PDA

View Full Version : Tone of forum posts sf Geelong Open



ER
30-05-2011, 05:09 PM
My reading of #16 and #23 is that they were deliberate mischief-making by CG with the aim of trolling/stirring the ACF Exec into a misguided panic through the making of statements that were literally true (in some sense) but as misleading through omission as possible.

I think that sometimes the roles of ACF executives and Forum administrators are slightly (to say the least) confused.
I understand the forum administrators' responses to whatever "trolling/stirring" from whichever sources to differ from those of the ACF's execs.
As such I expect people who have and continue to serve our Chess community at the level of Messrs Jamieson, Parr, Cordover & Powel, just to name some, to be treated with the respect they deserve by our ACF officials such as yourself.
On the other hand, I expect personalities such those referred to above to exhibit equal amount of respect when then they criticise our unpaid officials in regards to the way they exercise their duties.
Having said all that, I believe that banning, dismissing and rejecting the "other" be that a pairing, rating, digitally broadcasting technology, or some person, group, or publication, simply because a central body be it a federation, association, club or group of individuals, disagrees with the above in every shape or form, is simply not on.
Such tactics will only lead to further polarisation, conflict, friction to the detriment of Chess development.
I hope logic and good sense will prevail and opinions such as the above will not reach the point of some mass confrontation with unpredictable results!

Kevin Bonham
30-05-2011, 05:46 PM
JaK, I think the coolers might be best directed at your own post which seems to me to consist primarily of confused hot air, with a minor element of marsh gas from the swamps of the forum-hippies. :lol:

My post is written neither on behalf of the site nor on behalf of the ACF. My position as a forum admin is irrelevant to it.

In #23 David explicitly and openly stated he was "stirring the ACF boneheads". There is no confusion on his part about who he is having a go at and in what capacity (though I am unsure who on the ACF he considers to be boneheads and which of us merely have skulls made out of titanium or something like that.)


Having said all that, I believe that banning, dismissing and rejecting the "other" be that a pairing, rating, digitally broadcasting technology, or some person, group, or publication, simply because a central body be it a federation, association, club or group of individuals, disagrees with the above in every shape or form, is simply not on.

If you have any evidence that anything has been banned or dismissed for this reason you should take it up on the thread discussing that action. I put it to you that you have none.

ER
30-05-2011, 06:24 PM
As far as banning is concerned re - read ACF's decision on Tornelo.

As for dismissing and rejecting other people's opinions


... but I notice the May 2011 issue contains a rant by jammo against the ACF over the Tornelo conflict on page 6, followed by a "letters" page on page 9 that in reality consists mostly of more of the same. Gary Wastell and Bill Gletsos come in for some abuse.


Oh, I see that Rex (Bill Powell) is being completely ridiculous over there, attempting to slag off this forum by accusing us of taking someone's side over a claimed issue that actually hasn't been discussed yet here at all.

Just re-read your texts here, and think what might have happened if you used this kind of tone talking to the above mentioned gentlemen face to face!
In other words you are adviced not to use this kind of approach when we meet in Tassie in less than two weeks time because you might be surprised by my style as I am definitely not impressed by yours!

Kevin Bonham
30-05-2011, 09:09 PM
As far as banning is concerned re - read ACF's decision on Tornelo.

So? We all know what decisions were made and implemented. You have raised the possibility that it was done for a particular reason but you have no evidence that that is so.


Just re-read your texts here, and think what might have happened if you used this kind of tone talking to the above mentioned gentlemen face to face!

*sigh*

This one ought to be in an FAQ somewhere.

You need to consider the tone of the comments I am replying to (especially in the Powell case). For your what-if above to have the slightest validity, you need to imagine what would happen if Powell came up to me in person and spouted his nonsense in person. He could hardly complain if I responded in the way I did, but more likely I would just glare and walk away. When you see me using a harsh tone online it is almost always because someone has said something which no-one in their right mind would say in an in-person conversation in the first place.

Now if you had issues with what I said about OTM you should have taken it up on the OTM thread. I actually toned my comment down a lot to reach the version you see there, but it looks like I needn't have bothered. :doh:

ER
31-05-2011, 12:22 AM
First of all my statement wasn't one sided! I suggested toning town to both sides!

On the other hand, I expect personalities such those referred to above to exhibit equal amount of respect when then they criticise our unpaid officials in regards to the way they exercise their duties.

Is the following ...


So? We all know what decisions were made and implemented. You have raised the possibility that it was done for a particular reason but you have no evidence that that is so.

an official statement that the relevant ACF decision wasn't made in regards to Tornelo usage in major tournaments?


You need to consider the tone of the comments I am replying to (especially in the Powell case). For your what-if above to have the slightest validity, you need to imagine what would happen if Powell came up to me in person and spouted his nonsense in person.

I had the honour to meet Mr Powel personally a couple of months ago in Sunshine Coast where major Chess tournament was held in his honour. He is a senior, kind yet dynamic statesman one of the kind that should be respected. Additionally, I was told that despite the fact that his health isn't in peak condition he continues to do whatever he can about chess! I doubt that he would use a disrespectful and vulgar tone against any person. People like him are looked up by younger and not so younger players and administrators in QLD. Bu using such an insulting tone, you are making enemies for no reason at all!


When you see me using a harsh tone online it is almost always because someone has said something which no-one in their right mind would say in an in-person conversation in the first place.

In real life you are different. We have only had a short talk in Sydney but you came through to me as a civilised and witty young person. That's very much unlike your behaviour over here where sometimes you lose the plot and describe people's contributions with uncalled for expressions.


Now if you had issues with what I said about OTM you should have taken it up on the OTM thread. I actually toned my comment down a lot to reach the version you see there, but it looks like I needn't have bothered.

You need have bothered because, if I did what you demanded ie gathering examples of your tone from a small no. of threads. If I did otherwise, there would be no comprehensive focus to what I wanted to stress out to you. Similarly, you need have bothered because my point is shared amongst other people in our chess community and as an ACF official you should think seriously about it. I understand you don't have to be popular to be respected but at the same time you have to be respected in order to represent me and others in the supreme body of our chess hierarchy!

Kevin Bonham
31-05-2011, 01:22 AM
an official statement that the relevant ACF decision wasn't made in regards to Tornelo usage in major tournaments?

No. It is an unofficial statement that the relevant decisions were not made for the reason you refer to but were instead made for completely different reasons. If it was an official statement it would be signed as such.


I had the honour to meet Mr Powel personally a couple of months ago in Sunshine Coast where major Chess tournament was held in his honour. He is a senior, kind yet dynamic statesman one of the kind that should be respected.

If that is the case then he does himself no favours by posting the rubbish he does about this forum in public. Unfortunately Australian chess seems to include a number of people who do excellent things for the game (and their positive contribution should be respected) and who are nice people in person (most people are) but who once on the internet think it is acceptable to spout inflammatory and bizarre nonsense without the slightest regard for the facts. That behaviour should not be respected and I do not respect it.


I doubt that he would use a disrespectful and vulgar tone against any person.

I said nothing about vulgarity but if you think he would not use a disrespectful tone then I suggest you check some of his online postings. In this case he accused one of our members of breaking the law simply because that member had accepted payment of an arbiter fee from an association that member was an officebearer of. He then posted the following clearly disrespectful claptrap about CC: "Chess Chat seems to be on his side so what does that say about Chess Chat?"


People like him are looked up by younger and not so younger players and administrators in QLD. Bu using such an insulting tone, you are making enemies for no reason at all!

If people are foolish enough in their loyalties to consider me an enemy just because I have pointed out a public failing of somebody they look up to then too bad. Dealing with such ineffectual clueless enemies is just like playing a simul only easier. :lol:


In real life you are different. We have only had a short talk in Sydney but you came through to me as a civilised and witty young person. That's very much unlike your behaviour over here where sometimes you lose the plot and describe people's contributions with uncalled for expressions.

Firstly, you are in no position to judge whether I am different in real life because you have never seen how I behave in real life in acrimonious situations that are comparable to those that arise online.

Secondly, while you say that "sometimes you lose the plot and describe people's contributions with uncalled for expressions" I challenge you to provide examples of this that actually stand up to scrutiny. The two cases you have used as examples here are poor ones. My criticism of the comments in question, and the tone I have used, is completely commensurate with the stuff I am responding to - mild even. Your commendable desire to praise the good work that the people in question are doing has unfortunately led you to defend them in situations where they have got the response they were asking for.


You need have bothered because, if I did what you demanded ie gathering examples of your tone from a small no. of threads. If I did otherwise, there would be no comprehensive focus to what I wanted to stress out to you.

Then you should have put it on a new thread rather than messing up a thread about the Geelong Open just because one of the comments you took melodramatic umbrage to cropped up there.

I have now done this for you. :lol:


Similarly, you need have bothered because my point is shared amongst other people in our chess community and as an ACF official you should think seriously about it.

I won't be thinking seriously about it for an instant as my comments are not posted as an ACF official. If those "other people" have a problem with stuff I post on an unofficial basis then they are welcome to prevail upon their state associations to vote me out should I stand for election again.

Desmond
31-05-2011, 07:17 AM
If that is the case then he [Powell] does himself no favours by posting the rubbish he does about this forum in public. Not to mention the pathetic facade of running obvious hydras who just log in every few months to pat each other on the back.

ER
01-06-2011, 04:35 AM
No. It is an unofficial statement that the relevant decisions were not made for the reason you refer to but were instead made for completely different reasons. If it was an official statement it would be signed as such.

If you aren't speaking as an ACF official, or as a Forum admin and you are simply expressing your point of view then that point of view carries as much weight as nine or anyone else's in this forum! So, whenever you are using authoritiarian and dismissive tones in regards to other people's opinion then prepare to have some back!


If that is the case then he does himself no favours by posting the rubbish he does about this forum in public. Unfortunately Australian chess seems to include a number of people who do excellent things for the game (and their positive contribution should be respected) and who are nice people in person (most people are) but who once on the internet think it is acceptable to spout inflammatory and bizarre nonsense without the slightest regard for the facts. That behaviour should not be respected and I do not respect it.

My reference to Mr Powel was strictly based upon my personal experience of the man and the opinions about him of people I met in the tournament carying his name a couple of months ago. In all honesty I have no idea what you are talking about when you (or Boris with his hydra input) are referring to his internet behaviour. Is he a chatter here?




I said nothing about vulgarity but if you think he would not use a disrespectful tone then I suggest you check some of his online postings. In this case he accused one of our members of breaking the law simply because that member had accepted payment of an arbiter fee from an association that member was an officebearer of. He then posted the following clearly disrespectful claptrap about CC: "Chess Chat seems to be on his side so what does that say about Chess Chat?"

Can that posting be found in the Arbiters thread?



Firstly, you are in no position to judge whether I am different in real life because you have never seen how I behave in real life in acrimonious situations that are comparable to those that arise online.

I made it clear, I have only met you for a very short period of time in Sydney early in the year. Also, a common friend, whose opinion I greatly respect, thinks you are an OK person. In any case, and under any cirmumstances I don't think that in real life you can perform any worse than during some of your gigs here!


I challenge you to provide examples of this that actually stand up to scrutiny.

I simply don't have the time to do that since I am preparing for three interstate (incl. the one in Tassie next week) and two overseas trips in the near future. I will try to compile a collection of your "Best ofs", in the future.


The two cases you have used as examples here are poor ones. My criticism of the comments in question, and the tone I have used, is completely commensurate with the stuff I am responding to - mild even. Your commendable desire to praise the good work that the people in question are doing has unfortunately led you to defend them in situations where they have got the response they were asking for.

I 've noticed that in your current public conversation with IM Jamieson your tone has improved dramatically to mild, polite and civilised. Maybe if some more important chess personalities begun participating in forum debates re controversial matters, the tones used will improve in an analogous manner.


Then you should have put it on a new thread rather than messing up a thread about the Geelong Open just because one of the comments you took melodramatic umbrage to cropped up there.
I have now done this for you. :lol:

Because you are an admin! hehe! :owned:



(...) they are welcome to prevail upon their state associations to vote me out should I stand for election again.

Is that a hint??? hey I can already imagine three different kinds of response to the above from certain Victorians:

1) ... took him a while! :lol:
2) ... I wanna see it to believe it! :lol:
3) ... good riddance! :lol:

It 'll take me sometime to decide about mine (maybe I 'll come with something original)! :owned:

Desmond
01-06-2011, 07:00 AM
My reference to Mr Powel was strictly based upon my personal experience of the man and the opinions about him of people I met in the tournament carying his name a couple of months ago. In all honesty I have no idea what you are talking about when you (or Boris with his hydra input) are referring to his internet behaviour. Is he a chatter here?
I was referring to his efforts on the toolbox, but as it happens yes he is. What do these three posts (http://www.chesschat.org/search.php?searchid=697825) have in common?

ER
01-06-2011, 11:12 AM
I was referring to his efforts on the toolbox, but as it happens yes he is. What do these three posts (http://www.chesschat.org/search.php?searchid=697825) have in common?

Hi Boris and thanks but all I get is this:



Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

Desmond
01-06-2011, 12:25 PM
Hi Boris and thanks but all I get is this:
Try this one (http://www.chesschat.org/search.php?do=finduser&u=1585).

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2011, 01:23 PM
So, whenever you are using authoritiarian and dismissive tones in regards to other people's opinion then prepare to have some back!

Actually I was using dismissive tones in response not to "opinions" but to unduly dismissive tones and false claims, but you don't seem to have noticed this.

Tone is one issue, facts are another. If you try to get stuck into me in what you think is the same tone I am using, but you have your facts wrong and I don't, you will go down in a screaming heap. I suggest you always investigate the matter fully before sounding off.


My reference to Mr Powel was strictly based upon my personal experience of the man and the opinions about him of people I met in the tournament carying his name a couple of months ago. In all honesty I have no idea what you are talking about when you (or Boris with his hydra input) are referring to his internet behaviour.

Then perhaps you should have asked and checked your facts before jumping to misguided conclusions that he would not be silly online. He has a long history of terrible form.


Is he a chatter here?

Not seen much of him around here since we banned one of his hydras that was being used purely to conceal his identity while attacking other posters. Identities he has used on this forum include his own name as well as Highwayman and Adam (the latter banned). Identities he has used on the Toolbox include his own name as well as Rex and Uki. (Alex claims Uki is his wife but I believe he is mistaken about that.)


Can that posting be found in the Arbiters thread?

No, it is on the Toolbox. It is in a thread in the Chess Association of Queensland section called "Garvin Gray's Arbiters Fees". I must say again that the accusations he used a pseudonym to make there are utterly without substance. Wouldn't blame the CAQ if it considered action over the matter.


In any case, and under any cirmumstances I don't think that in real life you can perform any worse than during some of your gigs here!

I value your opinion on that score at zero as it is not based on the facts in either instance. In the instance of your trashy "opinion" of my efforts here it is based on you putting a sense of loyalty to people who do good work above reasonable criticism of efforts by them that are clearly less than stellar.

Curiously this misguided loyalty (a) doesn't seem to extend to me and (b) is extended to those people even when they break the rules you are trying to recommend for me.

You like the relaunch of "On The Move". Fine. On the whole, an excellent and worthy initiative. It just happened that the present issue contained a couple of pages of very questionable content.

You appreciate many of David's efforts. Fine. So do I. It just happened that in this instance he was stirring up the ACF and taking the mickey out of it by his own obvious admission. When I point this out after he has already pointed it out, you go off the deep end.

Quite simply you just do not have a leg to stand on in any of this, it is just all forum-hippy human-headlining and totally silly. Conflict between people who do good things exists in the chess world and always will. Judge each case on its actual factual merits and get over it.


I simply don't have the time to do that since I am preparing for three interstate (incl. the one in Tassie next week) and two overseas trips in the near future. I will try to compile a collection of your "Best ofs", in the future.

And I will defend each and every one with reference to the circumstances unless you can find one that is actually out of order.


I 've noticed that in your current public conversation with IM Jamieson your tone has improved dramatically to mild, polite and civilised.

Utter bollocks, my tone there has not changed in the slightest.


Because you are an admin! hehe! :owned:

You could have compiled my so-called greatest hits and posted them in a new thread yourself, easily.

It was a no-brainer that this stuff should be moved. If I thought anyone could rightly even consider moving it contentious I would have left it to the others.


Is that a hint???

It's a hint I've been dropping to every troll or forum-hippy who wanted to take issue with my posting style since I was first elected VP. I've been practically begging with them that if they are silly enough to really think it is an issue then they should offer themselves as a candidate against me and then the National Conference electors can judge.

Observed results:

2007: elected
2009: re-elected unopposed
2011: re-elected unopposed

Basically, people make noise about my style on forums but it is all idle nonsense and when it comes to the crunch they either don't think they will have support or else can't be bothered.

ER
01-06-2011, 01:39 PM
Try this one (http://www.chesschat.org/search.php?do=finduser&u=1585).

It would take me some time to get to profound meanings etc of your referenced posts but I am having great time reading posts from an era I wasn't even a member here! :P

Particularly moments when Howie was getting caught by Brian playing blitz with his mate when he should be concentrating on a conference's precedings


Howard behaved normally and did what most chessplayers do. Grabbed a set, climbed under the table [my emphasis :lol:] and started playing blitz against his mate. Made no effort to reset the tables and chairs or get the equipment out for anybody else. Nothing unusual about this?

and some of his early gunnerisms such as:


Are you aware of someone who has complained? I assume 'guessing someone has complained' is not sufficient evidence, even on this board.

Desmond
01-06-2011, 02:13 PM
It would take me some time to get to profound meanings etc of your referenced posts ...Ok maybe I was too cryptic. Sorry.

It's just the three posts by "anonymous" poster highwayman.

One post references a Caloundra chess tournament.
One post pats Bill on the back.
The other is on a thread where AO was taking shots at Howard.

That should narrow down the field for the identity of highwayman considerably.

ER
01-06-2011, 02:34 PM
Actually I was using dismissive tones in response not to "opinions" but to unduly dismissive tones and false claims,
Or what you think were unduly dismissive tones and false claims!


Tone is one issue, facts are another.

We are talking strictly about tone here, look at the heading! Facts can change or interpreted differently, unless you are talking about dogmas and I am not a doctrinaire!


If you try to get stuck into me

I thought we were only discussing, are you getting stuck into me?


in what you think is the same tone I am using,

Tone is only the subject (look at the thread's heading - you baptised it) not the absolute truth


but you have your facts wrong and I don't, you will go down in a screaming heap.

too melodramatic! Not my style but you can always have a go and we 'll see who 'll be doing the going down and the screaming!


Then perhaps you should have asked and checked your facts before jumping to misguided conclusions that he would not be silly online. He has a long history of terrible form.

I based my particular statement in what I observed by meeting the man and the respect he enjoyed by people participating in or visiting the tournament. Looking at Boris's suggested threads I 've also noticed other important chess personalities defending Powel. My suggestion after all was a general call for all to improve their tone!


Not seen much of him around here since we banned one of his hydras that was being used purely to conceal his identity while attacking other posters. Identities he has used on this forum include his own name as well as Highwayman and Adam (the latter banned). Identities he has used on the Toolbox include his own name as well as Rex and Uki. (Alex claims Uki is his wife but I believe he is mistaken about that.)

In all honesty I had no knowledge about all this. Do you expect me to go through people's CVs, or personal details, before I express an opinion about them?


No, it is on the Toolbox. It is in a thread in the Chess Association of Queensland section called "Garvin Gray's Arbiters Fees". I must say again that the accusations he used a pseudonym to make there are utterly without substance. Wouldn't blame the CAQ if it considered action over the matter.

I simply don't have time to go through the forums as I once did. (Amongst other reasons being my interstate and overseas travelling and some stupid community service I have to complete) The last time after a longish period of time that I visited the other forum was when I was told by MCC's President Grant Szuveges that it was important for an MCC tournament's flyer to be published in both forums and so I did.


I value your opinion on that score at zero as it is not based on the facts in either instance.

You are in no position to value anything about my opinion. Keep your values or lack of them to yourself.



In the instance of your trashy "opinion" of my efforts here it is based on you putting a sense of loyalty to people who do good work above reasonable criticism of efforts by them that are clearly less than stellar.

My loyalty or lack of it can only be appreciated by people who know me and have dealt with me on a personal or community basis. Usage of "trashy"and other related nouns may as well describe your dialectics and definitely not mine!


Curiously this misguided loyalty (a) doesn't seem to extend to me and (b) is extended to those people even when they break the rules you are trying to recommend for me.

Rules and regulations aren't my game or cup of tea. Can you claim the same? If you can't answer that have a look at your sig!


You appreciate many of David's efforts. Fine. So do I. It just happened that in this instance he was stirring up the ACF and taking the mickey out of it by his own obvious admission. When I point this out after he has already pointed it out, you go off the deep end.

David's "stirring" in the particular case was all in good humour. I took it that way hence my response to him in the relevant thread where I jokingly (smiley included) told him that tornelo's failure "served him right because he behaved in a smart arse way" or words to that extent!


Quite simply you just do not have a leg to stand on in any of this,

You are right, I don't have a leg, I have two and I kick arse when needed!


it is just all forum-hippy human-headlining and totally silly.

No, it's only stupid name calling on your behalf!


Conflict between people who do good things exists in the chess world and always will. Judge each case on its actual factual merits and get over it.

Amen!


Utter bollocks, my tone there has not changed in the slightest.

Yes it has! Try to find any of all the above mentioned expressions such as "trashy", "utter bollocks" etc in your conversation with IM Jamieson who's nailing you in an equally effective way as I do here!


It's a hint!

Then to this


Is that a hint??? hey I can already imagine three different kinds of response to the above from certain Victorians:

1) ... took him a while! :lol:
2) ... I wanna see it to believe it! :lol:
3) ... good riddance! :lol:

let me add

4) ... what the hell was he doing there in the first place? :lol:

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2011, 04:03 PM
Or what you think were unduly dismissive tones and false claims!

If you want to question my view that their tones were unduly dismissive then you should question your own view as concerns my reply. But you're not doing it.

As for the false claims, I don't just "think" they were false. I know they were.


We are talking strictly about tone here, look at the heading! Facts can change or interpreted differently, unless you are talking about dogmas and I am not a doctrinaire!

Facts can change? Oh really? Is this JaK Baudrillard talking here and telling me the Gulf War never happened? Give me an example of a fact that has changed.

Facts and tone are directly related because persistently unfactual behaviour deserves criticism and invites a more critical tone.


I thought we were only discussing, are you getting stuck into me?

Gee that's an evasion! You are making personal criticisms of me, some of them worded far more stridently than the posts of mine that you had "tone" issues with; of course you're "getting stuck into me".


I based my particular statement in what I observed by meeting the man and the respect he enjoyed by people participating in or visiting the tournament.

Unfortunately offline behaviour is not necessarily a guide to online behaviour. You're all too willing to accept that I am different online to offline even though you don't actually know the full facts required to establish that, so why were you so reluctant to even entertain the possibility in the case of Powell?


In all honesty I had no knowledge about all this. Do you expect me to go through people's CVs, or personal details, before I express an opinion about them?

No but if someone like me (whose tone you might have issue with but who is generally careful with issues of fact) says that someone has posted in a certain manner then instead of saying you don't believe that they would, you should ask first and check your facts. You didn't believe my claim about Powell's posting style but it was true.


I simply don't have time to go through the forums as I once did.

Fine, but then you should be aware that we know better about some of these things than you.


You are in no position to value anything about my opinion. Keep your values or lack of them to yourself.

You are in no position to order me about my valuations. Keep your order or lack of it to yourself. :lol:

The reason you are in no position is that you have been criticising me extensively, and in cases cluelessly, on this thread. Now it seems you can't take it when I criticise you for doing so and say that it is all nonsense.


My loyalty or lack of it can only be appreciated by people who know me and have dealt with me on a personal or community basis.

I don't agree; I think certain trends are obvious in your postings. Assuming they represent your real opinions (which I do assume).


Rules and regulations aren't my game or cup of tea. Can you claim the same? If you can't answer that have a look at your sig!

What I am talking about here is not codified "rules" but double standards - if you apply certain standards to me you should be applying them to others. And if you did this properly instead of making a token effort you may understand my response to them.


David's "stirring" in the particular case was all in good humour.

It certainly contained humour, some of it light, but if you think the expression "ACF boneheads" was entirely good-humoured in the context of recent conflicts over Tornelo etc then you have just destroyed your entire case about "tone".

There was also a serious side to it because Geelong have been awarded an Australian Championships. Thus if there were banned practices in the Geelong event that would have had major implications for the Aus Champs. As it turned out, there were not. As soon as I found out there were not I thought it was best to burst the balloon using some "good humour" of my own. Hence #24 on that thread.


I took it that way hence my response to him in the relevant thread where I jokingly (smiley included) told him that tornelo's failure "served him right because he behaved in a smart arse way" or words to that extent!

Yes and that was fair enough and funny. But you were not among the targets of his original attack, are not fully familiar with the background, and therefore may not have noticed the problem.


No, it's only stupid name calling on your behalf!

It's just me calling it what it obviously is. Simplistic why-can't-we-all-get-along stuff, targeted mainly at the respondent rather than the initiator in spite of token attempts at even-handedness, and accompanied by a grandstanding style of delivery as if it is all a far bigger deal than it is.


Yes it has! Try to find any of all the above mentioned expressions such as "trashy", "utter bollocks" etc in your conversation with IM Jamieson who's nailing you in an equally effective way as I do here!

Sorry but jammo is all at sea on the free speech line; he has an unfair disadvantage on that one because of my pol-phil background. He is also suffering in other parts from an apparent lack of awareness regarding the facts underlying the decisions he is criticising, Your unsubstantiated cheerleading will avail him nought.

Now, what you actually said was "in your current public conversation with IM Jamieson your tone has improved dramatically". That implies that I was using a different tone at the start of my conversation with him, which I am not.

The reason I am using a different tone towards jammo compared to you is that while he has many of the basic facts wrong, his tone in his posts here is fine. Yours, however, is really quite scruffy, which is especially funny because tone is what you are complaining about. You were trying to lord it over me right from the start of this discussion but didn't even have your facts right in the opening post.

Indeed you were using an intemperate tone to criticise me for using an intemperate tone towards others who initiated an intemperate tone. Hmmm...


4) ... what the hell was he doing there in the first place? :lol:

You tell me!