PDA

View Full Version : Matt Sweeney R.I.P. 2002-2004



antichrist
10-01-2005, 09:43 AM
I assume Matt can't come back (unlike JC) so I have opened up a condolence register thread so that his memory can be laid at rest.

I half expect MS to do a Mark Twain and say that news of his death are highly exaggerated.

From Matt Sweeney Banned thread
______________________________
Matt,
If you are still reading, which I doubt, I thank you for the many times you brightened my day, but ones that were indelled into my memory were describing Bill as wingnut (not my type of humour but funny) and querying whether AR's incontinence pads were full.

Who else on the BB can make us laugh -- I can't remember any of the highly-rated players doing so. A few of the lowly-rated players could because they are dopes

ursogr8
10-01-2005, 12:14 PM
I assume Matt can't come back (unlike JC) so I have opened up a condolence register thread so that his memory can be laid at rest.

I half expect MS to do a Mark Twain and say that news of his death are highly exaggerated.

From Matt Sweeney Banned thread
______________________________
Matt,
If you are still reading, which I doubt, I thank you for the many times you brightened my day, but ones that were indelled into my memory were describing Bill as wingnut (not my type of humour but funny) and querying whether AR's incontinence pads were full.

Who else on the BB can make us laugh -- I can't remember any of the highly-rated players doing so. A few of the lowly-rated players could because they are dopes

hi A/C

I think the Gorilla from the GONG has simply been asked to go and stand in the corner for a while, as a consequence of his unseemly language on multiple occasions. He will be back surely.
The two examples of humour you quote were gems; particularly the second, and the post around this particular line is also worth reading for chuckle-value.
Still best for me was Matt's entire post that was nominated for the 2003 Best post award.

starter

Trent Parker
10-01-2005, 12:26 PM
SWeeney will be enabled soon.....

However sweeney may not be back for a while as he is camping somewhere down far south coast of NSW......

Cat
10-01-2005, 01:25 PM
SWeeney will be enabled soon.....

However sweeney may not be back for a while as he is camping somewhere down far south coast of NSW......


Trent, you must have spoken to him at the Minor, how was The Sweeney, did he have anything to say about his ex-communication? How were his spirits holding up after the ordeal?

Bill Gletsos
10-01-2005, 01:30 PM
Trent, you must have spoken to him at the Minor, how was The Sweeney, did he have anything to say about his ex-communication? How were his spirits holding up after the ordeal?
What ordeal.
He brought it on himself by his crude and vulgar behaviour.
If he cannot learn to control his foul language then any return will be short lived.

Cat
10-01-2005, 01:47 PM
What ordeal.
He brought it on himself by his crude and vulgar behaviour.
If he cannot learn to control his foul language then any return will be short lived.

As you saying he will experience a resurrection? Is this some sort of prophesy? 20 20 foresight?

Bill Gletsos
10-01-2005, 02:10 PM
As you saying he will experience a resurrection? Is this some sort of prophesy? 20 20 foresight?
Not at all.
KB previously announced that they would eventually lift his ban but keep him on a tight leash.

antichrist
10-01-2005, 03:04 PM
Bill,
This RIP thread is supposed to be a wake for Matt -- a celebration of his wit and wisdom -- and you are dancing on his grave, putting the boot in. Don't you miss your old sparring partner?

Like, it goes without saying that you would miss me if I went.

Matt could come from a sensitive family like Greenbottle did and choose not to return.

Bill Gletsos
10-01-2005, 03:36 PM
Bill,
This RIP thread is supposed to be a wake for Matt -- a celebration of his wit and wisdom -- and you are dancing on his grave, putting the boot in.
His wit and especially his wisdom was few and far between if at all unlike his crude and vulgar language which was nearly always on show.

Don't you miss your old sparring partner?
Not in the least.
The board has been much more civilised without him.


Like, it goes without saying that you would miss me if I went.
As usual you are deluding yourself.
Your leaving would be no great loss.


Matt could come from a sensitive family like Greenbottle did and choose not to return.
We could but hope he would choose not to return, but I wouldnt bet on it.

ursogr8
10-01-2005, 03:59 PM
His wit and especially his wisdom was few and far between if at all unlike his crude and vulgar language which was nearly always on show.

Not in the least.
The board has been much more civilised without him.


As usual you are deluding yourself.
Your leaving would be no great loss.


We could but hope he would choose not to return, but I wouldnt bet on it.

Bill

You have said all this before.

A/C was calling for reflection on a few of the postives; not to dwell on the negatives.
If you must be grumpy, choose another thread.

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
10-01-2005, 04:14 PM
Bill

You have said all this before.

A/C was calling for reflection on a few of the postives; not to dwell on the negatives.
No, let us remember the side of Matt he demonstrated most.
That was the side that was crude and vulgar and certainly not one of wisdom.


If you must be grumpy, choose another thread.
I guess like DR and antichrist, I should have expected you to act as an apologist for Matt's behaviour.

ursogr8
10-01-2005, 04:34 PM
No, let us remember the side of Matt he demonstrated most.
That was the side that was crude and vulgar and certainly not one of wisdom.


I guess like DR and antichrist, I should have expected you to act as an apologist for Matt's behaviour.

Bill

If you interpret my post #2 as that of an apologist then that is your call, not mine.
The weather and cricket are too nice in Melbourne to be grumpy. Bye.

starter

Alan Shore
10-01-2005, 05:32 PM
What ordeal.
He brought it on himself by his crude and vulgar behaviour.
If he cannot learn to control his foul language then any return will be short lived.

I always thought it strange that Matt got the wrong message.. if he had posted his vulgarities in UnMod instead of (oddly) being polite there and not on the main board then none of this would have happened.

Even so, they are only words, a few bytes of text that appear on your screen and despite what many would term 'vulgarity', I doubt Matt ever had truly malicious intentions. What really constitutes 'foul' is in the eye of the beholder.

If you are talking about 'intent to insult' then Bill, I think you outrank Sweeney even. Just because you use words like 'fool, cretin, moron, polluted gene pool' etc. does not make it any less a bad thing than Sweeney's vulgarities. All it shows is you express yourself in a different manner but the intent behind those words should be clear for all to see.

So yes, perhaps Matt did offend people and may have deserved to have been banned but perhaps you should think about the way you conduct yourself too, that doesn't restrict to 'civilised' language.

After all, I think there's all too thin a line between a fool and a f***wit. :rolleyes:

JGB
10-01-2005, 07:14 PM
Bill

You have said all this before.

A/C was calling for reflection on a few of the postives; not to dwell on the negatives.
If you must be grumpy, choose another thread.

regards
starter

did someone really die here or what? :confused:

Bill Gletsos
10-01-2005, 07:28 PM
I always thought it strange that Matt got the wrong message.. if he had posted his vulgarities in UnMod instead of (oddly) being polite there and not on the main board then none of this would have happened.
True.
Unfortunately he didnt seem to appreciate that but argued the very opposite.


Even so, they are only words, a few bytes of text that appear on your screen and despite what many would term 'vulgarity', I doubt Matt ever had truly malicious intentions. What really constitutes 'foul' is in the eye of the beholder.
I've had many people complain to me about Matt's use of foul language on the board.


If you are talking about 'intent to insult' then Bill, I think you outrank Sweeney even. Just because you use words like 'fool, cretin, moron, polluted gene pool' etc. does not make it any less a bad thing than Sweeney's vulgarities. All it shows is you express yourself in a different manner but the intent behind those words should be clear for all to see.
The intent should be clear.
I dont tolerate fools lightly.
Neither do I tolerate those that misrepresent situations and facts.


So yes, perhaps Matt did offend people and may have deserved to have been banned
There is no may about it.
He had been repeatedly warned by the mods but failed to heed them.


but perhaps you should think about the way you conduct yourself too, that doesn't restrict to 'civilised' language.
I've never been warned by a mod about my behaviour on the board.


After all, I think there's all too thin a line between a fool and a f***wit. :rolleyes:
Given your accusations against the NSWJCL Council in another thread you would seem to confirm that assertion. :hand:

Bill Gletsos
10-01-2005, 07:31 PM
did someone really die here or what? :confused:
All I know is that based on comments made to me by readers of this board these apologists for Matt's behaviour are in the minority.

ursogr8
10-01-2005, 08:55 PM
All I know is that based on comments made to me by readers of this board these apologists for Matt's behaviour are in the minority.

Bill
I am putting it down to your lack of knowledge of the word. So here is a dictionary definition.

apologist: one who argues in defense of a person or cause

I think now you have to document what you think I am defending about Matt.
While you are considering your rationale you might like to dwell on
> I have steadfastly refused to adopt the role of doing the moderator task of judging the standards of Matt's posts. That is not de facto condoning of his posts; but simply leaving the job to the folks who are appointed.
> My post #2 was factual in why he was stood aside.

The tasks for you are
1) show how I have varied from the theme of the thread as outlined by A/C
2) show how a detailing of Matt's humour is a defence of his posts that others have ruled as unruly.

Please constrain your comments to my words and avoid your usual time-wasting tactic of trying to lump individual opinions together. Let us skip that kindergarden debating trick, just for once. If you must argue with BD, DR, A/C, show for once that you can leave it to independent posts.

starter

Bill Gletsos
10-01-2005, 09:09 PM
Bill
I am putting it down to your lack of knowledge of the word. So here is a dictionary definition.

apologist: one who argues in defense of a person or cause
I know exactly what an apologist is.


I think now you have to document what you think I am defending about Matt.
I dont have to do anything starter.

While you are considering your rationale you might like to dwell on
> I have steadfastly refused to adopt the role of doing the moderator task of judging the standards of Matt's posts. That is not de facto condoning of his posts; but simply leaving the job to the folks who are appointed.
Its not a just a moderators role at all.
Your failure to criticise Matt for his bad language and behaviour is a de facto condoning of it.
If you and others had criticised him for it earlier perhaps it would have sunk thru his thick skull that he shouldnt do it.


> My post #2 was factual in why he was stood aside.
I never commented on your post #2.
I only responded to DR's and antichrist posts.
You saw fit to buy into it with your post #10.


The tasks for you are
1) show how I have varied from the theme of the thread as outlined by A/C
2) show how a detailing of Matt's humour is a defence of his posts that others have ruled as unruly.
I dont answer to you starter.


Please constrain your comments to my words and avoid your usual time-wasting tactic of trying to lump individual opinions together. Let us skip that kindergarden debating trick, just for once. If you must argue with BD, DR, A/C, show for once that you can leave it to independent posts.
I consider you an apologist for him.
Pure and simple.
End of story.

No go away and waste someone elses time.

Cat
10-01-2005, 09:48 PM
I've never been warned by a mod about my behaviour on the board.


:hand:

I don't know why, because as BD rightly says, there is little to seperate the language you employ and that of Matt's. In fact I reported one of your posts involving the gratutitous abuse of Starter, but it seems the moderators are particular as to how these issues are furthered. Your behaviour on this thread is hardly exemplory.

Lets get back to the tributes - I agree, so long Matt and thanks for all the fish!

Bill Gletsos
10-01-2005, 09:54 PM
I don't know why, because as BD rightly says, there is little to seperate the language you employ and that of Matt's.
There is no comparison between Matt's language of telling others to FO, GF or to get cancer and die and my calling people morons, cretins fools and gooses.

If you cannot see that then it is no wonder you are considered such a joke.


In fact I reported one of your posts involving the gratutitous abuse of Starter, but it seems the moderators are particular as to how these issues are furthered. Your behaviour on this thread is hardly exemplory.
Your opinion means nothing to mean.


Lets get back to the tributes - I agree, so long Matt and thanks for all the fish!
Given he isnt dead, then a true representation of his behaviour should be shown, not some rose colored glasses view.

Kevin Bonham
10-01-2005, 10:21 PM
I'll be considering the Sweeney release once up to speed with the board, which may take a couple of days. That's assuming no one else has released him meanwhile.

Cat
10-01-2005, 10:23 PM
I'll be considering the Sweeney release once up to speed with the board, which may take a couple of days. That's assuming no one else has released him meanwhile.

A wise and timely decision!

Bill Gletsos
10-01-2005, 10:36 PM
A wise and timely decision!
Yes, because the sooner he returns the sooner he is likely to again offend and be banned.

ursogr8
11-01-2005, 06:40 AM
I know exactly what an apologist is.













I consider you an apologist for him.
Pure and simple.



Bill

For you to have any credibility with this name-calling smear you would have had to show post(s) of mine where I defended Matt; for that is what an apologist does...defends.

You have not quoted any of my post(s).

Thus, your name-calling is seen for what it is; without evidence and just a smear.
You could retract the smear and regain some integrity.

starter

ursogr8
11-01-2005, 07:06 AM
I know exactly what an apologist is.



No go away and waste someone elses time.

Bill

You are the only one smearing me by calling me an apologist for a banned poster. There is no-one else for me to respond to.

You could stop your time being wasted by retracting the smear.


starter

Rincewind
11-01-2005, 07:30 AM
I'll be considering the Sweeney release once up to speed with the board, which may take a couple of days. That's assuming no one else has released him meanwhile.

Trent indicated that he is camping down the coast somewhere at the moment. Therefore, time is probably not of the essense. If he is back, I might see him tonight and will let you know if I do.

rob
11-01-2005, 02:58 PM
Bill

For you to have any credibility with this name-calling smear you would have had to show post(s) of mine where I defended Matt; for that is what an apologist does...defends.

You have not quoted any of my post(s).

Thus, your name-calling is seen for what it is; without evidence and just a smear.
You could retract the smear and regain some integrity.

starter

Matt got what he deserved. I consider that your foolish demands on Bill to prove his credibility and integrity should be answered with :whistle:

ursogr8
11-01-2005, 03:39 PM
Matt got what he deserved. I consider that your foolish demands on Bill to prove his credibility and integrity should be answered with :whistle:

hi Rob

I am sure that if Bill thought he could answer the questions with a simple emoticon (as you have suggested) then he would have done so; he is never backward at answering easy challenges quickly. This time he hasn't answered quickly because he is in a bit of a bind in that he has used a smear word (apologist for a banned poster) and can't yet find a post of mine to back up his accusation.
The kindest explanation of your thinking he needs a defence from yourself is that you have misunderstood the challenge entirely. This is further backed up by the simpleton response you think adds to Bill's debating points.
I suggest you re-read the posts, with concentration.

regards
starter

rob
11-01-2005, 04:04 PM
hi Rob

I am sure that if Bill thought he could answer the questions with a simple emoticon (as you have suggested) then he would have done so; he is never backward at answering easy challenges quickly. This time he hasn't answered quickly because he is in a bit of a bind in that he has used a smear word (apologist for a banned poster) and can't yet find a post of mine to back up his accusation.

It could be that he hasn't replied quickly as he is otherwise occupied or perhaps not in the mood to play your word games or maybe he hasn't even read your post! - your assumption of the reason maybe wrong.

ursogr8
11-01-2005, 04:31 PM
It could be that he hasn't replied quickly as he is otherwise occupied or perhaps not in the mood to play your word games or maybe he hasn't even read your post! - your assumption of the reason maybe wrong.

Rob

I see that you have already given up trying to defend your first post. A wise choice.

Rather than you and I reading his mind from a distance, we might just be patient. If he thinks he can make headway he will be back.

starter

rob
11-01-2005, 04:59 PM
Rob

I see that you have already given up trying to defend your first post. A wise choice.

Rather than you and I reading his mind from a distance, we might just be patient. If he thinks he can make headway he will be back.

starter

A wise choice as I don't feel I need to defend my first post (in this thread), I am comfortable with it thanks. You may feel that you need to try to put Bill and I on the defensive but we are not compelled to do as you wish :)

Your 'This time he hasn't replied because' indicated that you were being factual about the reason, whereas I gave other plausible possibilities. Now your post above shows that you didn't know the reason.

Bill Gletsos
11-01-2005, 07:56 PM
The answer is simple.

Shaun or maybe it was Charles Z (or even both) suggested I not waste my time arguing on the BB with fools but just make your point and leave it at that. I suggested that sometimes you just have to waste your time.

This is just a case where I choose not to waste my time. :whistle:

ursogr8
11-01-2005, 08:06 PM
A wise choice as I don't feel I need to defend my first post (in this thread), I am comfortable with it thanks. You may feel that you need to try to put Bill and I on the defensive but we are not compelled to do as you wish :)

Your 'This time he hasn't replied because' indicated that you were being factual about the reason, whereas I gave other plausible possibilities. Now your post above shows that you didn't know the reason.

hi Rob

Bill is on the defensive simply because he alleged I was defender of a banned poster. Bill's defence is lagging because he cannot produce a post to back this up.
He has been reduced to claiming that I should have written posts like he wrote posts; the so-called de-facto condoning.

Your problem is quite separate. You hopped into defend Bill; not his smear word 'apologist'.
You are on the defensive, not because I want you on the defensive, but because you did not read the early exchange of posts between Bill and I accurately; and you are therefore trying make your posts relevant, retrospectively.

I don't think Bill needs your help; but if you do, then have a go at defending Bill's use of the word 'apologist' by posting a relevant post of mine.


starter

Alan Shore
11-01-2005, 08:47 PM
The intent should be clear.
I dont tolerate fools lightly.
Neither do I tolerate those that misrepresent situations and facts.

And I don't tolerate those who are single-minded, egotistical and downright rude.


I've never been warned by a mod about my behaviour on the board.

Hahaha. That's why you've had about 500 of your posts moved out of the topic they were originally in (they should have just been deleted) because of your pointless flamewars filled with petty insults and beatups. :hand:



Given your accusations against the NSWJCL Council in another thread you would seem to confirm that assertion.

Repeat: You know nothing of what transpired, this doesn't concern you. :hand:

Bill Gletsos
11-01-2005, 09:13 PM
And I don't tolerate those who are single-minded, egotistical and downright rude.
I dont care what you tolerate as your opinion means nothing to me.



Hahaha. That's why you've had about 500 of your posts moved out of the topic they were originally in (they should have just been deleted) because of your pointless flamewars filled with petty insults and beatups. :hand:
You can try and twist the facts as much as you like.
I have never been warned about my behaviour on the board by a mod.

Also I have had nowhere near 500 posts moved out of topics. It would be lucky to be 250.

I havent generated any beatups. I have simply responded to beatups by others.


Repeat: You know nothing of what transpired, this doesn't concern you. :hand:
Kerry contradicted your view. John H spoke to RGH who contradicted your view. John Cronan contradicted your view. John H then contradicted your view.

There are all credible.
Unfortunately for you the same cannot be said.

Alan Shore
11-01-2005, 09:25 PM
I dont care what you tolerate as your opinion means nothing to me.

Right back at you slick. :cool:


You can try and twist the facts as much as you like.
I have never been warned about my behaviour on the board by a mod.

Also I have had nowhere near 500 posts moved out of topics. It would be lucky to be 250.

I havent generated any beatups. I have simply responded to beatups by others.

Haha, whatever you say, either way you've still posted a lot of useless rubbish.


Kerry contradicted your view. John H spoke to RGH who contradicted your view. John Cronan contradicted your view. John H then contradicted your view.

I'm having a private discussion with John Cronan over this matter. This does not concern you.

Bill, you can post whatever you want but don't expect me to respond again to your rubbish. I have far better things to do with my time than argue with you, Nigel.

Bill Gletsos
11-01-2005, 09:32 PM
Right back at you slick. :cool:
Pretty lame comeback.


Haha, whatever you say, either way you've still posted a lot of useless rubbish.
Yes, generally arguing with dopes like you.


I'm having a private discussion with John Cronan over this matter. This does not concern you.
Good for you.
Too bad you didnt do that before making your claim and calling the NSWJCL decision atroucious.


Bill, you can post whatever you want but don't expect me to respond again to your rubbish. I have far better things to do with my time than argue with you, Nigel.
Yes like making accustions against the NSWJCL.

Alan Shore
11-01-2005, 09:47 PM
Arguing with Bill (and at times, KB) is like throwing a tennis ball against a wall.

- An exercise in futility
- Whatever you throw, you're not going to get anything better back
- What you do get back is repetitive and predictable
- The wall will never change it's structure/opinions no matter how hard you throw
- Even when you throw something easy you can still catch them out
- When you're bored with getting nowhere, the wall still stands there as if it's won when really, you've got better things to do

So go on Bill, have the last word as we know you will. But it's getting you nowhere fast! 'Tis my final word.

Bill Gletsos
11-01-2005, 09:58 PM
Arguing with Bill (and at times, KB) is like throwing a tennis ball against a wall.

- An exercise in futility
- Whatever you throw, you're not going to get anything better back
- What you do get back is repetitive and predictable
- The wall will never change it's structure/opinions no matter how hard you throw
- Even when you throw something easy you can still catch them out
- When you're bored with getting nowhere, the wall still stands there as if it's won when really, you've got better things to do

So go on Bill, have the last word as we know you will. But it's getting you nowhere fast! 'Tis my final word.
You said in post #36 that you wouldnt respond to my rubbish.
That either means that you cannot even keep to your own word for even 30 mins or that my post #37 wasnt rubbish.

Alan Shore
11-01-2005, 10:04 PM
You said in post #36 that you wouldnt respond to my rubbish.
That either means that you cannot even keep to your own word for even 30 mins or that my post #37 wasnt rubbish.

[Final Clarification]

My post wasn't a response. It was a general statement. You are just like KB at his worst, pedantically trying to one-up people to boost your ego. It's just sad.

To make sure it doesn't happen again should I just put you on ignore, Bill?

Bill Gletsos
11-01-2005, 10:12 PM
[Final Clarification]

My post wasn't a response. It was a general statement. You are just like KB at his worst, pedantically trying to one-up people to boost your ego. It's just sad.
Call it what you like you implied you wouldnt respond, but you did.
In fact once again your so called final word in post #38 isnt.
You just dont know when to quit.


To make sure it doesn't happen again should I just put you on ignore, Bill?
As for putting me on ignore, do what you want.
I dont care.

Rincewind
11-01-2005, 11:58 PM
I might see him tonight and will let you know if I do.

Six hours nineteen minutes right ascension, fourteen degrees twenty-two minutes declination...

no sighting.

Garvinator
12-01-2005, 12:10 AM
Six hours nineteen minutes right ascension, fourteen degrees twenty-two minutes declination...

no sighting.
sounds like the movie contact :owned:

ursogr8
12-01-2005, 07:11 AM
The answer is simple.

Shaun or maybe it was Charles Z (or even both) suggested I not waste my time arguing on the BB with fools but just make your point and leave it at that. I suggested that sometimes you just have to waste your time.

This is just a case where I choose not to waste my time. :whistle:

hi Bill

Here is even better advice, if you are now to adopt time-saving as a 2005 modus operandi, > just resist the urge to smear posters with insulting names as a substitute for reasoned argument.
I am now presuming you have retracted the 'apologist' smear you labelled me with twice.


starter

Cat
12-01-2005, 07:12 AM
Six hours nineteen minutes right ascension, fourteen degrees twenty-two minutes declination...

no sighting.


You must wait until the third day!

Rincewind
12-01-2005, 07:26 AM
sounds like the movie contact :owned:

It's actually a quote from the Simpsons. Bart's Comet. The line delivered by Principal Skinner.

Rincewind
12-01-2005, 07:28 AM
You must wait until the third day!

Well I heard he was hanging around but I didn't know THAT was what they meant. Better not cross him.

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2005, 02:17 PM
Arguing with Bill (and at times, KB) is like throwing a tennis ball against a wall.

Had to bring me into this, didn't you? The sad irony here is that you're attacking Bill for going off-topic and getting his posts moved while going off-topic yourself in the process. So let's check out the scorecard. Looks like you did pretty well:


- An exercise in futility

Correct, because you pick lost causes and are more interested in losing them than in learning anything.


- Whatever you throw, you're not going to get anything better back

Correct, because when you throw rubbish I'm not going to often waste my time on pearls before swine ... or when I do you fail to notice the difference.


- What you do get back is repetitive and predictable

Correct, because what you throw is exactly the same.


- The wall will never change it's structure/opinions no matter how hard you throw

Correct, because no matter how hard you throw rubbish, it's still rubbish. I have had opinions changed in debates on this BB - just not by you. :P


- Even when you throw something easy you can still catch them out

Unsubstantiated self-aggrandisement; shame, you were doing well.


- When you're bored with getting nowhere, the wall still stands there as if it's won when really, you've got better things to do

Like running away with your tail between your legs from the stench of your own nonsense. Seen that so many times before.


'Tis my final word.

Good. Next time, try something I need to go off autopilot to dispose of.

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2005, 01:22 AM
I've just unbanned Matt, but he will be on a very tight leash from now on. No tolerance really towards crudity or swearing (incl. use of abbreviated or semi-disguised swearing to evade the filter). The standards will be different and harsher for Matt because of his numerous past transgressions, which in the eyes of many have already earned him a life ban. If he posts any unacceptable material in the non-Coffee-Lounge area please hit post report so we can deal with it. He'll be notionally on a three-strike system with the third strike being permanent ban, but if he does anything severe it will be harsher than that. Also if he picks a stupid fight with the admin then I won't defend him again.

Lest starter wish to conduct his usual forensic examination of the standards that will be applied, we reserve the right to re-ban Matt at any time, for any period, with or without stating reasons, and 100-post nitpicking over the imagined rules under which this is done won't be entered into, leastways not by me. Those who are pleased to have him back, if any, just be thankful he's allowed back on at all for any time, since it's more than we owe him, and direct any further questions to my good buddy here: :hand:

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 07:10 AM
I've just unbanned Matt, but he will be on a very tight leash from now on. No tolerance really towards crudity or swearing (incl. use of abbreviated or semi-disguised swearing to evade the filter). The standards will be different and harsher for Matt because of his numerous past transgressions, which in the eyes of many have already earned him a life ban. If he posts any unacceptable material in the non-Coffee-Lounge area please hit post report so we can deal with it. He'll be notionally on a three-strike system with the third strike being permanent ban, but if he does anything severe it will be harsher than that. Also if he picks a stupid fight with the admin then I won't defend him again.

Lest starter wish to conduct his usual forensic examination of the standards that will be applied, we reserve the right to re-ban Matt at any time, for any period, with or without stating reasons, and 100-post nitpicking over the imagined rules under which this is done won't be entered into, leastways not by me. Those who are pleased to have him back, if any, just be thankful he's allowed back on at all for any time, since it's more than we owe him, and direct any further questions to my good buddy here: :hand:

KB
An excellent post, bringing clarity to the banning issue where before forensic investigation there was only the appearance of retaliation by the admin.

So the rules are simple to understand

> swear three times and you are out
> crude three time you are out
> fight with the admin three times and you are out
> use words like fool, cretin, & moron, and you are billed for services to Australian chess.

Seems fair enough.

starter


ps Pity that your mate put his hand up. :(
I had a good question about the 4 >'s above. It was ' which of these would have got a bounder a slap over the face with a white glove in the 19th century'? (And hence an invitation to a duel-at-dawn?)
In other words which is the more offensive offence?

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 11:09 AM
> fight with the admin three times and you are out
I dont believe KB said that at all.
In fact if anything by making explict mention of fighting with the admin it seemed to imply it could result in an immediate ban (by said admin).

Of course given the number of times he has been previously warned about his language, I'm at a loss as to why he has been give three strikes as opposed to a single strike.

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 11:17 AM
hi Bill

Here is even better advice, if you are now to adopt time-saving as a 2005 modus operandi, > just resist the urge to smear posters with insulting names as a substitute for reasoned argument.
I am now presuming you have retracted the 'apologist' smear you labelled me with twice.
Then you would presume in error.


> use words like fool, cretin, & moron, and you are billed for services to Australian chess.
Now given your attempt to be a smartass, I take the above as a criticism of my language but as I have said before I dont recall ever seeing you criticise Matt for his langauage/behaviour.

As such you wont be getting any retraction from me for calling you an apologist.

I may possibly reconsider if you can show me a post where you have ever criticised Matt for his language/behaviour on the board.

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 11:21 AM
I dont believe KB said that at all.
In fact if anything by making explict mention of fighting with the admin it seemed to imply it could result in an immediate ban (by said admin).

Of course given the number of times he has been previously warned about his language, I'm at a loss as to why he has been give three strikes as opposed to a single strike.

Bill
A very dangerous post of yours. :uhoh:
Remember what Shaun and Charles advised you? :hmm:

See the KB at the top of the post? When I write to him I don't have be quite so literal; he would have got the point.

starter

ps No answer required.

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 11:28 AM
Then you would presume in error.


Now given your attempt to be a smartass, I take the above as a criticism of my language but as I have said before I dont recall ever seeing you criticise Matt for his langauage/behaviour.

As such you wont be getting any retraction from me for calling you an apologist.

I may possibly reconsider if you can show me a post where you have ever criticised Matt for his language/behaviour on the board.

Bill
Talk about slow full-tosses on the leg-stump....just have a look at my post #2 on this thread
..............................unseemly behaviour.

My words, not the mods.
Just because I don't use your adjectives?

starter

Rincewind
13-01-2005, 11:32 AM
Just because I don't use your adjectives?

Actually fool, cretin and moron are all nouns. ;)

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 11:33 AM
Bill
A very dangerous post of yours. :uhoh:
Not at all.
You made an assumption not backed up by KB's comments.

Remember what Shaun and Charles advised you? :hmm:
I do.
Are you therefore implying you are a fool.


See the KB at the top of the post? When I write to him I don't have be quite so literal; he would have got the point.
Perhaps, but we could all hope for a little more accuracy when you try and paraphrase his posts.


ps No answer required.
When you make false assumptions then an answer of clarification is always needed.

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 11:35 AM
Bill
Talk about slow full-tosses on the leg-stump....just have a look at my post #2 on this thread
..............................unseemly behaviour.
That isnt a criticism.
It was just a statement of fact.

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 11:48 AM
Not at all.
You made an assumption not backed up by KB's comments.

I do do.
Are you therefore implying you are a fool.

Stuttering Bill?
No. I saw that trap when you first posted it. But you have fallen for mine.



Perhaps, but we could all hope for a little more accuracy when you try and paraphrase his posts.


When you make false assumptions then an answer of clarification is always needed.

No inaccuracy at all, Bill.
My 4 >'s were all sufficient conditions, not necessary conditions.
It looks as though you have presumed them necessary conditions.
Perhaps you need more guidance from Shaun and Charles.

starter

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 11:51 AM
Actually fool, cretin and moron are all nouns. ;)

Bloody clever dick.




I could squirm out of this you know, by pointing out that adjectives and the words in italics are not in the same post.
But.... you got me.

starter

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 11:53 AM
That isnt a criticism.
It was just a statement of fact.


Bill
I have got nowhere to go if you say my black is white. ;)
starter

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 12:00 PM
No. I saw that trap when you first posted it. But you have fallen for mine.
You set a trap? :whistle:


No inaccuracy at all, Bill.
My 4 >'s were all sufficient conditions, not necessary conditions.
It looks as though you have presumed them necessary conditions.
Nice try at twisting what you said but it wont work.

You stated:

So the rules are simple to understand

> swear three times and you are out
> crude three time you are out
> fight with the admin three times and you are out
Your clear implication is that a single strike would not lead to him being out.


Perhaps you need more guidance from Shaun and Charles.

Yes, if you continue to try and argue that your three strikes didnt really mean three strikes then you will just look foolish and there advice about arguing with fools will thjen come into play.

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 12:02 PM
Bill
I have got nowhere to go if you say my black is white. ;)
starter
In that particular case your black was white.
You made no criticism of his behaviour just described it.

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 12:06 PM
Yes, if you continue to try and argue that your three strikes didnt really mean three strikes then you will just look foolish and there advice about arguing with fools will thjen come into play.

Bill
Three strikes is three strikes.
I meant three strikes.


It is sufficient, not necessary.

starter

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2005, 12:10 PM
So the rules are simple to understand

Read my post again starter, come back when you have understood it. The standards to be applied to Matt are harsher than to other posters because of his many past transgressions. The "rules" you claim do not necessarily apply, except potentially to Matt. Do enjoy arguing about phantoms as usual, I hear rumours that it helps to pass the time. :lol:

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 12:16 PM
In that particular case your black was white.
You made no criticism of his behaviour just described it.

Bill
With Baz watching over my shoulder here I had better consult the dictionary and the logica.

'unseemly' = unfitting, et al
Does not fit.
Doesn't fit some standard.
Standards are mods rules.
Doesn't fit mods rules.
Mods always right on decorum standards.
Matt is outside rules.
Rules are criteria.
Outside of criteria is criticism

Yeh . I don't reckon it would be too hard to prove calling some-ones 'unseemly' behaviour is actually a criticism.

Do you want to go on with this and have me develop my thought notes into a long post? Or do you want to give up on this one too? ;)

starter

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 12:19 PM
Bill
Three strikes is three strikes.
I meant three strikes.


It is sufficient, not necessary.

starter
By that argument one strike could be sufficient.
Your actual wording of three strikes implied necessity not sufficiency.

In fact to accurately paraphrase what KB said you would have needed to have said something like:

> swear three times and you are out however it could be less than three depending on the severity of the swearing
> crude three time you are out however it could be less than three depending on the severity of the swearing
> fight with the admin three times and you are out however it could be less than three depending on the the mood of the admin
> any combination of the above occuring three times and you are out

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 12:21 PM
Read my post again starter, come back when you have understood it. The standards to be applied to Matt are harsher than to other posters because of his many past transgressions. The "rules" you claim do not necessarily apply, except potentially to Matt. Do enjoy arguing about phantoms as usual, I hear rumours that it helps to pass the time. :lol:

And the second one into the trap.

Given that you said you would not argue on the rules it was necessary for me to paraphrase the rules in such a way as some would misread. (I didn't actually care who). The old necessary and sufficient method often works.
And here you are.

It is just a debating provocation to get re-engagement guys.

And here we all are.

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 12:27 PM
Bill
With Baz watching over my shoulder here I had better consult the dictionary and the logica.

'unseemly' = unfitting, et al
Does not fit.
Doesn't fit some standard.
Standards are mods rules.
Doesn't fit mods rules.
Mods always right on decorum standards.
Matt is outside rules.
Rules are criteria.
Outside of criteria is criticism

Yeh . I don't reckon it would be too hard to prove calling some-ones 'unseemly' behaviour is actually a criticism.
Talk about drawing a long bow.
I seriously doubt the majority of the BB users would believe that when you wrote "unseemly" behaviour you actually considered you were criticising him rather than just describing his behaviour.


Do you want to go on with this and have me develop my thought notes into a long post? Or do you want to give up on this one too? ;)
You can carry on as much as you like, it wont change my opinion.

As far as I am concerned you havent criticised his language/behaviour and if all you can point to in your defence is your post #2 then its a pretty poor attempt.

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 12:30 PM
And the second one into the trap.

Given that you said you would not argue on the rules it was necessary for me to paraphrase the rules in such a way as some would misread. (I didn't actually care who). The old necessary and sufficient method often works.
What is more likely is you were unintentionally unclear with your wording and when called to account for it fell back on the "old" necessary/sufficient method.

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 01:00 PM
Talk about drawing a long bow.
I seriously doubt the majority of the BB users would believe that when you wrote "unseemly" behaviour you actually considered you were criticising him rather than just describing his behaviour.

Fortunately for my post count I don't have to survey the majority of posters when I want to construct a sentence.
My use of 'unseemly' is about as critical as I get Bill. You have more adjectives nouns, that you are willing to use. Just take tolerance in the diversity.




As far as I am concerned you havent criticised his language/behaviour and if all you can point to in your defence is your post #2 then its a pretty poor attempt.


Obviously we have reached detente.

starter

Libby
13-01-2005, 01:08 PM
Obviously we have reached detente.

starter

nice noun

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 01:14 PM
Fortunately for my post count I don't have to survey the majority of posters when I want to construct a sentence.
Too bad, as then you might have a clue.

My use of 'unseemly' is about as critical as I get Bill.
Yes a very poor attempt.


You have more adjectives nouns, that you are willing to use. Just take tolerance in the diversity.
You need not have used my words.
You could simply have said you disapprove of his crude and vulgar language.
You failure to ever do so is there for all to see.


Obviously we have reached detente.
I think we always had detente as you can be fairly certain you would have noticed if we hadnt. ;)
I'm just disappointed in you.

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 02:54 PM
^^
Bill

Let me just ask....after KB issued his challenge of 100 post forensic followed by his buddy the hand...did you work out a strategy to draw him back into the exploration? (Particularly after KB has had a bit of a to-do with BD about saying you are leaving he thread, and then you don't. It was always going to be a challenge to get KB re-engaged here.)
Or were you just going to rely on your recycling of the 'Matt is a.....' post that most of us know by heart.

We are nearly there mate...this one is #73.
And even Libby and Baz have chipped in to help. (Thanks Libby. Thanks Baz).

starter

ps I have had another idea on how we can sprint to 100. :uhoh:

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 03:11 PM
^^
Bill

Let me just ask....after KB issued his challenge of 100 post forensic followed by his buddy the hand...did you work out a strategy to draw him back into the exploration?
I wasnt interested in drawing him back.
I thought he made himself quite clear.


(Particularly after KB has had a bit of a to-do with BD about saying you are leaving he thread, and then you don't. It was always going to be a challenge to get KB re-engaged here.)
KB didnt say he was leaving the thread.
He just suggested any further questions be directed to the :hand:

Or were you just going to rely on your recycling of the 'Matt is a.....' post that most of us know by heart.
Well if nothing else the rest of you now know what Matt is.


We are nearly there mate...this one is #73.
You realise you really do have a problem with posts and counting.


And even Libby and Baz have chipped in to help. (Thanks Libby. Thanks Baz).
I dont think they were trying to help the thread reach any particular number.

Anyway given KB's post was #50 for it to generate a 100 post forensic thread you would need to reach 150 posts here. Even then some of the posts after #50 have nothing to do with #50.


ps I have had another idea on how we can sprint to 100. :uhoh:
Obviously not by anymeans other than you continuing to post crap. ;)

Rhubarb
13-01-2005, 03:17 PM
Actually fool, cretin and moron are all nouns. ;)
Actually, fool is a legitimate adjective. ;)

Libby
13-01-2005, 03:27 PM
Actually, fool is a legitimate adjective. ;)

well spotted :clap:

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 04:19 PM
You realise you really do have a problem with posts and counting.
Is this a cunning trap? Mine was #73?



I dont think they were trying to help the thread reach any particular number.
Well, who are they helping?
Have you got another two on your team? ;)



Obviously not by any means other than you continuing to post crap. ;)

I have got a real good idea. A cunning plan.


starter

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 04:26 PM
Is this a cunning trap? Mine was #73?
I meant your apparent fixation on reaching post 100 not anything to do with post #73 in particular.


Well, who are they helping?
No one in particular.
They did not actually comment on KB's post.


Have you got another two on your team? ;)
Who may or may not be on my team is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. ;)


I have got a real good idea. A cunning plan.
Starter and a cunning plan. I'm not sure that those words go together. :lol:

Libby
13-01-2005, 04:27 PM
I dont think they were trying to help the thread reach any particular number.



Not until you alerted the "stirrer" within to the possibility ;)

But I'll make this the end of my contribution :cool:

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 04:32 PM
Not until you alerted the "stirrer" within to the possibility ;)
At least up until this post I did actually consider your posts on the thread a contribution. ;)

"stirrer"/"starter". Sort of similar arent they. :hmm:


But I'll make this the end of my contribution :cool:
Feel free to continue.
I'm sure starter would appreciate anything that pushed the post count along. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2005, 04:33 PM
It is just a debating provocation to get re-engagement guys.


That's all you got, so I hope you enjoyed it. Can't be bothered dispatching all the meta-twaddle, it's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 04:35 PM
That's all you got, so I hope you enjoyed it. Can't be bothered dispatching all the meta-twaddle, it's irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Twaddle.
What a good word, just a bit more than a waddle.
Now we all know that ducks waddle.
And where there is a duck, can a goose be far behind. :whistle:

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 04:44 PM
Well if nothing else the rest of you now know what Matt is.



Would you like to tell us one more time? :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh:

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 04:47 PM
That's all you got, so I hope you enjoyed it. Can't be bothered dispatching all the meta-twaddle, it's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Thanks Kev (that is two and counting); thanks Libby again, and thanks Greg.

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 04:54 PM
You need not have used my words.
You could simply have said you disapprove of his crude and vulgar language.
You failure to ever do so is there for all to see.



Bill
How does 'disapprove' differ from 'unseemly'?
starter

Rincewind
13-01-2005, 05:01 PM
Actually, fool is a legitimate adjective. ;)

I'll give you that, but I think Bill's normal mode is to use it as a noun. You should note that the adjective usage is colloquial, foolish being the more conventional (and proper) form. ;)

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 05:15 PM
Bill
How does 'disapprove' differ from 'unseemly'?
starter
One could describe behaviour as unseemly whilst still appoving of it.

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 05:16 PM
Would you like to tell us one more time? :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh:
Probably when you once again demonstrate you have forgotten it.

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 07:12 PM
One could describe behaviour as unseemly whilst still appoving of it.

Thanks Bill

So, I take it by your post that MODS cannot both describe the behaviour as unseemly and yet approve?

I say this, because the dictionary defintion I quoted earlier suggested that if a MOD found it unseemly then he/she was judging that it had crossed the line (whatever the criteria is), and given that it had crossed the line the MOD was bound to be in disapproval of the behaviour. For a MOD, unseemly behaviour cannot be approved. (Of course the MOD. may choose not to take action against the unseemly behaviour; this cannot be interpreted as approval but rather tolerance).


On the other hand I could see that you could regard some behaviour as unseemly, and approve of it. Could you give us an example. Anyone's will do.




starter

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 07:58 PM
Thanks Bill

So, I take it by your post that MODS cannot both describe the behaviour as unseemly and yet approve?
I didnt say that.


I say this, because the dictionary defintion I quoted earlier suggested that if a MOD found it unseemly then he/she was judging that it had crossed the line (whatever the criteria is),
That is your judgement not necessarily a MODS.


and given that it had crossed the line the MOD was bound to be in disapproval of the behaviour. For a MOD, unseemly behaviour cannot be approved. (Of course the MOD. may choose not to take action against the unseemly behaviour; this cannot be interpreted as approval but rather tolerance).
I'm not interested in your supposition.


On the other hand I could see that you could regard some behaviour as unseemly, and approve of it.
I dont think I with regards to myself necessarily suggested that one way or the other.


Could you give us an example. Anyone's will do.
I dont intend to play your game.
I was the one who contended that someone can describe behaviour as unseemly without them personally disappoving of it.
If you dont agree then the onus is on you to prove it.

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 09:15 PM
^^
Well that go me nothing. (Except a sense of wonderment as to which institution you learnt logic and argument).

Anyhow, I will abandon ship on that line of asking you for an example.
New tack will be ...I will present examples and ask if you can classify as either unseemly or you approve or both.

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 09:21 PM
^^
Well that go me nothing. (Except a sense of wonderment as to which institution you learnt logic and argument).

Anyhow, I will abandon ship on that line of asking you for an example.
New tack will be ...I will present examples and ask if you can classify as either unseemly or you approve or both.
Knock yourself out.

You could of course cut all this out and simply state now that you disapprove of Matt's use of foul, crude and vulgar language/behaviour, however since I believe you dont disapprove of his behaviour then I dont expect you to do so.

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 09:38 PM
Knock yourself out.

You could of course cut all this out and simply state now that you disapprove of Matt's use of foul, crude and vulgar language/behaviour, however since I believe you dont disapprove of his behaviour then I dont expect you to do so.

Yes, but Bill, you are not to be trusted on this point.
Once I start using your descriptors (disapprove is the first) then we know that you as believe in de facto condoning there is the risk that you ask me to escalate into your vortex of abuse (not sure what is the actual grading of fool, moron, cretin), but we can see where it leads. And each one I decline to use then you just trot out de facto condon if you ((starter)) don't use.
So, no, I will use my own descriptor for the moment, 'unseemly', until a better suggestion comes from another poster.

Of course, if you abandoned de facto condoning , as an illogical construct, I would have to reconsider.

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 09:47 PM
Yes, but Bill, you are not to be trusted on this point.
Once I start using your descriptors (disapprove is the first) then we know that you as believe in de facto condoning there is the risk that you ask me to escalate into your vortex of abuse (not sure what is the actual grading of fool, moron, cretin), but we can see where it leads. And each one I decline to use then you just trot out de facto condon if you ((starter)) don't use.
I'm not asking you to abuse him or anyone else.
I'm asking you to unequivocally condemn him for using foul, crude and vulgar language/behaviour.
If you cannot do something as simple as that then by implication you approve of his behaviour.

So, no, I will use my own descriptor for the moment, 'unseemly', until a better suggestion comes from another poster.
Thats just an excuse on your part not to condemn his language/behaviour.


Of course, if you abandoned de facto condoning , as an illogical construct, I would have to reconsider.
There is nothing illogical about it.
If you wont unequivocally state you condemn his behaviour (especially when asked explicitly to do so) then you obviously support his behaviour, no matter how much you may twist and turn and deny it.

As such your support for him is therefore everyone to see.

ursogr8
13-01-2005, 10:02 PM
Bill
I predicted that you were not to be trusted (on this point); in one post it has escalated from disapprove to condemn.

I stick with an unequivocal 'unseemly'.

starter

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 10:13 PM
Bill
I predicted that you were not to be trusted (on this point); in one post it has escalated from disapprove to condemn.
Disappove or condemn, I dont care.
Uses one or the other at your leisure.
Just stop beating around the bush and with your non commital "unseemly".


I stick with an unequivocal 'unseemly'.
And are therefore seen by all as being not prepared to criticise Matt for his language/behaviour.

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2005, 10:15 PM
I will say this for you starter, you are good at escalating post counts.
Too bad for you I'm excluded by the punters club.

ursogr8
14-01-2005, 06:54 AM
I will say this for you starter, you are good at escalating post counts.

Good morning
Why thanks Bill
I don't often get this recognition.





Too bad for you I'm excluded by the punters club.

That is a fruitful observation. I wonder if you are isolated from the general population on other issues.

Thinks

:hmm:

Thinks more.

Bill....not sure of my ground here........but..........has any other poster actually used words (that are punchy enough for you) to describe Matt's behaviour? In a post?





That you could put in here ^^.

Or, are you isolated on this issue too?


starter

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2005, 09:04 AM
That is a fruitful observation. I wonder if you are isolated from the general population on other issues.
You were the one who pointed out previously that I was excluded by the punters club.


Thinks

:hmm:

Thinks more.

Bill....not sure of my ground here........but..........has any other poster actually used words (that are punchy enough for you) to describe Matt's behaviour? In a post?
Without searching thru all the posts on this board, I know for a fact that I have seen KB, jenni, Paul S, peanbrain and eric (including CL on the old ACF BB) all criticise Matt for his language/behaviour. I'm sure if I searched all posts I would find others.


That you could put in here ^^.

Or, are you isolated on this issue too?
Nice try starter, but its about what I would expect from somone who wont come out and criticise Matt's foul, crude and vulgar language/behaviour.

Rhubarb
14-01-2005, 12:52 PM
I'll give you that, but I think Bill's normal mode is to use it as a noun. You should note that the adjective usage is colloquial, foolish being the more conventional (and proper) form. ;)
The Oz Ox claims the two are synonymous, but this strikes me as less than accurate. Foolish means of or like a fool, whereas fool (adj.) means as befitting a fool. So for example "That is a fool idea" talks of an idea that only a fool could have had, while "That is a foolish idea" refers to the idea itself, and not necessarily who thought of it.

Starter, do we have to go #100 or #150?

Rincewind
14-01-2005, 01:24 PM
The Oz Ox claims the two are synonymous, but this strikes me as less than accurate. Foolish means of or like a fool, whereas fool (adj.) means as befitting a fool. So for example "That is a fool idea" talks of an idea that only a fool could have had, while "That is a foolish idea" refers to the idea itself, and not necessarily who thought of it.

I cannot see the difference you think is there. Fools generate foolish ideas, surely. Others also have foolish ideas but those same ideas could have equally been generated by a fool.

However, the first usage "That is a fool idea" strikes me as might be used by a redneck hick and I half expect it to be followed by "dagnamnit!", or similar. Whereas the term foolish is perfectly respectable as might be used by a professor of English chastising a pupil for poor work.

Either way according my edition of Concise Oz Ox, the adjective usage is colloquial and therefore clearly inferior. :P :lol:

Rhubarb
14-01-2005, 01:43 PM
I cannot see the difference you think is there. Fools generate foolish ideas, surely. Others also have foolish ideas but those same ideas could have equally been generated by a fool. I can only repeat what I said before. A fool idea is an idea generated by a fool. A foolish idea is an idea lacking in sense or wisdom, not necessarily generated by a fool. If you can't see the difference, then we're just going to have to disagree.


However, the first usage "That is a fool idea" strikes me as might be used by a redneck hick and I half expect it to be followed by "dagnamnit!", or similar. Whereas the term foolish is perfectly respectable as might be used by a professor of English chastising a pupil for poor work.

Either way according my edition of Concise Oz Ox, the adjective usage is colloquial and therefore clearly inferior. :P :lol:Now this is just snobbery. :) That a word is colloquial doesn't make it any less real.

Libby
14-01-2005, 01:48 PM
Now this is just snobbery. :) That a word is colloquial doesn't make it any less real.

Both adjectives work well in describing this thread.

Dang fool thread

A most foolish thread

Libby

(that's one more post Starter - and I had sworn off. Fortunately I'm breaking my own rules, not those of the BB) :whistle:

Rincewind
14-01-2005, 01:52 PM
Now this is just snobbery. :) That a word is colloquial doesn't make it any less real.

Tell that to the guys in the Scrabble club.

Rhubarb
14-01-2005, 01:53 PM
Both adjectives work well in describing this thread.
Yes that did occur to me as well, but I too am just helping out my good mate starter.

btw, according to the thread title, Matty was only two years old when he was banned. I know he chucked the occasional spaz, but I thought he was older than that.

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2005, 02:02 PM
Yes that did occur to me as well, but I too am just helping out my good mate starter.

btw, according to the thread title, Matty was only two years old when he was banned. I know he chucked the occasional spaz, but I thought he was older than that.
Some might suggest he often behaved like a two year old. ;)

ursogr8
14-01-2005, 03:10 PM
Starter, do we have to go #100 or #150?

Greg

It will be the journey where we get the reward, not the end-point.



And while Bill is engaged, a stretch target is achievable.



Nice to see you on the bb by the way. I saw Union game on replay the other night on Foxtel. Some group playing an english type team in white shirts. Anyhow these guys in the Gold and a bit of Green shirts must have been Norwegian or something. The name on the front said they were from Vodaphonia. Have they been fielding a team for long.

highest regards and holding you in esteem
starter

ursogr8
14-01-2005, 03:22 PM
Without searching thru all the posts on this board, I know for a fact that I have seen KB, jenni, Paul S, peanbrain and eric (including CL on the old ACF BB) all criticise Matt for his language/behaviour. I'm sure if I searched all posts I would find others.



Of course jenni and KB draw attention to the posts Bill. The posts were unseemly; that is "over the line". That is their job to moderate posts that go over the line. We all expect them (and respect fully their judgement) to see what is unseemly. But YOU are not a MOD Bill. (Do you want me to post the quote where you indicated a desire to be a MOD?)

My request was for you to post examples from posters, not MODS.
So how about you pick one from peanbrain and show us punchy words that you say I disappoint you that I don't use.

regards
starter

Rhubarb
14-01-2005, 03:23 PM
Nice to see you on the bb by the way. I saw Union game on replay the other night on Foxtel. Some group playing an english type team in white shirts. Anyhow these guys in the Gold and a bit of Green shirts must have been Norwegian or something. The name on the front said they were from Vodaphonia. Have they been fielding a team for long. Now this is a new technique. Extending a thread's lifespan by moving a discussion from the footy thread to here. I think I approve of such unseemly behaviour.

P.S. Shouldn't it be Vodafonia?

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2005, 03:30 PM
Of course jenni and KB draw attention to the posts Bill. The posts were unseemly; that is "over the line". That is their job to moderate posts that go over the line. We all expect them (and respect fully their judgement) to see what is unseemly. But YOU are not a MOD Bill. (Do you want me to post the quote where you indicated a desire to be a MOD?)
I'm not referring to their comments on Matt's current banning but comments made about his postings in the past.
All those I have listed have criticised Matt for his language in the past well before his banning.

My request was for you to post examples from posters, not MODS.
Perhaps it escaped your notice but MODS are posters too.

So how about you pick one from peanbrain and show us punchy words that you say I disappoint you that I don't use.
I have better things to do than search thru posts just to satisfy you.

ursogr8
14-01-2005, 03:36 PM
Now this is a new technique. Extending a thread's lifespan by moving a discussion from the footy thread to here. I think I approve of such unseemly behaviour.

Greg

To me it looks a little like open slather. I mean, KB has set the task to get to 100_post forensic, and then has left the door open by saying "I will not return". It is a little bit like the Coffee Lounge where we are unmoderated. (And you could not call Baz's behaviour, in his discussion with you, moderate).
The only way I can see of it ending is if Matt posts here (most unlikely given the title) and if he is most unseemly (again unlikely seeing the red card is in view).





P.S. Shouldn't it be Vodafonia?

I was going to post that Vodafonia had ring to it, but thought better. :uhoh:



Sorry....gotta go....Bill might be posting one of peanbrain's posts that he wants me to copy in style.......can't wait.


starter

Rincewind
14-01-2005, 03:41 PM
Perhaps it escaped your notice but MODS are posters too.

Bill,

With starter you have to talk metrics.


Kevin Bonham 2,683
skip to my lou 2,509
Barry Cox 2,359
jenni 1,134
JGB 847
the chess nut 678
------
10,210
------

ursogr8
14-01-2005, 03:43 PM
I have better things to do than search thru posts just to satisfy you.

Of course you have better things to do Bill. Agreed.

But until you post some examples, for forensic investigation, you are isolated.
(Well technically, not completely isolated....because I have posted the unequivocal unseemly assessment at least twice).

starter

ursogr8
14-01-2005, 03:52 PM
Bill,

With starter you have to talk metrics.


Kevin Bonham 2,683
skip to my lou 2,509
Barry Cox 2,359
jenni 1,134
JGB 847
the chess nut 678
------
10,210
------

Thanks for drawing this to our attention.
So far, tabled for evidence, are posts from Bill and I that give a lay-posters assessment of Matt's behaviour.
Of course it will not go un-noticed that the postion of our post count relative to the list you post. Bill and I take our responsibilities seriously, but with different style. Bill is arguing that lay-posters have a responsibity to assess behaviour.

Btw...can you give us peanbrain's post-count...Bill might be selecting one of these as a model post.

starter

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2005, 03:59 PM
Of course you have better things to do Bill. Agreed.
Apparently you dont.
Therefore I suggest you just do a search of all of peanbrains posts and you will find him criticising Matt in a number of them.


But until you post some examples, for forensic investigation, you are isolated.
Just because you say it, doesnt make it so.
You just need to search their posts.

Anyway, you carry on about Competitive Index's but I dont see anyone really supporting that idea. Now there is isolated.


(Well technically, not completely isolated....because I have posted the unequivocal unseemly assessment at least twice).
You havent criticised him hence you dont count.

ursogr8
14-01-2005, 08:32 PM
Anyway, you carry on about Competitive Index's but I dont see anyone really supporting that idea. Now there is isolated.

That is not news Bill.
You could have added GURU Titles and Fischer Random and intermixed SWISSES too.


starter

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2005, 08:58 PM
That is not news Bill.
You could have added GURU Titles and Fischer Random and intermixed SWISSES too.
Yes, I could have, but chose to hold them back for a possible future post.

ursogr8
16-01-2005, 09:54 AM
All I know is that based on comments made to me by readers of this board these apologists for Matt's behaviour are in the minority.

Bill

Can we see your actual figures for this conclusion of yours?

You don't think it might be one of those things like.......no-one likes to admit they vote for John Howard... but a large whack of the population do.


And have you got agreement from each 'apologist' that they regard themselves as an apologist; because I have certainly argued against your classification of me.

starter

ursogr8
16-01-2005, 10:05 AM
Read my post again starter, come back when you have understood it. The standards to be applied to Matt are harsher than to other posters because of his many past transgressions. The "rules" you claim do not necessarily apply, except potentially to Matt. Do enjoy arguing about phantoms as usual, I hear rumours that it helps to pass the time. :lol:

Kevin
I don't understand the sentence.
regards
starter

Rhubarb
16-01-2005, 10:08 AM
Bill

Can we see your actual figures for this conclusion of yours?

You don't think it might be one of those things like.......no-one likes to admit they vote for John Howard... but a large whack of the population do.


And have you got agreement from each 'apologist' that they regard themselves as an apologist; because I have certainly argued against your classification of me.

starterNow now, starter, you're liable to confuse poor Bill if you don't put everything in black-and-white. You're either with him or agin him. You should know that by now.

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2005, 10:10 AM
Now now, starter, you're liable to confuse poor Bill if you don't put everything in black-and-white.
Not always, but for chessplayers are there any other relevant colours.

You're either with him or agin him. You should know that by now.
See starter, my friend kegless knows how it works.

Rhubarb
16-01-2005, 10:16 AM
Not always, but for chessplayers are there any other relevant colours.

See starter, my friend kegless knows how it works.You see, starter? Even when I insult Bill he knows I'm not agin him.

ursogr8
16-01-2005, 10:16 AM
I'm not asking you to abuse him or anyone else.


Bill

I thought your calling a person a fool, cretin, a moron, was abuse.
That is why I don't want to use those words.

starter

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2005, 10:24 AM
Bill

Can we see your actual figures for this conclusion of yours?
No but feel free to publish figures that would prove the opposite.


You don't think it might be one of those things like.......no-one likes to admit they vote for John Howard... but a large whack of the population do.
I have had a number of people who read this board either have said it to me privately or via PM or email that Matt's language/behaviour is disgraceful but have never had any one support his behaviour.

Anyway its my contention what I said is true.
You can try and disprove it if you so desire.


And have you got agreement from each 'apologist' that they regard themselves as an apologist; because I have certainly argued against your classification of me.
I'm not interetsed in whether you agree or not.

As far as I am concerned DR, antichrist and you are all in the same boat.

ursogr8
16-01-2005, 10:27 AM
Now now, starter, you're liable to confuse poor Bill if you don't put everything in black-and-white. You're either with him or agin him. You should know that by now.

hi Greg

George W and his mates are a bit like that too.
If you are not with them then they put you on the priority list for regime change.



:hmm: :eek: :eek:
You don't think Bill would 'invade' Chess VICTORIA do you?
A Bill_firegoat alliance of the billing. Now that is my best pun for a while.

starter

ps BTW Are you a de facto condoner?

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2005, 10:28 AM
Bill

I thought your calling a person a fool, cretin, a moron, was abuse.
That is why I don't want to use those words.
I never suggested you have to use those words.
I suggested you unequivocally come out and state you disapprove and/or condemn his language/behaviour.

Your failure to do so shows you dont disapprove.

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2005, 10:30 AM
You see, starter? Even when I insult Bill he knows I'm not agin him.
Yes, but I know you. ;)
I have also always been respectful to you on the board.

ursogr8
16-01-2005, 10:33 AM
Anyway its my contention what I said is true.
You can try and disprove it if you so desire.


Bill

Cute new tactic of yours (4th time you have used it). Whenever I ask for you to produce evidence to back up your contentions, you decline.
Bet you are glad that wasn't the posters response when you kept calling for evidence on the RATINGs thread (var.)

starter

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2005, 10:34 AM
:hmm: :eek: :eek:
You don't think Bill would 'invade' Chess VICTORIA do you?
A Bill_firegoat alliance of the billing. Now that is my best pun for a while.
Actually I get on quite well with GW.


ps BTW Are you a de facto condoner?
Not as far as I'm concerned.
I've seen Greg criticise the two fools Matt and DR.
I've also seen him criticise some goose over trying to use "marketing puff" as an excuse.

ursogr8
16-01-2005, 10:37 AM
I never suggested you have to use those words.
I suggested you unequivocally come out and state you disapprove and/or condemn his language/behaviour.



Ah, but Bill, we know you are not trustworthy (on this point).
We have already moved along the continuum

unseemly (mine), disapprove(yours), condemn (yours the very next post), and with de facto condoning in place what you are asking of me is open-ended.

Do away with de facto condoning and I will consider.

starter

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2005, 10:39 AM
Bill

Cute new tactic of yours (4th time you have used it). Whenever I ask for you to produce evidence to back up your contentions, you decline.
With regards to my contention I can only go on the information I have available via emails, PM's and personal contact.


Bet you are glad that wasn't the posters response when you kept calling for evidence on the RATINGs thread (var.)
With regards to ratings the players results are readily available as are their published ratings. As such anyone making a claim has data immediately available to use or can generate necessary data e.g. performance ratings.
In fact if their theory has any validity they should be able to demonstrate it by using generated test data.

ursogr8
16-01-2005, 10:43 AM
Actually I get on quite well with GW.

Now he should be worried.
I can remember you posting that you get on quite well with Matt in public. :P



I've also seen him criticise some goose over trying to use "marketing puff" as an excuse.

Remind me by posting the post here.
Just to help you find them.....many of those posts have been moved into a quarantine area as a consequence of those who commented (adversely) on the GURUs TITLES claims.

starter

Rhubarb
16-01-2005, 10:47 AM
George W and his mates are a bit like that too.
If you are not with them then they put you on the priority list for regime change.Naturally, if I was a rich, stupid Saudi Arabian I would want to know how many of my stupid terrorist relatives it would take to make my stupid mate Dubya be agin me. Because he's either with me or agin me. It's only natural to test the boundaries.


:hmm: :eek: :eek:
A Bill_firegoat alliance of the billing. Now that is my best pun for a while.Perchance to choose: the Coalition of the Billing, or the Axis of Drivel?


Are you a de facto condoner?If I'm with you then I must be a condoner.

P.S. My attempts at wit appear to have been rapidly overtaken by the black and white players. Perhaps I should just fade to grey...

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2005, 10:47 AM
Ah, but Bill, we know you are not trustworthy (on this point).
We have already moved along the continuum
You have moved on, I havent.


unseemly (mine), disapprove(yours), condemn (yours the very next post), and with de facto condoning in place what you are asking of me is open-ended.
Not at all.
I'm just asking you to make an unequivocal post.
So far you have failed to do so.


Do away with de facto condoning and I will consider.
If you wont criticise him then you either obviously support him or are uncommitted both of which as far as I am concerned encourage his bad behaviour.

ursogr8
16-01-2005, 10:58 AM
Not at all.
I'm just asking you to make an unequivocal post.
So far you have failed to do so.

For the fourth time
> unequivocal unseemly




If you wont criticise him then you either obviously support him or are uncommitted both of which as far as I am concerned encourage his bad behaviour.
Uncommitted. :eek: :eek:

A new position in your continuum. And to the left of me.

This is getting very close to me being able to report back to Kevin a full forensic grading.

The progress so far

apologists, uncommitted (Greg = grey), unseemly (mine), disapprove(yours), condemn (yours the very next post), .............................................. and to the far right fool, cretin, moron (yours).

Kevin will be pleased. :uhoh:

starter

ursogr8
16-01-2005, 11:07 AM
Bill

I tried reading some of peanbrains posts, as you requested.
Mate, I don't want to be critical of a Welsher, but.....I could go no further. Can you just remember one of his adjectives that took your fancy ... and put it on the continuum.

starter

Rhubarb
16-01-2005, 11:21 AM
I have also always been respectful to you on the board. That's very true. I guess I was wondering why you were taking starter to task for expressing an opinion about Matt at the very start of this thread, which, as far as I could tell, didn't actually concern yourself until you made it so. I imagine starter will ask you precisely that as soon as we accumulate 150 posts.

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2005, 12:00 PM
Now he should be worried.
I can remember you posting that you get on quite well with Matt in public. :P
Unlike Matt, GW has never behaved like a total ratbag in his dealings with me.



Remind me by posting the post here.
Just to help you find them.....many of those posts have been moved into a quarantine area as a consequence of those who commented (adversely) on the GURUs TITLES claims.
You know full well that thread was not moved into a quarantine area but was deleted.

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2005, 12:04 PM
For the fourth time
> unequivocal unseemly
Thats just a description of his behaviour.

It does not mean you disapprove of his behaviour.


Uncommitted. :eek: :eek:

A new position in your continuum. And to the left of me.

This is getting very close to me being able to report back to Kevin a full forensic grading.
When it comes to metrics your efforts in "competitive index's show you are full of rubbish.


The progress so far

apologists, uncommitted (Greg = grey), unseemly (mine), disapprove(yours), condemn (yours the very next post), .............................................. and to the far right fool, cretin, moron (yours).

Kevin will be pleased. :uhoh:
I never suggested that Greg was uncommitted.

ursogr8
16-01-2005, 12:07 PM
You know full well that thread was not moved into a quarantine area but was deleted.


If you remember Bill, Kartick offered us some time to copy the offending thread, which he had closed,....12 hours offered from memory.

gg'' and I both showed an interest in copying.
May not be deleted.

starter

ps And I have always presumed K. kept a copy 100%.

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2005, 12:13 PM
That's very true. I guess I was wondering why you were taking starter to task for expressing an opinion about Matt at the very start of this thread, which, as far as I could tell, didn't actually concern yourself until you made it so. I imagine starter will ask you precisely that as soon as we accumulate 150 posts.
Actually Greg, if you look at the start of this thread I only responded to DR and antichrist not starter. If those dopes are going to suggest we remember Matt then we should remember the majority of his post were rubbish or beatups.

It was starter in post #10 that first took issue with me.
Since then I have just responded to him.

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2005, 12:17 PM
If you remember Bill, Kartick offered us some time to copy the offending thread, which he had closed,....12 hours offered from memory.

gg'' and I both showed an interest in copying.
May not be deleted.
Dont try and be smart.
Irrespective if you copied the thread or not it was deleted by the admin.
As such it is a deleted thread.

ursogr8
16-01-2005, 12:21 PM
When it comes to metrics your efforts in "competitive index's show you are full of rubbish.
Ooo. That is a new call, Bill.

It has been called
>boring (Amiel),
>>lacking widespread support,
>>> controversial (as in the setting of bench-marks, such as Junk round thresh-hold
but never (before) rubbish.

Now are don't want to artificially boost the post count on this thread here, which has a clear title. If you want to expand on 'rubbish' please argue on the competitive thread.

starter

Rhubarb
16-01-2005, 12:25 PM
I never suggested that Greg was uncommitted.I'm afraid Bill's got you here, starter. I have never made a commitment to being uncommitted.

ursogr8
16-01-2005, 12:29 PM
Dont try and be smart.
Irrespective if you copied the thread or not it was deleted by the admin.
As such it is a deleted thread.

Not trying to be smart at all Bill.

When I tell you that the thought crossed my mind that K. would keep a copy of the thread because of the possibility a legal challenge then that is what happened. I never doubted he would not DELETE the thread from all access.
Now, I still think there are (at least) two copies for certain...taken...K. and gg''.

So, my QUARANTINE was coming from that assumption. And it is still valid I believe.
I half expect you have a copy.

starter

Rhubarb
16-01-2005, 12:37 PM
Actually Greg, if you look at the start of this thread I only responded to DR and antichrist not starter. If those dopes are going to suggest we remember Matt then we should remember the majority of his post were rubbish or beatups.

It was starter in post #11 that first took issue with me.
Since then I have just responded to him.I assume you mean #10?

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2005, 12:42 PM
I assume you mean #10?
Yes, I have corrected my post.

ursogr8
16-01-2005, 12:44 PM
I assume you mean #10?

Metrics report.

KB's post was #49

Greg's ratings in all things proper is well over 2000.

Granularity of the continuum stands at 8 with some doubt as to which data is associated with relevant cohorts.


starter

ursogr8
16-01-2005, 12:46 PM
I liked the bit in Greg's #146 before he editted it.

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2005, 12:50 PM
Bill

I tried reading some of peanbrains posts, as you requested.
I think I merely suggested it.

Mate, I don't want to be critical of a Welsher, but.....I could go no further.
You cannot be trying very hard.

Can you just remember one of his adjectives that took your fancy ... and put it on the continuum.

matt talks crap so he deserves all the crap that he's getting.
or

Bill is right, matt is a joke, a do nothing, good for nothing joke.

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2005, 12:52 PM
Ooo. That is a new call, Bill.

It has been called
>boring (Amiel),
>>lacking widespread support,
>>> controversial (as in the setting of bench-marks, such as Junk round thresh-hold
but never (before) rubbish.

Now are don't want to artificially boost the post count on this thread here, which has a clear title. If you want to expand on 'rubbish' please argue on the competitive thread.

starter
If you start with a flawed premise then all you can expect is rubbish.

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2005, 12:56 PM
I liked the bit in Greg's #146 before he editted it.
Yes, I saw it.

Of course I would argue, I hadnt even referred to your post #2 (although I had the opportunity to) only those of DR and antichrist.

You saw fit to criticise my comments in your post #10 and I just responded from there.

ursogr8
16-01-2005, 12:58 PM
I think I merely suggested it.

You cannot be trying very hard.


or

Originally Posted by peanbrain
matt talks crap so he deserves all the crap that he's getting.

or
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanbrain
Bill is right, matt is a joke, a do nothing, good for nothing joke.


That's it everyone.

Thank you lines-men, thank you ball boys.
Thanks all that helped with this forensic investigation.

In particular to Bill for taking the indefensible side on this occasion. ;)

Thanks Greg, Barry, and Libby for the cameos.

Thanks Kevin for having the vision to set the task in the first place.
Thanks K. for not pulling the plug.

Now Bill....just help me clean up the report here before I send off to Kevin (I presume he wants a copy for new moderators...a page in a re-usable process kit for mods). Where in the continuum do I place peanbrain's contribution?


starter

Rhubarb
16-01-2005, 12:59 PM
I liked the bit in Greg's #146 before he editted it.Yeah sorry about that, starter. I've decided I really will try and exit as gracefully as possible. I'm with both of you and I'm agin neither of you.

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2005, 01:01 PM
Not trying to be smart at all Bill.

When I tell you that the thought crossed my mind that K. would keep a copy of the thread because of the possibility a legal challenge then that is what happened. I never doubted he would not DELETE the thread from all access.
Now, I still think there are (at least) two copies for certain...taken...K. and gg''.

So, my QUARANTINE was coming from that assumption. And it is still valid I believe.
I dont believe it is valid at all.
If a thread had been moved from to the Coffee Lounge then you could argue it has been quarantined.

If it is deleted, it is deleted, it isnt quarantineed just because some people may have archived it.


I half expect you have a copy.
Perhaps, perhaps not.

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2005, 01:05 PM
That's it everyone.

Thank you lines-men, thank you ball boys.
Thanks all that helped with this forensic investigation.

In particular to Bill for taking the indefensible side on this occasion. ;)
If anyone's position is indefensible it is yours.
In fact if the best you can come up with is "unseemly" out of your 2930 posts then you have failed miserably. :hand:


Thanks Greg, Barry, and Libby for the cameos.
Some might say mere pawns. ;)


Thanks Kevin for having the vision to set the task in the first place.
Thanks K. for not pulling the plug.

Now Bill....just help me clean up the report here before I send off to Kevin (I presume he wants a copy for new moderators...a page in a re-usable process kit for mods). Where in the continuum do I place peanbrain's contribution?
I'm sure you can find somewhere to stick it. ;)

ursogr8
16-01-2005, 01:10 PM
I dont believe it is valid at all.
If a thread had been moved from to the Coffee Lounge then you could argue it has been quarantined.

If it is deleted, it is deleted, it isnt quarantineed just because some people may have archived it.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Bill
I could argue against this. But at most Clubs we alternate the Black pieces. And as you have just defended one indefensible, I couldn't ask you to take another.

Now I am going to leave a space for you to have the last word. Make it a good one...but not too provocative. Be careful. ;)

>>>> Bill's last word >>>>>



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


tks for your help
starter

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2005, 01:35 PM
Bill
I could argue against this. But at most Clubs we alternate the Black pieces. And as you have just defended one indefensible, I couldn't ask you to take another.

Now I am going to leave a space for you to have the last word. Make it a good one...but not too provocative. Be careful. ;)

>>>> Bill's last word >>>>>



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


tks for your help
starter
Well you managed to get to your 100 posts after KB's #49 even though you were posting mostly rubbish. ;)

Kevin Bonham
16-01-2005, 09:51 PM
starter, it grieves me to honour your metrical babble with any sort of comment whatsoever, but in the spirit of the sport of pricking overinflated toy balloons I feel I should point out that the original bar was "100-post nitpicking over the imagined rules under which this is done" (the latter referring to the policing of Mr Sweeney). The great majority of the 100+ posts made since then, including this one, are clearly completely irrelevant to that issue and therefore your cry of triumph rings pathetically hollow as usual. :hand:

ursogr8
17-01-2005, 07:22 AM
starter, it grieves me to honour your metrical babble with any sort of comment whatsoever, but in the spirit of the sport of pricking overinflated toy balloons I feel I should point out that the original bar was "100-post nitpicking over the imagined rules under which this is done" (the latter referring to the policing of Mr Sweeney). The great majority of the 100+ posts made since then, including this one, are clearly completely irrelevant to that issue and therefore your cry of triumph rings pathetically hollow as usual. :hand:

Kevin

A less-than-best-practice management technique introduced into Australia has been for a 'pointy-head' to try to change the exit criteria after the accomplishment of significant milestone.
Now, mate, if you are going to have a vision set for us to meet a challenging target, the least you could do is celebrate with us when we achieve it.

Did you forget your 'monitoring and tracking' obligations at each quartile of progress; did you forget to give us feedback on our progress; did you just swan around at some inter-state conference somewhere and forget that you had commissioned us to beaver away.
I have a good mind to set the UNION on you.

As to the core of your complaint....you are just plain W-R-O-N-G.

Show me any other thread where the posts have been entirely relevant, and have not explored interesting little by-ways like the difference between fool and foolish, and is there a difference. That vignette was between two of our most esteemed posters and clearly ranks. The vignette also uncovered a rising super-star of language debates in Libby.
The point is, the 100-post deliverable was always going to have some built-in redundancy (or rubbish, as Bill calls it). Just be pleased that what you started, we have finished.

Kevin, they have all gone elsewhere; Bill has had the last word. So what if you missed a slice of the celebratory cream-sponge. Thanks for listening to me, but I am off too.


yours
(tongue in cheek)
starter


ps
No, I dont want a gander award for this accomplishment. Just having Bill on the indefensible side for a week or so was its own reward. ;)

Gringo
17-01-2005, 08:27 AM
Maybe likening K.B. to a Hippo rather than a Swan in his movements is more appropriate - alas the old days are gone forever......

antichrist
18-01-2005, 06:29 PM
Chess is described as a brilliant waste of time. The major posters on this thread spent the whole weekend on a stupid waste of time.

On the weekend I caught dozens of fantastic waves, read usually fantastic SMH, keep company with beautiful people and had the occasional laugh on the BB plus beautiful food: gelato and spaghetti. That's right played fantastic chess as well.

We only live one life -- enjoy - don't waste in front of a stupid computer having the last say. In a marriage it is even a waste of time so why do with someone you don't even share the bed with.

ursogr8
30-01-2005, 03:08 PM
I assume Matt can't come back (unlike JC) so I have opened up a condolence register thread so that his memory can be laid at rest.

I half expect MS to do a Mark Twain and say that news of his death are highly exaggerated.

From Matt Sweeney Banned thread
______________________________
Matt,
If you are still reading, which I doubt, I thank you for the many times you brightened my day, but ones that were indelled into my memory were describing Bill as wingnut (not my type of humour but funny) and querying whether AR's incontinence pads were full.

Who else on the BB can make us laugh -- I can't remember any of the highly-rated players doing so. A few of the lowly-rated players could because they are dopes

A/C

I recall you indicating to those who wish to dance on his grave, where they should post. Was it on this thread, or in the Shoutbox?
At the moment there is a conga-line of them in the Shoutbox. Talk about thread drift. :rolleyes:

Over here guys; you are mucking up the metrics.

starter

ursogr8
30-01-2005, 03:11 PM
<snip>
Perhaps, perhaps not.

I have a copy.

antichrist
30-07-2006, 09:07 PM
Well Matt is doing better than JC, Matt did rise from the dead but not for too long, can souffle rise three times?

antichrist
14-12-2006, 02:10 PM
Matt must now be considered a Protestant