PDA

View Full Version : What's Up Your Nose?



Pages : [1] 2 3

arosar
02-01-2004, 01:46 PM
Increase in Fed funding to private schools. This rise is actually greater than increase in funding to publicly funded unis. Disgusting!

AR

arosar
19-01-2004, 06:52 PM
Hotel bouncers. Whoever you are who killed David Hookes - I hope you rot in jail.

AR

antichrist
20-01-2004, 03:41 PM
Hotel bouncers. Whoever you are who killed David Hookes - I hope you rot in jail.

AR

Was it a right hook or a wrongem hook -- not it was a bouncer!

Apologise for sick humour about an outspoken hero.

Bill Gletsos
20-01-2004, 03:47 PM
Hotel bouncers. Whoever you are who killed David Hookes - I hope you rot in jail.

AR

Was it a right hook or a wrongem hook -- not it was a bouncer!

Apologise for sick humour about an outspoken hero.
Outspoken seems the wrong word in your context.
Perhaps you mean outstanding.

antichrist
20-01-2004, 04:01 PM
Hotel bouncers. Whoever you are who killed David Hookes - I hope you rot in jail.

AR

Was it a right hook or a wrongem hook -- not it was a bouncer!

Apologise for sick humour about an outspoken hero.
Outspoken seems the wrong word in your context.
Perhaps you mean outstanding.

Should be outspoken outstanding hero. Today's SMH described him as outspoken which may have contributed to his death.

arosar
22-01-2004, 07:37 PM
US farmers who demand free access to world markets, yet say no to the idea of Australian farmers selling openly into their own.

AR

Kevin Bonham
23-01-2004, 09:53 PM
Aussie farmers who do the same in reverse. Indignant capitalists aboard, protectionist agrarian socialists at home.

arosar
05-02-2004, 01:25 PM
Bloody religionists! Especially the American kind.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/news/s_177795.html

AR

antichrist
11-02-2004, 02:05 PM
The weakest political act of 2003 was Howard and his thug mates blocking the path of that Green member of parliament when she wanted to present to Bush that protest against the invasion of Iraq. That photo was one chosen amongst 20 of importance during year.

I thought my 15 mins of fame (Star of David = Swastika) deserved inclusion over some that made it.

arosar
11-02-2004, 02:10 PM
Bloody NSW State Rail!

AR

PHAT
11-02-2004, 02:31 PM
Bloody NSW State Rail!

AR

What about fat bastards with angina driving trains, and incompetant lazy guards, and career politicians, and MBAs with no sense of safty, and engineers on the take.

arosar
11-02-2004, 03:20 PM
Yeah . . . line 'em up and take 'em all out the s*c_u.ms. These pollies couldn't give a scch*it about the rail system cos they know that they've got a captive market. Ba*st_ards!!

AR

Garvinator
11-02-2004, 03:34 PM
and also the pollies dont have to travel on those trains either :doh:

arosar
11-03-2004, 11:58 AM
The Howard government's decision to buy American M1A1 Abrams tanks. These tanks are far too heavy and are practically useless in our immediate theatre. Clearly, the decision was made with the idea of eternal support for US forces and action in open plains overseas - namely Mideast. A sad, sad decision: more political than addressing Australia's immediate defence needs in the region.

AR

antichrist
11-03-2004, 05:48 PM
I lost a court case yesterday for $5000, I had stat decs from honourable people saying one thing, the respondent had stat decs which I had proven full of lies, actually proven in black and white by invoices and contracts that lies yet decision went against me. The judge said inclusive. Work that one out.

Rincewind
11-03-2004, 06:39 PM
I lost a court case yesterday for $5000, I had stat decs from honourable people saying one thing, the respondent had stat decs which I had proven full of lies, actually proven in black and white by invoices and contracts that lies yet decision went against me. The judge said inclusive. Work that one out.

The law is not about finding the truth. It's just a set of rules which allow large numbers of people to live in close proximity without killing each other too much.

arosar
11-03-2004, 06:55 PM
Work that one out.

How can we? All we have is your word.

AR

skip to my lou
11-03-2004, 06:56 PM
barry: with or without?? :eh:

Rincewind
11-03-2004, 07:15 PM
barry: with or without?? :eh:

:doh:

skip to my lou
11-03-2004, 07:44 PM
hehehe I was like :hmm: that can't be right.

arosar
17-03-2004, 02:52 PM
I know a coupla of you fellas are very smart and you're really into transcendental stuff, the mysteries of life and all that. Well, there's a mystery I need to understand. Why is it that them rich private schools with their rich parents get tax payer funding? Can you figure this one out for us?

AR

eclectic
17-03-2004, 04:32 PM
I know a coupla of you fellas are very smart and you're really into transcendental stuff, the mysteries of life and all that. Well, there's a mystery I need to understand. Why is it that them rich private schools with their rich parents get tax payer funding? Can you figure this one out for us?

ARgovernments are run by the rich for the rich so of course they shall be looking after their own ;)

they probably have their families corporatised so they can run life as a loss and cry poor :rolleyes:

sorry arosar but i have the same cynicism is you seem to have :hmm:

cheers

eclectic

PHAT
17-03-2004, 04:43 PM
Vote 1 eclectic.

It is a prestige thing. The current government wants more people to be able to say, "Weee send ow childwen to a pwivate schoool." Both the Libia and the Labia federal governments have chased the votes of the chases of the Jones'.

SMASH THE PRIVATE EDUCTATION SYSTEM NOW.

(btw, I still accept their money - while they still opporate :uhoh: )

arosar
25-03-2004, 03:57 PM
The Australian Families Association wanting to ban the movie, Irreversible. Take your stupid morals somewhere else!

AR

Kevin Bonham
29-03-2004, 04:48 PM
(i) People who read broadsheet newspapers in cafes but don't put them back together correctly afterwards.

(ii) People who read the cafe's copy of a newspaper but steal it, or parts thereof.

(iii) Cafes that purchase broadsheet newspapers for their patrons but do not have tables large enough to spread them out on.

arosar
29-03-2004, 04:52 PM
Mate, how's about those inconsiderate bas*tar.ds on the trains and buses who read broadsheets and spread the whole paper out like they're all alone. HELLO!!!

AR

Alan Shore
29-03-2004, 04:56 PM
Centrelink... incompetent gits. What was it, 1.3 million errors made last year?

eclectic
29-03-2004, 05:49 PM
(i) People who read broadsheet newspapers in cafes but don't put them back together correctly afterwards.

(ii) People who read the cafe's copy of a newspaper but steal it, or parts thereof.

(iii) Cafes that purchase broadsheet newspapers for their patrons but do not have tables large enough to spread them out on.
esp ii)

those bas.tar.ds who rip out the chess section from the cafe newspaper

why, the confounded nerve of them !!!

;)

eclectic

PHAT
29-03-2004, 07:41 PM
Pundits in broadsheets who woo me then go and die. To wit: Diamond Jim McClelland and B.A. Santamaria. In recent months I have enjoyed some of Ross Gitten's ramblings. He seems to have swung away from the political right. I guess he will die soon. :eek:

Garvinator
29-03-2004, 07:44 PM
having broadsheets at all :lol: :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
30-03-2004, 04:48 AM
Centrelink... incompetent gits. What was it, 1.3 million errors made last year?

It was 1.1 million in four months. But I don't believe that, that's only one per patron every two years and everyone I know who deals with them has had far more trouble than that.

Centrelink is very much a Liberal puppy so feel free to vote against the Coalition if you hate it. Actually mishandling of welfare will be in my top 5 reasons for not voting Liberal this time around.

Garvinator
30-03-2004, 09:54 AM
Actually mishandling of welfare will be in my top 5 reasons for not voting Liberal this time around.
and the other four :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
30-03-2004, 01:45 PM
and the other four :hmm:

Um, off the top of my head:

* General moral conservatism and censorship
* Excessive involvement of religion in politics
* Dodgy foreign policy
* Tony Abbott.

Garvinator
30-03-2004, 04:57 PM
* Tony Abbott.
fair enough then :lol: ;)

Kevin Bonham
06-04-2004, 02:49 AM
I nominate:

TV stations being sloppy with their scheduling so that advertised shows start more than 10 mins late without valid reason (especially prone to happen late at night).

Alan Shore
06-04-2004, 04:02 AM
I nominate:

TV stations being sloppy with their scheduling so that advertised shows start more than 10 mins late without valid reason (especially prone to happen late at night).

Or worse, 10 mins early.. I missed the first half of Futurama once, then I wised up and tuned in 15 mins earlier for subsequent episodes.. good thing I did - cos they started 10-15 mins early from when they were scheduled every time.

ursogr8
07-04-2004, 08:45 PM
I just don’t get it.

Shane Warne takes a slimming tablet to mask a drug that could improve his flight through the air from 87kph to 88kph and he gets suspended for a year. Maybe it is a penalty related to the vanity of wanting to look good.
Dick Pound is not satisfied and calls for the penalty to be increased to 104 weeks.

A Carlton footballer arrives at training so much under the influence of recreational drugs that the coaching staff call for an ambulance for hospitalisation. The player gets a 1 week suspension from the Club. Where are you Dick Pound?

arosar
21-06-2004, 05:05 PM
These effing Australian polies who get up in bloody Parliament and quote their Christian Bible as a way of supporting their arguments/position on a particular Bill. Last week I happened to be in the toilet with me radio on and I heard one of these bastards do just that. The debate was about this anti-gay marriage Bill that the Libs are trying to pass. Thank God for Carmen Lawrence for reminding the stupid fool about church vs state dichotomy.

AR

PHAT
22-06-2004, 03:55 PM
One does not have to be a bible quoter to be opposed to gay marriage. In fact, there are plenty of reasons to not use the word marriage to describe a gay union.

ursogr8
16-08-2004, 10:06 PM
What is wrong with our diet that we cannot grow a 7 foot point guard for the National mens basketball team?
Our guys look like midgets at the Olympics.

starter

ursogr8
16-08-2004, 10:12 PM
One does not have to be a bible quoter to be opposed to gay marriage. In fact, there are plenty of reasons to not use the word marriage to describe a gay union.

The word marriage obviously confers some legal benefits on the 'happy couple'. Just which of these benefits is the anti-gay marriage lobby so unwilling to confer on a gay union. I don't think I have seen this spelt out.

starter

PHAT
16-08-2004, 10:15 PM
What is wrong with our diet that we cannot grow a 7 foot point guard for the National mens basketball team?
Our guys look like midgets at the Olympics.

starter

It isn't diet. It is simple population size. The yanks have 15 times our population. hence they will have 15 times as many 7' freaks to play bastard ball.

PHAT
16-08-2004, 10:35 PM
The word marriage obviously confers some legal benefits on the 'happy couple'. Just which of these benefits is the anti-gay marriage lobby so unwilling to confer on a gay union. I don't think I have seen this spelt out.

starter

I will spell it out.

A-l-l, o-f, t-h-e-m.


To be more cooperative I will say this:

Society has confired finanicial advantages to M/F couples (married) because such couples had/have a high likelihood for growing into a family - ie adults and their genetic offspring. Helping such a union was/is seen as a good investment in the future. These financial advantages were not accured by virtue of the fact that a boy and a girl loved eachother and wanted to share the rest of their lives in a union. These financial advantages were/are for family reasons, not life style reasons

Along come the M/M and F/F couples who have no business talking the family talk, wanting the family appropriate financial advantages. NFW! They have made a life style choice. They should not receive the benefits designed for families. It could be said that "having a family" is also a life style choice. That may or may not be so. But one thing it is, in fact, is it is being a family.

The society has no business supporting life style choices. If it did, then F it, let's give family benefits to free lovin' singles as well.

BTW. A M/F mariage should not be legally recognised until there has been a birth. Without a birth, they are just shacked up - another life style choice not requiring societal support.

Kevin Bonham
16-08-2004, 11:16 PM
We've been through Matt's claims here before.

See http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=347 from about the top of page 3 on.

In summary, I disputed Matt's claim by pointing out both that many M/F couples do not breed and that this has always been a part, however small at times, of the concept of marriage, and also that some gay couples do wish to raise children. Matt attempted to prove that children of gay parents suffered abnormally, but one of his papers quoted to that purpose was both from a biased source and grievously flawed in method, while the other showed that harm experienced by children of lesbian parents was down to social prejudice and not any intrinsic disadvantage of the environment.


BTW. A M/F mariage should not be legally recognised until there has been a birth. Without a birth, they are just shacked up - another life style choice not requiring societal support.

What specific "societal support" is conferred to CBC married couples, at a cost to others, that in your view should not be?

Rincewind
16-08-2004, 11:28 PM
The lack of support for gay/les marriages by policy makers seems nothing more than a victory by the religious right to scare the white middle Australian legislature into into balking at the gay marriage gate and thereby (in their minds) help socially de-engineer the homosexual phenomenon.

However, it would seem to be much ado about very little at all. The Netherlands, for example, has had gay marriage for many years and has not (to my knowledge) been consumed into a firey pit.

This hetero only policy that Matt keeps sprouting seems a tad askant to me. Since when has Australian policy makers openly admitted to provide financial INCENTIVES to adopt a particular sexual preference? Sure "family assistance" and countless other initiatives could be cynically analysed as such, but they have always been couched in terms of social support of a economically disadvantaged demographic, not engineering a particular domestic profile.

Mat, exactly which soup kitchen are you worried these married gay freeloaders will start queuing up at?

PHAT
16-08-2004, 11:58 PM
Matt attempted to prove that children of gay parents suffered abnormally, but one of his papers quoted to that purpose was both from a biased source and grievously flawed in method, while the other showed that harm experienced by children of lesbian parents was down to social prejudice and not any intrinsic disadvantage of the environment.

We are not looking at gay parenting here. It is an obfuscate ploy on your part to introduce it. The topic is gay marriage, dicko.




What specific "societal support" is conferred to CBC married couples, at a cost to others, that in your view should not be?

i am not concerned about what is conferred so much as what would be conferred. Super annuation entitlements, decessed estates claims, spousal rebates, spousal work related accompanyment allowances et cetera.

Now do us all a favour and tell us, what benefit would society receive if it were to grant gay married couples the financial benefit s that now go to M/F couples with children?

PHAT
17-08-2004, 12:06 AM
The lack of support for gay/les marriages by policy makers seems nothing more than a victory by the religious right ...

However, it would seem to be much ado about very little at all. The Netherlands, for example, has had gay marriage for many years and has not (to my knowledge) been consumed into a firey pit.

I never said it was Sodomy and Gimmemora. I say that there is no benefit in giving gay marriage the nod. To the contary, it is allocation of societies surplus to not (re)productive relms.


Since when has Australian policy makers openly admitted to provide financial INCENTIVES to adopt a particular sexual preference?
Never. So what?


Sure "family assistance" and countless other initiatives could be cynically analysed as such, but they have always been couched in terms of social support of a economically disadvantaged demographic, not engineering a particular domestic profile.

Exactly. Why give money to gay couples to replace their crusty futon when there are kids who go to school without breakfast.

Kevin Bonham
17-08-2004, 03:47 AM
We are not looking at gay parenting here. It is an obfuscate ploy on your part to introduce it. The topic is gay marriage, dicko.

The topic will soon become your inability to follow a simple argument if you don't devote more effort to focusing and less to trying to expand your vocab from four letter words to five. You argued that same-sex couples "have no business talking the family talk" and I was reminding you that this is false and we have been round that block before. Therefore the obfuscator is you. :hand:


i am not concerned about what is conferred so much as what would be conferred. Super annuation entitlements, decessed estates claims, spousal rebates, spousal work related accompanyment allowances et cetera.

Largely just natural justice anyway. A person (who is not especially wealthy) should be allowed to give their assets to someone they dearly love when they die, irrespective of reproduction.


Now do us all a favour and tell us, what benefit would society receive if it were to grant gay married couples the financial benefit s that now go to M/F couples with children?

Firstly, let's compare like with like here - no one is suggesting that childless GLBTI married couples receive all the financial benefits specific to straight marriages with children.

Second, I'm not entirely keen on the way you talk about "society" receiving a benefit. I don't believe there is any useful concept of social benefit that isn't ultimately reducible to benefits to individuals. Your concept of social benefit almost always seems to be ultimately reducible to benefits to yourself and people like you.

That said the benefits of granting marriage entitlements (whether called "marriage" or not) include:

(*) Simple natural justice and financial security for same sex couples based on improved will arrangements. In my view this benefit is conclusive by itself.

(*) Greater career choice flexibility for same sex couples based on the above, which might even make them less likely to bother outcompeting members of straight couples for a job. John "keep the spouse at home to kep the unemployment rate down" Howard should approve.

(*) Greater emotional security for relatives of same sex couples arising from the above.

(*) As previously observed, GLBTI people often have high disposable incomes and are also often highly skilled. A nation which adopts progressive legislation in these areas has a competitive advantage in attracting their skills and hence their disposable income. It may also have a competitive advantage in attracting other skilled people among "the creative classes" - read an interesting paper by ANZ bank economist Saul Eslake on this subject a while back, but annoyingly can't find it right now.

Now Matt, can you find me any economist who would view your "not married until you breed" proposal as being anything other than an economic and social disaster in the making, from any viewpoint other than the wallet of M. Sweeney?

Rincewind
17-08-2004, 04:01 PM
Exactly. Why give money to gay couples to replace their crusty futon when there are kids who go to school without breakfast.

The queston is, will allowing gay marriage cause any EXTRA kids to go to school without breakfast? I think you will have a hard time providing a reasonable argument that it will.

PHAT
17-08-2004, 04:48 PM
A person (who is not especially wealthy) should be allowed to give their assets to someone they dearly love when they die, irrespective of reproduction.
Agreed. However, society ought not be paying, for example, a war widow's pension to a childless gay lord.


Second, I'm not entirely keen on the way you talk about "society" receiving a benefit. I don't believe there is any useful concept of social benefit that isn't ultimately reducible to benefits to individuals.

You and Baroness Margaret Thatcher should get on smashingly when you meet in the firy pits of hell.


Your concept of social benefit almost always seems to be ultimately reducible to benefits to yourself and people like you.

What do you mean by "people like you?"


That said the benefits of granting marriage entitlements (whether called "marriage" or not) include:

(1) Simple natural justice and financial security for same sex couples based on improved will arrangements. In my view this benefit is conclusive by itself.

(2) Greater career choice flexibility for same sex couples based on the above, which might even make them less likely to bother outcompeting members of straight couples for a job. John "keep the spouse at home to kep the unemployment rate down" Howard should approve.

(3) Greater emotional security for relatives of same sex couples arising from the above.

(4) As previously observed, GLBTI people often have high disposable incomes and are also often highly skilled. A nation which adopts progressive legislation in these areas has a competitive advantage in attracting their skills and hence their disposable income. It may also have a competitive advantage in attracting other skilled people among "the creative classes" - read an interesting paper by ANZ bank economist Saul Eslake on this subject a while back, but annoyingly can't find it right now.

1. You argue that there are no such things as absoute morals. Natural justice is a moral, is it not! Therefore your arguement falls flat on its hypocritical face.

2. This argument flows, as you say from the first point. Thus #2 is also a non-argument

3. :lol: You must be kidding, right. Society should shell out for Uncle Mary so his nieces and nephews can sleep at night? :lol: Pathetic.

4. This is highly offensive to straights. Saying, "GLBTI people often have high disposable incomes and are also often highly skilled," is just like saying Blacks have natural rythm Jews natural intelligence. So, where is your evidence, or is it PC stereotyping of queers as oh-so-taaaaalented.


Now Matt, can you find me any economist who would view your "not married until you breed" proposal as being anything other than an economic and social disaster in the making...

Where the F did this question come from? Since you want bring economist into this (at your own peril), go ahead, find us an economist who would say, "not married until you breed" is an "economic and social disaster."


...from any viewpoint other than the wallet of M. Sweeney?
ad hominae. Also it is not sound to argue that an old pinko argues from the soapbox of selfishness. :hand:

Kevin Bonham
17-08-2004, 08:05 PM
Agreed. However, society ought not be paying, for example, a war widow's pension to a childless gay lord.

In that case, society should not be paying a war widow's pension to a childless straight lord, or a straight lord with children either. Correct?


You and Baroness Margaret Thatcher should get on smashingly when you meet in the firy pits of hell.

Red card: guilt by association. The problem with Thatcher was not her view about society, but her selection of which individuals to care and not care about.


What do you mean by "people like you?"

Breeders. (And see below, at the bottom).


1. You argue that there are no such things as absoute morals. Natural justice is a moral, is it not! Therefore your arguement falls flat on its hypocritical face.

This rubbish has been disposed of before. Please do not insult your own intelligence by ever saying it again. I can have a subjective preference for natural justice without believing it is an objective logical necessity. I can also say that it is a strong enough reason for me to consider the case closed, without necessarily expecting you to agree.


2. This argument flows, as you say from the first point. Thus #2 is also a non-argument

This refutation follows, as you imply, from the first refutation. Thus it is also a non-refutation. :sleeping:


3. :lol: You must be kidding, right. Society should shell out for Uncle Mary so his nieces and nephews can sleep at night? :lol: Pathetic.

The only thing "pathetic" here is the way you can demonstrate such a lack of compassion after earlier trying to label me as antisocial. You also expect society to make some allowance for you when you've bred above replacement level in a country which according to some ecologists should be reducing its population, not increasing it. If I had your unsympathetic approach to many of those who differ from myself, I would be calling for you to be locked up for that.


4. This is highly offensive to straights.

Don't be silly, I'm straight and I'm not offended at all. You never cared whether things you said offended people so why should I?


Saying, "GLBTI people often have high disposable incomes and are also often highly skilled," is just like saying Blacks have natural rythm Jews natural intelligence. So, where is your evidence, or is it PC stereotyping of queers as oh-so-taaaaalented.

IIRC you've used high gay disposable incomes as a stick to bash them with previously so the "PC streotyping", if it existed, is also yours. :hand:

Gay people are more likely to have high disposable incomes and a wider range of professional skills simply because they are less likely to breed and therefore less likely to have to sacrifice income and career development for the sake of childrearing. This has nothing to do with political correctness whatsoever. The same applies to straight CBCs.


Where the F did this question come from? Since you want bring economist into this (at your own peril), go ahead, find us an economist who would say, "not married until you breed" is an "economic and social disaster."

I could probably do that if I had to, but I don't. You required me to list advantages of gay marriage-type entitlements. I am now requiring you to convince me that your proposal is sound. Your turn to face the onus - and you run away. :lol:


ad hominae.

Last time I looked it was called deconstruction. You should know the style but you're not very good at it.


Also it is not sound to argue that an old pinko argues from the soapbox of selfishness. :hand:

Well, I will talk to the hand then. It's likely to be a lot more perceptive than that lump between your ears.

Matthew's hand: please tell the head that controls you that its pretences of pinko generality are curiously and very suspiciously confined only to others who share its own social condition, and hence may well be self-serving - as evidenced by a constant stream of at times genuinely intolerant abuse against the gay, the childless, the rich, those who went to private schools, all other classes, the ACF, the NSWCA ...

(Let me guess - the hand talks back by raising a finger in my direction? Let's face it, that's all you've got left on this one.)

Cat
19-08-2004, 12:01 AM
Gay people are more likely to have high disposable incomes and a wider range of professional skills simply because they are less likely to breed and therefore less likely to have to sacrifice income and career development for the sake of childrearing. This has nothing to do with political correctness whatsoever. The same applies to straight CBCs.




The problem for you KB is that you still can't get your head around the fact that this is not a matter of ownership. One cannot in our society and hopefully never will, simply purchase the right to parenthood regardless of one's suitability. Because a child is not, as you presume, an inanimate object to be used and abused as one desires and thankfully there will always be people like me looking at people like you (non-breeders) to determine their suitability to enter our breeders club, and hell will freeze over before (in our society) people like me let people like you treat our kids as base commodities.

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2004, 01:11 AM
Oh look, Matt's tag-team bosom buddy's here with a burst of mindless trolling again. Gee whiz, what a surprise.


The problem for you KB is that you still can't get your head around the fact that this is not a matter of ownership.

The problem for you is that what you are saying is 100.000% irrelevant to all the preceding discussion. There are many ways that GLBTI families raise children that have nothing to do with ownership or commerce, and in any case we were discussing marriage.


One cannot in our society and hopefully never will, simply purchase the right to parenthood regardless of one's suitability.

Absolute rot. Ever heard of mail-order brides, just to give one example?


Because a child is not, as you presume, an inanimate object to be used and abused as one desires

I do not presume anything except that you are too low a troll to retract this stupid garbage.


and thankfully there will always be people like me looking at people like you (non-breeders) to determine their suitability to enter our breeders club,

I think you'll find I long ago made that decision for myself.


and hell will freeze over before (in our society) people like me let people like you treat our kids as base commodities.

Save yourself the effort, the market will take care of that. Any organism sharing genetic material with you would be worthless as a commodity. :hand:

Cat
19-08-2004, 01:22 AM
Oh look, Matt's tag-team bosom buddy's here with a burst of mindless trolling again. Gee whiz, what a surprise.

I do not presume anything except that you are too low a troll to retract this stupid garbage.


Save yourself the effort, the market will take care of that. Any organism sharing genetic material with you would be worthless as a commodity. :hand:

Abuse is the refuge of the intellectually bancrupt. Welcome to Billsville, KB!

Bill Gletsos
19-08-2004, 01:39 AM
Abuse is the refuge of the intellectually bancrupt. Welcome to Billsville, KB!
You are a joke.
You accuse Kevin of abuse yet you abused him first when you said:

hell will freeze over before (in our society) people like me let people like you treat our kids as base commodities.

That sure wasnt praise you fool.

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2004, 01:41 AM
Abuse is the refuge of the intellectually bancrupt.

No, cliched, empirically falsified envy-driven drivel like yours is.

Friederich Nietzsche
HL Mencken
Tony Miles (!)
Oscar Wilde
William Shakespeare

All of these people were invariably meek as a lamb towards their intellectual inferiors and I am sure you would not have ever encountered any difficulties in a debate on any topic with any of them. :hmm:

Do you whine that capturing pieces is the refuge of the intellectually bankrupt every time you lose a game?

You really are a patzer at this.

Cat
19-08-2004, 09:58 AM
You are a joke.
You accuse Kevin of abuse yet you abused him first when you said:


That sure wasnt praise you fool.

Why is it that just about every post you get involved with Bill, degenerates into purile mudslinging? Say something of value or say nothing at all!

Cat
19-08-2004, 10:10 AM
No, cliched, empirically falsified envy-driven drivel like yours is.

Friederich Nietzsche
HL Mencken
Tony Miles (!)
Oscar Wilde
William Shakespeare

All of these people were invariably meek as a lamb towards their intellectual inferiors and I am sure you would not have ever encountered any difficulties in a debate on any topic with any of them. :hmm:



Why KB, you've been doing some reading, very impressive. But what have any of these individuals got to do with you?

So KB, you have nothing further of value to add to the subject? Nil, zilche, zero. I take it as complete capitulation that you cannot construct a single syllable to support your flimsy arguments. Think hard, think deep KB and tell yourself 'I can do better'.

Bill Gletsos
19-08-2004, 12:27 PM
Why is it that just about every post you get involved with Bill, degenerates into purile mudslinging?
As usual you ignore/miss the point of the post.
You accuse Kevin of abuse yet you abused him.
Of course Kevin doesnt need me to support him, he can make you look like a goose all by himself.


Say something of value or say nothing at all!
If you were to follow your own advice, then you would never be able to post.

antichrist
19-08-2004, 01:04 PM
KB:
No, cliched, empirically falsified envy-driven drivel like yours is.

Friederich Nietzsche
HL Mencken
Tony Miles (!)
Oscar Wilde
William Shakespeare

All of these people were invariably meek as a lamb towards their intellectual inferiors and I am sure you would not have ever encountered any difficulties in a debate on any topic with any of them
__________________________________________

Was Neitzsche really meek towards inferior Christians, certainly not their beliefs!

Cat
19-08-2004, 02:24 PM
KB:
No, cliched, empirically falsified envy-driven drivel like yours is.

Friederich Nietzsche
HL Mencken
Tony Miles (!)
Oscar Wilde
William Shakespeare

All of these people were invariably meek as a lamb towards their intellectual inferiors and I am sure you would not have ever encountered any difficulties in a debate on any topic with any of them
__________________________________________

Was Neitzsche really meek towards inferior Christians, certainly not their beliefs!

He was trying to be sardonic.

PHAT
19-08-2004, 03:38 PM
Oi! Bill! WTF R U doing on this thread. You don't talk about any topic other than chess because chess is rules based. We are talking about difficult things here - not realy your forte. So, pick up your abacus and POQ.

Bill Gletsos
19-08-2004, 03:45 PM
Oi! Bill! WTF R U doing on this thread. You don't talk about any topic other than chess because chess is rules based. We are talking about difficult things here - not realy your forte.
So, pick up your abacus and POQ.
On that basis you should follow your own advice and POQ in the chess threads since it is abundantly clear to everyone that chess certainly isnt your forte.

PHAT
19-08-2004, 04:37 PM
In that case, society should not be paying a war widow's pension to a childless straight lord, or a straight lord with children either. Correct?

Not correct. That penison should not be for the childless. Society ought to support those things that are "good for the species"/group.




Red card: guilt by association. The problem with Thatcher was not her view about society, but her selection of which individuals to care and not care about.

You can shove that red card up your arse. You are "guilty" by your own words. "I'm not entirely keen on the way you talk about "society" receiving a benefit. I don't believe there is any useful concept of social benefit that isn't ultimately reducible to benefits to individuals." - KB

You may think you want to live with the social interaction of reptiles, but I will pick company for comfort and safty.


I can have a subjective preference for natural justice without believing it is an objective logical necessity. I can also say that it is a strong enough reason for me to consider the case closed, without necessarily expecting you to agree.

If your "subjective preference" does not equate with "objective necessity", then you are fully duplicitous. You are unreliable in that nobody can trust you. You will choose a subjective over an objective course, or vica versa, at a whim. You cannot ever hold yourself accountable for your own actions. That fits nicely with your amorality.

You may think yourself to be self-actualised, but realy you are just a selfish pr.ck.


You also expect society to make some allowance for you when you've bred above replacement level in a country which according to some ecologists should be reducing its population, not increasing it.

Show us where I have asked for "some allowance" for my "above replacemnt." Show it or withdraw it.


Don't be silly, I'm straight and I'm not offended at all. You never cared whether things you said offended people so why should I?

Now that is your own double barrel fired straight through your soft pallet.

1. Just because you aren't offended it doesn't mean others are not. And for you to say to those offended people. Don't be silly," just shows you up as the unempathetic baby you are.

2. If you think my behaviour is poor, don't be suck a baby as to use it asa cynical exuse to also behave poorly.

(I note your propensity to attack people who slip and demonstrate imperfect debating technique. But, boy, you the second worst offender here - BG being the supreme god of infant quality arguement.




IIRC you've used high gay disposable incomes as a stick to bash them with previously so the "PC streotyping", if it existed, is also yours. :hand:

IIRC, no I didn't. I was talking about CBC (childless by choicers). Furthermore It was not "high" disposable income, it was any income that that spent on consumer wants instead of the children they do not have.


Gay people are more likely to have high disposable incomes and a wider range of professional skills simply because they are less likely to breed and therefore less likely to have to sacrifice income and career development for the sake of childrearing.

But that is not what you said, is it. You said, "GLBTI people often have high disposable incomes and are also often highly skilled. " The inference here is that non-queers are less wealthy and less skilled.


[Your] pretences of pinko generality are curiously and very suspiciously confined only to others who share its own social condition, and hence may well be self-serving

Couriously? Maybe
Suspiciously? Nobody is hanged for being a suspect.
Self-serving? Could be - but it isn't my style.


... - as evidenced by a constant stream of at times genuinely intolerant abuse against the gay,

I hope you are not accusing me of being a poofta basher. While I find their "methods" repulsive :sick:, I think it is entirely their business.


the childless, the rich, those who went to private schools, all other classes, the ACF, the NSWCA ...

kitchen sink too.


(Let me guess - the hand talks back by raising a finger in my direction? Let's face it, that's all you've got left on this one.)

naa. Try this one :thumdown:

PHAT
19-08-2004, 04:40 PM
On that basis you should follow your own advice and POQ in the chess threads since it is abundantly clear to everyone that chess certainly isnt your forte.

And NSWCA the presidency is another weakness that needs attention. Abdicate now with your toy-boy KB.

Bill Gletsos
19-08-2004, 05:34 PM
And NSWCA the presidency is another weakness that needs attention. Abdicate now with your toy-boy KB.
This is good coming from someone who did nothing whilst they were on the Council.
I do more in a week than you did in 6mths.

PHAT
19-08-2004, 05:54 PM
This is good coming from someone who did nothing whilst they were on the Council.


[yawn] Build a bridge - get over it. :hand:

Bill Gletsos
19-08-2004, 06:16 PM
[yawn] Build a bridge - get over it. :hand:
Everytime you criticise a do'er I'll remind everyone what a do nothing joke you were as a council member. :hand:

antichrist
19-08-2004, 07:38 PM
I felt like saying this a week ago but the gays don't know how luck they are not being able to marry. Don't know when they are on a good thing.

PHAT
19-08-2004, 07:46 PM
Everytime you criticise a do'er I'll remind everyone what a do nothing joke you were as a council member. :hand:

And every time I get a chance I'll let people know how many people refuse to have anything to do with the NSWCA council because of you.

Bill Gletsos
19-08-2004, 07:52 PM
And every time I get a chance I'll let people know how many people refuse to have anything to do with the NSWCA council because of you.
You made that claim previously, but couldnt back it up.
You implied Charles Z wouldnt, but there is no truth in that.
Charles and I get on well together.
In fact if he wouldnt be on council because of anyone it would be you.
Of course that situation would no longer be an obstacle, So hopefully he might return to the Council next year in some capacity.

As usual all you are doing is making unsubstantiated accusations.
When I say you did nothing whilst on council thats backed up by actual facts.

PHAT
19-08-2004, 08:21 PM
You made that claim previously, but couldnt back it up.
You implied Charles Z wouldnt, but there is no truth in that.
Charles and I get on well together.


I have not named any names - for obvious reasons. You are the one giving names in a frantic and shrill attempt to cover your arse as the resident room clearer.

Bill Gletsos
19-08-2004, 08:24 PM
I have not named any names - for obvious reasons.
Yes, because they are unsubstantiated heresay on your part.
Your credability is zero.
You are a load mouthed critic who did nothing.


You are the one giving names in a frantic and shrill attempt to cover your arse as the resident room clearer.
If there was anyone people would not want to work with its you.

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2004, 09:19 PM
Why KB, you've been doing some reading, very impressive. But what have any of these individuals got to do with you?

They have to do with your general claim that abuse is the refuge of "the intellectually bankrupt". You did not specifically limit this claim to me - hence the examples of people who used abuse freely in their writing and who, just like me and perhaps even more so, would kick you around the paddock in a debate on almost any subject other than medicine.


So KB, you have nothing further of value to add to the subject? Nil, zilche, zero. I take it as complete capitulation that you cannot construct a single syllable to support your flimsy arguments. Think hard, think deep KB and tell yourself 'I can do better'.

This is simply pitiful random blather with not a shred of argument behind it.

What you take as capitulation is irrelevant because your comments on the offtopic section are almost invariably deluded whether they are trolling or not.

You are a serious waste of bandwidth and your degree of denial about your staggering lack of any form of online talent makes you a close intellectual cousin of the limbless knight from the Monty Python film.

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2004, 09:58 PM
Not correct. That penison should not be for the childless. Society ought to support those things that are "good for the species"/group.

I disagree. Why should those who are already more wealthy than they can possibly need to be be sponsored to breed? It is very strange to see a supposed anti-capitalist like yourself defending such wastes of state money.


You can shove that red card up your arse. You are "guilty" by your own words. "I'm not entirely keen on the way you talk about "society" receiving a benefit. I don't believe there is any useful concept of social benefit that isn't ultimately reducible to benefits to individuals." - KB

You may think you want to live with the social interaction of reptiles, but I will pick company for comfort and safty.

No view about what form of social interaction I prefer follows from what I said. I was simply stating that society is nothing more than a collection of individuals. Whether one supports a communist praxis, a capitalist one, or any other, at the end of the day there is still no useful measure of social wellbeing that is not reducible to the conditions of individuals and their future prospects. So there is no need for you to be so hysterical just because you have been called on an invalid arguing tactic again.

PS Some reptiles are actually quite communal.


If your "subjective preference" does not equate with "objective necessity", then you are fully duplicitous. You are unreliable in that nobody can trust you. You will choose a subjective over an objective course, or vica versa, at a whim. You cannot ever hold yourself accountable for your own actions. That fits nicely with your amorality.

I do hold myself accountable for my actions because I have to live with their consequences for myself and anyone or anything I care about - instead of whitewashing them with excuses about moral duty or religious necessity.

I would argue that many objective moralists cannot be absolutely trusted either. Many of them suddenly go against commandments they have claimed to hold all their life, others profess one code while living another, still others change their views in a crisis.


You may think yourself to be self-actualised, but realy you are just a selfish pr.ck.

I can be selfish or altruistic, it depends.


Show us where I have asked for "some allowance" for my "above replacemnt." Show it or withdraw it.

That is not what I said. I said that you expect some allowance for breeding and that you breed above replacement - not that you expected some allowance specifically for kids beyond #2.


1. Just because you aren't offended it doesn't mean others are not. And for you to say to those offended people. Don't be silly," just shows you up as the unempathetic baby you are.

The babies are those who get offended without good reason. Such people deserve no empathy.


2. If you think my behaviour is poor, don't be suck a baby as to use it asa cynical exuse to also behave poorly.

I question that my behaviour on that issue is in any sense poor - I am simply pointing out your incoherence.


I note your propensity to attack people who slip and demonstrate imperfect debating technique.

What's wrong with that, when they persistently refuse to make any effort to improve their standards?


IIRC, no I didn't. I was talking about CBC (childless by choicers).

Hmmm, it's still my impression that you've used the odd cliche disparaging gays for their wealth, but I won't insist on it unless I have time to check through all the old threads.


Furthermore It was not "high" disposable income, it was any income that that spent on consumer wants instead of the children they do not have.

OK, high disposable income after expenditure on children. You can have your correction, but if I asked for a similar one from you, you would spend weeks wailing to yourself about me being a cruel and vicious pedant.


But that is not what you said, is it.

Yes it is.


You said, "GLBTI people often have high disposable incomes and are also often highly skilled. " The inference here is that non-queers are less wealthy and less skilled.

As a statistical average one would surely follow from the other? :hmm:

(Bear in mind my correction to disposable income above here too.)


Self-serving? Could be - but it isn't my style.

I don't believe you, convince me. Please note that the same standard of scepticism you have applied to my motives will be applied to yours ... and then some. :P


I hope you are not accusing me of being a poofta basher. While I find their "methods" repulsive :sick:, I think it is entirely their business.

Then let them marry each other and have the same rights as straight couples with the same family situation. You probably don't even agree that straight couples should have those rights, but you still have no excuse for supporting discrimination based on something which is "entirely their business".

Note that you also use a word which is offensive to many in the gay community - so much for your claims about empathy above.


naa. Try this one :thumdown:

Same difference. Go sit in the corner and suck on it. :P

Cat
20-08-2004, 11:14 AM
They have to do with your general claim that abuse is the refuge of "the intellectually bankrupt". You did not specifically limit this claim to me - hence the examples of people who used abuse freely in their writing and who, just like me and perhaps even more so, would kick you around the paddock in a debate on almost any subject other than medicine.



This is simply pitiful random blather with not a shred of argument behind it.

What you take as capitulation is irrelevant because your comments on the offtopic section are almost invariably deluded whether they are trolling or not.

You are a serious waste of bandwidth and your degree of denial about your staggering lack of any form of online talent makes you a close intellectual cousin of the limbless knight from the Monty Python film.

Gee's, thanks KB. It's the biggest compliment I could recieve from you (& Bill) that you can no longer engage me in a debate and you're both reduced to scurrilous name-calling whenever I challenge your limited logos. Keep the accolades coming!

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2004, 07:29 PM
Gee's, thanks KB. It's the biggest compliment I could recieve from you (& Bill) that you can no longer engage me in a debate and you're both reduced to scurrilous name-calling whenever I challenge your limited logos. Keep the accolades coming!

There's nothing to engage at the moment - you're just bleating about like a wounded lost sheep and not providing any evidence. Try actually arguing your case for a change. :wall:

Cat
20-08-2004, 08:13 PM
There's nothing to engage at the moment - you're just bleating about like a wounded lost sheep and not providing any evidence. Try actually arguing your case for a change. :wall:

Oh stop it, its too much! I don't deserve that much respect. Try hard, you can think of something.

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2004, 08:26 PM
I don't deserve that much respect.

An unfortunate ambiguity there. :rolleyes:

Cat
20-08-2004, 11:44 PM
An unfortunate ambiguity there. :rolleyes:


Nothing unfortunate about it, I work hard to develop ambiguity, its what makes things interesting.

antichrist
16-09-2004, 03:01 PM
In the last census I nominated my occupation as drug runner but alas it is not registered as an occupation in results. Can anyone help out.

Spiny Norman
16-09-2004, 05:22 PM
In the last census I nominated my occupation as drug runner but alas it is not registered as an occupation in results. Can anyone help out.


On certain Bureau of Statistics reports in the past I have been known to categorise transations as trading in "fish and fish-related products".

Wonder what that does to their export statistics???

Frosty

peanbrain
16-09-2004, 08:52 PM
In the last census I nominated my occupation as drug runner but alas it is not registered as an occupation in results. Can anyone help out.

even census collector knows antichrist too stupid to be a drug dealer. Next time try "deadman walking" as your profession. :dead: :alien:

arosar
17-09-2004, 03:23 PM
F**kin state and federal governments who can't bloody agree on how to manage our water resource.

AR

antichrist
18-09-2004, 03:11 PM
There is a great marketing opportunity been missed here. In the old days Tommy Raudonakis would have that rowing Robbins girl and the one who biffed her (Oliver?) trading punches in the Sydney Opera House to a packed house.

Definitely un-Austalian that quitter.

peanbrain
19-09-2004, 07:14 AM
Definitely un-Austalian that quitter.

Leave that poor girl alone!

what would antichrist know about "australian" anyway??!! :whistle:

Kaitlin
19-09-2004, 09:53 AM
Snot :eek:

antichrist
19-09-2004, 12:39 PM
Leave that poor girl alone!

what would antichrist know about "australian" anyway??!! :whistle:

Reply: as soon as she stopped rowing they should have chucked her out so that they don't have any deadweight holding them back.

She is now useless in rowing she may as well make some money from her 15 minutes of fame. She could take on the whole team one after the other, and if she is still standing then she has earnt her place back again.

Garvinator
19-09-2004, 07:18 PM
Reply: as soon as she stopped rowing they should have chucked her out so that they don't have any deadweight holding them back.

She is now useless in rowing she may as well make some money from her 15 minutes of fame. She could take on the whole team one after the other, and if she is still standing then she has earnt her place back again.
im pretty sure that are a few ppl who would pay money to have the opportunity to do the same to you.

arosar
20-09-2004, 10:19 AM
Reply: as soon as she stopped rowing they should have chucked her out so that they don't have any deadweight holding them back.

She is now useless in rowing she may as well make some money from her 15 minutes of fame. She could take on the whole team one after the other, and if she is still standing then she has earnt her place back again.

You're an idiot Peter. It was more 'unAustralian' for her team-mates to have treated Robbins so badly. Did you know that a Canadian male rower did exactly the same thing as Sally did? But the Canadian team behaved badly? NO!!

AR

Garvinator
20-09-2004, 10:41 AM
You're an idiot Peter. It was more 'unAustralian' for her team-mates to have treated Robbins so badly. Did you know that a Canadian male rower did exactly the same thing as Sally did? But the Canadian team behaved badly? NO!!

AR
robbins is getting everything she deserves from her team mates, i have no sympathy for her. That being said, team management and the rowing coach have stuffed up big time in this situation, which has been pointed out before with stuff like, why wasnt the rowing coach right with the team as they got out of the water? How did the media get to the rowers before team management etc.

antichrist
20-09-2004, 06:14 PM
im pretty sure that are a few ppl who would pay money to have the opportunity to do the same to you.

Often in life there has been a queue to have a go at me. So when a newcomer comes along I tell them to get at the end of the line, that all those other people are ahead of him.

arosar
21-09-2004, 12:31 PM
Little Johny Howard's plan to take preemptive strike on sovereign soil of our neighbours. This rat is becoming more like Bush clone every f**kin' week!

AR

ursogr8
21-09-2004, 01:05 PM
Little Johny Howard's plan to take preemptive strike on sovereign soil of our neighbours. This rat is becoming more like Bush clone every f**kin' week!

AR

Amiel

Your words would have a more profound effect if you posted to
'libadm@liberal.org.au'
instead of this thread.

starter

PHAT
21-09-2004, 03:43 PM
Easy access is

:D libadm@liberal.org.au

ursogr8
21-09-2004, 05:42 PM
Easy access is

:D libadm@liberal.org.au

How did you do that?

skip to my lou
21-09-2004, 05:47 PM
[email]libadm@liberal.org.au[/email]

antichrist
21-09-2004, 10:43 PM
Did dumb and dumber get wiped? I thought it was a good title and we could add to it over time. Gee I have some dumb ideas sometimes.

antichrist
23-09-2004, 07:23 PM
KB, if you have locked the Dumb and Dumber thread you may as well wipe it out. Does not worry me. I had no idea what Bruce was on about, do this and don't do that. Thanks all the same Bruce.

Rincewind
24-09-2004, 06:10 PM
I know a coupla of you fellas are very smart and you're really into transcendental stuff, the mysteries of life and all that. Well, there's a mystery I need to understand. Why is it that them rich private schools with their rich parents get tax payer funding? Can you figure this one out for us?

Did you see the Democrats launched their education policy today?

ursogr8
10-11-2004, 04:44 PM
As Amiel has often observed, our freedoms should be cherished and protected. He went further recently and said


That this is unmoderated by the mods means that we have to moderate ourselves. Simple really.

AR



And yet when the rights of respected member gg’’ were trampled on by Jeo, just because Jeo has software power he has assumed to himself, then the mark was overstepped.

Out went gg’’ from the FORUM.
The words were, verbatim, >


F.O! ok, ggrayggray access has been removed.



(Don’t be confused by the lack of Jeo’s name in this quote………he is adept at wiping the trail clean after each crime).


I waited a little while to see Amiel step in and fight for gg’’ ‘s rights. Or at least to see him bring Jeo to heel for this censorious abuse of power.


I waited a little while to see gg’’ stand up for himself. But then I realised he was mates with his Mt B. IT builder………..and he was willing to trade his ‘right to speak’ for the ‘services of a ban-happy volunteer’.

I waited a little while to see Bill bring Jeo to his senses. But Bill just shrugs his shoulders and says

Sometimes he just doesnt know when to keep his mouth shut. :hand:

Not good enough Bill. There are matters of principle at stake here.



I waited a little while to see eclectic’s acerbic observation bring reason to the table and Jeo to see his folly. But the shoutbox just listed
“... except for the links to nowhere ....


It seemed that eclectic was willing to let gg’’ go to the cyber-graveyard.


So, that just left me, fresh from save-the-GURU campaign, now left with an even more hopeless cause…save-the-gg’’. (Who doesn’t even want to be saved.).


Let me say it again >

gg’’ got banned in an un-moderated forum for just getting up the nose of the software-option-flicker.

This is not good enough!!
You may not like gg’’ ‘s posts.
You may not care about poor decisions by administrators.
But you have to care about gg’’ being banned.
He may be a boring banana-bender; but he is OUR boring banana-bender and he has the right to be heard.
It is beside the point that he doesn’t want to be saved.
It is beside the point that he doesn’t deserve to be saved.
It is beside the point that you don’t even know where he is banned from.
Jeo’s arbitrary banning of gg’’ must be reversed.

starter

ps Thanks Jeo for unilaterally changing my password and causing me general havoc.

Rincewind
10-11-2004, 04:50 PM
Is another interpretation of the above exchange this:

GG: I don't want access to the unmoderated board
STML: OK, access removed
GG: Thanks.

?

ursogr8
10-11-2004, 04:57 PM
Is another interpretation of the above exchange this:

GG: I don't want access to the unmoderated board
STML: OK, access removed
GG: Thanks.

?

How does FO become OK?

eclectic
10-11-2004, 05:10 PM
Is another interpretation of the above exchange this:

GG: I don't want access to the unmoderated board
STML: OK, access removed
GG: Thanks.

?

STML Sub-Text MarkDown Language ?

;)

eclectic

ps wonder if someone's new incarnation is inspired by the song line

"flies in the buttermilk ... shoo fly shoo"

ie an oblique reference to annoying pests?

:whistle:

Rincewind
10-11-2004, 05:10 PM
How does FO become OK?

Idiom. (I hope I spelt that correcmly). ;)

Bill Gletsos
10-11-2004, 05:57 PM
ps Thanks Jeo for unilaterally changing my password and causing me general havoc.
Didnt you complain to him that you were having problems connecting and therefore already suffering general havoc.
Since it is reasonable to assume that STML(Jeo) doesnt know your password then the only way he can test your account is to actually change your password so he can the login using your account.

This isnt rocket science, just pretty much common sense.

skip to my lou
10-11-2004, 06:05 PM
Hello 'tart',


And yet when the rights of respected member gg’’ were trampled on by Jeo, just because Jeo has software power he has assumed to himself, then the mark was overstepped.

Out went gg’’ from the FORUM.
The words were, verbatim, >



He wished the forum death. Hopefully I intepreted his message correctly. I thought he didn't want access, and so I removed it.



(Don’t be confused by the lack of Jeo’s name in this quote………he is adept at wiping the trail clean after each crime).

Yeah, all my posts name change, everyone is able to figure out that I am Jeo, but I am still trying to hide something...,


I waited a little while to see Amiel step in and fight for gg’’ ‘s rights. Or at least to see him bring Jeo to heel for this censorious abuse of power.

I did not abuse power, stop making false statements.


I waited a little while to see gg’’ stand up for himself. But then I realised he was mates with his Mt B. IT builder………..and he was willing to trade his ‘right to speak’ for the ‘services of a ban-happy volunteer’.

GG did not stand up for himself because he wanted his access to that forum removed, and so that is what he got. I am not the "Mt B. IT builder", I am just doing the website.


I waited a little while to see Bill bring Jeo to his senses. But Bill just shrugs his shoulders and says


Not good enough Bill. There are matters of principle at stake here.

So arosar, ggrayggray and Bill did nothing... does that not mean nothing is wrong in the first place?


I waited a little while to see eclectic’s acerbic observation bring reason to the table and Jeo to see his folly. But the shoutbox just listed
“... except for the links to nowhere ....


It seemed that eclectic was willing to let gg’’ go to the cyber-graveyard.


So, that just left me, fresh from save-the-GURU campaign, now left with an even more hopeless cause…save-the-gg’’. (Who doesn’t even want to be saved.).

He doesn't want access to that forum, get it through your head!


Let me say it again >

gg’’ got banned in an un-moderated forum for just getting up the nose of the software-option-flicker.

"software-option-flicker" - You make it sound so easy, don't you? Take a look at the announcement forum. Please advise me on how to flick some options to allow posting of PGN, FEN and the several other custom functions of this forum.

:hmm: If you want to pay the price for the hardware and network that runs this forum ($5000 / Year), then I think I will make you co-software-option-flicker.


You may not care about poor decisions by administrators.

I'm sure all members care.


But you have to care about gg’’ being banned.

Once again, stop making false statements.


It is beside the point that he doesn’t want to be saved.
It is beside the point that he doesn’t deserve to be saved.
It is beside the point that you don’t even know where he is banned from.
Jeo’s arbitrary banning of gg’’ must be reversed.

ps Thanks Jeo for unilaterally changing my password and causing me general havoc.

Heh.

I changed your password to login to your account and test it, since you have claimed you are banned. Wow, what did I find when I changed your password? I found your account is fully functional. You are just trying to stir **** up. Pray that you will not be successful at it.

So all you have done here is post a load of bull****.

eclectic: you would think people would have figured it out by now huh?

Bill Gletsos
10-11-2004, 06:11 PM
Let me say it again >

gg’’ got banned in an un-moderated forum for just getting up the nose of the software-option-flicker.

This is not good enough!!
You may not like gg’’ ‘s posts.
You may not care about poor decisions by administrators.
But you have to care about gg’’ being banned.
He may be a boring banana-bender; but he is OUR boring banana-bender and he has the right to be heard.
It is beside the point that he doesn’t want to be saved.
It is beside the point that he doesn’t deserve to be saved.
It is beside the point that you don’t even know where he is banned from.
Jeo’s arbitrary banning of gg’’ must be reversed.

Firstly you say he is banned from an unmoderated forum then at the end you say "that you don’t even know where he is banned from".
Clearly its one or the other not both.

I saw the issue as fairly simple.
Its an unmoderated forum. So unless the post is defamatory then dont bother complaining about it. Jeo made this abundantly clear not only in the first post but also in response to my question.
Therefore if gg wants to complain about certain posts and not see them in the unmoderated forum then the simple solution from the admins viewpoint is to just remove gg's access to said forum. Problem solved.

The forum in question is only potentailly available to 27 people(26 after the removal of gg). GG is now simply like the 547 board posters who cannot access.

When the vote on an unmoderated forum was taken only 4 were in favour.
Its demise would be no great loss in my opinion.

Garvinator
10-11-2004, 06:30 PM
My first reply since I am a topic of discussion for the first time on here ;) If my memory is correct I said I didnt agree with a unmoderated forum and didnt want to participate in it. My access was then removed. I wasnt thrilled at this response, but I spoke to ******** in pms about it and after this discussion and after a couple of days of not having the coffee lounge I decided not to pursue it any further.

I suspect that if i asked for my ability to post on the coffee lounge to be reinstated, it might be granted.

ursogr8
10-11-2004, 06:54 PM
Idiom. (I hope I spelt that correcmly). ;)

Maybe you are correct Baz.
Nevertheless, banning is a serious action and in my view if gg'' was inviting Jeo to ban him then Jeo should have refused.
Therefore, whether your surmise is correct or not....Jeo's banning of gg'' 'gets up my nose'.

ursogr8
10-11-2004, 06:58 PM
eclectic

ps wonder if someone's new incarnation is inspired by the song line

"flies in the buttermilk ... shoo fly shoo"

ie an oblique reference to annoying pests?

:whistle:

Yes. And I don't mind if he says shoo.
But when he bans gg'', then it is an abuse of power.

I guess your use of the word 'pest' shoots down Barry's suggestion that FO was just a turn of phrase.

ursogr8
10-11-2004, 07:03 PM
Didnt you complain to him that you were having problems connecting and therefore already suffering general havoc.
Since it is reasonable to assume that STML(Jeo) doesnt know your password then the only way he can test your account is to actually change your password so he can the login using your account.

This isnt rocket science, just pretty much common sense.

Have a look Bill at the SHOUT...other posters noticed loss of functionality.
I lost the ability to post. I sent three different messages to Jeo with dialogues on errors. He then changed my password, which locked me out until I got to the location of that e-mail account (I operate 6 accounts in various locations). The password change was the last lock-out, not the first.

ursogr8
10-11-2004, 07:10 PM
He wished the forum death. Hopefully I intepreted his message correctly. I thought he didn't want access,

and so I removed it.
And I don't think you should have.





I did not abuse power, stop making false statements.

Show me on registration where we agreed to live by you banning posters just because they express contrary views to yours on posting policy.




GG did not stand up for himself because he wanted his access to that forum removed, and so that is what he got.
You could have left him to not access that forum. Banning was unnecessary and retaliative.




So arosar, ggrayggray and Bill did nothing... does that not mean nothing is wrong in the first place?
Yes. You are in the majority on this issue.




He doesn't want access to that forum, get it through your head!

I fully understand that. However, I am only objecting to his banning.




"software-option-flicker" - You make it sound so easy, don't you? Take a look at the announcement forum. Please advise me on how to flick some options to allow posting of PGN, FEN and the several other custom functions of this forum.

The PGN and FEN are things of wonder. I agree. Well done.

But, flicking a switch to ban gg'' was unnecessary.

ursogr8
10-11-2004, 07:18 PM
Firstly you say he is banned from an unmoderated forum then at the end you say "that you don’t even know where he is banned from".
Clearly its one or the other not both.
Bill
It was written in the context that some readers are not aware of the FORUM; and some are.


I saw the issue as fairly simple.
Its an unmoderated forum. So unless the post is defamatory then dont bother complaining about it.

I don't have a problem with this position of yours.


Jeo made this abundantly clear not only in the first post but also in response to my question.

Yes, it was always clear.



Therefore if gg wants to complain about certain posts and not see them in the unmoderated forum then the simple solution from the admins viewpoint is to just remove gg's access to said forum. Problem solved.

But also solving the problem is to remind gg'' not to read the Forum. Banning is a serious action; that is what gets up my nose.


The forum in question is only potentailly available to 27 people(26 after the removal of gg). GG is now simply like the 547 board posters who cannot access.

A cute argument Bill. Sure, gg'' is the same status as 547 board posters.In my view Jeo banned because he could, not because he was asked to.


When the vote on an unmoderated forum was taken only 4 were in favour.
Its demise would be no great loss in my opinion.

And I agree with this 100%.

But will you and I get banned for saying it, just as gg'' was banned? Think about it. Will we?

ursogr8
10-11-2004, 07:20 PM
My first reply since I am a topic of discussion for the first time on here ;) If my memory is correct I said I didnt agree with a unmoderated forum and didnt want to participate in it. My access was then removed. I wasnt thrilled at this response, but I spoke to ******** in pms about it and after this discussion and after a couple of days of not having the coffee lounge I decided not to pursue it any further.

So you are not thrilled but you allowed a banning.


I suspect that if i asked for my ability to post on the coffee lounge to be reinstated, it might be granted.

And I am sure it would. But the ban should not have occurred.

Alan Shore
10-11-2004, 07:22 PM
I'm with Jeo (STML) 100% on this. If you don't like something and are complaining about its existence then what's it matter if you can't access it? Leave it for those who do want it. (And yes if gg changed his mind and wanted to access it again after a quick apology for bagging it I doubt his request would be refused). It's just one of those hundreds of insignificant things a fuddy-duddy like starter would choose to make a mission out of. You can add that one to the list too mate. :hand:

eclectic
10-11-2004, 07:23 PM
interesting how the root cause of all this fuss ... "yasser arafat" rates no mention but to be sure he is not well at all, is he now?

:whistle:

:hand:

eclectic

ursogr8
10-11-2004, 07:33 PM
I'm with Jeo (STML) 100% on this. If you don't like something and are complaining about its existence then what's it matter if you can't access it? Leave it for those who do want it. (And yes if gg changed his mind and wanted to access it again after a quick apology for bagging it I doubt his request would be refused). It's just one of those hundreds of insignificant things a fuddy-duddy like starter would choose to make a mission out of. You can add that one to the list too mate. :hand:

hi BD
Did you come out of recess because you thought Jeo needed your vote?

skip to my lou
10-11-2004, 07:35 PM
Have a look Bill at the SHOUT...other posters noticed loss of functionality.
I lost the ability to post. I sent three different messages to Jeo with dialogues on errors. He then changed my password, which locked me out until I got to the location of that e-mail account (I operate 6 accounts in various locations). The password change was the last lock-out, not the first.

Other posters only saw the Coffee Lounge disappear, and then it came back. You claimed you were banned, which you were not.

skip to my lou
10-11-2004, 07:37 PM
Show me on registration where we agreed to live by you banning posters just because they express contrary views to yours on posting policy.

First, show me where I have banned someone because they have expressed contrary views to mine on posting policy.

skip to my lou
10-11-2004, 07:39 PM
ggrayggray was NOT banned. Please get your facts straight.

skip to my lou
10-11-2004, 07:42 PM
But will you and I get banned for saying it, just as gg'' was banned? Think about it. Will we?

Tell me that you don't want access to the forum and I will remove it.

skip to my lou
10-11-2004, 07:42 PM
starter, don't annoy me. I'm not in a good mood.

ursogr8
10-11-2004, 07:52 PM
First, show me where I have banned someone because they have expressed contrary views to mine on posting policy.

^^>>

F.O! ok, ggrayggray access has been removed.

ursogr8
10-11-2004, 07:54 PM
starter, don't annoy me. I'm not in a good mood.

And Jeo, I posted on this thread (see title) for the same reason. At last, something for us to agree on. ;)

skip to my lou
10-11-2004, 07:56 PM
And Jeo, I posted on this thread (see title) for the same reason. At last, something for us to agree on. ;)

The problem is, you annoying me and me annoying you, you always end up as the loser.

skip to my lou
10-11-2004, 07:57 PM
^^>>

He was not banned. Your wording is wrong.

His access was removed to that particular forum, because he wished death upon the forum, which means he does not want to be there.

skip to my lou
10-11-2004, 08:02 PM
Btw, you're making the same mistake Cordover made. Hopefully (for you of course); you don't end up in the same situation as him.

ursogr8
10-11-2004, 09:20 PM
Btw, you're making the same mistake Cordover made. Hopefully (for you of course); you don't end up in the same situation as him.

Curious of you to invite some debate in support of banned poster when you have specifically announced that this is against BB policy. I respect your right to form that policy. I may or may not agree with that policy for that individual. But this is not the thread to pursue it on. I am sure I will not contemplate the action he took.
I am only remarking that what is up my nose is the action you took because gg'' provoked you.

Garvinator
10-11-2004, 09:41 PM
Btw, you're making the same mistake Cordover made. Hopefully (for you of course); you don't end up in the same situation as him.
can you explain how starter's actions are the same as Mr Cordover actions?

skip to my lou
10-11-2004, 10:06 PM
Both of you, step back, take a deep breath, calm down, and think for one second about what you have just quoted.

:doh: How hard can it be to understand what I have said...

Bill Gletsos
10-11-2004, 10:54 PM
You could have left him to not access that forum. Banning was unnecessary and retaliative.
gg was never banned. All that did occur was that his posting rights to the Lounge were removed.

So your claim he was banned is false.

Bill Gletsos
10-11-2004, 10:56 PM
ggrayggray was NOT banned. Please get your facts straight.
Exactly correct.
Starter would appear not to know what he is talking about.

arosar
11-11-2004, 08:01 AM
F**K he's an annoying bast.ard this starter, isn't he? Let's just create a forum for himself that only he can access. He can complain to his heart's content there.

AR

Bill Gletsos
11-11-2004, 11:48 AM
can you explain how starter's actions are the same as Mr Cordover actions?
I would assume it refers to annoying the admin (ie. STML aka Jeo).

LoverNotFighter
11-11-2004, 01:50 PM
Hello,my name is Troy and I am new to chess and also new to this forum.

I have been reading the posts as a guest for some time but I now want to post a question. Who is this Jeo or Skip to My Lou? He seems to get so defensive and hypersensitive constantly and threatens members with banning to assert his authority. In my opinion a forum should be for the members to discuss any issue they want without the threat of some Nazi admin taking everything people say personally. Whoever you are, you should really get a life mate.

Troy

eclectic
11-11-2004, 02:14 PM
Hello,my name is Troy and I am new to chess and also new to this forum.

I have been reading the posts as a guest for some time but I now want to post a question. Who is this Jeo or Skip to My Lou? He seems to get so defensive and hypersensitive constantly and threatens members with banning to assert his authority. In my opinion a forum should be for the members to discuss any issue they want without the threat of some Nazi admin taking everything people say personally. Whoever you are, you should really get a life mate.

Troy

and you took the time to register so you could come on here and say that !!

and then you have the nerve to tell others to get a life

how's your life going troy, mate, whoever you are

eclectic

eclectic
11-11-2004, 02:22 PM
and you took the time to register so you could come on here and say that !!

and then you have the nerve to tell others to get a life

how's your life going troy, mate, whoever you are

eclectic

oh , and by the way

why LoverNotFighter ?

so many letters to type

i can think of something shorter

means the same in certain quarters

and it's not taken

WIMP

:whistle:

eclectic

Bill Gletsos
11-11-2004, 02:33 PM
Hello,my name is Troy and I am new to chess and also new to this forum.

I have been reading the posts as a guest for some time but I now want to post a question. Who is this Jeo or Skip to My Lou? He seems to get so defensive and hypersensitive constantly and threatens members with banning to assert his authority. In my opinion a forum should be for the members to discuss any issue they want without the threat of some Nazi admin taking everything people say personally. Whoever you are, you should really get a life mate.

Troy
Jeo aka STML is the owner/admin of the chesschat forum and related site.
If it wasnt for him the forum would not exist for you to complain about him. :doh:

Bill Gletsos
11-11-2004, 02:34 PM
and you took the time to register so you could come on here and say that !!

and then you have the nerve to tell others to get a life

how's your life going troy, mate, whoever you are

eclectic
Amazing isnt it. ;)

Bill Gletsos
11-11-2004, 02:35 PM
oh , and by the way

why LoverNotFighter ?

so many letters to type

i can think of something shorter

means the same in certain quarters

and it's not taken

WIMP

:whistle:

eclectic
I notice the five letter username starting with a g and ending with an e is also available. :lol:

Garvinator
11-11-2004, 02:38 PM
Jeo aka STML is the owner/admin of the chesschat forum and related site.
If it wasnt for him the forum would not exist for you to complain about him. :doh:
if this forum wasnt here, wouldnt we still be at the yabb board from Paul B?

eclectic
11-11-2004, 02:45 PM
I notice the five letter username starting with a g and ending with an e is also available. :lol:

bill,

i was under the impression that g***e was a reserved word with special site and forum implications and thus unable to be taken as a username

:P

:rolleyes:

eclectic

Bill Gletsos
11-11-2004, 04:45 PM
if this forum wasnt here, wouldnt we still be at the yabb board from Paul B?
You miss the point gg.
If this forum wasnt here then LoverNotFighter would not have been able to complain about Jeo because Jeo wouldnt have been the admin.

skip to my lou
11-11-2004, 05:51 PM
Hello,my name is Troy and I am new to chess and also new to this forum.

I have been reading the posts as a guest for some time but I now want to post a question. Who is this Jeo or Skip to My Lou? He seems to get so defensive and hypersensitive constantly and threatens members with banning to assert his authority. In my opinion a forum should be for the members to discuss any issue they want without the threat of some Nazi admin taking everything people say personally. Whoever you are, you should really get a life mate.

Troy

1] Who are you (middle/last name)?

2] Where are you (state)?

3] If you disagree with the policies of this forum, why did you still post here?

All I did is reply to posts about my administrative action. Starter is making false comments, and so I pointed this out.

Perhaps you are already used to administrators that sit on their arses and do nothing?

JGB
11-11-2004, 06:04 PM
Hello,my name is Troy and I am new to chess and also new to this forum.
...
Troy

I find this difficult to believe and the whole story is hard to digest.

Spiny Norman
11-11-2004, 06:32 PM
Because of all the verbosity and name-calling that goes on its no wonder that new members and guests are a tad confused.

I would hazard a guess that a substantial proportion of them don't post because they don't want to get shot down.

I readily confess that I've been a participant in my share of excited exchanges about a variety of topics ... so if it is a problem then I'm as guilty as the next person.

BTW, I'm an administrator and moderator of a message board for a public company. Some of the things Jeo/STML posts surprise me, but since he's clearly very capable from a technical perspective I'm normally happy enough to "forgive and forget" (hands across the sea and all that ... don't mention the WAR).

Alan Shore
11-11-2004, 09:35 PM
Hello,my name is Troy and I am new to chess and also new to this forum.

I have been reading the posts as a guest for some time but I now want to post a question. Who is this Jeo or Skip to My Lou? He seems to get so defensive and hypersensitive constantly and threatens members with banning to assert his authority. In my opinion a forum should be for the members to discuss any issue they want without the threat of some Nazi admin taking everything people say personally. Whoever you are, you should really get a life mate.

Troy

LOL, nice one n00b. You register an account just to post shit about people that you have no idea about.

Either that or you're a dupe account, which would make you an even sadder patzer.

PHAT
21-11-2004, 07:00 AM
I agree with starter. His line on this is correct. gray was given the bum's rush because Joe was on his rags again. Shame on Joe.

Bill Gletsos
21-11-2004, 12:52 PM
Looks like the break from the BB has helped your typing. :lol:
You obviously mean Jeo as there is no Joe.

Garvinator
21-11-2004, 12:55 PM
Looks like the break from the BB has helped your typing. :lol:
You obviously mean Jeo as there is no Joe.
well there have been quite a few changes since matts departure, have to give him time to get back up to speed to he can abuse with a slight amount of accuracy :lol: :lol: ;) :P

PHAT
22-11-2004, 09:20 AM
Looks like the break from the BB has helped your typing. :lol:
You obviously mean Jeo as there is no Joe.

Obviously, pedant.

arosar
03-12-2004, 08:47 AM
"Multiculturalism" must die!

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1258&storyid=2323610

AR

Trent Parker
03-12-2004, 09:12 AM
"Multiculturalism" must die!

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1258&storyid=2323610

AR

from this article

Ms Moore last night denied being a Grinch, arguing the city council now covers a larger area than just the CBD and had to cater for everyone.


And helloooooo surely there would be more rates receipts than before. What a pee weak excuse.

Spiny Norman
03-12-2004, 05:24 PM
"Multiculturalism" must die!
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1258&storyid=2323610

Won't it be just great when every country in the world adopts this lowest-common-denominator approach to every possibility of difference ... and thus we all slide inexorably into a big slimy pit of "greyness" where everything looks the same, sounds the same, is the same. At least it'll save on having to spend money on tourism to "go and see the world". We'll have it all (i.e. nothing) here @ home. :doh:

arosar
06-12-2004, 01:05 PM
Just what Sydney needs, a politically correct lesbian skippy for a mayor.

AR

Alan Shore
06-12-2004, 02:11 PM
Just what Sydney needs, a politically correct lesbian skippy for a mayor.

AR

Sydney seems to be getting gayer by the minute :eek:

antichrist
08-12-2004, 12:14 PM
What upsets me is that no one can tell me why Bradman didn't attend his ma' funeral. Was he upset at been born? Did she have BO?

antichrist
23-01-2005, 01:45 AM
When chess pieces chip in the bag why do the white "shavings" only stick to the black pieces and vice versa?

antichrist
23-01-2005, 01:48 AM
Doesn't anyone else hate Karl Haas nor miss Clive Robertson?

antichrist
07-03-2005, 03:51 PM
I just seen on TV how Turkish police bashed up some women protestors, what heros.

arosar
07-03-2005, 04:43 PM
Well, that can't be good for their EU aspirations. When I was in Paris recently, you could see posters everywhere basically protesting against Turkey's accession. Personally, I hope Turkey gets in.

AR

antichrist
08-03-2005, 08:33 AM
Well, that can't be good for their EU aspirations. When I was in Paris recently, you could see posters everywhere basically protesting against Turkey's accession. Personally, I hope Turkey gets in.

AR

Concerning that demo in my previous post.
Today's paper tells that the women were baton charged and kicked in the face whilst on the ground.

I am against Turkey gaining entry just because of the fact that it is quite disputable, morally speaking, that Turkey does belongs to the Turks. My history is weak but I recall Bertrand Russell making a case that traditionally it is Arab land, the same goes for Iran.

arosar
08-03-2005, 08:41 AM
And we care about Arabs because . . . . ?

AR

antichrist
08-03-2005, 08:47 AM
And we care about Arabs because . . . . ?

AR

Because they are human beings, even if they had not contributed greatly to human knowledge of the sciences.

Because these issues also affect Australia. Our biased involvement in the M/E over generations is partly responsible for their skewed politics and refugee problem that is causing the overpopulation in OZ.

JGB
08-03-2005, 09:47 AM
Because these issues also affect Australia. Our biased involvement in the M/E over generations is partly responsible for their skewed politics and refugee problem that is causing the overpopulation in OZ.

The what in Australia? Our rate of growth is still healthy. :)

Rincewind
08-03-2005, 10:00 AM
The what in Australia? Our rate of growth is still healthy. :)

Overpopulation is a global problem. No point looking after our own backyard when our neighbour is having a population explosion. And saying, "I'm all right, Jack" will not make the problem go away.

antichrist
08-03-2005, 10:14 AM
I have spoken to Filipinos in the Philippines, who are now in their eighties and nineties and still mentally bright, and they can remember when everyone had sufficient land to survive on. Whether it be fish ponds, rice fields etc.

Now that their population has multiplied tens of times over and the land divided accordingly there are slums everywhere and they are without the ability to feed themselves.

Oepty
09-03-2005, 02:21 PM
Pestering shop assistants who won't leave me alone to do shopping but have to come up to me and ask me some stupid question about how they might want to help me. Why can't they just shut up and leave me alone. If I want help I have a vioce and I can ask them for help.
Scott

Alan Shore
09-03-2005, 02:30 PM
Pestering shop assistants who won't leave me alone to do shopping but have to come up to me and ask me some stupid question about how they might want to help me. Why can't they just shut up and leave me alone. If I want help I have a vioce and I can ask them for help.
Scott

Ahahaha... I know that feeling. However, it's not exactly 'selling' if they let you walk out of the store.. many times people that buy would not have bought unless approached.

P.S. There is some irony in your name/sig Scott.. do you think if you were called 'Fred' you would want people calling you 'Freddy'? ;)

antichrist
09-03-2005, 02:50 PM
Pestering shop assistants who won't leave me alone to do shopping but have to come up to me and ask me some stupid question about how they might want to help me. Why can't they just shut up and leave me alone. If I want help I have a vioce and I can ask them for help.
Scott

Now you know how atheists feel when we get pestered in our home by idiots trying to sell us God and wanting us to give 10% to the church to add insult to injury. We cop Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics, Prodos etc etc.

Why don't they keep their ignorant superstition to themselves.

arosar
09-03-2005, 03:15 PM
We cop Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics, Prodos etc etc.

Catholics??

AR

Alan Shore
09-03-2005, 03:19 PM
Catholics??

AR

Matthew 28:19 ?

arosar
09-03-2005, 03:23 PM
I've never heard of Catholics knockin' on doors. That's just terrible.

AR

JGB
09-03-2005, 03:28 PM
Matthew 28:19 ?

For those who dont have a bible handy, ;) would you mind posting what this actually refers to.

arosar
09-03-2005, 03:32 PM
Spreading the word basically. Hence, 'missionaries'.

AR

antichrist
09-03-2005, 03:33 PM
I've never heard of Catholics knockin' on doors. That's just terrible.

AR

They don't usually come but I think I must have been referred by someone.

One visit I remember was from a born-again type, a pretty good-looker type, well I had her bailed up trying contaminate her, and a ruddy proddy minister also comes to the door. Well in that split second she shot out. She was not into Fleshy Fishing, remember that mob where they used girls as bait who actually turned it "on".

A few Catholics, single women without a guy in the home, have used me to get rid of pesty religious types that they cannot handle. And an I in my element!

Spiny Norman
09-03-2005, 07:17 PM
Now you know how atheists feel when we get pestered in our home by idiots trying to sell us God ...

Hey, us Prodo types cop it too .... but I've come up with a sure fire way of getting off the Mormon's hit list.

[any Mormons here should stop reading now]

Invite them in and give them a couple of hours of robust discussion. When they start looking at their watches and their eyes are rolling back in their heads, tell them how much you've enjoyed the discussion and keep the chat going for at least 5 more minutes.

Then ask if you can have a look at their magic underwear. They'll never darken your door again.

Oepty
10-03-2005, 06:11 PM
Ahahaha... I know that feeling. However, it's not exactly 'selling' if they let you walk out of the store.. many times people that buy would not have bought unless approached.

P.S. There is some irony in your name/sig Scott.. do you think if you were called 'Fred' you would want people calling you 'Freddy'? ;)

I chose Freddy as my replacement name because I did not want my identity known for a short period of time after I rejioned the board. Your point though is very good and made me smile.
Scott

Oepty
10-03-2005, 06:13 PM
Now you know how atheists feel when we get pestered in our home by idiots trying to sell us God and wanting us to give 10% to the church to add insult to injury. We cop Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics, Prodos etc etc.

Why don't they keep their ignorant superstition to themselves.

I suppose it is a relatively fair comparison and that being the case I have to be plead guilty. I have done door knocking for religion and also for a very short period of time as a job.
Scott

Rhubarb
10-03-2005, 06:19 PM
I chose Freddy as my replacement name because I did not want my identity known for a short period of time after I rejioned the board.And in a brilliant coup, you fooled everyone for 5 seconds.

Oepty
10-03-2005, 06:23 PM
Okay, I know I fooled at least one person because they had to ask me my identity in a PM. If I didn't fool you then well done.
Scott

Rincewind
10-03-2005, 07:27 PM
Okay, I know I fooled at least one person because they had to ask me my identity in a PM. If I didn't fool you then well done.
Scott

Wasn't signing your posts "Scott" a bit of a give away? ;)

Alan Shore
10-03-2005, 08:08 PM
Wasn't signing your posts "Scott" a bit of a give away? ;)

Hey Baz, wonder if we fooled anyone with the name change? ;)

antichrist
10-03-2005, 09:45 PM
Who is Belthasar? Bruce Dickinson?? No idea

Alan Shore
10-03-2005, 10:13 PM
Who is Belthasar? Bruce Dickinson?? No idea

Come on AC, I thought you would have worked that out by now!

antichrist
10-03-2005, 10:16 PM
Haven't even thought of it, the Cat has not left us already has it.

Oepty
20-03-2005, 02:58 PM
Wasn't signing your posts "Scott" a bit of a give away? ;)

I don't think I did this until I was happy for people to know who I was.
Scott

ursogr8
03-04-2005, 11:36 PM
Firegoat puts his advertising for the ANZAC Day week-ender on a public notice-board, and then puts this sign-post link (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=52260#post52260) ; and you only have to try the sign-post to see why a Mexican can regard chesschat.com as a bit Sydney_centric.

Firegoats approach is the exact equivalent of the method chosen earlier today to advertise the NSW OPEN. The NSW link works, but firegoat's link gets censored.

starter

Bill Gletsos
03-04-2005, 11:45 PM
Firegoat puts his advertising for the ANZAC Day week-ender on a public notice-board, and then puts this sign-post link (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=52260#post52260) ; and you only have to try the sign-post to see why a Mexican can regard chesschat.com as a bit Sydney_centric.Rubbish. You can of course link from here to Box hill or to the CV website with no problems at all.


Firegoats approach is the exact equivalent of the method chosen earlier today to advertise the NSW OPEN. The NSW link works, but firegoat's link gets censored.

starterThat board brought this on itself when is spammed the members of this board and as such the Admin chose to filter out its address.

If fg7 were to advertise the MCC event on the MCC website there would be no problem.

ursogr8
03-04-2005, 11:51 PM
Rubbish. You can of course link from here to Box hill or to the CV website with no problems at all.



No I can't Bill.

As I have explained to the morning_mod, and this bb, before,..........I don't have 'write' permissions to either of those boards. So I can't place my publicity there and then link from here.
Please retract your knee-jerk, repetitively_wrong 'rubbish' claim.


starter

Bill Gletsos
03-04-2005, 11:55 PM
Misrepresentation of the facts by the likes of starter to imply that this board is anti Mexican gets up my nose.

Only one web address is automatically filtered.
And it was only automatically filtered after a deliberate spam attack on this board.

ursogr8
04-04-2005, 12:00 AM
Misrepresentation of the facts by the likes of starter to imply that this board is anti Mexican gets up my nose.

Only one web address is automatically filtered.
And it was only automatically filtered after a deliberate spam attack on this board.

Wrong Bill
The filtering occurred on my links, long before the broadcast by Matt. You are either misrepresenting the facts or not aware of the policy of the admin. and when he implemented.

Bill Gletsos
04-04-2005, 12:02 AM
No I can't Bill.

As I have explained to the morning_mod, and this bb, before,..........I don't have 'write' permissions to either of those boards. So I can't place my publicity there and then link from here.
Please retract your knee-jerk, repetitively_wrong 'rubbish' claim.You used the garthcharles post example to imply the board is sydney centric. Thats rubbish.
Gareth cant post to the NSWCA site. He pointed to an ad he didnt create from here.
If Box Hill want to advertise their events they wiull no doubt advertsie them on the Box Hill website. As such once the advert is there you can link to it.
Likewise if MCC want to inform people of their events, it would seem reasonable for them to advertise them on the MCC website.

Of course there is nothing stopping you posting the information directly here.

You could of course just post the information directly here. If you choose not to do that is your problem, and not the Admin or the Mods.

skip to my lou
04-04-2005, 12:04 AM
Wrong Bill
The filtering occurred on my links, long before the broadcast by Matt. You are either misrepresenting the facts or not aware of the policy of the admin. and when he implemented.

No, You, are the one misrepresenting the facts. In this case, you are simply lying.

I have logs, with dates, and times, and I have confirmed that what you are saying absolutely cannot be true.

Rincewind
04-04-2005, 12:05 AM
The automatic blocking of the links was performed by the admin as a means to combating repeated spam attacks on members of this board via PMs. The blocking of all links was just a pleasant side-effect.

The policy of this board was always to not permit spam.

Bill Gletsos
04-04-2005, 12:07 AM
Wrong Bill
The filtering occurred on my links, long before the broadcast by Matt. You are either misrepresenting the facts or not aware of the policy of the admin. and when he implemented.Wrong the admin implemented the filter on the 23/03/05 between 6pm and 7.15pm after the spam atatck at around 5.50pm on that day.

Prior to that some Mods chose to edit out the web address, however that had nothing to do with the Admin filtering it out automatically.

ursogr8
04-04-2005, 12:11 AM
^
Only the auto-filtering came in after the broadcast activity.
Prior to that my link posts were being deleted as quick as I could make them. When I placed the link in white_colour in my signature line then my signature line was altered manually by a mod/admin.

ursogr8
04-04-2005, 12:13 AM
Wrong the admin implemented the filter on the 23/03/05 between 6pm and 7.15pm after the spam atatck at around 5.50pm on that day.

Prior to that some Mods chose to edit out the web address, however that had nothing to do with the Admin filtering it out automatically.

I think you are now agreeing that filtering (but not auto-filtering) was occurring before the broadcast by UCJ.
And that has been the point I have been making.

Bill Gletsos
04-04-2005, 12:15 AM
^
Only the auto-filtering came in after the broadcast activity.
Prior to that my link posts were being deleted as quick as I could make them. When I placed the link in white_colour in my signature line then my signature line was altered manually by a mod/admin.So what. That was a valid MOD action.

fg7 raised the issue of the automatic filtering. Thats what I replied to.

Bill Gletsos
04-04-2005, 12:17 AM
I think you are now agreeing that filtering (but not auto-filtering) was occurring before the broadcast by UCJ.
No I'm not agreeing at all.
Your posts were subject to moderation action.
To call that filtering is misleading.

And that has been the point I have been making.
fg7 raised the issue of the automatic filtering.
In fact you dont even mention the mod action in your post #189.
After I replied to that you decided to go off on a tangent and raise the fact that your posts had previously been moderated.

antichrist
04-04-2005, 02:11 AM
Mods have decided that my Pope poll should be pulled. A few of them I can understand but don't agree with as they would do out of instinct rather than reason.

But KB's case is different he uses reason for everything. He was prepared to defend posters right to the reckless use of "child sexual abuse" though it could be genuinely hurting to many people yet agrees that mockery of the papacy should be deleted. The papacy is a public institution and in many ways deserve mockery, even deserved to be wiped out it could be argued yet the papacy is put into the "too sensitive" basket whereas child sexual abuse is not.

It has been pointed in TV reports that this Pope coped flak for not coming down more heavily on priests inflicting child sexual abuse.

See the parallels and hypocracy!

arosar
04-04-2005, 07:34 AM
The current promo ads for the movie, "Sahara". The stupid American voiceover keeps pronouncing it as Sa-HAY-ra.

AR

firegoat7
04-04-2005, 08:51 AM
No, You, are the one misrepresenting the facts. In this case, you are simply lying.

I have logs, with dates, and times, and I have confirmed that what you are saying absolutely cannot be true.

This is a pretty big statement STML. Down here in Mexico we all regard Starter as a person of integrity, who is well respected in the chess community. I would be surprised if anyone regarded him as a 'liar'.

That said, this whole debate may be a simple misunderstanding in which all parties are not really communicating with each other.

Otherwise you really ought to produce the logs, with dates and times, so as to give Starter a chance to defend himself against the slur of being called a liar.

Im reasonably confident that any problem is a simple communication issue.

Cheers Fg7

ursogr8
04-04-2005, 09:07 AM
This is a pretty big statement STML. Down here in Mexico we all regard Starter as a person of integrity, who is well respected in the chess community. I would be surprised if anyone regarded him as a 'liar'.

That said, this whole debate may be a simple misunderstanding in which all parties are not really communicating with each other.

Otherwise you really ought to produce the logs, with dates and times, so as to give Starter a chance to defend himself against the slur of being called a liar.

Im reasonably confident that any problem is a simple communication issue.

Cheers Fg7

fg7

Yes........it is a communication difference.
When I say 'filtering' (because my links and posts get deleted) it turns out that Bill calls that moderation. (I would have thought moderation means tone down, not delete. But Bill uses the word moderate because the action was done by a MODERATOR. I would have said the MODERATOR was deleting or filtering).

Hence we have a difference of when filtering began
Bill says 23/3........when auto-filtering began (why introduce auto-filtering as a terminology if you mean the same as filtering...beats me).
I say 16/3 when a mod PM'd me with advice on why my links and posts were being filtered.

So, yes, K. and Bill are regarding filtering started 23/3. (When in fact it was auto-filtering that began on 23/3).


End of story.
Except that you innocently posted on your web-site of choice (UCJ in this case), then linked to that storage for other publicity outlets.....presumably because you are trying help by limiting server storage. And it turns out that c.com don't like that link strategy.

regards
starter

ps
Congratulations on your perception of the root cause.

skip to my lou
04-04-2005, 09:45 AM
Starter, what you were replying to originally was firegoats post in regards to "Automatic Censoring", as Bill has pointed out already.

You take things way out of context, at your convenience. You reply to a post by firegoat that clearly has the words "automatically censored", and then you argue that you were not referring to automatic censoring. If, by your purposeful mis-representation, you get called a liar, then that is totally your own fault.

I'm not prepared to debate this any further, because of course, you will just mis-represent the facts and I don't have time to keep defending each of your petty speculations.

UJC is banned here because of many reasons. It's owner is a banned member here, and has spammed our members. The posts there are so low that you and firegoat should be ashamed that you support such a board.

firegoat7
04-04-2005, 10:28 AM
I'm not prepared to debate this any further, because of course, you will just mis-represent the facts and I don't have time to keep defending each of your petty speculations.

STML ops out with the Schultz defence as played before by RW, a truly pathetic defence that begins with aggresive intentions but opts out with a porcupine retreat by putting all the pieces back in the box. It is both unsound and weak.



UJC is banned here because of many reasons. It's owner is a banned member here, and has spammed our members. The posts there are so low that you and firegoat should be ashamed that you support such a board.

STML you are obviously entitled to your own opinion about the quality of Matts website- beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

What I take exception to in your post is the moral inference that either Starter or I should be ashamed. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Speaking for myself, not Starter, I am morally confident with posting at Uberchess. Some things there are better, some are worse. Here is my analysis in comparison with Chesskit.

Pros- freedom of speech, friendly atmosphere, no moderation dispute, no Bon Bon
Cons- lack of content(currently), anonymous posting by negative spoil sports, lack of technical support.

Now STML, you are great at providing technical expertise and innovative design, in fact you absolutely kill Matts site in this department.

What your site lacks is patience in debate. You seem to think its ok for admin and mods to either abuse, bully or stifle legitimate debate. My friend you need to learn something about human history- Social protest is a normal condition of human interaction, it is a necessary condition for a functioning democracy.

In your case, I think your decisions are a reflection of your age- you are young, and are stuck in a mindset of thought called "I am right- You are wrong"- this is not a democratic structure. May I suggest you believe in intelligence over wisdom. How else would you explain your particular bent to surround yourself with conservative moderators, who more often then not reflect your own particular mindset?

Cheers Fg7
P.S Apologies in advance to TCN and JGB, who I respect, with their hands off approach to moderation.

skip to my lou
04-04-2005, 10:55 AM
How are we limiting freedom of speech? There's even an unmoderated section on this forum.

Remember, that I do not moderate posts at all, I am only taking care of the technical side. When moderators complain that there has been spam, then it's my job to stop the spammer.

Also, remember that moderators are also posters. They can make mistakes, but if you don't report this "abuse and bullying", then theres nothing that will be done.

For most part, I am simply upgrading and maintaining software, both system software, and forum software, so I find it amusing that you make such comments about me.

Bill Gletsos
04-04-2005, 12:36 PM
fg7

Yes........it is a communication difference.
When I say 'filtering' (because my links and posts get deleted) it turns out that Bill calls that moderation. (I would have thought moderation means tone down, not delete.Dont play cute.
You know full well that moderation includes deleting parts of posts or entire posts.

But Bill uses the word moderate because the action was done by a MODERATOR. I would have said the MODERATOR was deleting or filtering).The moderator was carrying out a moderator function. That includes modifying user posts that he finds unacceptable. The modification may include simple editing or a complete deletion of the post.
You are fully aware of this having seen it happen on numerous occasions to your mate Matt.

Hence we have a difference of when filtering began
Bill says 23/3........when auto-filtering began (why introduce auto-filtering as a terminology if you mean the same as filtering...beats me).Because your posts were not filtered. They were subject to moderation action.

I say 16/3 when a mod PM'd me with advice on why my links and posts were being filtered. Did the Mod actually say they were being filtered, or did him simply tell you that posting the url was unacceptable.

So, yes, K. and Bill are regarding filtering started 23/3. (When in fact it was auto-filtering that began on 23/3).Yes the auto filtering of the web address that fg7 referred to began on the 23/3. Prior to that there was no filtering. Your posts were subject to moderation action of modifying your post due to content deemed unacceptable by a mod. Such actions by Mods have been a function of this board since the appointment of the moderators.

End of story.Somehow I doubt it.

Except that you innocently posted on your web-site of choice (UCJ in this case), then linked to that storage for other publicity outlets.....presumably because you are trying help by limiting server storage.Presumably because he doesnt want to just post it here.

And it turns out that c.com don't like that link strategy.It has been made abundantly clear by the Admin and the Mods that linkling to that site is unacceptable.
What part of that dont you understand?

firegoat7
04-04-2005, 12:58 PM
How are we limiting freedom of speech? There's even an unmoderated section on this forum.

Okay. I will try and be gentle here, "we" are not tolerant of dialectic discussion. By that I mean "we" sometimes find it to difficult to engage with others in a fair and patient way when 'we" think "we' are right and 'they' are wrong. It is even harder to remain emotionally detached when its clear (oh so painfully clear, not) that "we" are right and "they are wrong.




Remember, that I do not moderate posts at all, I am only taking care of the technical side. When moderators complain that there has been spam, then it's my job to stop the spammer.

In my dealings with you I have never had a moderation issue with you, I cannot speak for others.




Also, remember that moderators are also posters. They can make mistakes, but if you don't report this "abuse and bullying", then theres nothing that will be done. Agree totally, that is why BBs develop rules and protocols over time, to protect humanity from humanity. However, irrational as it is, Australian culture is anti-dobber, to dob, is in some aspects is a worse sin then any transgression. Could there be some ingenous people out there who could successfully negotiate around this particular cultural hurdle? :hmm: Interesting challenge.




For most part, I am simply upgrading and maintaining software, both system software, and forum software, so I find it amusing that you make such comments about me.
What personal comments am I making about you? Surely all I did was to pass comment on your arguement with Starter? By the way, this was a dialectic that you freely engaged in.

Cheers Fg7

skip to my lou
04-04-2005, 08:08 PM
What personal comments am I making about you? Surely all I did was to pass comment on your arguement with Starter? By the way, this was a dialectic that you freely engaged in.

Cheers Fg7


In your case, I think your decisions are a reflection of your age- you are young, and are stuck in a mindset of thought called "I am right- You are wrong"- this is not a democratic structure.

If you remember way back (about 1 year and 2 months ago) when there was conflict and people didn't like the way I moderated, I accepted I was wrong, and agreed not to moderate. Therefore saying that I have a mindset of "I am right- You are wrong" is false.

firegoat7
05-04-2005, 03:09 PM
If you remember way back (about 1 year and 2 months ago) when there was conflict and people didn't like the way I moderated, I accepted I was wrong, and agreed not to moderate. Therefore saying that I have a mindset of "I am right- You are wrong" is false.

Mate,...relax... put your comments in context. I am talking about a specific thread and a specific dialogue with Starter, not your whole life history.

cheers Fg7

skip to my lou
05-04-2005, 06:03 PM
You said I'm stuck in that mindset. Which specific dialogue with starter? The one about automatic censoring? He quoted a post by you where you are talking about automatic censoring, so one would only assume that, that's what he is referring to.

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2005, 07:18 PM
Mods have decided that my Pope poll should be pulled. A few of them I can understand but don't agree with as they would do out of instinct rather than reason.

But KB's case is different he uses reason for everything. He was prepared to defend posters right to the reckless use of "child sexual abuse" though it could be genuinely hurting to many people yet agrees that mockery of the papacy should be deleted. The papacy is a public institution and in many ways deserve mockery, even deserved to be wiped out it could be argued yet the papacy is put into the "too sensitive" basket whereas child sexual abuse is not.

It has been pointed in TV reports that this Pope coped flak for not coming down more heavily on priests inflicting child sexual abuse.

See the parallels and hypocracy!

All I see is a total beat-up from a creature of, at times, limited understanding.

I told you that I thought the deletion of the poll was fair but I did not say why I thought that. You assumed I agreed with it because of the mockery of the Pope but never bothered to ask me what my reasons were.

Firstly, many moderation decisions are line-ball. If I think there is room to go either way then I will say that whatever decision has been made is fair. You know that I would not have deleted that post myself even though I thought it was rubbish; nevertheless I think the decision to delete it was a reasonable one.

Secondly, the reason I saw merit in your post being deleted had nothing to do with it mocking the Pope and far more to do with it being another lame and inane attempted in-thread that pointlessly linked posters here (and people who don't post here) personally with the papal succession issue.

Try establishing the reason for my actions before you go accusing me of inconsistency in the future. I nearly started a thread called "antichrist's asleep". :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2005, 08:12 PM
Pros- freedom of speech, friendly atmosphere, no moderation dispute, no Bon Bon

Very funny, Beau Beau (pronounce it "bobo" or even "bozo" for all I could care). You say it is a positive I am not there but you also post material there that increases the risk of me someday signing up. Rather stupid really.


Cons- lack of content(currently), anonymous posting by negative spoil sports, lack of technical support.

Are anonymous negative spoil sports that much worse than nonymous ones such as yourself here?


What your site lacks is patience in debate. You seem to think its ok for admin and mods to either abuse, bully or stifle legitimate debate. My friend you need to learn something about human history- Social protest is a normal condition of human interaction, it is a necessary condition for a functioning democracy.

And functional democracies have always limited the extent to which it was displayed when it became too disruptive, so so what? You have your protests, you get criticised, you only get modded when you do something outside the rules, exactly the same as a "functioning democracy".


In your case, I think your decisions are a reflection of your age- you are young, and are stuck in a mindset of thought called "I am right- You are wrong"- this is not a democratic structure.

Been reading Edward de Bono rubbish, have you? You would be about the most obstinately black and white type here, even more so than I am.

firegoat7
05-04-2005, 09:03 PM
You take things way out of context, at your convenience. You reply to a post by firegoat that clearly has the words "automatically censored", and then you argue that you were not referring to automatic censoring. If, by your purposeful mis-representation, you get called a liar, then that is totally your own fault.

This is your judgement STML, this is what you thought of Starters arguement.




I'm not prepared to debate this any further, because of course, you will just mis-represent the facts and I don't have time to keep defending each of your petty speculations.



Then you follow up with the solution. Is it a democratic one? Is it fair to Starter? Is it fair to yourself?

Cheers Fg7

skip to my lou
05-04-2005, 09:24 PM
It's completely fair, in this case, given starters repeated attempts at mis-representation. I'm not willing to waste my own time on such people.

firegoat7
05-04-2005, 09:29 PM
It's completely fair, in this case, given starters repeated attempts at mis-representation. I'm not willing to waste my own time on such people.

Thank you STML, I understand completely now.

Cheers Fg7

antichrist
06-04-2005, 12:13 AM
All I see is a total beat-up from a creature of, at times, limited understanding.

I told you that I thought the deletion of the poll was fair but I did not say why I thought that. You assumed I agreed with it because of the mockery of the Pope but never bothered to ask me what my reasons were.

Firstly, many moderation decisions are line-ball. If I think there is room to go either way then I will say that whatever decision has been made is fair. You know that I would not have deleted that post myself even though I thought it was rubbish; nevertheless I think the decision to delete it was a reasonable one.

Secondly, the reason I saw merit in your post being deleted had nothing to do with it mocking the Pope and far more to do with it being another lame and inane attempted in-thread that pointlessly linked posters here (and people who don't post here) personally with the papal succession issue.

Try establishing the reason for my actions before you go accusing me of inconsistency in the future. I nearly started a thread called "antichrist's asleep". :hmm:


I consider these only moot points, what is more important is that the result is the same regardless (irregardless) of your reasons. As I thought you were a libertarian type I would you stand up for the right for me to make an idiot of myself.

Now I understand, really you like me and want to protect my reputation, thanks KB, we can be mates again.

antichrist
06-04-2005, 02:33 PM
to correct errors

I consider these only moot points, what is more important is that the result is the same regardless (irregardless) of your reasons. And I thought you were the libertarian type would stand up for the right for me to make an idiot of myself.

Now I understand, really you like me and want to protect my reputation, thanks KB, we can be mates again.

And I take it that as you were in the poll and if life imitates art (as sometimes does) you would refuse the job as Pope, this I don't believe. It's like asking "is the KB an atheist?" and "is a Catholic the Pope?".
rwipi 9.5

antichrist
07-04-2005, 07:22 AM
Having heard "stupid" and "inappropriate" used to describe Pope Poll thread, I don't think that these reasons have ruled out threads before, as well should they be grounds to rule out threads???

The Muslims celebrate the stoning of the Devil, I take offense to that and consider it "stupid and appropriate" but I don't try to have it banned.

I consider religous Jews twirling chooks around their heads (so that their sins will transfer to the chooks) "stupid and appropriate" but I don't try to have it banned.

I consider seeing ruddy crucifixes in public display "stupid and inappropriate" but I don't try to have them banned!!

Spiny Norman
07-04-2005, 08:14 AM
I consider seeing ruddy crucifixes in public display "stupid and inappropriate" but I don't try to have them banned!!

Oooh .... ahhh .... but .... doh! .... just .... oh, alright then, good for you AC, your tolerance is an example to us all. :)

antichrist
07-04-2005, 08:21 AM
Listen Frosty, look at the that CC game and I think you are a goner, I have seen the light this morning, resign while still having some honour, not like old pop - hanging onto the last breath.

Why I really came to this thread was to put some more poop on. That ruddy pope should have become a Muslim before carking it!!! He would now be enjoying those 72 virgins instead of nuns and angels that you can't touch and wouldn't want to anyhow!

Keep it secret, but JC and AC actually exchange gossip, He tells me that Yasser Arafat is making a real pig of himself up there with his quoto. They tried to give him some superseded Jewish ones (Longintooth) but he would not have a Barr(?) of it.

Spiny Norman
07-04-2005, 08:23 AM
Listen Frosty, look at the that CC game and I think you are a goner, I have seen the light this morning, resign while still having some honour, not like old pop - hanging onto the last breath.

Yes, you've got some options, but if you think I'm going to roll over and play dead without making you earn it when you're the one a pawn down at the moment you're sadly mistaken. :lol:

antichrist
07-04-2005, 08:28 AM
Yes, you've got some options, but if you think I'm going to roll over and play dead without making you earn it when you're the one a pawn down at the moment you're sadly mistaken. :lol:

Well out into the carpark. I did want to check it for the umpteenth time before committing hari kari but now I will let you have it. B x P h7+!!

And another secret I tell my students don't worry about one pawn down. Only think how am I going to take advantage of that open/semi file. And the books say that being one advantage up is not sufficient, you need to be at least two.

antichrist
07-04-2005, 08:43 AM
Frosty,
note post 223 edited

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2005, 06:14 PM
And I take it that as you were in the poll and if life imitates art (as sometimes does) you would refuse the job as Pope, this I don't believe.

What's the pay like? I could do with more work right now.

Recherché
07-04-2005, 06:30 PM
What's the pay like? I could do with more work right now.

The Pope doesn't get paid. But he does get a place to stay, swanky robes, and a really great hat. Plus all the communion wafers he can eat. ;)

WhiteElephant
07-04-2005, 06:32 PM
The Pope doesn't get paid. But he does get a place to stay, swanky robes, and a really great hat. Plus all the communion wafers he can eat. ;)

Not to mention the groupies!

Spiny Norman
08-04-2005, 07:12 PM
Well out into the carpark. I did want to check it for the umpteenth time before committing hari kari but now I will let you have it. B x P h7+!!

I've been looking at it for the past 1/2 an hour .... I'm putting a '?' on it .... hari kari might be too close for comfort for you I think. But I recognise the wonderful symbolism of your action. AC sacrifices a bishop! :clap:

I think you're going to end up on the wrong end of it though. I've posted my response. I'm not letting you waltz off with that pawn.

Spiny Norman
08-04-2005, 07:14 PM
What's the pay like? I could do with more work right now.

The pay is good. Plenty of quality artwork to look at ... but the unfortunate side-effect is that roughly 1/2 of the world's population don't like you. I know you're a strong personality, but them odds make even the strongest pale. ;)

antichrist
09-04-2005, 11:17 AM
I think the pope should have learnt some lessons from Whacko Jacko on how to use those groupies.

Would you believe that he arranged for that disgraced bishop Law from USA to conduct one of the three masses for his funeral. Law was the guy who played musical chairs with pedofile priests when they got into trouble, giving them a new harvest to reap.

The pope is no better than Whacko Jacko and probably worse. WJ was a one man show (if guilty), PJP overseen a whole army of them.

HappyFriend
11-04-2005, 07:06 PM
Antichrist (may God forgive me for typing THAT) you are on the right track! At last a sensible person here! Could you change you name to Angel or Loveboy before I talk to you again?

HappyFriend
11-04-2005, 07:09 PM
Antichrist (may God forgive me for typing that!) At last a sensible person here! At last! Could you please change you name to Angel or Loveboy before I talk to you again?

Spiny Norman
11-04-2005, 07:41 PM
Antichrist (may God forgive me for typing THAT) you are on the right track! At last a sensible person here! Could you change you name to Angel or Loveboy before I talk to you again?

Some of us fearful of lightning tend to abbreviate to AC. ;)

antichrist
11-04-2005, 07:42 PM
Antichrist (may God forgive me for typing that!) At last a sensible person here! At last! Could you please change you name to Angel or Loveboy before I talk to you again?

If changed to Angel or Loveboy people like Whacko Jacko might take a liking to me, I don't really need money that desparately.

arosar
11-04-2005, 09:50 PM
Bloody hell. I remember when I came to this country, petrol was only $0.40 or so. Now it's bloody up to $1.60.

AR

Thunderspirit
11-04-2005, 10:01 PM
Bloody hell. I remember when I came to this country, petrol was only $0.40 or so. Now it's bloody up to $1.60.

AR

Hi Amiel,
U could always catch the trian... ;)

Alan Shore
11-04-2005, 10:08 PM
Hi Amiel,
U could always catch the trian... ;)

Not in Brisbane.. the train routes totally suck. I've never lived less than 25 min walk from a train station in a total of like 9 different places of residence.

arosar
14-05-2005, 10:18 AM
The Australian Government's piss-weak stance towards Japanese whalers who enter our "Australian Whaling Sanctuary" waters in Antarctica. I say send in our submarines and sink them.

AR

Spiny Norman
14-05-2005, 01:18 PM
I say send in our submarines and sink them.

Have we still got any in working order???

Rincewind
14-05-2005, 02:15 PM
Have we still got any in working order???

Yes, but they can be heard from a distance of 150 NM. ;)

Trent Parker
02-06-2005, 04:53 PM
Telemarketers.

Just had a telemarketer on the phone rambling on and on.... So i used a tactic that i've heard people use before........ I placed the phone down to the side! but did not hang it up. :evil: this means that the telemarketer cannot annoy someone else for at least twenty minutes. :evil: :evil: :evil:

eclectic
02-06-2005, 05:06 PM
Telemarketers.

Just had a telemarketer on the phone rambling on and on.... So i used a tactic that i've heard people use before........ I placed the phone down to the side! but did not hang it up. :evil: this means that the telemarketer cannot annoy someone else for at least twenty minutes. :evil: :evil: :evil:

ok so long as they haven't rigged it to be a reverse charge call and earn their company money.

another trick is to unexpectedly hang up in the middle of when you are speaking then lift up receiver and leave it off hook for a while like you have done

eclectic

eclectic
02-06-2005, 07:06 PM
2 more things which get up my nose

1) related to tcn's beef ...
telemarketers ringing you up at around the evening meal
(i thought they had introduced laws to stop that)

2) ...

TTT

gratuitously used simply to bring a thread ... :whistle:

it is starting to annoy me on a scale possibly rivalling stml's objection to the use of the circumflex, er, bump for almost similar reasons :rolleyes: :evil:

eclectic

ElevatorEscapee
02-06-2005, 07:07 PM
If you have a push button phone, you can also press:

3,2,1,2,3,3,3
2,2,2
3,3,3
3,2,1,2,3,3,3
2,2,3,2,1

And the telemarketer gets an earful of "Mary had a little lamb". ;)

eclectic
02-06-2005, 07:10 PM
If you have a push button phone, you can also press:

3,2,1,2,3,3,3
2,2,2
3,3,3
3,2,1,2,3,3,3
2,2,3,2,1

And the telemarketer gets an earful of "Mary had a little lamb". ;)

hey ee,

wouldn't you simply have your signature line recorded on your phone service so that when they hear it they suddenly laugh then collapse and die?

:owned:

eclectic

ursogr8
02-06-2005, 07:37 PM
2 more things which get up my nose

1) related to tcn's beef ...
telemarketers ringing you up at around the evening meal
(i thought they had introduced laws to stop that)

2) ...

TTT

gratuitously used simply to bring a thread ... :whistle:

it is starting to annoy me on a scale possibly rivalling stml's objection to the use of the circumflex, er, bump for almost similar reasons :rolleyes: :evil:

eclectic

Bill has taught me how to use SEARCH to get metrics on this sort of misbehaviour that is really inexcusable. This brought to light two examples, of the four letter word meaning protuberance; they appear in this show-stopper post by the changling himself (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=46496&postcount=289) , and this one by a truly esteemed poster (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=59679&postcount=245) .

For my part, I am going to get a thesaurus so that I can get some variation into my use of the vernacular. :uhoh:

regards
starter

Trent Parker
02-06-2005, 07:45 PM
my recent use of TTT was only to get the cc games that are currently still running over the completed ones. Thus i shall be doing it no more!

ursogr8
02-06-2005, 10:24 PM
ToTheTheoretician who commented in private to me that I was a bit recursive with my previous post, I can only say I will get back to you, later.

starter