out of my commentary and my inference, can I just tackle WE by asking isn't that like the cop telling you not be upset with the crim that just cleaned out your house because he was well dressed or was a pleasant bloke on arrest?

That's a very weak analogy. I know you can do much better than that.

Basil
16-07-2006, 12:27 AM
That's a very weak analogy. I know you can do much better than that.

Hmmm.... :hmm:

How about:
He's not capable, but he's trying, or
He's not a good president, but his heart's in the right place

Kevin Bonham
16-07-2006, 12:34 AM
Yes, of course. I am tough on things like that, I stretched the story a little bit, he didn't get as far as doing it more than twice. :) I generally like to have a relaxed, social atmosphere at holiday prgrams, with the emphasis on fun rather than serious chess. But to maintain this, I make sure that anyone taking advantage of this knows what the consequences will be. Especially for name-calling and bullying, I hate that.

Good to hear.


It is possible AO is being a twit but he is doing it with flair.

Oh, it can be theatrically amusing to read, but I'm far too busy laughing at its incompetence to consider it "flair".


That's a very weak analogy.

For once I agree. :eek:

AO would never clean out the house if he was a robber. He'd trip over the front doorstep as he tried to break-and-enter, then drop a wallet containing his ID and all his money as he ran away without managing to steal anything.

Arrogant-One
17-07-2006, 02:41 PM
Post 103 is a clear attempt at trolling by Kevin Bonham.

I will not respond.

Therefore the troll bait will go to waste unless someone else decides to bite.

Kevin Bonham
17-07-2006, 04:45 PM
I will not respond.

Too late, you already have.

From your response it is clear you know my post was true, but have no reply, so have to pretend I was trolling.

[/troll]