PDA

View Full Version : Why a moderator should be allowed to abuse one of the "patrons"



firegoat7
14-01-2005, 11:44 AM
Looks like the Control freak is having another mental breakdown.

[this post was moved from withdrawals thread. see posts 22 and 23 if you wish to understand why this thread was split and where the title comes from -- it is a joke at firegoat's expense - mod]

firegoat7
14-01-2005, 12:02 PM
Only a control freak would split this thread, others might understand the connections- recognising that it never strayed. Maybe your act of splitting this one is an unconscious act ,or, even worse, maybe you are conscious of the act. Either way your emotional anti-social rhetoric is your problem not mine.

Kevin Bonham
17-01-2005, 07:22 PM
Firegoat, firstly you are an idiot - you would be well aware from the past that we often split those parts of threads that develop into completely off-topic personal flamewars. Part of the reason for this is to stop jokers like you from wrecking otherwise perfectly good debates, but the main reason is that the personal stuff is of limited, if any, interest.

Secondly, not only is anything you say about psychology the unqualified babble of a worthless self-appointed shrink and failed wannabe troll, but you also seem to be playing with fire in this area. Whereas your accusations of "mental breakdowns" etc in my direction are of course total rubbish, I heard some very illuminating things about your state of mind from some other figures in Victorian chess recently. I assume I have your permission to publish these, since you seem so keen to discuss my mental balance? :lol:

As for emotional and "anti-social", check the mirror, Che. :rolleyes:

firegoat7
17-01-2005, 09:22 PM
Bring it on Bonham! I'm not frightend by you bullying.

It is all totally connected. The same person who wants no refunds to potential players for tournaments they don't play in is the same person who splits threads because -he decides that they are drifting off the path.

The same (Controlfreak) person namely you.

I notice you never do anything (in your capacity as a moderator) when your buddy Gletsos completely wrecks any interesting debate other people engage in, you never split his posts, instead you only split posts in which you want to ride roughshot over people, like DR,AC,MS,BD, myself or any other hapless person who gets on your wrong side.

If you can't see that all you do when you split a thread, all you ever do, is engage in a verbal diatribe of abuse against anyone who disagrees with you, then your more deluded then I thought.

firegoat7
17-01-2005, 09:35 PM
Firegoat, firstly you are an idiot...this is to stop jokers like you
Secondly, anything you say .. babble of a worthless self-appointed shrink and failed wannabe troll... I heard some very illuminating things about your state of mind from some other figures in Victorian chess recently.

I present some evidence to the jury of your a-social rhetoric and controlling behaviour. Maybe 'others' could offer some quotes of their own.

Cheers FG7

Bill Gletsos
17-01-2005, 09:46 PM
I notice you never do anything (in your capacity as a moderator) when your buddy Gletsos completely wrecks any interesting debate other people engage in, you never split his posts
Actually you have that wrong.
Kevin has split a number of my posts from the Chess section over into the Non Chess section. e.g Matt vs Bill round 974, Rubbish split from Planned Rating Changes, split from Underrated Juniors, Matt Sweeney - banned?.

firegoat7
17-01-2005, 09:59 PM
yeah but the difference with those threads Bill, is that he warns locks and has to step in as a moderator because they are genuinely out of control. I mean for Gods sake, he deleted my last post on this thread at the other side and didn't even have the decency to notify myself or anyone. Some sort of freedom of discussion eh?

Why did this thread have to be split Bill? was it out of control?
The only reason I can see is that, it some how gives the Controlfreak some sort of authority to personally denounce people. He does it because he wants to abuse people.

Cheers FG7

Bill Gletsos
17-01-2005, 10:06 PM
yeah but the difference with those threads Bill, is that he warns locks and has to step in as a moderator because they are genuinely out of control. I mean for Gods sake, he deleted my last post on this thread at the other side and didn't even have the decency to notify myself or anyone. Some sort of freedom of discussion eh?
Since I cannot see the deleted post I cannot offer an opinion on whether it should have been deleted or not.


Why did this thread have to be split Bill? was it out of control?
The only reason I can see is that, it some how gives the Controlfreak some sort of authority to personally denounce people. He does it because he wants to abuse people.
To be honest I dont see anything in this thread that has to do with the thread topic from which it was split namely "Refunds for withdrawals before event starts".

Also the other moderators have split threads when the posts had nothing to do with the topic. Its not just KB that does it.

Kevin Bonham
17-01-2005, 10:59 PM
I present some evidence to the jury of your a-social rhetoric and controlling behaviour.

I'm sure I could find plenty of courtroom precedents where more neutral men and women than I (ie judges) had said just as harsh things about those offenders who deserved it - which you clearly do and have pretty much throughout your unnprovokedly aggressive and largely worthless career on these BBs.

If I was really the control freak you make me out to be I would have had you banned ages ago.

firegoat7
17-01-2005, 11:04 PM
So Bonhams behaviour is reasonable for you Bill.
let me guess what will happen know. I will be involved in some pointless flamewar with you, where you will never admit any error by yourself or your mate (birds of a feather flock together). This will go on for about ten or twenty posts , so that any issue with Bonham gets deflected.

Later on Bonham will chip in again with a tirade of hate against some other person and you will continue to call it justified because "hey , everyone else is a fool"

Cheers FG7

firegoat7
17-01-2005, 11:08 PM
Oh but you do ban me by deleting posts you don't like, don't you.

and hear we go again with the "Im right, Im the law B.S" Its a public bulletin board for public discussion, put it in perspective, its not a courthouse.

Kevin Bonham
17-01-2005, 11:15 PM
It is all totally connected. The same person who wants no refunds to potential players for tournaments they don't play in is the same person who splits threads because -he decides that they are drifting off the path.

The irony you seem too idiotic to notice is that the material that was split for going off track was largely mine.

I cannot believe you are picking a fight over something this ridiculous and frothing on as if it is a real political issue.

Actually given what I learnt about you recently, I can.


I mean for Gods sake, he deleted my last post on this thread at the other side and didn't even have the decency to notify myself or anyone. Some sort of freedom of discussion eh?

No bozo, I didn't delete it - I moved it to this thread (#4). And whoever's sake I did it for, it certainly wasn't God's. Of course, I could have just deleted it, since it duplicated your post over here, but I didn't.


I notice you never do anything (in your capacity as a moderator) when your buddy Gletsos completely wrecks any interesting debate other people engage in, you never split his posts, instead you only split posts in which you want to ride roughshot over people, like DR,AC,MS,BD, myself or any other hapless person who gets on your wrong side.

Once again firegoose backs a loser. Birds of a feather flock together? As Bill has pointed out I have split off heaps of Bill-vs-Matt and Bill-vs-Dave slanging matches that have lost relevance to the thread they were on.


If you can't see that all you do when you split a thread, all you ever do, is engage in a verbal diatribe of abuse against anyone who disagrees with you, then your more deluded then I thought.

I'm not sure whether the above is empirically true or not.

I'm quite happy to say that if someone made a reasonable case against a threadsplit and framed it in a reasonable manner I would respond to it in like fashion. You have done neither and are motivated solely by the hatred (and I know how personally you are stupid enough to take it) you developed for someone you have never met based on an exposure of your own inadequacies.

Kevin Bonham
17-01-2005, 11:20 PM
and hear we go again with the "Im right, Im the law B.S" Its a public bulletin board for public discussion, put it in perspective, its not a courthouse.

Then perhaps you should put it in perspective and stop attempting to apply standards of imagined proprietry more appropriate to a communist monkey court than to any subsection of the real world (including a courtroom).

I'm open to being proved wrong. I've admitted to mistakes here heaps of times, including when I was too slow to split threads. You just never, ever seem to be up to it.

And to say that deleting posts is equivalent to "banning" just shows what a melodramatic idiot you are, as does inferring that I delete posts just because I "don't like them". Your posts making groundless accusations about my state of mind are still there, are they not?

firegoat7
17-01-2005, 11:22 PM
You and I both know what you have done with the post.

I have made the claim that you split the threads because you want to abuse people, and somehow in your mind , you think that that splitting the threads gives you a chance to vent your feelings in an even more abusive pattern then you normally do.

Furthermore, Bill seems to think that you have no case to answer and this behaviour is completely justified.

Moreover, you never once censored Bill for his abuse of people with the wording cretin and moron,- this is probably because you enjoy being derogatory to people in the same sort of vein.

Cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
17-01-2005, 11:25 PM
The only reason I can see is that, it some how gives the Controlfreak some sort of authority to personally denounce people. He does it because he wants to abuse people.

Actually I abused BD (and any look at the original thread will clearly show he was the one who started the mudthrowing, as he has so many times before) first and then afterwards thought "actually, this is really rather irrelevant, I'd better split this junk so that those who wish to get on with the original debate rather than all this rubbish can do so".

Kevin Bonham
17-01-2005, 11:30 PM
You and I both know what you have done with the post.

What are you talking about? The only one of your posts I have modded since returning from Mt Buller is the post that read "Looks like the Control freak is having another mental breakdown." I moved that post out of the thread it was in and then merged it with this thread (it is #4 above) - I did not delete it. If you are missing another post I am happy to help suggest some places you might look for it, but I had nothing to do with it. Please explain.


I have made the claim that you split the threads because you want to abuse people, and somehow in your mind , you think that that splitting the threads gives you a chance to vent your feelings in an even more abusive pattern then you normally do.

Already refuted.


Moreover, you never once censored Bill for his abuse of people with the wording cretin and moron,- this is probably because you enjoy being derogatory to people in the same sort of vein.

Or it could be because they are not against the forum rules. Now, if you think I have censored you, what did I delete? You really must explain this point, because it looks like you are frothing about something that did not happen.

firegoat7
17-01-2005, 11:31 PM
I read the state of mind comment as Australian colloquialism, but hey, feel free to interpret it any way you want, I can understand from your narrative what you were thinking.

Cheers FG7

firegoat7
17-01-2005, 11:34 PM
having fun with your post game?

Kevin Bonham
17-01-2005, 11:36 PM
firegoat, at the moment I think you're having trouble understanding that the thing in front of you is a computer screen and not a vicious doberman mauling your head with a big green tongue every thirty seconds. Your posts tonight, written almost instantly when I respond and making no sense whatsoever, make me wonder if you are drunk or otherwise intoxicated. (Nothing wrong with that but if so you shouldn't be online for your own sake.) Now, once again, what was this post I am supposed to have deleted?

firegoat7
17-01-2005, 11:58 PM
Do you actually understand what your saying?

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2005, 04:08 PM
Yes, firegoat, and I think last night that made one of us.

firegoat7
18-01-2005, 06:34 PM
Yes, firegoat, and I think last night that made one of us.
Good, now we wont have any excuses about your agenda. Now lets look empirically at what you said last night.
Let us start from post 8

I ... had said just as harsh things about those offenders who deserved it - which you clearly do and have pretty much throughout your unnprovokedly aggressive and largely worthless career on these BBs.
Your normal positive self I see, surely encouraging behaviour for anybody to parcticipate on this BB.


you seem too idiotic to notice is that .... abuse

No bozo, I didn't delete it - I moved it to this thread (#4). abuse

You have done neither and are motivated solely by the hatred (and I know how personally you are stupid enough to take it) you developed for someone you have never met based on an exposure of your own inadequacies. abuse

you should put it in perspective and stop attempting to apply standards of imagined proprietry more appropriate to a communist monkey court abuse
[
shows what a melodramatic idiot you are you get the pattern yet

it looks like you are frothing about something that did not happen. more abuse

make me wonder if you are drunk or otherwise intoxicated. (Nothing wrong with that but if so you shouldn't be online for your own sake.) complete character assasination, wrong and patronising

All this from a moderator who sets what example? That abusing people is ok? That anything goes so long as he thinks its legitimate.

Talk about self appointed double standards, does it even occur to you how nauseating your abusive righteous pragmitism sounds?- It wasn't me abusing you last night Bonham, was it?. Moreover you never went to any length to genuinely understand what I was complaining about, before putting on your headkickers on.

But just for the record. I posted my post after the thread was split not before. You have no right to move it,since it wasn't posted on the new thread, and I won't even bother going on about when it appeared on the new thread either.

Morover, why don't you split this thread now and give it the heading - why should a moderator be allowed to abuse the patrons!!

Cheers FG7
P.S sorry about the abuse in the quotes but hey, I bit my tongue last night!

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2005, 07:34 PM
Your normal positive self I see, surely encouraging behaviour for anybody to parcticipate on this BB.

I've always encouraged anybody to smack down the sort of rubbish frequently posted here by a minority of fact-averse hotheads. Your point is?


abuse
abuse
abuse
abuse
[ you get the pattern yet
more abuse

The pattern is that you deserved it all and shouldn't go whining when you bring it on yourself. Actually I would argue that "standards of imagined proprietry more appropriate to a communist monkey court" is not abuse but rather criticism of your numbskull politics (albeit sarcastically phrased).


complete character assasination, wrong and patronising

It is impossible to patronise you. However if you say that you were not intoxicated I shall take your word for it and revert to the only alternative explanation: overwhelming stupidity. How else do you explain why you continually asserted that I had deleted a post when I had not?


All this from a moderator who sets what example?

For the bazillionth time, bozo - please tattoo this on the inside of your eyelids so I will be saved the necessity of billing you should I need to repeat it again:

I do not moderate my own posts. Any complaints concerning my posts should be directed to another moderator. Otherwise, shut up.


That abusing people is ok? That anything goes so long as he thinks its legitimate.

This is all completely ineffective - you've tried it many times before and got nowhere. The only example I care about setting is to try to stay within the rules.


Talk about self appointed double standards,

Non sequitur - no evidence provided.


does it even occur to you how nauseating your abusive righteous pragmitism sounds?

I would hope that it nauseated you so that you spent so much time vomiting that you only had time left over to post something sensible on here instead of wasting time with this rubbish.


- It wasn't me abusing you last night Bonham, was it?. Moreover you never went to any length to genuinely understand what I was complaining about, before putting on your headkickers on.

Amusing that you say that when nothing that you said made much sense - especially not your false and still unretracted claim that I deleted a post, or your false claim that I split the thread so I could start insulting people (when actually I split it after).


But just for the record. I posted my post after the thread was split not before. You have no right to move it,since it wasn't posted on the new thread, and I won't even bother going on about when it appeared on the new thread either.

I had already split the thread at that stage and posted a notice saying that off-topic material was being moved. Furthermore you had already made a similar post (the one either above or below it) on this thread. Finally I have the right to move any post I like; if you disagree with this sing sweet songs of your deep emotional wounding to somebody who actually cares.


Morover, why don't you split this thread now and give it the heading - why should a moderator be allowed to abuse the patrons!!

Thank you for your kind suggestion, which has considerable merit, but I feel a few minor editorial changes would improve it considerably. :lol: :lol: :lol:

(Be careful what you wish for.)



P.S sorry about the abuse in the quotes but hey, I bit my tongue last night!

Try biting your fingers off instead, it would save you a lot of embarrassment.

Alan Shore
18-01-2005, 08:34 PM
I do not moderate my own posts. Any complaints concerning my posts should be directed to another moderator. Otherwise, shut up.

If we were sad enough to care I'm sure we would. It's simply more amusing to let you parade around your own self-righteous pompous garbage as a signpost for all to see. FG7 has brought out the nasty character flaw in you even more. Is there some kind of misdirected subconscious anger you feel necessary to dish out to strangers online in a vain attempt at winning a futile waste of time in the arena of a few bytes of ASCII text? (Before you try to attack that, know I have a degree in psychology - I know human behaviour better than you, even if you know much more than me about the behaviour of snails).

Come on Kevin, I had hoped you were better than that. Let's just stick to the topics that arise without the ridiculous arrogance and ad hominem that accompanies it.

Kaitlin
18-01-2005, 08:47 PM
mmm where do i start...

the first one 'firegoat' 14-01-2005, 12:44 PM says: 'sub heading' - thread split from Godwin's Law at firegoat's request.

the second one 'firagoat' 14-01-2005, 01:02 PM says: Only a control freak would split this thread, others might understand the connections- recognising that it never strayed. Maybe your act of splitting this one is an unconscious act ,or, even worse, maybe you are conscious of the act.

mmm - is this about this being split into a new thread or bit of the post being quoated ..cause it says split at firegoat's request and then firegoat says only a control freak would do that which implyes firegoats a control freak! . But I dont think that is what he ment but why let the truth get in way of the facts :) mmm maybe I should be a lawyer, wait school suxed ... mmm it not what was cause i read some more up "firegoaT" again ..I present some evidence to the jury of your a-social rhetoric and controlling behaviour.

Ive ran out of effort to type what i was gona... but I just thought of sumt'n... maybe there should be a thread that had the title 'dribble' or 'gibberish' in which dribble and gibberish can just menader whereever it goes and if something interisting developes it could be split into a new thread.

Read some more of the post.. and came back to the reason i clickered on this thread ( so I read page one I will read page two in a minute ) .. "Why a moderator should be allowed to abuse one of the "patrons" - I know what a moderator is but had to ask what a patrons is... my Uncle says it is a man who goes to the same pub all the time and my Mum says it is someone it is someone who gave lots of money to the bowling Club to get it started in the first place. With either of them I dont think a moderator should be allowed to abuse a patron but also I dont think a patron should think they have special privalages (apart from being respected for being a regular customer or for what they have done in the past) above and beyond those of other members given that a moderators job (and which we should appreciate them doing ) is to make sure the site is for the enjoyment of everyone. That doesnt mean that people shouldnt be allowed to argue..cause most conversation in my house are arugment..but after a while if people continue talk which I hope most do here argument are actually are like the glue which you can think back on ( it more turer than it reads I used to hate my Mum but not now) .. but apart from that - that doesnt mean you should set out to white ant anyone or try to form alliences... base all your agrument on the facts ..... mmm and not like me at the start of this post on what you read or what people say, oh and even if ya are angry.. think twice..even a spelling mistake can be taken the wrong way.

Mmm maybe I shoud be in the dribble thread :twisted:

Thats my Angel post for the year :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :)

firegoat7
19-01-2005, 10:14 AM
mmm where do i start...

the first one 'firegoat' 14-01-2005, 12:44 PM says: 'sub heading' - thread split from Godwin's Law at firegoat's request.

the second one 'firagoat' 14-01-2005, 01:02 PM says: Only a control freak would split this thread, others might understand the connections- recognising that it never strayed. Maybe your act of splitting this one is an unconscious act ,or, even worse, maybe you are conscious of the act.

Confusing isn't it Kaitlin.
See what has happenend is that Mr Bonham in his infinite wisdom has now split the thread three times (see the tournament refund thread for the beginning of the saga). He has also transposed posts from one thread to the other, despite them being posted on seperate threads (as if it wasn't confusing already). It should be noted that rather then just give one post for a new beginning, we now get an innaccurate scenario of revised history, that is completely out of context. Hence my sympathy is extended towards you, in your efforts to understand why this thread is so confusing.

Cheers FG7

Cheers FG7

firegoat7
19-01-2005, 10:27 AM
I've always encouraged anybody to smack down the sort of rubbish frequently posted here by a minority of fact-averse hotheads. Your point is? abuse




The pattern is that you deserved it all and shouldn't go whining when you bring it on yourself. more abuse



It is impossible to patronise you. However if you say that you were not intoxicated I shall take your word for it and revert to the only alternative explanation: overwhelming stupidity. more abuse



For the bazillionth time, bozo - please tattoo this on the inside of your eyelids so I will be saved the necessity of billing you should I need to repeat it again
more abuse



I would hope that it nauseated you so that you spent so much time vomiting that you only had time left over to post something sensible on here instead of wasting time with this rubbish. continued abuse




your false claim that I split the thread so I could start insulting people (when actually I split it after).
I think we have clearly established that you enjoy abusing/insulting people.



Thank you for your kind suggestion, which has considerable merit, but I feel a few minor editorial changes would improve it considerably.

I didn't think you would do it so I will give you a clap for guts, nevertheless see my rejoinder to Kaitlin for an opinion on whether this works or not.

cheers FG7

firegoat7
19-01-2005, 10:34 AM
why should a moderator be allowed to abuse the patrons!!


By the way in case anybody missed it here is what I actually dared him to split, which of course is a bit different to what our esteemed moderator Kevin Bonham placed on the board as the thread heading.

This just goes to show you how personal his motives are when splitting a thread and transposing posts- which of course is what I was complaining about at the beginning

Notice how easy it is to asume that I created this thread even though I did nothing of the sort. This sort of behaviour is just disgraceful Bonham, it amazes me that you would be so immature as to do such a thing.

ursogr8
19-01-2005, 10:58 AM
By the way in case anybody missed it here is what I actually dared him to split, which of course is a bit different to what our esteemed moderator Kevin Bonham placed on the board as the thread heading.

hi fg7
Yes, I for one did see you original 'invite'.
And yes, this title is a bit different.
Is the difference important?
> If your debate with KB ended with a conclusion that it was OK to 'abuse' one patron, then presumably it would apply to more than one, and hence would be the equivalent of your title?
>> Or, is your point that he should take your title without alteration, period?
>>> Or, if he can alter your suggested title, is the alteration not to contain any personal motive?


This just goes to show you how personal his motives are when splitting a thread and transposing posts- which of course is what I was complaining about at the beginning

Notice how easy it is to asume that I created this thread even though I did nothing of the sort. This sort of behaviour is just disgraceful Bonham, it amazes me that you would be so immature as to do such a thing.

The validity of disgraceful might depend on which of >,>>,>>>.

regards
starter

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2005, 12:12 AM
If we were sad enough to care I'm sure we would. It's simply more amusing to let you parade around your own self-righteous pompous garbage as a signpost for all to see.

I think you are frequently slightly more pompous than me, and the most pompous person here apart from Goughfather, who has the fortune of getting away with it because when he is pompous he generally argues his case well and is frequently right. (In fact I was surprised to learn how young he was - I had expected a middle-aged academic from the way he posted). I'm sure this will be another bombastic load of swill from you, in what is basically just a split continuation of the same discussion where you said "Since we've all but stopped addressing the original issue itself, I don't think I'll waste any more time." :rolleyes: I bet your resolve won't last very much longer here.


FG7 has brought out the nasty character flaw in you even more.

Impatience with wantonly poor arguments and boringly bad trolling, you mean? That one? Terrible, simply terrible. Do you think that joining a hippy commune for a decade or so would be sufficient to get rid of this telling flaw?


Is there some kind of misdirected subconscious anger you feel necessary to dish out to strangers online in a vain attempt at winning a futile waste of time in the arena of a few bytes of ASCII text?

firegoat is not a stranger to me - I have met him, although I do not know him well. He was perfectly amiable when I met him, which made it surprising that when he first showed up on the bulletin boards he mounted ridiculous attacks on people who had done nothing to deserve them, refused to accept that these actions were unreasonable, and has since carried out an on-and-off and rather deranged online vendetta against the person who had the temerity to repeatedly call him on it. You're the psychology graduate - how about you explain it. :lol:


(Before you try to attack that, know I have a degree in psychology - I know human behaviour better than you, even if you know much more than me about the behaviour of snails).

That doesn't put you above trolling - if you want your credentials to carry any special weight I'll be expecting you to back your statements with evidence or references. (Modern scientificaly rigorous sources too please, theoretical babble recycled from Freud, Jung et al may simply be laughed at.) Vacuous arguments from the rather limited authority of a single degree will be not merely ignored but also viewed with contempt.


Come on Kevin, I had hoped you were better than that. Let's just stick to the topics that arise without the ridiculous arrogance and ad hominem that accompanies it.

You were the one who wanted to get trashy on the original "byes" thread which this came out of (pointless Nazi references, nerd/geek calls, other mindless drivel) so I cordially invite you to contemplate both your navel and your inconsistency. Don't dish trash, or defend it, if you can't take it. Simple. And don't expect me to lift my game while yours is wallowing around your ankles.

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2005, 12:17 AM
Confusing isn't it Kaitlin.
See what has happenend is that Mr Bonham in his infinite wisdom has now split the thread three times (see the tournament refund thread for the beginning of the saga).

Actually it was only split twice - tournament refund thread was split to Godwin's Law and then that was split to this. The second split was a joke at your expense ... a concept you're clearly not familiar with ... just get over it. :wall:

I invite starter to now initiate a 100-post thread on the exact sequence of events involved in splitting the thread and my justifications for it. In this case, irrelevant posts will count. :clap:

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2005, 12:21 AM
I think we have clearly established that you enjoy abusing/insulting people.

Yes. But only the ones who I reckon deserve it - a rather small minority. There are many posters here I have never abused or insulted and probably never will. (And no, this isn't a power thing, most of these people have no power in the chess community to speak of - nor is it a question of agreeing/disagreeing since some of them have disagreed with me without me being abusive at all).

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2005, 12:24 AM
Notice how easy it is to asume that I created this thread even though I did nothing of the sort.

Rubbish, it says "thread split at firegoat's request" - how can you create a thread when it was split. However, I have added an explanation, I would hate people to be needlessly confused!


This sort of behaviour is just disgraceful Bonham, it amazes me that you would be so immature as to do such a thing.

The company I am keeping on this thread must doubtless have rubbed off on me if so. :rolleyes:

Maturity would be wasted on you; clearly you can't cope with being the butt of a joke.

ursogr8
20-01-2005, 06:43 AM
I invite starter to now initiate a 100-post thread on the exact sequence of events involved in splitting the thread and my justifications for it.
hi KB

The other 100-post-escapade had a purpose so it was easy to maintain the momentum.

I decline your invitation.




In this case, irrelevant posts will count. :clap:

Now this is a meatier proposition.
Personally I don't think there is any such thing as an irrelevant post. To suggest such is an insult to the intent of the poster; although it may look irrelevant in the eyes of the reader.
But, I would need someone on the other side...prepared to put forward examples of irrelevant posts. And of course Bill is no value any more on this score because he has declared himself an evidence free poster.
So, even this (more interesting challenge) will have to lapse for want of finding someone who can produce irrelevant posts.
(Of course 99 'evidence posts' would convince me. :uhoh: )

:P


starter

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2005, 11:22 PM
And of course Bill is no value any more on this score because he has declared himself an evidence free poster.

Out of curiosity, where was that, assuming it was at all?

Bill Gletsos
20-01-2005, 11:27 PM
And of course Bill is no value any more on this score because he has declared himself an evidence free poster.
Back to posting rubbish I see.

Bill Gletsos
20-01-2005, 11:29 PM
Out of curiosity, where was that, assuming it was at all?
I didnt.
I have suggested that starter should be able to use the search function without me having to hold his hand.

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2005, 11:47 PM
I didnt.
I have suggested that starter should be able to use the search function without me having to hold his hand.

starter, can we interest you in a 100-post thread on whether this is the case or not?

ursogr8
21-01-2005, 07:18 AM
starter, can we interest you in a 100-post thread on whether this is the case or not?

KB

No, you can't. For the same reason that I gave in post #34. You need Bill to sit on the other side of the argument to maintain momentum.

For this issue he can't. Just two samples will do >
1 Bill >
"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."

2 Bill >
"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."

In 1), Bill makes the assertion...but invites the 'target' to do the post-searching'.
In 2), Bill makes the assertion...but requires the 'target' to do the post-searching'.

That was easy to find (and I didn't even have to get to the peanbrain one that Bill quoted himself).

Three data points....on a straight line...that is a trend...and the conclusion is obvious. <Bill is an evidence-free zone>. <<Or, as the say in Bill's classics...I assert, therefore I am right>>

As the poster's friend (Barry) is prone to say.....QED.


starter

ps Oops, forgot to say at the start of the post....good morning to you both btw.

pps You can't think of anyone who would like to defend the concept of 'irelevant posts', can you? Or has that one gone through to the keeper?

Bill Gletsos
21-01-2005, 10:33 AM
KB

No, you can't. For the same reason that I gave in post #34. You need Bill to sit on the other side of the argument to maintain momentum.

For this issue he can't. Just two samples will do >
1 Bill >
"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."

2 Bill >
"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."

In 1), Bill makes the assertion...but invites the 'target' to do the post-searching'.
In 2), Bill makes the assertion...but requires the 'target' to do the post-searching'.

That was easy to find (and I didn't even have to get to the peanbrain one that Bill quoted himself).

Three data points....on a straight line...that is a trend...and the conclusion is obvious. <Bill is an evidence-free zone>. <<Or, as the say in Bill's classics...I assert, therefore I am right>>
What a load of rubbish.
I'm just pointing you to where the evidence is rather than giving it to you on a plate.
After all it is fairly simple to use the search function.


As the poster's friend (Barry) is prone to say.....QED.
I doubt he would say so in this circumstance.

Alan Shore
21-01-2005, 11:10 AM
I think you are frequently slightly more pompous than me..

Hahaha.. how about we have a poll? I bet you'd win hands down.


..and the most pompous person here apart from Goughfather, who has the fortune of getting away with it because when he is pompous he generally argues his case well and is frequently right. (In fact I was surprised to learn how young he was - I had expected a middle-aged academic from the way he posted).

Goughfather posts well, it seems he takes care every time he does. I've had some very interesting discussions with him in person too.


"Since we've all but stopped addressing the original issue itself, I don't think I'll waste any more time." :rolleyes: I bet your resolve won't last very much longer here.

And indeed I won't waste time with any tripe/insults you have to offer, FYI I'll only comment on the 'useful' aspects of your posts (if they exist), or if I find amusement value.


Impatience with wantonly poor arguments and boringly bad trolling, you mean? That one? Terrible, simply terrible. Do you think that joining a hippy commune for a decade or so would be sufficient to get rid of this telling flaw?

Hippy.. haha! Aren't you the one with the ponytail? :P


firegoat is not a stranger to me - I have met him, although I do not know him well. He was perfectly amiable when I met him, which made it surprising that when he first showed up on the bulletin boards he mounted ridiculous attacks on people who had done nothing to deserve them, refused to accept that these actions were unreasonable, and has since carried out an on-and-off and rather deranged online vendetta against the person who had the temerity to repeatedly call him on it. You're the psychology graduate - how about you explain it. :lol:

It doesn't take a psychology grad to tell you that people have different personas on the net... I'm sure we'd get along quite well in person! Personally I think you're a champ KB, you just get stirred up in the world of cyberspace when you treat discussion like a theoretical game instead of a leisure activity. I'm sure you treat chess as the former too, while I always treat it as the latter.


That doesn't put you above trolling - if you want your credentials to carry any special weight I'll be expecting you to back your statements with evidene or references. (Modern scientificaly rigorous sources too please, theoretical babble recycled from Freud, Jung et al may simply be laughed at.) Vacuous arguments from the rather limited authority of a single degree will be not merely ignored but also viewed with contempt.

Well fortunately it's not a single degree.. but I do find your typical knee-jerk reaction to Freud and Jung quite amusing (and expected). While my area of psych is social/cognitive and has a very scientific methodology I think it unfair to simply dismiss those two as 'babble'.



You were the one who wanted to get trashy on the original "byes" thread which this came out of (pointless Nazi references, nerd/geek calls, other mindless drivel) so I cordially invite you to contemplate both your navel and your inconsistency.

Well Kevin, it was a geeky comeback, there's no denying the facts. DR and FG7 have already pointed out why you're wrong too re:Gestapo. You just seem to have a really tough time admitting it.


Don't dish trash, or defend it, if you can't take it.

I can admit when I'm wrong - it's a quality you should try at least once. I just see no merit in ridiculous mudslinging that wastes time. Debate the issue - attacking the person simply makes you a poorer debater.

ursogr8
21-01-2005, 11:25 AM
I'm just pointing you to where the evidence is rather than giving it to you on a plate.


Bill

Is it fair to paraphrase your sentence >

It is the responsibility of the asserter to table the evidence, not the responsibility of the reader?

If yes, then the discussion can move to the next step.


The responsibility for searching can only lie in one place. It is either with the asserter. Or with the person who is challenging the assertion (or perhaps, at a lower level, just asking for confirming evidence).
Could you please declare yourself on this issue.

(I don't think the ease of search changes one iota where the logical responsibility of the search belongs. However, I will wait on your advice as an interested party).


starter

Kevin Bonham
21-01-2005, 08:55 PM
Hahaha.. how about we have a poll? I bet you'd win hands down.

Now show me how perceptive you are and tell me at least two reasons why that wouldn't be a fair test. :hmm:


Goughfather posts well, it seems he takes care every time he does.

Agree.


And indeed I won't waste time with any tripe/insults you have to offer, FYI I'll only comment on the 'useful' aspects of your posts (if they exist), or if I find amusement value.

This is what I mean about you being pompous. You start dishing the trash in an exchange but then you are the one who transparently attempts to retreat to this sort of moral highground. Your last post is a classic example of playing civil while still trying to maintain a slight superiority - a common resort when people are losing a flamewar and want to get out of it intact or blame the opponent for its continuation.


It doesn't take a psychology grad to tell you that people have different personas on the net... I'm sure we'd get along quite well in person!

This is frequently my experience - what is said online stays online and so on, eg I met Sweeney at Mt B and we had some good chats. However, it would be most unwise of you to take it for granted as that is exactly the sort of thing I might feel inclined to make an example of. :lol:


Personally I think you're a champ KB, you just get stirred up in the world of cyberspace when you treat discussion like a theoretical game instead of a leisure activity.

Since when are the two incompatible? (Ditto for chess.)


Well fortunately it's not a single degree.. but I do find your typical knee-jerk reaction to Freud and Jung quite amusing (and expected). While my area of psych is social/cognitive and has a very scientific methodology I think it unfair to simply dismiss those two as 'babble'.

That's why I only said "may simply be laughed at" instead of "will simply be laughed at". I've never studied psych formally but I've read enough to know that there is a lot in its early history that was very scientifically primitive.


DR and FG7 have already pointed out why you're wrong too re:Gestapo. You just seem to have a really tough time admitting it.

Indeed, believing false statements is something that doesn't come easy to me. :lol: I demolished their facetious tryhard-pedantic attempt to split hairs between Nazi and Gestapo by pointing out that Godwin's Law does not refer to specific words but rather to the act of comparison generally. They have had no reply to this, and neither have you. I don't know why you bother with trash like this, it's a failure on every possible level.


I can admit when I'm wrong - it's a quality you should try at least once.

Then I look forward to your admissions that:

(i) your claim that DR and FG were right in their comments re Nazi/Gestapo is wrong

(ii) your trashy insinuation (I don't know why you give me gifts like this) that I cannot admit I am wrong, is itself wrong. For example some time ago when Ian Rout and I were debating the ideal number of rounds in a Swiss (odd vs even) he convinced me and I completely conceded the point and abandoned his previous position. You will almost never see me admit I am wrong in a debate with a trash-dishing hothead or troll, however, because these people hardly ever make a valid point.


I just see no merit in ridiculous mudslinging that wastes time.

:rolleyes: PKB.


Debate the issue - attacking the person simply makes you a poorer debater.

ditto to previous.

Sorry to scupper your youthful idealism, but if a person is asserting cheap trash instead of actually debating the issue with argument and evidence, then (refutation + insult) makes just as much contribution to what remains of the "debate" as (refutation alone) and might hopefully encourage others to swim between the flags. :lol:

If I only ever insulted and never debated the issue as well your claim would be correct.

ursogr8
22-01-2005, 06:50 PM
Bump


Bill

Is it fair to paraphrase your sentence >

It is the responsibility of the asserter to table the evidence, not the responsibility of the reader?

If yes, then the discussion can move to the next step.


The responsibility for searching can only lie in one place. It is either with the asserter. Or with the person who is challenging the assertion (or perhaps, at a lower level, just asking for confirming evidence).
Could you please declare yourself on this issue.

(I don't think the ease of search changes one iota where the logical responsibility of the search belongs. However, I will wait on your advice as an interested party).


starter

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2005, 07:05 PM
Bill

Is it fair to paraphrase your sentence >

It is the responsibility of the asserter to table the evidence, not the responsibility of the reader?

If yes, then the discussion can move to the next step.


The responsibility for searching can only lie in one place. It is either with the asserter. Or with the person who is challenging the assertion (or perhaps, at a lower level, just asking for confirming evidence).
Could you please declare yourself on this issue.

(I don't think the ease of search changes one iota where the logical responsibility of the search belongs. However, I will wait on your advice as an interested party).
I thought it would be obvious to you starter.
If some dope makes an assertion then its is up to them to provide the evidence to support it.

If I make the assertion then its up to the other person to provide evidence to disprove it. :owned: :hand:

ursogr8
22-01-2005, 07:37 PM
I thought it would be obvious to you starter.
If some dope makes an assertion then its is up to them to provide the evidence to support it.

If I make the assertion then its up to the other person to provide evidence to disprove it. :owned: :hand:

Bill

Yes. Thought this was your position.
You know, I am quite getting the hang of how to read your posts. ;)

Now Kevin, does this not convince you that Bill is an evidence-free zone?
The post is in his own words; not mine, (that he alternates as describing as 'rubbish', or 'misleading').
And, it finishes with a hand which indicates no further negotiation.

Please confirm I have finished your query.

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2005, 07:42 PM
Bill

Yes. Thought this was your position.
You know, I am quite getting the hang of how to read your posts. ;)

Now Kevin, does this not convince you that Bill is an evidence-free zone?
The post is in his own words; not mine, (that he alternates as describing as 'rubbish', or 'misleading').
And, it finishes with a hand which indicates no further negotiation.

Please confirm I have finished your query.
Your summation is incorrect.

In some cases the evidence is self evident. I'll point you to where it is.
In other cases I'll provide evidence to refute any so called evidence provided by a poster.

antichrist
23-01-2005, 01:24 AM
I thought it would be obvious to you starter.
If some dope makes an assertion then its is up to them to provide the evidence to support it.

A/C:
If the assertion is about God's existence/character then of course is it still up to them to provide the evidence to support it!

BG:
If I make the assertion then its up to the other person to provide evidence to disprove it. :owned: :hand:

A/C:
But if the assertion cannot be falsified (Karl Popper like) does your assertion still hold up?

Is it up to monotheists to disprove polytheists and vice-versa?

Kaitlin
23-01-2005, 07:59 PM
A/C:
But if the assertion cannot be falsified (Karl Popper like) does your assertion still hold up??

Is it up to monotheists to disprove polytheists and vice-versa?



---->Dis-information<---- can..mmm not prove, but make lots of people believe in anything

and.....
Im not sure what monotheists are and polytheists are but I assume the first has one view and the second has more than one view. So I say if your happy believing what you believe in why try to make someone else unhappy by saying what they believe in is wrong. The polytheists who belives in many things should be able to accept the monotheists view as 'one of the many things'. And the monotheists should acknowledge the polythesists view and allow the polythesists to add their view to thier collection of views, and knowing thier view is correct can rest easy in know that the polythesist is safe having that view in thier collection along wif their other views.

I should have looked for the dictoinary for mono-polytheists but I think im close...anywho diplomatic me strikes again :angel: <-- thats an angel :)

Alan Shore
23-01-2005, 08:15 PM
Im not sure what monotheists are and polytheists are but I assume the first has one view and the second has more than one view.

Monotheist = belief in one God, Polytheist = belief in many gods.


So I say if your happy believing what you believe in why try to make someone else unhappy by saying what they believe in is wrong.

I don't believe in 'making' anyone believe anything but I do believe in them having the right of choice. Therefore you should always aregue your case to people, not to try to change their beliefs but to give them the opportunity to form objective beliefs for themselves with a wider range of choices.

Kevin Bonham
23-01-2005, 09:32 PM
Please confirm I have finished your query.

You don't think I actually read all of these micro-examinations of meta-meta-nothing, do you? I just enjoy watching them, joking about them and speculating upon their survival prospects.

antichrist
23-01-2005, 10:08 PM
Well I can't say I was satisfied with the response to my post 48. It looks like Basil either didn't want to touch anything to do with me or he blew a gasket on "another debating thread". I think before he has ducked the religion question. Maybe he doesn't want to be shown as agreeing with me.

BD and KB, it is all at your fingertips -- fulfil your roll as educators.

Bill Gletsos
23-01-2005, 10:44 PM
Well I can't say I was satisfied with the response to my post 48. It looks like Basil either didn't want to touch anything to do with me or he blew a gasket on "another debating thread". I think before he has ducked the religion question. Maybe he doesn't want to be shown as agreeing with me.[
Not at all, I just have no interest in discussing it.

Kevin Bonham
23-01-2005, 11:36 PM
BD and KB, it is all at your fingertips -- fulfil your roll as educators.

It is totally irrelevant to this thread and if you wish me to comment on it please ask the same question on a relevant thread or else start a new one.

ursogr8
24-01-2005, 07:03 AM
You don't think I actually read all of these micro-examinations of meta-meta-nothing, do you? I just enjoy watching them, joking about them and speculating upon their survival prospects.

KB

Well you were the one who asked the question #35 on this thread.
And Bill's definitive personal response, #45, is the only one you need to read as evidence to express an opinion.

If you are going to ask for evidence, and then not examine in any depth, and not give an opinion, then Bill is correct (on this score), I have wasted my time. :(

I am a bit inclined to borrow fg7's question
"What sort of poster does that".

But Barry has since provided the name for it.

starter

Cat
24-01-2005, 08:17 AM
Hahaha.. how about we have a poll? I bet you'd win hands down.



Rubbish, I am the most pompous poster, I'd stake my reputation on it!




I can admit when I'm wrong - it's a quality you should try at least once. I just see no merit in ridiculous mudslinging that wastes time. Debate the issue - attacking the person simply makes you a poorer debater.

Oh come on, show me one time when KB has ever been wrong on anything, anywhere, anytime?

Cat
24-01-2005, 08:22 AM
Actually I abused BD (and any look at the original thread will clearly show he was the one who started the mudthrowing, as he has so many times before) first and then afterwards thought "actually, this is really rather irrelevant, I'd better split this junk so that those who wish to get on with the original debate rather than all this rubbish can do so".

Oh, well that's ok then!

firegoat7
24-01-2005, 11:53 AM
Danger Will Robinson Danger Danger.....I feel another thread split coming along.....The reasons you are allowed to abuse patrons is...... cmon split it again!!...after all the justification would be similar to almost any other justification adopted by moderators in the past! yes/no????

Kevin Bonham
24-01-2005, 07:47 PM
firegoat, the only thing I can feel coming on after reading your latest post is a yawn.

Kaitlin
24-01-2005, 08:27 PM
Danger Will Robinson Danger Danger.....I feel another thread split coming along.....The reasons you are allowed to abuse patrons is...... cmon split it again!!...after all the justification would be similar to almost any other justification adopted by moderators in the past! yes/no????

Firegoat get up on the psycholcohists couch and tell me all about this 'things spliting and leaving your control' you can trust me im not that good at chess :P

ursogr8
24-01-2005, 09:33 PM
Bumping post #55 for KB's attention.

starter

Bill Gletsos
24-01-2005, 09:49 PM
Bumping post #55 for KB's attention.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps it was so lacking in merit that KB decided it didnt warrant a response?

Kevin Bonham
24-01-2005, 09:51 PM
I have no idea if it had merit or not. I've just countered starter's obsessive metricisation with a metric of my own, that's all.

Bill Gletsos
24-01-2005, 10:09 PM
I have no idea if it had merit or not. I've just countered starter's obsessive metricisation with a metric of my own, that's all.
I doubt he will like your metric. ;)

ursogr8
25-01-2005, 06:38 AM
I have no idea if it had merit or not. I've just countered starter's obsessive metricisation with a metric of my own, that's all.
Kevin

I am having trouble understanding your position on this issue.

You were the one who asked the question #35 on this thread.
And Bill's definitive personal response, #45, is the only one you need to read as evidence to express an opinion.

If you are going to directly ask me for evidence, and then not examine in any depth, and not give an opinion, then I am perplexed. Have I wasted my time? Have I produced the evidence you sought?

1-word answers to each of these questions would suffice.

starter

ps I don't understand the tone of your 'countered'; I thought your post #35 asked for my assistance. I was researching to help you, not counter you.

Kevin Bonham
26-01-2005, 03:19 AM
I am having trouble understanding your position on this issue.

Not surprising actually, I was too lazy to check the post numbers and realise you were referring to a query from before my issuing of the now-standard 100-post starter microdissection-of-nothing challenge on this particular thread.

I was actually genuinely curious to see what you would produce as supposed evidence of Bill's evidence-free-poster status. Thankyou for your reply. It shows that Bill chooses to sometimes make general characterisations of poster behaviour and challenge contradiction.

In the first case he asserts a negative (that you had not criticised Matt) for which he could only possibly produce evidence by reposting all your posts mentioning Sweeney to date, which would be very time-consuming. So I see nothing wrong with him doing this provided that he has a good record of accuracy in so doing. I contrast this with the attitude of geese who, for instance, repeatedly accuse me of never admitting I am wrong, when I can easily produce a counter-example. These people should be required to read every post ever made here before opening their beaks on any matter concerning the posts of others, because they are simply unreliable.

In the second case Bill simply stated people he could recall making certain statements. I am sure that such of those people as are here would be only too quick to correct him had they said nothing of the sort. If you wish to state that any of these people have not criticised Matt and invite disproof, you are free to do so, at the risk of denting your own credibility should this turn out to be wrong.

I also think that in #45 Bill was playing games with your games.

I conclude that this is a beat-up, "evidence free zone" is irrelevant in the first case and the facts stated in the second would not be disputed by anyone.

ursogr8
26-01-2005, 10:49 AM
^^
Thanks for the response.
Two simple Y or N answers would have recovered the erosion in my confidence in your even-handedness.
But you have given me more. Good.
But it looks a bit like a greek gift. I will examine more closely, and perhaps respond.

regards
starter

ursogr8
26-01-2005, 07:06 PM
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps it was so lacking in merit that KB decided it didnt warrant a response?

Well ...no...Bill; that thought did not cross my mind.
Did it cross your mind?
Is that the reason you provided this post?

Your implication is that the post lacked merit. And given that Kevin has now advised in #66 that there is sufficient merit to warrant quite a detailed response, what does it say about your judgement? It might mean that your recent judgment has become rather faulty and cannot be relied on to be definitive. This is an erosion of your credibility Bill is it not?

starter

ursogr8
26-01-2005, 07:33 PM
Not surprising actually, I was too lazy to check the post numbers and realise you were referring to a query from before my issuing of the now-standard 100-post starter microdissection-of-nothing challenge on this particular thread.

hi Kevin

Of course, there has been only 1 actual 100-post microdissection, and that as a consequence of a challenge by you.
On the other hand there have been multiple challenges by you. So, none of us should read your para. to presume I indulge in repeated 100-post microdissection.


I was actually genuinely curious to see what you would produce as supposed evidence of Bill's evidence-free-poster status. Thankyou for your reply. It shows that Bill chooses to sometimes make general characterisations of poster behaviour and challenge contradiction.

And he does so in generalised smears whats more. For example...lump the company of starter, and two others as apologists , in the subtle attempt to move the skeletons of one poster to others.


In the first case he asserts a negative (that you had not criticised Matt) for which he could only possibly produce evidence by reposting all your posts mentioning Sweeney to date, which would be very time-consuming. So I see nothing wrong with him doing this provided that he has a good record of accuracy in so doing.

Your sentence has logic, but is based on a flawed premise. The evidence that I had not criticised Matt was refuted in the 100-post unseemly forensic. So, Bill does not have a good recent record of accuracy. In the one issue seen right through to the end, his posting style is exposed for what it is.

<snip>


In the second case Bill simply stated people he could recall making certain statements. I am sure that such of those people as are here would be only too quick to correct him had they said nothing of the sort. If you wish to state that any of these people have not criticised Matt and invite disproof, you are free to do so, at the risk of denting your own credibility should this turn out to be wrong.

A challenge to me that would be met by Bill's stonewall defence and take far too long. I agree with you....Bill's position is unproven, just asserted.


I also think that in #45 Bill was playing games with your games.

So this is your judgement Kevin.
Bill didn't mean #45...he was just playing games.
And on such a key post too. The post that hangs him out to dry.

Is that like Bill the literalist? On an important seminal post he 'plays a game' rather than give the definitive statement. Are you really suggesting that you are ruling that is your judgement?
(Btw, I followed some of your posts with fg7 where you labelled playing-games behaviour, and withdrawing when the heat got too hot. The reason I followed these closely was because I had always wondered what the word troll meant, and there you were giving me an insight to the meaning. Thanks for the explanation).

So, back to Bill's post.
The judgement (your judgement) is...he didn't mean it.


I conclude that this is a beat-up, "evidence free zone" is irrelevant in the first case and the facts stated in the second would not be disputed by anyone.

I appreciate you coming to a conclusion.
For the reasons that have become revealed, I obviously don't agree with it.

regards, and appreciate your time

starter

Bill Gletsos
26-01-2005, 11:02 PM
Well ...no...Bill; that thought did not cross my mind.
Did it cross your mind?
Is that the reason you provided this post?

Your implication is that the post lacked merit. And given that Kevin has now advised in #66 that there is sufficient merit to warrant quite a detailed response, what does it say about your judgement? It might mean that your recent judgment has become rather faulty and cannot be relied on to be definitive. This is an erosion of your credibility Bill is it not?
I thought KB in his post #66 basically dismissed your post as a "beatup" and hence a waste of time.

Kevin Bonham
26-01-2005, 11:45 PM
And given that Kevin has now advised in #66 that there is sufficient merit to warrant quite a detailed response, what does it say about your judgement?

My response to a post should never be taken as evidence that a post has merit. In many cases quite the contrary.

Including this one. :lol:

ursogr8
27-01-2005, 06:59 AM
I thought KB in his post #66 basically dismissed your post as a "beatup" and hence a waste of time.

Bill

Kevin's post #66 had 20 lines of text.
This is 20 more than your surmise in #62, where you said >

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps it was so lacking in merit that KB decided it didnt warrant a response?

This is one occasion where the metric tells all.
You 'forecast' in # 62 was 0 lines.
The actual in #66 was 20 lines of text.

.................................................. ................... Q.E.D.


You made no forecast of the quality of the response.

starter

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2005, 10:29 AM
Bill

Kevin's post #66 had 20 lines of text.
This is 20 more than your surmise in #62, where you said >


This is one occasion where the metric tells all.
You 'forecast' in # 62 was 0 lines.
The actual in #66 was 20 lines of text.

.................................................. ................... Q.E.D.


You made no forecast of the quality of the response.
As usual your conclusion from your metrics is flawed.
KB took 20 lines to essential say your post was a waste of time.
I took one.
Obviously KB was just indulging himself.

Woodstocker
27-01-2005, 11:52 AM
The reason I followed these closely was because I had always wondered what the word troll meant, and there you were giving me an insight to the meaning.

Mr Starter,

Some weeks ago I noticed a link in this very forum which gave me quite an insight into what I had stumbled into on this bulletin board.

There was one characterisation of a troll which was not consistent with the generally accepted view on this board of what a troll may or may not be.

The link below seems to suggest a troll is no more a nuisance than a pop-up advertisement.

If this be so then others have incorrectly demonised the troll and thereby demonise those whom they decree as a troll.

From my own skimming of the board banter I glean Mr Antichrist is the only troll.

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/troller.htm

IW

firegoat7
27-01-2005, 12:45 PM
Classic link Woodstocker :clap: :clap: :clap:

ursogr8
27-01-2005, 01:21 PM
Mr Starter,

Some weeks ago I noticed a link in this very forum which gave me quite an insight into what I had stumbled into on this bulletin board.

There was one characterisation of a troll which was not consistent with the generally accepted view on this board of what a troll may or may not be.

The link below seems to suggest a troll is no more a nuisance than a pop-up advertisement.

If this be so then others have incorrectly demonised the troll and thereby demonise those whom they decree as a troll.

From my own skimming of the board banter I glean Mr Antichrist is the only troll.

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/troller.htm

IW

I am not sure of the honorific I should use in addressing you sir, so I shall settle for Mr Woodstocker.

I appreciate the link and now wonder why the term has warped on this BB to a less esteemed level. Are you sure about Mr A/C?; he does seem to pop-up, but is often content for no-reponse. He seems a bit more like a Graffiti Artist to me.

Could you be related to the Woodstackers of Surrey in the Old Country?


regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2005, 01:41 PM
I appreciate the link and now wonder why the term has warped on this BB to a less esteemed level.
You seem to be just demonstrating your cluelessness.

With the exception of the genuinely clueless newbie, net trolls generally are only there to generate trouble.

A reasonable description of trolling is as follows:

The content of a "troll posting generally falls into several areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a newsgroup, or a broad request for trivial follow-up postings.
There are three reasons why people troll newsgroups:
People post such messages to get attention, to disrupt newsgroups, and simply to make trouble.
Career trollers tend for the latter two whilst the former is the mark of the clueless newbie and should be ignored.

Generally the beatup artist is engaging in trolling.

Woodstocker
27-01-2005, 01:58 PM
Could you be related to the Woodstackers of Surrey in the Old Country?


Mr Starter,

As a boy I did live for a short period in Surrey but far from there at times before and after.

You have correctly guessed my Woodstocker is a corruption of another name but it is not of Woodstackers.

I carried an ironic nick name at school of the character Ian Woodstock.

ursogr8
27-01-2005, 02:07 PM
^^
Must be my lucky day.
First Barry, now Bill helping me understand troll as a word.

Thanks Bill.
It was one of the cases when SEARCH was not my friend. ;)

starter

ursogr8
27-01-2005, 02:18 PM
<snip>

Generally the beatup artist is engaging in trolling.
Well, that lets me out!
The only beat-up I got involved in was the 100-post forensic; and even then that was by invitation.

starter participant ;)

Kevin Bonham
28-01-2005, 09:06 PM
Of course, there has been only 1 actual 100-post microdissection, and that as a consequence of a challenge by you.

Firstly that one was bogus and secondly I suspect there have been real ones in the past. I'm saying that as an evidence-free statement however. :lol:


And he does so in generalised smears whats more. For example...lump the company of starter, and two others as apologists , in the subtle attempt to move the skeletons of one poster to others.

This would appear to be an evidence-free assertion.


Your sentence has logic, but is based on a flawed premise. The evidence that I had not criticised Matt was refuted in the 100-post unseemly forensic.

Was it? If you want to quote post number I promise to read it and check this.


From my own skimming of the board banter I glean Mr Antichrist is the only troll.

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/...htm/troller.htm

It's no surprise that firegoat gave this the thumbs up because he is desperate for anything that might play down his more-often-than-not-a-troll nature.
The Flame Warrior site's only one person's opinion (unlike documents like the Troll FAQ for instance) and includes a lot of different "warrior" types that exist largely to annoy. Several of these personalities are displayed to varying degrees by different trolls. Trolling(v) is just one of the strategies that trolls(n) employ.


Generally the beatup artist is engaging in trolling.

Not necessarily. Very often the beatup artist is simply pursuing a seriously held belief in an ineffective manner, by beating up any argument for their case rather than realising that they are losing the debate and should reconsider their assumptions.

On this board a lot of beatups are trolls(v) or by trolls(n) or both, but in general I encounter far more beatups of the kind I've described.

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2005, 10:11 PM
Not necessarily. Very often the beatup artist is simply pursuing a seriously held belief in an ineffective manner, by beating up any argument for their case rather than realising that they are losing the debate and should reconsider their assumptions.

On this board a lot of beatups are trolls(v) or by trolls(n) or both, but in general I encounter far more beatups of the kind I've described.
True.
I should have been more specific and said "Generally on this baord the beatup artist is engaging in trolling."

ursogr8
29-01-2005, 02:33 PM
Firstly that one was bogus and secondly I suspect there have been real ones in the past. I'm saying that as an evidence-free statement however. :lol:

KB
It is very healthy to be able to laugh. You enjoyed your first para.
And so did I. :)


This would appear to be an evidence-free assertion.

I quoted one example KB? :confused:
Don't they count as evidence unless the post number is also quoted?



Was it? If you want to quote post number I promise to read it and check this.

:doh: I can't quote the post number because it took 100 posts to finally get Bill coralled.




It's no surprise that firegoat gave this the thumbs up because he is desperate for anything that might play down his more-often-than-not-a-troll nature.
The Flame Warrior site's only one person's opinion (unlike documents like the Troll FAQ for instance) and includes a lot of different "warrior" types that exist largely to annoy. Several of these personalities are displayed to varying degrees by different trolls. Trolling(v) is just one of the strategies that trolls(n) employ.

I am unaware of Troll FAQ.
My understanding of fg7 is that he does not post "largely to annoy". Sure, he has a few bees in his bonnet (i.e. pet issues), but don't we all?




Not necessarily. Very often the beatup artist is simply pursuing a seriously held belief in an ineffective manner, by beating up any argument for their case rather than realising that they are losing the debate and should reconsider their assumptions.


Which side is beating-up could be in the eye of the beholder.


On this board a lot of beatups are trolls(v) or by trolls(n) or both, but in general I encounter far more beatups of the kind I've described.


Pass....I have no metrics on this one. ;)


starter

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2005, 03:15 PM
:doh: I can't quote the post number because it took 100 posts to finally get Bill coralled.
You are deluding yourself as usual.
I dont believe I accepted that your description of his postings that got him originally banned for 48 hrs as "unseemly" was in fact a criticism.
I certainly dont recall you ever providing any evidence that you had ever criticised his language or behaviour prior to banning.

ursogr8
29-01-2005, 05:50 PM
You are deluding yourself as usual.
I dont believe I accepted that your description of his postings that got him originally banned for 48 hrs as "unseemly" was in fact a criticism.

Bill
If I expected you to ever admit you were wrong on something you dug your heels in on then that would be the only delusion I suffered.
Even the simplest things, like admitting you totally overlooked your use of 'pompous arrogance' in post #92 you seem unable to admit was wrong.
You rarely accept you are wrong.

It is humourous Bill. I use the word 'unseemly' as criticism and you say I don't mean it. The 5th time I have posted it Bill. Will volume convince you?.



I certainly dont recall you ever providing any evidence that you had ever criticised his language or behaviour prior to banning.

You can't even remember posting 'pompous arrogance' a day or two back, even after I had reminded you.
Bill, what you can't remember is evidence of nothing, based on the 'pompous arrogance' overlook.


starter

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2005, 10:39 PM
Bill
If I expected you to ever admit you were wrong on something you dug your heels in on then that would be the only delusion I suffered.
Even the simplest things, like admitting you totally overlooked your use of 'pompous arrogance' in post #92 you seem unable to admit was wrong.
You rarely accept you are wrong.
I admitted recently that I was wrong when I typed $10 when I meant $10k. I also admitted I was wrong when I referred to a posr #11 and meant #10.
However why would I admit I'm wrong when I'm not.
My questioning you re "pompous arrogance" served my purpose.


It is humourous Bill. I use the word 'unseemly' as criticism and you say I don't mean it. The 5th time I have posted it Bill. Will volume convince you?.
You can shout it from the roof tops.
The answer is no.


You can't even remember posting 'pompous arrogance' a day or two back, even after I had reminded you.
Bill, what you can't remember is evidence of nothing, based on the 'pompous arrogance' overlook.
A nice attempt by you at defelcting the facts but if you believe I overlooked it then you are more foolish than I imagined.
The facts being that prior to Matt's banning you never criticised his language or behaviour. You didnt even make a comment regarding it using your so called criticism of "unseemly".

Kevin Bonham
30-01-2005, 12:13 PM
I quoted one example KB? :confused:
Don't they count as evidence unless the post number is also quoted?

You quoted one example but gave no evidence to support your claim that Bill's motivation in that case was tarring-by-association.


I am unaware of Troll FAQ.

http://digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html#item3 contains links to all kinds of old, mostly Usenet, trolling resources and commentaries.


My understanding of fg7 is that he does not post "largely to annoy". Sure, he has a few bees in his bonnet (i.e. pet issues), but don't we all?

I think most of his posts in which he gets stuck into me are picking fights just for the sake of it because he took the clown thing personally and doesn't like me. There may be some sincere motivation behind some of the rest, even though he goes about it in a hotheaded, foolish and frothy manner. There's actually another internet term that better describes what firegoat is, but I can't use it here because this board has a no-swearing policy.


Which side is beating-up could be in the eye of the beholder.

Usual signs of a beatup include political excitability over nothing and chronic fact-aversion.

ursogr8
30-01-2005, 12:21 PM
You quoted one example but gave no evidence to support your claim that Bill's motivation in that case was tarring-by-association.

Kevin
Ok. I agree with your comment.
I must admit that while I was writing the claim I saw it as self-evident that the tactic was tarring-by-association. But you are correct...............................and I will resist the forensic side to save us all.




http://digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html#item3 contains links to all kinds of old, mostly Usenet, trolling resources and commentaries.

tks


I think most of his posts in which he gets stuck into me are picking fights just for the sake of it because he took the clown thing personally and doesn't like me. There may be some sincere motivation behind some of the rest, even though he goes about it in a hotheaded, foolish and frothy manner. There's actually another internet term that better describes what firegoat is, but I can't use it here because this board has a no-swearing policy.

I think I will leave this to the two of you to explore; as you have phrased your position well.




Usual signs of a beatup include political excitability over nothing and chronic fact-aversion.

I still think my comment was relevant.

regards
starter

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2005, 06:43 PM
largely off-topic so transferred from Top 20 Ratings by State thread.


I don't think so, still you could learn something from MCC.

I am not disputing that, I just believe you are biased in your club's favour in your assessment of playing strengths.


Shut up you abusive idiot

In this case the abusive idiot is clearly you, and you're also a hypocritical abusive idiot because I did not "personally attack" you (as you would define the concept), I simply referred to my perception of your bias and described your comment as rubbish. What's up frothy, something bite you?


No understanding of Victorian chess.

What would you know about what I know? I've personally talked to Ascaro about his up-and-down results, he even gave me some statistical details in this regard. You're just trying to pretend I don't know what I'm talking about - you have no evidence to counter what I say.


Do you actually believe that Tim Anderson is a new player, who hasn't been around the traps?

Obviously not - I knew him when he played down here for a couple of years in the late 90s.

firegoat7
01-03-2005, 10:38 PM
Bonham,

This is the third time you have split my posts because they involve you.
Whats the excuse this time control freak?

If you think I am being abusive then you ought to remember that you and Bill are the official judges of what is and what is not abuse. Bill defined idiot as not being abusive.

You set the standards not me.

Kevin Bonham
02-03-2005, 04:43 PM
This is the third time you have split my posts because they involve you.

What a load of frothy rubbish.

I did not "split your post" - I simply chose to respond to it on a different thread to the one on which it was made - one which was more relevant.

No moderator actions were performed and any poster could have done the same thing.

I expect you to acknowledge that your accusation was false; if you do not I will conclude that you have a problem admitting when you are wrong and that you are also therefore hypocritical (again).


If you think I am being abusive then you ought to remember that you and Bill are the official judges of what is and what is not abuse. Bill defined idiot as not being abusive.

If it is a reference to you, "idiot" is certainly not abusive. :lol:

a person deficient in mind and permanently incapable of rational conduct

Jokes aside, "idiot" is most certainly abuse but it is permitted on this board in the vast majority of cases, and deserved in no small number of them. As moderator, I am not interested in what is abuse and what is not so your comment above is ineffectual rubbish as usual.

My point is that you were being abusive, in this case while I was merely criticising your opinions (albeit dismissively) and that this undermines and exposes as hypocritical your attempts to criticise others for being abusive.

Kevin Bonham
02-03-2005, 06:03 PM
Again from same thread but not worth splitting as it's only one post, another firegoat whine about the incredible injustice of me commenting on some of his posts on threads other than the ones they originate on. (firegoat, have you told the UN commission on war crimes about this? I strongly suspect they may be interested, surely my behaviour puts Slobodan Milosevic in the shade?)


Does anybody else suffer this sort of treatment from the Control Freak?

I'll answer your question with a question: does anybody else deserve it?

The fact that you consider yourself to "suffer" when this occurs proves that you are too thinskinned.

(I think I have done the same thing with Matthew, probably David, perhaps others at times. None of them whined over nothing like you do, you pathological victim.)

aransandraseg
06-09-2009, 01:32 PM
I'm so suprised it took you so long to ban these two. Were they drunk?:lol: