PDA

View Full Version : Firegoat whines behind our backs!



Kevin Bonham
17-03-2005, 03:39 AM
The following was posted on **************, which having taken out all the swearing I can quote at will as it is a public forum.


Hello,

Well the **** has hit the fan at **** over the stupid comments raised by Biggles concerning mobile phones and child abuse.

Baz first decided to deal with the issue, but in his usual lame duck style he decided to not do anything. When people complained he simply retorts "get over it" its not important. Well he is a ****. All he ever does is sit on the fence and nod in agreement as he tries to emulate Bonhams terse A-social style.

Finally Bonham rides into town and to his credit censors the comment. But then comes his usual salvo.
The ***** peanut starts attacking me personally and then complains about everyone who voiced an opinion about the child abuse comments. What a moralising *****.

These two are absolute *****. [snip]. Not only are they completely inconsistent when moderating the board (who can forget Matts banning) but they also think that they represent "free speech". All they represent is their own distorted ***** middle class *****. Neither has any idea of how "freedom of expression" works they seem to think that somehow, miraculously they are the only objective human beings on the planet-as if.

It even becomes more infuriating when all the middle class masses at ***** start agreeing with them as if their insignificant worlds were the same as our insignificant worlds. Further fuelling their stupid science descriptive arguements that generally are little more then subjective opinions. Anyone that criticises this stupid rationality is deemed "subversive" and constantly harrassed by ***** Bon Bon. Unfortunately Bazza is following in his footsteps.

Lets face it Bon Bon is an anti-social ***** who would rather criticise people for having strong feelings then admit to having any feelings himself.

Cheers Fg7

Firegoat, I have many feelings. For you they start with ridicule and end somewhere between pity and contempt. :lol:

I don't criticise people just for having feelings. I criticise people who use them as an excuse to be irrational (not arational, irrational).

Moralising? Actually I was getting stuck into the moralists, in case you hadn't noticed.

Free speech/expression? I don't necessarily represent it at all, I just know what it is and understand the value of limits to it, unlike pol-phil illiterates like yourself.

Who have I called "subversive"?

Why am I antisocial when your little rants against me started when I defended some of my colleagues against your undeserved and hateful outbursts?

I do trust you will give the masses (haha!) on ucj both sides of the argument by quoting my comments there.

Alan Shore
17-03-2005, 09:08 AM
First, why are you posting something here from ucj when Baz has openly declared that's forbidden, as evidenced by him deleting starter's links to the Ballarat reports? Looks like inconsistent moderation.

Secondly why are you dragging it over to this forum anyway? Go reply to it there instead...

arosar
17-03-2005, 09:20 AM
Where exactly is it on that UCJ site?

AR

Libby
17-03-2005, 10:22 AM
Where exactly is it on that UCJ site?

AR

My best tip - since there are relatively few posting there on a regular basis - is to check the date for the most recent post. I did find it hard to find stuff there but just looked at the recent activity threads.

Does anyone talk about chess anymore? Even if they want to offer a sledge?

Honestly "over there" they seem to spend most of their time whinging or heaping shit on what is "over here" and now "over here" we're doing just the same.

What's the deal?

I see it a bit like the biggles fracas. Let it go and it dies of natural causes and everyone is left with the clear impression that the "poster" is an idiot whose comment wasn't worth a response.

However, feed it, and it grows and thrives and everyone gets all hot under the collar and righteous and becomes infected with this BB habit of using it as a way to reinvent old personal squabbles.

Or maybe just get over the whole lot of it and find a way to exist on one big BB together, even just by being able to refer to something somewhere else without everyone getting all steamed up over it.

Matt's board doesn't seem to be generating much interesting (for me) discussion or I'd probably be posting there when the odd topic of interest turned up. However, for me to become a frequent poster over there he'd probably have to cut out some of the garbage that presumably got everyone's knickers twisted here. There's a difference between us pathetic chess mothers getting all faint over the odd expletive, and the sort of denigrating language that is intended, in that context, to offend.

Rincewind
17-03-2005, 10:58 AM
First, why are you posting something here from ucj when Baz has openly declared that's forbidden, as evidenced by him deleting starter's links to the Ballarat reports? Looks like inconsistent moderation.

No, I said it is not good to post links to the UCJ site on here. I said to Starter that copying the whole post over was fine.

ursogr8
17-03-2005, 10:59 AM
Where exactly is it on that UCJ site?

AR


AR

It is in a forum with the name
Gloves are OFF (Warning: Strong language)
which was not noted by KB in his 'public forum' disclaimer.

Btw, since you are here, can you work out how the fg7 post can be ...."behind our backs" when (my guess) is that we (CC posters) are the only visitors there? It has got me intrigued what KB meant?

starter

Bill Gletsos
17-03-2005, 11:08 AM
AR

It is in a forum with the name
Gloves are OFF (Warning: Strong language)
which was not noted by KB in his 'public forum' disclaimer.

Btw, since you are here, can you work out how the fg7 post can be ...."behind our backs" when (my guess) is that we (CC posters) are the only visitors there? It has got me intrigued what KB meant?I took it that given fg7 posts on this board then since he was criticising the mods here then why didnt he just post it here.
Perhaps the reason was because he just wanted responses from his sychopantic mates over there.

ursogr8
17-03-2005, 11:20 AM
I took it that given fg7 posts on this board then since he was criticising the mods here then why didnt he just post it here.
Perhaps the reason was because he just wanted responses from his sychopantic mates over there.

Bill.........look if I gave you all that, it still remains the question why the reference to 'backs'? It doesn't make sense. There is no change in the viewability of the post. And there is no evidence to suggest that posting there will inhibit response....and didn't in this case.

starter

ursogr8
17-03-2005, 11:41 AM
My best tip - since there are relatively few posting there on a regular basis - is to check the date for the most recent post. I did find it hard to find stuff there but just looked at the recent activity threads.

Does anyone talk about chess anymore? Even if they want to offer a sledge?

Honestly "over there" they seem to spend most of their time whinging or heaping shit on what is "over here" and now "over here" we're doing just the same.

What's the deal?

I see it a bit like the biggles fracas. Let it go and it dies of natural causes and everyone is left with the clear impression that the "poster" is an idiot whose comment wasn't worth a response.

However, feed it, and it grows and thrives and everyone gets all hot under the collar and righteous and becomes infected with this BB habit of using it as a way to reinvent old personal squabbles.

Or maybe just get over the whole lot of it and find a way to exist on one big BB together, even just by being able to refer to something somewhere else without everyone getting all steamed up over it.

Matt's board doesn't seem to be generating much interesting (for me) discussion or I'd probably be posting there when the odd topic of interest turned up. However, for me to become a frequent poster over there he'd probably have to cut out some of the garbage that presumably got everyone's knickers twisted here. There's a difference between us pathetic chess mothers getting all faint over the odd expletive, and the sort of denigrating language that is intended, in that context, to offend.Good post Libby.
So good, I pressed that little box down in the left corner again.....enhance your reputation.
Got me beat how you are not up there with three green lights (I mean, you are the equal of Frosty every day...although he does start earlier in the morning.. ;) ), and after all........you won poster of the year.
How come your reputation is down with us 'also-rans'?

I wonder if we could interest a/c to manage a campaign to get some support for you going. :uhoh:

starter

Bill Gletsos
17-03-2005, 11:59 AM
Bill.........look if I gave you all that, it still remains the question why the reference to 'backs'? It doesn't make sense. There is no change in the viewability of the post. And there is no evidence to suggest that posting there will inhibit response....and didn't in this case.One could argue that if he had posted in front of us he would have posted it here.
As such doing it over there was "behind our backs". ;)

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2005, 12:40 PM
Btw, since you are here, can you work out how the fg7 post can be ...."behind our backs" when (my guess) is that we (CC posters) are the only visitors there? It has got me intrigued what KB meant?

firegoat made derogatory blanket statements about "all the middle class masses" on this board presumably thinking he would get away with it because most of the posters here don't read there. I hadn't read anything there for a while and only saw this one because somebody tipped me off. :eek:

Any linking to UCJ for any reason should be accompanied by a language and crudeness disclaimer. If a poster posts a link without such a disclaimer it should be deleted.

As for Libby's comments I don't think this is going to develop into any serious feeding of the two main UCJ trolls and I wasn't the least bit hot under the collar in posting it over here - basically I am just having a laugh at firegoat's expense.

As for posting it over there I do not trust Matt as a moderator, because even giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming his intentions are sincere I still think he is too idealistic and clueless.

ursogr8
17-03-2005, 12:43 PM
One could argue that if he had posted in front of us he would have posted it here.
As such doing it over there was "behind our backs". ;)

I think I will agree that neither of us have a clue why he chose that turn of phrase. Originally I though AR could guess...because he is good at that sort of thing.

Let us just wait for KB to advise.
Btw, if you respond to this post I will have got you to 5500. (No bets on though). ;)

starter

ps........I now notice after posting, KB has jumped in and given the answer re 'behind our backs'. All is clear.
And of course has substantial implications for you Bill about posting, re UCJ, in the Coffee Lounge. Looks to me that the MODERATOR has declared the Coffee Lounge a 'behind our backs' zone.

ursogr8
17-03-2005, 12:56 PM
<snip>

Any linking to UCJ for any reason should be accompanied by a language and crudeness disclaimer. If a poster posts a link without such a disclaimer it should be deleted.

<snip>


Oooh. I like this rule rather than Baz's.
Can you guys post a MODs roster, and I will post when you are rostered. ;)

starter

arosar
17-03-2005, 01:08 PM
FMD! Now he thinks I'm that snobby bloke.

AR

Bill Gletsos
17-03-2005, 01:20 PM
FMD! Now he thinks I'm that snobby bloke.Clearly just like you and I, neither fg7 nor matt have a clue who SRT is.
However unlike us they keep making useless and baseless accusations.

Ian Rout
17-03-2005, 01:24 PM
I didn't post anything about the question at hand and I'm not a mass, but I probably am "middle class" so I don't think I'm entitled to take offence, at least until I find out what fg7 was talking about.

If people are going to keep cross-referencing the two boards and responding to one on the other perhaps an IT-literate readers should write something to combine both through a single front end.

ursogr8
17-03-2005, 01:34 PM
Clearly just like you and I, neither fg7 nor matt have a clue who SRT is.
However unlike us they keep making useless and baseless accusations.

5500 posts for you Bill with this one of yours.
I just noticed Bill..........you have got three green gongs too. :eek: :eek:
I am genuinely shocked.
You must know which posts earned them Bill...reprint a couple for us.





Oh. I nearly forgot.
Not useless if MS= SRT.

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
17-03-2005, 01:41 PM
ps........I now notice after posting, KB has jumped in and given the answer re 'behind our backs'. All is clear.
And of course has substantial implications for you Bill about posting, re UCJ, in the Coffee Lounge. Looks to me that the MODERATOR has declared the Coffee Lounge a 'behind our backs' zone.As usual you are putting words in other peoples mouths. Then given you are a supporter of Matt's nothing you say on the subject surprises me.

As KB pointed out fg7 made comments about people who may never visit that board. My comments re Matt in the coffee Lounge are directed at him and he seems to have no problem knowing exactly what I have said in regards to his comments/language regarding me on his board. Libby summed it up perfectly when she described his language as "the sort of denigrating language that is intended, in that context, to offend."
His deliberate vulgar misspelling of karthicks name is self evidence of this.
He is coarse, crude and vulgar for no other reason than because he can be and in fact he seems to relish in it.

Bill Gletsos
17-03-2005, 01:46 PM
I didn't post anything about the question at hand and I'm not a mass, but I probably am "middle class" so I don't think I'm entitled to take offence, at least until I find out what fg7 was talking about.

If people are going to keep cross-referencing the two boards and responding to one on the other perhaps an IT-literate readers should write something to combine both through a single front end.In actuality I think you will find very few items have been cross-referenced. The majority of it is so much rubbish it doesnt warrant any comment.

ursogr8
17-03-2005, 02:35 PM
As usual you are putting words in other peoples mouths. Then given you are a supporter of Matt's nothing you say on the subject surprises me.

As KB pointed out fg7 made comments about people who may never visit that board. My comments re Matt in the coffee Lounge are directed at him and he seems to have no problem knowing exactly what I have said in regards to his comments/language regarding me on his board. Libby summed it up perfectly when she described his language as "the sort of denigrating language that is intended, in that context, to offend."
His deliberate vulgar misspelling of karthicks name is self evidence of this.
He is coarse, crude and vulgar for no other reason than because he can be and in fact he seems to relish in it.

Bill

Previously I had noted you posted

I suspect many dont wish to post on his board. Some of those however no doubt wish to see his misinformation corrected.
and it was part of this class of reader I had in mind when KB explained 'behind our backs'.
But if your posts are now constrained to My comments re Matt in the coffee Lounge are directed at him then that reduces the target obviously.


starter

Bill Gletsos
17-03-2005, 02:44 PM
Bill

Previously I had noted you posted

and it was part of this class of reader I had in mind when KB explained 'behind our backs'.
But if your posts are now constrained to My comments re Matt in the coffee Lounge are directed at him then that reduces the target obviously.Those items I wanted to bring to a wider audience I either commented on in the main board or in the shoutbox. e.g his complete misinformation re Raymond Song retiring. I note he still has not seen fit to unequivocally retract it and admit he got it completely wrong.

ursogr8
17-03-2005, 03:03 PM
Those items I wanted to bring to a wider audience I either commented on in the main board or in the shoutbox. e.g his complete misinformation re Raymond Song retiring. I note he still has not seen fit to unequivocally retract it and admit he got it completely wrong.

Ok Bill...change/clarification in your posting policy understood, I think. ;)

Let me try to describe
> If you want to address Matt only you post in the Coffee Lounge, where he cannot see it because he is banned, the audience is low, and you think someone will e-mail him a copy on the sly,
>> If you want to comment on Matt issues you have switched from the SHOUTBOX to the general BB
>>> If I want to post a link to UCJ.........it is OK by KB so long as I put disclaimers, but not OK by other MODs at all
>>>> If I want to post CIs on Ballarat in the Ballarat thread, TCN (a MOD) says I can't, but other mods have no apparent problem.

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
17-03-2005, 03:14 PM
Ok Bill...change/clarification in your posting policy understood, I think. ;) Dont overtax yourself and strain your brain.


Let me try to describe
> If you want to address Matt only you post in the Coffee Lounge, where he cannot see it because he is banned, the audience is low, and you think someone will e-mail him a copy on the sly,This does not appear to be correct. I noted that Kizer Soza aka Matt was shown as logged in and online the other day although that id is banned for well over an hour. As such there would appear to be nothing stopping him (Matt) logging in under his Matthew Sweeney id and reading the Coffee Lounge.
However I dont have to think anything regarding how he gets his information as he clearly knows what I have said about him in the coffee lounge.


>> If you want to comment on Matt issues you have switched from the SHOUTBOX to the general BBComprehension isnt one of your strong points. I never suggested I switched at all. I have used both the shoutbox and the main board. Which one I choose and when is surely up to me.

>>> If I want to post a link to UCJ.........it is OK by KB so long as I put disclaimers, but not OK by other MODs at allI'm with the other mods on this one.

>>>> If I want to post CIs on Ballarat in the Ballarat thread, TCN (a MOD) says I can't, but other mods have no apparent problem.I suspect the other mods just cannot be bothered.

ursogr8
17-03-2005, 03:45 PM
Dont overtax yourself and strain your brain.

This does not appear to be correct. I noted that Kizer Soza aka Matt was shown as logged in and online the other day although that id is banned for well over an hour. As such there would appear to be nothing stopping him (Matt) logging in under his Matthew Sweeney id and reading the Coffee Lounge.
.

Thanks for the refinement Bill
Ok
I will try again
> If you want to address Matt only you post in the Coffee Lounge, where he thinks he cannot see it because he is banned, the audience is low, and you think he could see it if he bothered to use the banned MS_i.d., and it doesn't matter anyhow because he has spies everywhere. :P :rolleyes: ;)

I think we can move on.

You know, you are good enough to be a MODERATOR.

starter

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2005, 03:47 PM
starter seems to have the quaint idea that there are moderation policies to the extent that if one moderator moderates something that another one wouldn't there is some kind of inconsistency.

Actually what I say concerning what I would or wouldn't moderate is not binding on the other mods and what they say concerning what they would or wouldn't moderate is not binding on me. What you get is that if one mod thinks something should go then it goes. By all means comment on consistency or otherwise of moderation decisions by a particular mod but don't expect all mods to apply exactly the same standards to everything. It actually works better if they don't because that way one who is aware of a risk in a certain thing that is posted (different people pick up different things) will always deal with it - whereas if it had to go by consensus some things might slip through that shouldn't.

Libby
17-03-2005, 06:31 PM
Good post Libby.
So good, I pressed that little box down in the left corner again.....enhance your reputation.
Got me beat how you are not up there with three green lights (I mean, you are the equal of Frosty every day...although he does start earlier in the morning.. ;) ), and after all........you won poster of the year.
How come your reputation is down with us 'also-rans'?

Now see ... it was only a few days ago I cottoned on to this. Must be the distinction between personality and content. I feel so shallow :uhoh: :cry:


I wonder if we could interest a/c to manage a campaign to get some support for you going. :uhoh:

starter

He seems to find his own motivation :eek:

antichrist
17-03-2005, 09:07 PM
He seems to find his own motivation :eek:[/QUOTE]

I guess you seen my motivation before it was deleted. I did say sorry on it though. Good compo that is??
(did you see?)

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2005, 09:26 PM
Some clarifications of my existing comments regarding posting links to material at UCJ.

Posting a comment on UCJ then posting a link to it here will be treated as spam and deleted. starter, I'm informed that this means (or meant) you.

Also attempts by posters here to use this board to attempt to recruit for Matt's cozy little club are likely to receive short shrift. :lol:

firegoat7
17-03-2005, 09:35 PM
Bill.........look if I gave you all that, it still remains the question why the reference to 'backs'? It doesn't make sense. There is no change in the viewability of the post. And there is no evidence to suggest that posting there will inhibit response....and didn't in this case.

starter

Starter, Your a gem.

Can't you see Bill, who brought this post to your attention?

Clearly I have done nothing wrong. I have placed a posting on a bulletin board, using foul language, which is not permitted here, but permitted there.

maybe the question you want to ask yourself is- why is it posted here?

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
17-03-2005, 09:40 PM
Also attempts by posters here to use this board to attempt to recruit for Matt's cozy little club are likely to receive short shrift. :lol:

So your going to moderate your own behaviour then are you? Clearly you started a whole thread concerned with UCJ? Remember there is no such thing as bad publicity. :owned: :owned: :owned:

cheers Fg7

Rincewind
17-03-2005, 09:45 PM
Remember there is no such thing as bad publicity. :owned: :owned: :owned:

That's no longer true. Turns out you have just disproved it by counterexample. ;)

Bill Gletsos
17-03-2005, 10:43 PM
Starter, Your a gem.

Can't you see Bill, who brought this post to your attention?

Clearly I have done nothing wrong. I have placed a posting on a bulletin board, using foul language, which is not permitted here, but permitted there.

maybe the question you want to ask yourself is- why is it posted here?You had two choices.
Use foul language and post there or use reasonable langauge and post here.
Clearly the latter choice was beyond your capabilites because you seemingly could put together a string of sentences without having to use foul language.

antichrist
17-03-2005, 10:50 PM
You had two choices.
Use foul language and post there or use reasonable langauge and post here.
Clearly the latter choice was beyond your capabilites because you seemingly could put together a string of sentences without having to use foul language.

KB is guilty of authors copyright, whatever it is called when they change a piece of work and ruin it. The original version, colourful language and all, was a terrific exciting post to read, whereas the gelded version of this BB is like the C of E. -- not the real thing.

If you are going to t/f a post to here there is an onus to present it in its original undiluted exciting manner. What's the word I am after???

Bill Gletsos
17-03-2005, 11:00 PM
KB is guilty of authors copyright, whatever it is called when they change a piece of work and ruin it. The original version, colourful language and all, was a terrific exciting post to read, whereas the gelded version of this BB is like the C of E. -- not the real thing.

If you are going to t/f a post to here there is an onus to present it in its original undiluted exciting manner. What's the word I am after???This has absolutely nothing to do with my response to fh7.

firegoat7
17-03-2005, 11:21 PM
You had two choices.
Use foul language and post there or use reasonable langauge and post here.
Clearly the latter choice was beyond your capabilites because you seemingly could put together a string of sentences without having to use foul language.

This makes no sense Bill.
I am allowed to use strong language in that particular section on that particular bulletin board. Furthermore, Your arguement has nothing to do with my capabilities. I simply agree not to swear here and am allowed to swear there. If you want to judge that in a negative light then you should simply realise that it is real "freedom of expression". People have clearly defined what is acceptable conduct in the cultural space provided. Therefore the cultural practices are morally acceptable within that space.

cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
18-03-2005, 12:46 AM
This makes no sense Bill.Of course it makes sense.
You just refuse to acknowledge it.

I am allowed to use strong language in that particular section on that particular bulletin board. Furthermore, Your arguement has nothing to do with my capabilities. I simply agree not to swear here and am allowed to swear there. If you want to judge that in a negative light then you should simply realise that it is real "freedom of expression". People have clearly defined what is acceptable conduct in the cultural space provided. Therefore the cultural practices are morally acceptable within that space.Just because one can use foul language is no excuse to do so.
Therefore what you are saying is you found yourself unable to express yourself except by using foul language.

Rincewind
18-03-2005, 07:17 AM
KB is guilty of authors copyright, whatever it is called when they change a piece of work and ruin it. The original version, colourful language and all, was a terrific exciting post to read, whereas the gelded version of this BB is like the C of E. -- not the real thing.

If you are going to t/f a post to here there is an onus to present it in its original undiluted exciting manner. What's the word I am after???

I haven't seen the original post but I get the feeling that it was probably unpostable here. Michelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sistine chapel with every character completely naked. The church later hired an artist to paint clothes on top. His name escapes me but I believe he was referred to as "the tailor".

However, Kevin took a coy of a post from a public forum, attributed the original author (and board) and indicated the place where words had been removed. This is perfectly fine does not infringe on the copyright of the author.

Libby
18-03-2005, 07:18 AM
I guess you seen my motivation before it was deleted. I did say sorry on it though. Good compo that is??
(did you see?)

No - I missed it. Perhaps just as well ... :hmm:

antichrist
18-03-2005, 07:32 AM
No - I missed it. Perhaps just as well ... :hmm:

I did provide an obscure clue on this post then edited out, I won't test my luck twice

bye bye

eclectic
18-03-2005, 08:51 AM
I thought I had just seen a game posted here in which one player had adeptly manoeuvered his opponent into zugzwang with such skill as to rival Nimzowitsch's Victory over Saemisch at Copenhagen in 1923.

Now it has mysteriously disappeared.

Was the result overridden by the arbiter on duty?

:ponder:

eclectic

ursogr8
18-03-2005, 09:18 AM
I thought I had just seen a game posted here in which one player had adeptly manoeuvered his opponent into zugzwang with such skill as to rival Nimzowitsch's Victory over Saemisch at Copenhagen in 1923.

Now it has mysteriously disappeared.

Was the result overridden by the arbiter on duty?

:ponder:

eclectic

The arbiter on duty in the mornings is not to be doubted.

Aaron overlooked an intermezzo move that would have made the game longer. The new annotations may be released at a later date.
This particular game pales into the background compared to the Cat-fight on another thread.

Normal transmission may occur in the future.

starter

ps...I did it. ;)

pps...Depending on who saw the game, the threat may be stronger than the execution? :uhoh: ;) :)

ursogr8
18-03-2005, 09:22 AM
KB is guilty of authors copyright, whatever it is called when they change a piece of work and ruin it. The original version, colourful language and all, was a terrific exciting post to read, whereas the gelded version of this BB is like the C of E. -- not the real thing.

If you are going to t/f a post to here there is an onus to present it in its original undiluted exciting manner. What's the word I am after???

I am thinking unexpurgated.

firegoat7
18-03-2005, 11:14 AM
Just because one can use foul language is no excuse to do so.
Therefore what you are saying is you found yourself unable to express yourself except by using foul language.

It is simply a personal choice. Why am I not allowed to swear on a BB that permits me to? My whole working life has been associated with people who did not find such language a problem. If you have a problem with it, maybe that is more of a reflection of your "morals" and your class situation.

When you insinuate that I shouldn't express myself in a cultural format that I grew up with, then you are merely producing an arguement which is nothing more then elitism.

Furthermore, If language really bothered you, then you would have reflected on why people kept insisting that your language was derogatory, inflammatory and based on psychological putdowns. You would have altered your language accordingly, but since you didn't, why should I?

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
18-03-2005, 11:17 AM
Dear Bill,

I want to hold you accountable to this question.



maybe the question you want to ask yourself is- why is it posted here?

cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
18-03-2005, 12:15 PM
It is simply a personal choice. Why am I not allowed to swear on a BB that permits me to? My whole working life has been associated with people who did not find such language a problem. If you have a problem with it, maybe that is more of a reflection of your "morals" and your class situation.If such language was considered so acceptable then we could expect to see its use in our daily newspapers or during the evening news.

When you insinuate that I shouldn't express myself in a cultural format that I grew up with, then you are merely producing an arguement which is nothing more then elitism.Not true. If swearing was so acceptable then as I said above all our daily papers/magazines would be full of it.

Furthermore, If language really bothered you, then you would have reflected on why people kept insisting that your language was derogatory, inflammatory and based on psychological putdowns.
This is rich coming from someone who called everyone clowns.
[QUOTE=firegoat7]You would have altered your language accordingly, but since you didn't, why should I?.There is significant difference between my use of words like fool, idiot and moron and foul language. At least you unlike Matt have managed to not use it on this baord.

Bill Gletsos
18-03-2005, 12:18 PM
Dear Bill,

I want to hold you accountable to this question.I see now reason why I should be accountable for that question. Not that I have a problem with what KB did but it was he not I who posted your comments here.

ursogr8
18-03-2005, 12:52 PM
Thanks for the refinement Bill
Ok
I will try again
> If you want to address Matt only you post in the Coffee Lounge, where he thinks he cannot see it because he is banned, the audience is low, and you think he could see it if he bothered to use the banned MS_i.d., and it doesn't matter anyhow because he has spies everywhere. :P :rolleyes: ;)

I think we can move on.

You know, you are good enough to be a MODERATOR.

starter

Bill

I have been in e-mail contact with the exile.
He says the MS login does not give Coffee Lounge access. And he is just guessing what you are saying (in CL). (He thinks he knows you that well :eek: ).

Hope this helps.

starter

ursogr8
18-03-2005, 12:57 PM
Now see ... it was only a few days ago I cottoned on to this. Must be the distinction between personality and content. I feel so shallow :uhoh: :cry:


Libby

Late news...you are up to 2 gongs.
Tell me, did you get to find which posts get an acclamation?

Personality? Content?
Other. :uhoh:

starter

Bill Gletsos
18-03-2005, 02:52 PM
Bill

I have been in e-mail contact with the exile.Good for you.

He says the MS login does not give Coffee Lounge access.Given that his banned Kiser Soza acct could apparently read the main board but not post (otherwise why would he be on for well over an hour the other night), it seemed reasonable that his banned MS acct could read all the areas it would normally have access to including the Lounge. Guess it cant.

And he is just guessing what you are saying (in CL).I seriously doubt thats correct as he only commented on my posting in the Lounge after I in fact first posted there which was well after he opened his board. As such contrray to his denial I believe he is being informed by others.

(He thinks he knows you that well :eek: ).He wouldnt have a clue.

Hope this helps.Not really.

Libby
18-03-2005, 04:39 PM
Libby

Late news...you are up to 2 gongs.
Tell me, did you get to find which posts get an acclamation?

Personality? Content?
Other. :uhoh:

starter

I believe eclectic liked my attempt to tell people to pull their head (or ego) in a little.

Unfortunately we are beset here with (chess of course) people who like the rest of their lives black or white.

I don't know the history of everyone's arguements and I can't be bothered giving most threads more than a cursory glance at the moment. Because black is black and white is white and nobody has the good manners to even acknowledge the validity of an opposing arguement or position, let alone shift their own position slightly in response.

And I'm not some myopic, middle-class mother seeking some kind of homogeneous, sanitized G-rated discussion - but actual debate would be good

Kevin Bonham
18-03-2005, 06:17 PM
So your going to moderate your own behaviour then are you? Clearly you started a whole thread concerned with UCJ? Remember there is no such thing as bad publicity. :owned: :owned: :owned:

What a waste of a good emoticon. Obviously there is a difference between any incidental recruitment the debate might cause and deliberate attempts to recruit for UCJ.

I dragged it over here because I thought the so-called middle-classes here should see your two-faced behaviour for what it was - an irony since that was something your mate Sweeney used to always (sometimes correctly) accuse me of.

As for the copyright issue raised by antichrist, the legal standing of public posts on bulletin boards is that they are not copyright unless explicitly stated to be so when published. I know this because a Usenet post I made was quoted by American author Poppy Z. Brite on the dustjacket of her short story collection "Are You Loathsome Tonight?" without my consent or knowledge. (Not that I minded this at all.) [/namedrop]

I would like to make it clear that, perhaps unlike Bill, I have no general objection to swearing on UCJ, and if I was there I would probably do a bit of it myself, as I do on other forums. I agree that firegoat should be allowed to swear on UCJ, however I have edited out such of his language as is not allowed here. I do think that some particular cases of swearing on UCJ have been inappropriate. I also think his overfrequent swearing is very bad writing.

Libby, your comments incline towards the stereotype that if there is an argument between two diametrically opposing forces there must be truth somewhere in the middle. This is a common belief but one that, in my view, is empirically false. Indeed, trolls like firegoat and DR thrive on it by throwing meritless nonsense and waiting for people to blame both sides for the results. You will see that in my debates with people other than the usual trolls I will frequently acknowledge valid points that are made. I rarely acknowledge that firegoat has made a valid point because it is my sincere opinion that he virtually never makes one. When he does, I give credit for it (for instance on the GP thread where I said that his proposal was one of a range of valid alternatives, although I did not agree with his other claims on that thread. Another instance is me above defending his right to swear on UCJ.)

Since you are suggesting that I have failed to acknowledge opposing arguments that are valid, and further that I have lacked manners in doing so, I would like you to give an example of an opposing valid argument that I have lacked manners in failing to acknowledge or else shift my view. If you cannot do this I would like you to state that your generalisation does not apply to me. Thankyou. :D

Libby
18-03-2005, 06:48 PM
Libby, your comments incline towards the stereotype that if there is an argument between two diametrically opposing forces there must be truth somewhere in the middle.

Do they? Then I'll admit to being wrong because that wasn't the point I intended to make at all. Maybe I need to read the posts more carefully but they all start to blur for me when the threads get like this. Maybe I'm just too lazy to expend the effort on reading, scrolling back to check context, scrolling further back to check what on earth the point originally was and then switching threads to check on some very, very old story that's also been incorporated into the argument. I can always put it down to the same short attention span that prevents me playing chess ;)

My point (that I had intended to make) was that I only see a lot of "black and white" views and few ever seem to pause to say "you made a good point there" even if tempering it with "but I still don't agree with you." Like the ever-present creation vs evolution threads people pretend to debate when they are often so comfortable with their view that they are not actually looking for discussion, just for a forum to promote their opinion.

And some of the recent stuff is either silly or nasty. And maybe there is history behind that, but if anything is going to put juniors (and parents) off this BB it's going to be thread after thread like this or the mobile phone one. Even if that's just on the grounds that they are really BORING!


Since you are suggesting that I have failed to acknowledge opposing arguments that are valid, and further that I have lacked manners in doing so, I would like you to give an example of an opposing valid argument that I have lacked manners in failing to acknowledge or else shift my view. If you cannot do this I would like you to state that your generalisation does not apply to me. Thankyou. :D

I haven't pointed the finger at anyone nor did I intend to. There are a lot of contributors on this thread and on some similarly themed threads on which I've made this kind of observation. And it is a generalisation - so let's make sure The Wise Man starts naming the full list of cheating Canberra juniors shall we? Probably a more injurious generalisation.

I'm still working out why you started this thread :wall: when everyone seems so concerned about allowing people to link to UCJ? And yes, I've read the arguements about links to bad language etc etc but it still doesn't quite wash for me.

I just find these threads pretty counter-productive. It may well be non-chess but it is still chess people who are posting and I just don't see where it's going except in a direction that feeds existing animosity with no potential whatsoever to get anywhere, resolve anything or even say something witty and interesting.

Cat
18-03-2005, 06:56 PM
I dragged it over here because I thought the so-called middle-classes here should see your two-faced behaviour for what it was - an irony since that was something your mate Sweeney used to always (sometimes correctly) accuse me of.


No, you dragged it over here to feed your ravenous ego and to attempt to embarrass Fg7. It was one of the cheapest, most insidious pieces of work you've perpetrated yet. It had no place being here, it was beneath everybody's dignity to present it to us, it was the most pointless piece of trolling imaginable and it was why I censured this as an extremely bad post. The fact that you have the audacity to trivialise my justified criticism of you is a measure of your unbelievable arrogance!

Kevin Bonham
18-03-2005, 07:55 PM
My point (that I had intended to make) was that I only see a lot of "black and white" views and few ever seem to pause to say "you made a good point there" even if tempering it with "but I still don't agree with you."

Thanks for the clarification. I assume you're referring to cases where someone makes a good point that you think adds something to their case and makes the debate unclear, but not enough to change your mind. Sorry, I didn't realise you were referring to those, but I virtually never see firegoat et al make any of those kinds of points either.


Like the ever-present creation vs evolution threads people pretend to debate when they are often so comfortable with their view that they are not actually looking for discussion, just for a forum to promote their opinion.

I'm a qualified scientist in areas relevant to that "debate". I engage in it because creationists are making false statements and I wish to discourage them and hopefully others from believing those false statements. There really is no middle ground - creationism is intellectually invalid and as false as anything can possibly be; for a serious scientist it is like trying to deal with someone who reckons 2+2=5, and your ideal of a debate in such cases is just as impossible.

Rebutting false opinions is a legitimate function of public speech (the alternative being them spreading unchecked). It's very difficult to have the kind of openminded debate you refer to with someone who you already know simply is wrong. Some things are black-and-white, and the intellectual bankruptcy of many core creationist claims is definitely one of them.


And some of the recent stuff is either silly or nasty. And maybe there is history behind that, but if anything is going to put juniors (and parents) off this BB it's going to be thread after thread like this or the mobile phone one. Even if that's just on the grounds that they are really BORING!

It is a fact of life on any BB that some threads are boring and you learn to steer around those. Different people have different tastes in what is interesting. We get frequent complaints about swearing and Matt's abusiveness scaring juniors off posting. We don't get the same about the above - it may happen but I doubt it is a major issue, and I expect it would involve the sorts of people unsuited to BB life anyway. Sure, people grumble about it sometimes.


I haven't pointed the finger at anyone nor did I intend to.

That's not good enough. Actually you pointed the finger at everyone involved in this kind of thing - not naming people individually does not change that one iota. You said "I don't know the history of everyone's arguements" and "nobody has the good manners". If you are going to make generalisations like that you should be able to substantiate them in any case named, or else state that they do not apply in that particular case. I'm using myself as an example but I could just as easily use many other posters because I think your characterisations apply to only a minority.


And it is a generalisation - so let's make sure The Wise Man starts naming the full list of cheating Canberra juniors shall we? Probably a more injurious generalisation.

Did TWM ever say that all Canberra juniors cheat? I think he actually should name names, so that it is known that all the others are innocent, but since his claims are clearly false anyway we'd just end up deleting his posts. Indeed, if any Canberra junior or parent asked me to nuke it in the interests of their reputation I would.


I'm still working out why you started this thread :wall: when everyone seems so concerned about allowing people to link to UCJ?

My reasons for stating it have already been stated - they are to expose firegoat's true nature based on his whining behind the backs of some posters here.

I am not concerned about allowing people to link to UCJ in itself so long as they do not spam for it. I was one of those who was always saying that anyone who wanted to start their own BB should do so and post a link to it here.


I just find these threads pretty counter-productive. It may well be non-chess but it is still chess people who are posting and I just don't see where it's going except in a direction that feeds existing animosity with no potential whatsoever to get anywhere, resolve anything or even say something witty and interesting.

I don't mind admitting to having a bit of light relief at firegoat's expense along the way. However, there is a serious point at stake here, namely firegoat's dismissive attitudes to probably most posters on this board. I don't share that attitude; I think most posters here are good and there are only a few idiots.

I reckon firegoat should consider his position on this board carefully. At present he contributes almost nothing of value ever (even on the chess sections his posts are often just hateful irrational uninformed rants) and if he doesn't like nearly all the posters here, I don't see why he doesn't just leave. I would rather he cleaned up his act and stopped picking losing fights then getting angry at those he picked them with. Ditto for DR (Cat).

Another motive of my post was simply to redress firegoat's public fibs about me, knowing that many UCJ posters read here as well. I cannot do that on UCJ as I do not post there because I do not trust the moderator. Simple.


No, you dragged it over here to feed your ravenous ego and to attempt to embarrass Fg7.

Not guilty and guilty respectively. My ego would be starving if it had to settle for crumbs like a triumph over firegoat.


It was one of the cheapest, most insidious pieces of work you've perpetrated yet.

How the truth about your mate must hurt. :lol:


It had no place being here, it was beneath everybody's dignity to present it to us,

Clearly not beneath yours. Judging from the two-word vulgar riposte you posted to my rebuttal to noidea you have none for anything to be beneath, so just shut up.


The fact that you have the audacity to trivialise my justified criticism of you is a measure of your unbelievable arrogance!

Actually I was also "trivialising" (wrong word, it was already trivial) the ridiculous post report you made against Barry. Any more rubbish like that and you can expect to lose the right altogether.

Alan Shore
18-03-2005, 08:09 PM
That's not good enough. Actually you pointed the finger at everyone involved in this kind of thing - not naming people individually does not change that one iota. You said "I don't know the history of everyone's arguements" and "nobody has the good manners". If you are going to make generalisations like that you should be able to substantiate them in any case named, or else state that they do not apply in that particular case. I'm using myself as an example but I could just as easily use many other posters because I think your characterisations apply to only a minority.

I didn't really think about what Libby was saying applied to me but now I don't know.. perhaps 'Name names(c)' is in order? I'd be disappointed if I was somehow involved.. :(

arosar
18-03-2005, 09:43 PM
By the way, Happy 100th Birthday to Einstein's Special Relativity. If anyone would like me to explain, I'd be happy to do so. It's really quite simple.

Thanks. Carry on.

AR

firegoat7
18-03-2005, 10:40 PM
]

That's not good enough. Actually you pointed the finger at everyone involved in this kind of thing - not naming people individually does not change that one iota. You said "I don't know the history of everyone's arguements" and "nobody has the good manners". If you are going to make generalisations like that you should be able to substantiate them in any case named, or else state that they do not apply in that particular case. I'm using myself as an example but I could just as easily use many other posters because I think your characterisations apply to only a minority.



Leave Libby alone you clown! She is a breath of fresh air, who has contributed some fantastic recent posts, unlike yourself who has shrunk into new lows of narcissistic dementia. If she leaves because you bully her then you will be held accountable.



My reasons for stating it have already been stated - they are to expose firegoat's true nature based on his whining behind the backs of some posters here.

The correct term is bleating you goose!



I don't mind admitting to having a bit of light relief at firegoat's expense along the way. However, there is a serious point at stake here, namely firegoat's dismissive attitudes to probably most posters on this board. I don't share that attitude; I think most posters here are good and there are only a few idiots.



:hmm: Lets put on a serious face :whistle: The only person I think is an idiot is Bill, a loveable idiot, but an idiot. You on the other hand are an, A-social fruitloop.

Everyone else is basically normal, except for AC who is evil (thats why we love him). Actually I almost left out Gandalf, he is a peanut (notice my post count still dosen't work).

Cheers Fg7

antichrist
18-03-2005, 11:14 PM
[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]
As for the copyright issue raised by antichrist, the legal standing of public posts on bulletin boards is that they are not copyright unless explicitly stated to be so when published. I know this because a Usenet post I made was quoted by American author Poppy Z. Brite on the dustjacket of her short story collection "Are You Loathsome Tonight?" without my consent or knowledge. (Not that I minded this at all.) [/namedrop]

I missed out a word when I brought up this issue, but I thought the general trend made it clear what I was getting at. It was nothing to do with the normal sense of copyright.

You will hear authors complain how their work, in a film for example, has been changed so drastically they sort of refuse to endorse it. It is no longer a true representation of their work.

That is the point I was making. The full text of FG7's post, as terrible as it was, in its own way was a masterpiece, not to be emasculated. Just as you would not censor Jack Nickelson's lines in "One flew over the cuckoo's nest". It just would not be the same.

Because this is only a recent issue I have only heard the approp term to describe this once and can't remember it.

No one got hold of Picasso's paintings deleted the insanity!

Bill Gletsos
18-03-2005, 11:18 PM
:hmm: Lets put on a serious face :whistle: The only person I think is an idiot is Bill, a loveable idiot, but an idiot. You on the other hand are an, A-social fruitloop.Thats interesting because apart from the banned moron Matt, the only ones I consider complete idiots are you and DR who continually demonstrate your mastery in that area over many threads.
A/C on the otherhand whilst often the fool he is mainly just a nuisance.

firegoat7
18-03-2005, 11:29 PM
Hello,

Relax Bill I don't really think your an idiot. Its just the word idiot is mainly used by you, so I couldn't help having a joke at your expense.

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
19-03-2005, 12:04 AM
Relax Bill I don't really think your an idiot. Its just the word idiot is mainly used by you, so I couldn't help having a joke at your expense.Given you have asked elsewhere "how the ACF allowed a moron like Bill Gletsos to ruin the rating system", then I see no reason to believe you were joking. In fact there was no indication att all that your comment was in jest.

firegoat7
19-03-2005, 01:57 AM
Given you have asked elsewhere "how the ACF allowed a moron like Bill Gletsos to ruin the rating system", then I see no reason to believe you were joking. In fact there was no indication att all that your comment was in jest.

It seems your right I do believe your a moron but not an idiot.

cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
19-03-2005, 02:21 AM
Leave Libby alone you clown! She is a breath of fresh air, who has contributed some fantastic recent posts, unlike (firegoat's demented babble about himself snipped) If she leaves because you bully her then you will be held accountable.

Libby has indeed contributed many excellent posts but on this occasion I think she has lapsed into something rather cliched that I have seen many times before in similar situations. It also reflected unfavourably on many posters here in a way that I believe was overgeneralised and in some cases incorrect and I am fully entitled to lead the defence. I'm sure she can take it, and will make me look suitably foolish if I'm wrong, and I suspect her skin is many times thicker than yours.


:hmm: Lets put on a serious face :whistle: The only person I think is an idiot is Bill, a loveable idiot, but an idiot. You on the other hand are an, A-social fruitloop.

***firegoat runs out of ammunition and reflexively attributes his documented faults (evidence already provided) to others without providing any evidence of his own***

Libby
19-03-2005, 06:29 AM
Libby has indeed contributed many excellent posts but on this occasion I think she has lapsed into something rather cliched that I have seen many times before in similar situations. It also reflected unfavourably on many posters here in a way that I believe was overgeneralised and in some cases incorrect and I am fully entitled to lead the defence. I'm sure she can take it, and will make me look suitably foolish if I'm wrong, and I suspect her skin is many times thicker than yours.

Nope, not feeling bullied. Just thinking that I am now contributing to what I thought was so irrelevant :doh:

And Kevin, TWM referred to "cheating Canberra juniors" - that being plural. Most posters (as suggested on the actual thread) can identify the game which was called into dispute. I thought it was an inappropriate generalisation, which nobody probably takes seriously (I hope) but perhaps a better example of a generalisation that could use some specific evidence.

Sorry to offend your intellectual sensibilities by lapsing into cliche. I feel suitably patted on the head :cool:

Spiny Norman
19-03-2005, 02:18 PM
Good post Libby. So good, I pressed that little box down in the left corner again.....enhance your reputation.
Got me beat how you are not up there with three green lights (I mean, you are the equal of Frosty every day...although he does start earlier in the morning.. ;) ), and after all........you won poster of the year.

Libby's miles ahead of me. I think she deserves "three greens" too!

Spiny Norman
19-03-2005, 02:26 PM
starter seems to have the quaint idea that there are moderation policies to the extent that if one moderator moderates something that another one wouldn't there is some kind of inconsistency.

Actually what I say concerning what I would or wouldn't moderate is not binding on the other mods and what they say concerning what they would or wouldn't moderate is not binding on me. What you get is that if one mod thinks something should go then it goes. By all means comment on consistency or otherwise of moderation decisions by a particular mod but don't expect all mods to apply exactly the same standards to everything. It actually works better if they don't because that way one who is aware of a risk in a certain thing that is posted (different people pick up different things) will always deal with it - whereas if it had to go by consensus some things might slip through that shouldn't.

Well said KB. Above all, any disagreement between MODS about moderation issues should be out of sight in a private area so that it can be sorted out without causing any kind of stir. I would assume that this is how it is handled here because I have seen very little discussion/disagreement about moderation-type issues over the past 9 months.

antichrist
19-03-2005, 06:23 PM
Well said KB. Above all, any disagreement between MODS about moderation issues should be out of sight in a private area so that it can be sorted out without causing any kind of stir. I would assume that this is how it is handled here because I have seen very little discussion/disagreement about moderation-type issues over the past 9 months.

Frosty,
you crawler!

Kevin Bonham
20-03-2005, 03:43 AM
And Kevin, TWM referred to "cheating Canberra juniors" - that being plural. Most posters (as suggested on the actual thread) can identify the game which was called into dispute. I thought it was an inappropriate generalisation, which nobody probably takes seriously (I hope) but perhaps a better example of a generalisation that could use some specific evidence.

All generalisations could use more evidence. Except for this one. :lol:

I completely agree with you about TWM and I was always happy to knock his rubbish on the head more forcefully if anyone wanted me to.

ursogr8
20-03-2005, 10:05 AM
starter seems to have the quaint idea that there........... <snip>
[QUOTE=Frosty]Well said KB. Above all, any disagreement between MODS about moderation issues should be out of sight in a private area so that it can be sorted out without causing any kind of stir. I would assume that this is how it is handled here because I have seen very little discussion/disagreement about moderation-type issues over the past 9 months.

Frosty

This is a bit rich mate.
KB has made it clear that we canot criticise him as Kev_MOD.
I disagreed with his original post...but was silenced in commenting.

Now I find you praising the original post (and you sit on 3 green globes...and hence very influential). Your heaping of praise on his posts only adds to my discomfort with the original.

regards
starter

eclectic
20-03-2005, 10:19 AM
[QUOTE=Kevin]starter seems to have the quaint idea that there........... <snip>


Frosty

This is a bit rich mate.
KB has made it clear that we canot criticise him as Kev_MOD.
I disagreed with his original post...but was silenced in commenting.

Now I find you praising the original post (and you sit on 3 green globes...and hence very influential). Your heaping of praise on his posts only adds to my discomfort with the original.

regards
starter

btw,

how is the resolution of those earlier transmission problems coming along?

will check my tv guide see when possibly high profile programs are scheduled for rebroadcasting...

:whistle:

eclectic

ursogr8
20-03-2005, 10:31 AM
What a waste of a good emoticon. Obviously there is a difference between any incidental recruitment the debate might cause and deliberate attempts to recruit for UCJ.

<snip>


Is Kevin writing about UCJ recruitment writing as Kev_POSTER, Kev_MOD, or Kev_ACF. It is important to know since there have been a number of recruit references in several posts, and I have issue with one of the roles.

starter

Bill Gletsos
20-03-2005, 02:17 PM
This is a bit rich mate.
KB has made it clear that we canot criticise him as Kev_MOD.
I disagreed with his original post...but was silenced in commenting.I must have misssed it :whistle: but how specifically were you silenced in commenting, other than possibly deciding to give up given that no one else (other than fg7 of course) apparently agreed with you.

eclectic
20-03-2005, 03:21 PM
I must have misssed it :whistle: but how specifically were you silenced in commenting, other than possibly deciding to give up given that no one else (other than fg7 of course) apparently agreed with you.

please refer to posts 40 and 41

;)

nfc

:hand:

eclectic

Spiny Norman
20-03-2005, 05:03 PM
Frosty, you crawler!

AC, mate, credit where credit is due .... you never know, I might even agree with you one day! :eek:

Plenty of things I disagree with KB about of course. We're all grown-ups here aren't we? I assume we can all handle a bit of robust discussion.

But on issues of moderation I agree 100% with what KB has said. If y'all can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Never, ever criticise a mod! By all means, have a robust discussion, but its foolish to make it personal.

Spiny Norman
20-03-2005, 05:14 PM
KB has made it clear that we canot criticise him as Kev_MOD.
I disagreed with his original post...but was silenced in commenting.
Now I find you praising the original post (and you sit on 3 green globes...and hence very influential). Your heaping of praise on his posts only adds to my discomfort with the original.

I suspect, in fact I am sure, that you greatly over-estimate the influence of the green lights ... plenty of people here who'd pay absolutely no attention to anything I might say, regardless of the 'three greens' or 'premium member' or any other such thing. Not much sign of public approbation aimed in my direction.

BTW, I have not heaped praise on KB ... I have agreed with him on a particular point in respect of how moderation should operate, after having publicly disagreed with him in other threads about other matters.-

Incidentally, how were you silenced in commenting? Was a post deleted? If so, was a reason given to you, or not? If "not" I may have cause to take up the cudgels on your behalf. ;)

antichrist
20-03-2005, 06:12 PM
AC, mate, credit where credit is due .... you never know, I might even agree with you one day! :eek:

Plenty of things I disagree with KB about of course. We're all grown-ups here aren't we? I assume we can all handle a bit of robust discussion.

But on issues of moderation I agree 100% with what KB has said. If y'all can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Never, ever criticise a mod! By all means, have a robust discussion, but its foolish to make it personal.

I crawled to Libby yesterday but it did not do me any good.

Libby
20-03-2005, 06:14 PM
I crawled to Libby yesterday but it did not do me any good.

Must I doubt your intentions every time you post? :wall:

antichrist
20-03-2005, 06:52 PM
Must I doubt your intentions every time you post? :wall:

Thanks for the laugh.

Kevin Bonham
20-03-2005, 09:52 PM
KB has made it clear that we canot criticise him as Kev_MOD.


I disagreed with his original post...but was silenced in commenting.

These comments are both total fabrications and all claims starter makes about mod policy in the future should be ignored unless verified by the mods or a reliable source. He likes to misrepresent my comments, presumably to goad me into flaming him so he can then dissect my flames for evidence of further "policies" he can then take out of context, and so ad infinitum. I'm sure it must be great fun for him.

At times, starter strikes me as the sort who would go into a chemistry laboratory and swish a stirring stick around a beaker of 100% pure H2O in the hope of muddying it.

Kevin Bonham
20-03-2005, 10:03 PM
Is Kevin writing about UCJ recruitment writing as Kev_POSTER, Kev_MOD, or Kev_ACF. It is important to know since there have been a number of recruit references in several posts, and I have issue with one of the roles.

ACF has no role in administering this board so you can scratch that one for starters.

My comments about not allowing you to post posts over there and then link to them here, and my comments about excessive spam for UCJ not being allowed here, both announce my moderation policies and can therefore be taken as moderator statements.

I think the rule's been explained before: if I make a comment on what is or isn't allowed that is a moderator comment. Anything else is not.

ursogr8
21-03-2005, 06:25 AM
<snip>

But on issues of moderation I agree 100% with what KB has said. If y'all can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Never, ever criticise a mod! <snip>



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


Post #122 at http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=45604&highlight=forensic#post45604
-----------------------------------------




Some clarifications of my existing comments regarding posting links to material at UCJ.

That is OK Kevin. I don't mind if one of the other mods has a different policy to you on LINKS. I have already said that I will accept Baz direction on this. I did not expect that you would change your personal moderation policy just because it is at odds with the morning_mod. I was quite persuaded by your argument that inconsistency between mods was useful. But if you now want to standardise to the morning_mod's policy then feel free to do so without criticism from me.
However, while you may have a ring-a-rosie with the other mods to get the link policy in some sort of standard form, you perhaps need to include Karthick in the loop because he coming at this from a different angle.
K. goes bananas when I go BUMP. Now, to me, BUMP occupies but 1 line in his data-base and seems inoffensive. But bananas he goes...so there must be something in his displeasure...storage-wise. For this reason LINK (to a longish report on Ballarat) seemed to be efficient storage-wise. But, as we now know...LINKS are out. <Well, actually not out, only out if the link is to a place that allows swearing...even if it is quarantined to one forum>.
So, if LINKS are out, and if postings here are discouraged if they have appeared previously, then there is a bit of a bind for the average poster here. Of course not such a bind for you (as a MOD you can just drag back expurgated versions of posts from UCJ without criticism.....save the 30+ posts on this thread that you have caused). And not a bind for Bill.
But for the average Jo_Poster....a bind.


Posting a comment on UCJ then posting a link to it here will be treated as spam and deleted.

Ok. Thanks for that Kevin. A new word defined for me.
Spam is a word I didn't care about until Karthick released my commercial e-mail addresses on this board; then I learned to hate spam.
Just one question....a LINK is spam.... :hmm: ? Must be one of those words in the dictionary that has many meanings. :confused:



starter, I'm informed that this means (or meant) you.

Looks like a BUMP by you Kevin. :doh: I have already said to the morning_mod I will take direction.



Also attempts by posters here to use this board to attempt to recruit for Matt's cozy little club are likely to receive short shrift. :lol:

Given that you personally are a user of his BB (evidence the filched, expurgated post by fg7), then we can class you as a member of Matt's cozy little club. And given that you have created the most publicity for Matt's board last week; I would expect that the SHORT_SHRIFTER, whomever he may be, will be looking for you first.

starter

skip to my lou
21-03-2005, 06:27 AM
Liar.

ursogr8
21-03-2005, 07:01 AM
Liar.

What you posted is a bump, and you have been doing it a lot lately.. so stop wasting server resources.


I take directions from the ADMINISTRATOR seriously.


starter

skip to my lou
21-03-2005, 07:12 AM
I take directions from the ADMINISTRATOR seriously.


starter

And where in my response do I go 'bananas'?

ursogr8
21-03-2005, 07:20 AM
And where in my response do I go 'bananas'?
K.

It is just a colloquialism for 'strong response'.
Happy to go back and substitute this in my original post...and then we can delete the past 3 posts?

starter

skip to my lou
21-03-2005, 09:04 AM
'strong response'

Why would it be a 'strong response'?

ursogr8
21-03-2005, 09:08 AM
Why would it be a 'strong response'?
Because the ADMIN's directions are by definition not to be trifled with.

skip to my lou
21-03-2005, 09:25 AM
Because the ADMIN's directions are by definition not to be trifled with.

So if I give any directions at all, I am going bananas?

antichrist
21-03-2005, 09:40 AM
What is a bump, and am I allowed to do one, and what happens if I do one by accident?

eclectic
21-03-2005, 09:44 AM
What is a bump, and am I allowed to do one, and what happens if I do one by accident?

if you think of those line of tacks which police want to use to slow down speeding cars in vic then perhaps a slowing of your post count?

e

ursogr8
21-03-2005, 09:47 AM
So if I give any directions at all, I am going bananas?
As I said...it is a colloquialism. Happy to substitute.
Your directions are irresitible
starter

ursogr8
21-03-2005, 10:02 AM
What is a bump, and am I allowed to do one, and what happens if I do one by accident?

Now that you mention it..........you often BUMP Bill.
Wonder why you can?

skip to my lou
21-03-2005, 10:29 AM
As I said...it is a colloquialism. Happy to substitute.
Your directions are irresitible
starter

Answer the question please.

ursogr8
21-03-2005, 10:42 AM
Answer the question please.

No, not all directions.
But certainly the ones expressed like the one I quoted.


starter

ps This is becoming a bit circular. Do you want me to sub.?

Bill Gletsos
21-03-2005, 11:52 AM
So, if LINKS are out, and if postings here are discouraged if they have appeared previously, then there is a bit of a bind for the average poster here.Try being specific.
Links are out to the other board. Links elsewhere to box hill, nswca etc are fine.
Postings are not discourgaed. What is discouraged by the admin is your habit of simply posting the word bump in a thread that has previous died/ended.


Of course not such a bind for you (as a MOD you can just drag back expurgated versions of posts from UCJ without criticism.....save the 30+ posts on this thread that you have caused).Firstly anyone else could post something from UJC here provided they removed any unacceptable language.
Secondly the criticism is only from the usual suspects.


And not a bind for Bill.
But for the average Jo_Poster....a bind.It isnt a bind for anyone.
The only person in a bind appears to be you, however why you insist on tying yourself in knots is your own business.


Given that you personally are a user of his BB (evidence the filched, expurgated post by fg7), then we can class you as a member of Matt's cozy little club.It is comments like this that simply reduce your credibility.
There are some things that are said on Matt's board that are so misleading that they require a comment. However there are those that wish to have nothing to do with posting on Matt's board, as such the only place to respond to them is on this board.


And given that you have created the most publicity for Matt's board last week; I would expect that the SHORT_SHRIFTER, whomever he may be, will be looking for you first.KB referred to recruiting. Highlighting stupid comments made could hardly be called recruiting. However given your previous attempts to send posters from here to there to look at your punting on Box Hill events, when it comes to short shrifting you should be looking in the mirror.

Libby
21-03-2005, 12:40 PM
There are some things that are said on Matt's board that are so misleading that they require a comment. However there are those that wish to have nothing to do with posting on Matt's board, as such the only place to respond to them is on this board.

Although I should completely avoid commenting for fear of generalising ...

This doesn't make sense to me Bill.

If misleading comments are made on Matt's board, they remain on Matt's board - and possibly not disputed there - for anyone who cares to read them. What is the point in refuting them here? A casual visitor may only read them on Matt's board so if they are actually worthy of disproving (as opposed to just ignoring) shouldn't they be refuted THERE?

If we refute them here, doesn't it just encourage someone to venture "over there" to read the offending comment (and potentially be recruited if they actually find something of interest?)

All of this makes no sense to me. If people find Matt's board silly, offensive and irrelevant isn't the best tactic just to ignore it completely? It's not exactly snowed under with members or even with new postings from existing members.

I'd suggest it gets a lot of visits (I know it does from me) when people make comments here (not even LINKS, just comments) about content on the other board. Being a shallow sheep myself, I trot over for a look. Then I trot back again because it really wasn't very exciting (although it is broadening my knowledge of "turns of phrase" I hope not to catch my children using).

You can use the argument that some of it is so wicked it must be refuted, but there are many boofheads publishing information on the internet which is far more misleading, wicked & defamatory. It's only when someone in the mainstream gives them some attention they seem to gain the publicity and (sadly sometimes) credibility that they crave.

Bill Gletsos
21-03-2005, 12:59 PM
Although I should completely avoid commenting for fear of generalising ...

This doesn't make sense to me Bill.

If misleading comments are made on Matt's board, they remain on Matt's board - and possibly not disputed there - for anyone who cares to read them. What is the point in refuting them here? A casual visitor may only read them on Matt's board so if they are actually worthy of disproving (as opposed to just ignoring) shouldn't they be refuted THERE?I'm fairly certain that the vast majority who may read his board also read this board.
As such posting here should reach them.

If we refute them here, doesn't it just encourage someone to venture "over there" to read the offending comment (and potentially be recruited if they actually find something of interest?)

All of this makes no sense to me. If people find Matt's board silly, offensive and irrelevant isn't the best tactic just to ignore it completely? It's not exactly snowed under with members or even with new postings from existing members.Yes, thats true.

I'd suggest it gets a lot of visits (I know it does from me) when people make comments here (not even LINKS, just comments) about content on the other board. Being a shallow sheep myself, I trot over for a look. Then I trot back again because it really wasn't very exciting (although it is broadening my knowledge of "turns of phrase" I hope not to catch my children using).

You can use the argument that some of it is so wicked it must be refuted, but there are many boofheads publishing information on the internet which is far more misleading, wicked & defamatory. It's only when someone in the mainstream gives them some attention they seem to gain the publicity and (sadly sometimes) credibility that they crave.True. However only a handful of his comments have actually been discussed here. e.g. Raymond Song "retiring", that the NSWCA violated corporate law, that I am Sir Ralph Titus and firegoats rant re biggles that KB highlighted.

Libby
21-03-2005, 01:17 PM
I'm fairly certain that the vast majority who may read his board also read this board.
As such posting here should reach them..

yes, but probably unwise to presume. Particularly should his board achieve any kind of longevity. The remarks on it may remain there forever, the link to here may not always be apparent. And my assumption in this, is that the comments are sufficiently significant that they must be rebutted as opposed to just being ignored.


True. However only a handful of his comments have actually been discussed here. e.g. Raymond Song "retiring", that the NSWCA violated corporate law, that I am Sir Ralph Titus and firegoats rant re biggles that KB highlighted.

Hmm :hmm: and starter's Ballarat Begonia report? That may not be a lot, but then the other board has not been around all that long. And this handful of examples probably represents an unfortunately high proportion of it's actual content.

Bill Gletsos
21-03-2005, 01:41 PM
yes, but probably unwise to presume. Particularly should his board achieve any kind of longevity. The remarks on it may remain there forever, the link to here may not always be apparent.That would depend on how many actual users he eventually gets.

And my assumption in this, is that the comments are sufficiently significant that they must be rebutted as opposed to just being ignored.Those that have needed comment have been answered here. I have no intention of ever posting on his board.


Hmm :hmm: and starter's Ballarat Begonia report? That may not be a lot, but then the other board has not been around all that long. And this handful of examples probably represents an unfortunately high proportion of it's actual content.There are over 30 threads there. The above represents 5 threads. Not a significant percentage.

ursogr8
21-03-2005, 02:16 PM
Try being specific.

Bill
I was as specific as your examples below.

Links are out to the other board. Links elsewhere to box hill, nswca etc are fine.

Postings are not discourgaed.
Usage of space is. See next metric.

What is discouraged by the admin is your habit of simply posting the word bump in a thread that has previous died/ended.

My friend SEARCH tells me I have used the word BUMP 19 times in 3478 posts. Do you class that as a habit Bill? Worthy of ADMIN intervention?


It isnt a bind for anyone.
The only person in a bind appears to be you, however why you insist on tying yourself in knots is your own business.

It might have something to do with the deletion of my posts (and my posts only).


The bind is this> I post BUMP 19 times in 3478 posts and feel the heavy hand of the ADMIN telling me about server storage. Then I write a longish report on Ballarat (which others may well quote multiple times over) and think...OK I will save K.'s space and just post a nice-easy-link from here. But my attempt to save space here is not appreciated and we get all these rules emerging that vary from MOD to MOD.


It is comments like this that simply reduce your credibility.

Good to see you getting the spelling of cred. correct.
Facts remain >KB filched an expurgated copy of fg7's post, >> he (KB) put a provocative word (back) in the title, >>> he created a flurry of posts (and Libby's notes on the IGNORE strategy are very relevant. The nett effect was advertising for Matt's board.




KB referred to recruiting. Highlighting stupid comments made could hardly be called recruiting.
I don't agree; see my previous.


However given your previous attempts to send posters from here to there to look at your punting on Box Hill events, when it comes to short shrifting you should be looking in the mirror.

I am fully expecting a personal visit from the SHORT_SHRIFTER.

Do you know what he will get?
(I have a spare forensic analysis.....if my access is not revoked :uhoh: ;) )


starter

Bill Gletsos
21-03-2005, 02:32 PM
Bill
I was as specific as your examples below.Mine were more specific. ;)


Usage of space is. See next metric.Simply posting bump is a waste as it adds nothing to the topic. Hence its a waste of space.


My friend SEARCH tells me I have used the word BUMP 19 times in 3478 posts. Do you class that as a habit Bill? Worthy of ADMIN intervention?Sounds like a habit.
BTW how many other posters have used the word bump to 'bump" a thread.


It might have something to do with the deletion of my posts (and my posts only).You shouldnt have been a bad boy. :lol:

The bind is this> I post BUMP 19 times in 3478 posts and feel the heavy hand of the ADMIN telling me about server storage. Then I write a longish report on Ballarat (which others may well quote multiple times over) and think...OK I will save K.'s space and just post a nice-easy-link from here. But my attempt to save space here is not appreciated and we get all these rules emerging that vary from MOD to MOD.As i said posting bump adds nothing to a thread and is a waste, posting a report isnt. As such you cannot reasonably equate the two.

Good to see you getting the spelling of cred. correct.I have been for awhile.

Facts remain >KB filched an expurgated copy of fg7's post, >> he (KB) put a provocative word (back) in the title, >>> he created a flurry of posts (and Libby's notes on the IGNORE strategy are very relevant.The word back was entirely relevant and I havent seen anyone supporting your objection to its use.

The nett effect was advertising for Matt's board.Perhaps, perhaps not.

I don't agree; see my previous.I disagree.

I am fully expecting a personal visit from the SHORT_SHRIFTER.

Do you know what he will get?
(I have a spare forensic analysis.....if my access is not revoked :uhoh: ;) )As ye so, so may ye reap.

skip to my lou
21-03-2005, 03:52 PM
No, not all directions.
But certainly the ones expressed like the one I quoted.

So, you mean just a normal sentence, and I am going bananas, is it?

ursogr8
21-03-2005, 04:01 PM
Simply posting bump is a waste as it adds nothing to the topic. Hence its a waste of space.
Sounds like a habit.
You shouldnt have been a bad boy. :lol:
As i said posting bump adds nothing to a thread and is a waste, posting a report isnt. As such you cannot reasonably equate the two.

I clearly said the strategy I adopted saved space; first my longish post, and any later quote of the post.
I think you are agreeing that K. asks for space to be saved. It would appear to be the K. preferred method is for me to LINK.
The next question is LINK to where? CV web-site and BHCC web-site are both out because I don't have posting rights. UCJ seemed to be a good spot where I appreciated,...in fact I have never been bullied there.
Ipso facto...we have a BIND; the ADMIN preference clashes with an unknown number of MOD preferences.


The word back was entirely relevant and I havent seen anyone supporting your objection to its use.

I still think it was uncalled for; bordering on unseemly. The silence of others could mean anything.


starter

skip to my lou
21-03-2005, 04:05 PM
It would appear to be the K. preferred method is for me to LINK.

???

Bill Gletsos
21-03-2005, 04:22 PM
I clearly said the strategy I adopted saved space; first my longish post, and any later quote of the post.
I think you are agreeing that K. asks for space to be saved.No, I'm not agreeing at all.


It would appear to be the K. preferred method is for me to LINK.Untrue.

The next question is LINK to where? CV web-site and BHCC web-site are both out because I don't have posting rights. UCJ seemed to be a good spot where I appreciated,...in fact I have never been bullied there.Good for you.

Ipso facto...we have a BIND; the ADMIN preference clashes with an unknown number of MOD preferences.There was no indication the Admin wanted you to link. He just wanted you to stop posting posts containg just the word "bump".

I still think it was uncalled for; bordering on unseemly.Rubbish there was nothing unseemly about it.

The silence of others could mean anything.Possibly. However all I said was no one else supported your view.

ursogr8
21-03-2005, 04:37 PM
He just wanted you to stop posting posts containing just the word "bump".



Well Bill, it would be a good idea if you could persuade him to tell us why, if it is not a space thing.

And a/c is a more frequent user of drawing attention to unanswered posts; why not harass him first?

ursogr8
21-03-2005, 04:39 PM
i am merely touching the shadow of a post which seems to have passed by almost unnoticed

How did you do that at noon?
There are no shadows at noon? :confused: ;)

Bill Gletsos
21-03-2005, 05:40 PM
Well Bill, it would be a good idea if you could persuade him to tell us why, if it is not a space thing.

And a/c is a more frequent user of drawing attention to unanswered posts; why not harass him first?He just doesnt say "bump".

Alan Shore
21-03-2005, 06:12 PM
He just doesnt say "bump".

No, often his posts contain many more words, thus wasting my time reading through them all even further.

Bumping is a legitimate action for a forum such as this, to draw attention to a topic that may have eluded the notice of others. So just leave starter alone, OK?

antichrist
21-03-2005, 06:18 PM
[QUOTE=Belthasar]No, often his posts contain many more words, thus wasting my time reading through them all even further.

A\C
Is this quote referring to me? I thought you enjoyed reading my posts, if otherwise why bother reading them, is it sado-macho or addiction. Is it your weekly penance?

Alan Shore
21-03-2005, 06:54 PM
[QUOTE=Belthasar]No, often his posts contain many more words, thus wasting my time reading through them all even further.

A\C
Is this quote referring to me? I thought you enjoyed reading my posts, if otherwise why bother reading them, is it sado-macho or addiction. Is it your weekly penance?

AC, sometimes I do enjoy your posts. Other times, you'll yammer on about inane nothings that make me wish I'd never clicked on the thread in the first place. ;)

Libby
21-03-2005, 07:00 PM
[QUOTE=antichrist]

AC, sometimes I do enjoy your posts. Other times, you'll yammer on about inane nothings that make me wish I'd never clicked on the thread in the first place. ;)

Lucky you're being specific :whistle: I'd hate anyone to think your remark could apply equally well elsewhere ;)

Bill Gletsos
21-03-2005, 08:01 PM
Bumping is a legitimate action for a forum such as this, to draw attention to a topic that may have eluded the notice of others. So just leave starter alone, OK?Starter asked why the admin didnt like him doing it. I was giving him my answwr.
Also no one other than starter appears to be doing bumps by just typing the word bump.

Kevin Bonham
21-03-2005, 09:16 PM
But if you now want to standardise to the morning_mod's policy then feel free to do so without criticism from me.

I was made aware of a practice being employed by you that I had not been aware of when I made my original comment. Hence the clarification.


K. goes bananas when I go BUMP. Now, to me, BUMP occupies but 1 line in his data-base and seems inoffensive. But bananas he goes...so there must be something in his displeasure...storage-wise.

Sometimes some posters (you and antichrist being the main suspects) like to hassle posters who have not replied to posts you wish them to reply to.

In these circumstances I suggest a PM. Only if they still decline to reply, or if they have failed to acknowledge or respond to the same point many times, should you go public about their disinterest.


For this reason LINK (to a longish report on Ballarat) seemed to be efficient storage-wise. But, as we now know...LINKS are out.

What on earth are you talking about? The only links I have generally ruled out are links to posts written by the same poster on UCJ.


So, if LINKS are out, and if postings here are discouraged if they have appeared previously,

You are welcome to repost material you have posted on UCJ over here if it is within this board's rules.


Just one question....a LINK is spam.... :hmm: ? Must be one of those words in the dictionary that has many meanings. :confused:

We have frequently deleted advertising posts for other BBs etc made by posters who are not resident on this BB and have only signed up to spam. We are using the context spam = unsolicited promotion.


Given that you personally are a user of his BB (evidence the filched, expurgated post by fg7), then we can class you as a member of Matt's cozy little club.

I am not a member, I am a sporadic lurker.


And given that you have created the most publicity for Matt's board last week; I would expect that the SHORT_SHRIFTER, whomever he may be, will be looking for you first.

Disingeneous rubbish as usual - I want to crack down on intentional spam for UCJ (should any arise) not on material that incidentally gives it publicity.

Why do you like wasting my time with arguments that you surely have the intellect to see are nonsense?

ursogr8
22-03-2005, 08:08 AM
Starter asked why the admin didnt like him doing it. I was giving him my answwr.

There have only been 8 one-word bumps. It is still a mystery to me why K. gets so terse on the practice when according to BD it is a recognised protocol elsewhere; combining efficiency with a standard word.



Also no one other than starter appears to be doing bumps by just typing the word bump.

But surely it is not the word BUMP that is the problem that offends K.?

Why not a/c?

ursogr8
22-03-2005, 08:24 AM
Sometimes some posters (you and antichrist being the main suspects) like to hassle posters who have not replied to posts you wish them to reply to.

In these circumstances I suggest a PM. Only if they still decline to reply, or if they have failed to acknowledge or respond to the same point many times, should you go public about their disinterest.

How can a PM be less of a server storage issue than a 1 word BUMP? This not an issue about how to get answers to posts, but why K. sees BUMP as a storage issue.




What on earth are you talking about? The only links I have generally ruled out are links to posts written by the same poster on UCJ.

The morning_MOD has imposed a different rule on me...which I have accepted.




You are welcome to repost material you have posted on UCJ over here if it is within this board's rules.

We have frequently deleted advertising posts for other BBs etc made by posters who are not resident on this BB and have only signed up to spam. We are using the context spam = unsolicited promotion.

But I am signed up on both boards. So, why are my links labelled as spam?




I am not a member, I am a sporadic lurker.

You (and Bill) are the members who have caused the most extensive threads discussing the EXILED ones bb.




Disingeneous rubbish as usual - I want to crack down on intentional spam for UCJ (should any arise) not on material that incidentally gives it publicity.

Why do you like wasting my time with arguments that you surely have the intellect to see are nonsense?

Because I have a different agenda to you.



But you are correct.
I should ease up and give you more time so that you (and Bill) could post on the issue that has arisen on the thread about finishing Mt B.
And it would give Bill some time to post on the threads at UCJ asking about use of NSWCA and NSWJCL financial reserves, strategic plans, and chess centres.
One posters tendency to swear should not divert our attention from key issues. Right?

starter

Spiny Norman
22-03-2005, 06:16 PM
I was about to 'bump' A/C today re: our CC game .... I agree with you on this one starter, as bumping a post for further attention seems pretty efficient to me. I won't enter into the cross-posting issue (yet) as I haven't thought it through.

Recherché
22-03-2005, 06:34 PM
How did you do that at noon?
There are no shadows at noon? :confused: ;)

Sure there are. Just hold out your arm. Besides, at ~38°S the sun is never directly overhead in any case. ;)

eclectic
22-03-2005, 07:12 PM
Sure there are. Just hold out your arm. Besides, at ~38°S the sun is never directly overhead in any case. ;)

you heliopedant!!

:P

eclectic

antichrist
22-03-2005, 07:41 PM
But surely it is not the word BUMP that is the problem that offends K.?

Why not a/c?

Starter,
You remind me of my grandfather, he used to go to the priest in confession and tell him about everyone else's sins and not his own. The priest would bump him.

ursogr8
22-03-2005, 08:47 PM
Starter,
You remind me of my grandfather, he used to go to the priest in confession and tell him about everyone else's sins and not his own. The priest would bump him.

a/c

I have only one word to say to you, and it is a shout....


Next

Kevin Bonham
24-03-2005, 05:08 PM
How can a PM be less of a server storage issue than a 1 word BUMP? This not an issue about how to get answers to posts, but why K. sees BUMP as a storage issue.

Fair enough. Take that up with him. My view is that BUMP posts are generally unnecessary and annoying on this board - members click on threads to see there is nothing new. I have seen them used commonly on other boards where upcoming events fall too far down in the queue because of large numbers of new threads. There is no such need here.


You (and Bill) are the members who have caused the most extensive threads discussing the EXILED ones bb.

Out of context - I was referring to UCJ members.


Because I have a different agenda to you.

The mind boggles.

ursogr8
24-03-2005, 05:43 PM
Out of context - I was referring to UCJ members.


Looks to me as though you (and Bill) are using a technicality to argue that you are not members of UCJ.
But the facts are
> you visit there
> you carry text back here
> you comment on UCJ_posts here
> Bill extrapolates Matt's behaviour there to be a measure of reform/non-reformed.
By most measures you look like members.
Probably all that is missing is the sign-up to privacy/good-behaviour conditions by you at UCJ; and given you both would argue exemplary histories on these scores, then you fit the bill as members.

Name one significant aspect that exludes you from membership.

starter

Kevin Bonham
24-03-2005, 05:55 PM
Name one significant aspect that exludes you from membership.

I'll name two.

1. Not being a signed up member.
2. Not posting on said board.

I'm not even a regular lurker, I think I've checked out the board about three times since it started.

antichrist
24-03-2005, 09:07 PM
[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]Fair enough. Take that up with him. My view is that BUMP posts are generally unnecessary and annoying on this board - members click on threads to see there is nothing new. I have seen them used commonly on other boards where upcoming events fall too far down in the queue because of large numbers of new threads.

A/C
Same with small talk in the Shoutbox.

Rincewind
24-03-2005, 09:11 PM
Same with small talk in the Shoutbox.

Hear! Hear!

That's why god gave us IRC. ;)

antichrist
24-03-2005, 09:21 PM
Hear! Hear!

That's why god gave us IRC. ;)

And IRC is again? (Irish Roman Catholics)

skip to my lou
24-03-2005, 09:28 PM
Internet Relay Chat

antichrist
24-03-2005, 09:30 PM
Well we will take it that the Irish Roman Catholics come from somewhere else.

Kevin Bonham
29-03-2005, 05:29 PM
Another load from UCJ


Hello Everyone,

This cross board stuff is fun.

"Firegoat, I have many feelings. For you they start with ridicule and end somewhere between pity and contempt."- Bonham

Feeling (as defined by a dictionary)- 1.An emotional reaction 2. emotional sensitivity 3. An emotional disturbance 4. intuitive appreciation and understanding.

Ridicule is not a feeling Mr Rocket Scientist. Pity is a not a feeling you have ever demonstrated when dealing with moi. Furthermore its normally associated with bougreosie clowns who have an overbearing capacity for guilt. Contempt is your normal emotional response. It has been observed in numerous examples.


"I don't criticise people just for having feelings. I criticise people who use them as an excuse to be irrational (not arational, irrational)."- Bonham.

Bonham, your so anal you can't even see that your so called 'rationality' is more often then not driven by your irrational feelings. When or If, you ever acknowledge that fact, then you might be able to claim some platform for rational thought. Until then, well...lets just say...your a clown in a very big circus.

"Moralising? Actually I was getting stuck into the moralists, in case you hadn't noticed."-Bonham

Unreflective ****! Remember, you called the masses hysterical. So typical of you...you condemn morality with moral arguements....silly clown.


"Free speech/expression? I don't necessarily represent it at all, I just know what it is and understand the value of limits to it, unlike pol-phil illiterates like yourself." -Bonham.
If you knew what it was then you would understand your subjective nature, which you clearly have demonstrated time and time again, that you don't.



"Why am I antisocial when your little rants against me started when I defended some of my colleagues against your undeserved and hateful outbursts?"-Bonham

Im bleeding tears for you -you victim. Your history of thread belittling others is the cultural artifact for determining your A-social nature, live with what you are-An academic tosser who is always right. Not inclusive,not social and not open to engagement.


"I do trust you will give the masses (haha!) on ucj both sides of the argument by quoting my comments there." -Bonham

Done- And may I note your to gutless to post here. Me thinks its because you don't like being not in control. Imagine that, Bonham actually exposing himself and letting Matt moderate his posts. Now that would be a classic.

cheers Fg7

P.S where are the buttons for quoting?

Kevin Bonham
29-03-2005, 05:56 PM
Hello Everyone,

This cross board stuff is fun.

Well that just about wraps it up for those who were saying that I was being a meanie to firegoat by dragging his rubbish over here, see, he likes it!


Ridicule is not a feeling Mr Rocket Scientist.

Why can't thinking someone is ridiculous be an emotional reaction?


Pity is a not a feeling you have ever demonstrated when dealing with moi.

Why must an emotion be publicly demonstrated to be felt?


Furthermore its normally associated with bougreosie clowns who have an overbearing capacity for guilt.

Evidence?


Contempt is your normal emotional response.

Only to the likes of you. :lol:


Bonham, your so anal you can't even see that your so called 'rationality' is more often then not driven by your irrational feelings.

Let's unpack this carefully before it blows your foot off. Firstly you need to distinguish between arational and irrational. A very useful distinction. I use the latter to refer to feelings that are contrary to reason and do not make sense. You have not identified any such, nor found errors in my use of "reason". That my uses of reason are motivated by other factors I of course would not deny. Hardly News of the World stuff though.


Remember, you called the masses hysterical.

Where? Irrelevant anyway.


So typical of you...you condemn morality with moral arguements....

What moral arguments?


If you knew what it was then you would understand your subjective nature, which you clearly have demonstrated time and time again, that you don't.

Huh? Just looks like another desperate non sequitur - why does understanding free speech have anything to do with objectivity?


Im bleeding tears for you -you victim.

I thought I was the bully. Do let me know when you've made up your mind.


Your history of thread belittling others is the cultural artifact for determining your A-social nature,

Why does belittling unrepresentative idiots say anything about whether I am asocial or not? Why should anyone be social with you?


An academic tosser who is always right.

I only thought I was usually right, so your assessment is as always overgenerous. :lol:


Not inclusive,not social and not open to engagement.

Why engage with nonsense?


Done- And may I note your to gutless to post here. Me thinks its because you don't like being not in control.

I post on several forums where I am "not in control".


Imagine that, Bonham actually exposing himself and letting Matt moderate his posts. Now that would be a classic.

We'll see. I've set him a little test to determine if he's worthy. :lol:

eclectic
29-03-2005, 06:02 PM
actually i'm getting bored with all this fg7 v kb bulls**t

eclectic

Bill Gletsos
29-03-2005, 06:04 PM
actually i'm getting bored with all this fg7 v kb bullsh**No one is forcing you to read it, plus it is pretty much restricted to the Non Chess section.

JGB
29-03-2005, 06:09 PM
actually i'm getting bored with all this fg7 v kb bulls**t

eclectic

No need for the foul language in non chess mate. Thats what the coffee lounge is for.

WhiteElephant
29-03-2005, 06:09 PM
actually i'm getting bored with all this fg7 v kb bulls**t

eclectic

Some of the points are actually very interesting on an intellectual level but are soured by the fact that they are so personal.

antichrist
29-03-2005, 06:13 PM
Bill, these guys could learn from us, just one round, knock ourselves around a bit then forget about it. Go on tell them!

ursogr8
29-03-2005, 07:01 PM
Well that just about wraps it up for those who were saying that I was being a meanie to firegoat by dragging his rubbish over here, see, he likes it!



KB

I can't recall the terminology 'meanie'; who was the poster.

Personally, I asked why the word 'backs' appeared in the title of the thread.

starter

Libby
29-03-2005, 08:35 PM
KB

I can't recall the terminology 'meanie'; who was the poster.

Personally, I asked why the word 'backs' appeared in the title of the thread.

starter

Wasn't me :D

I still find the whole "point" of the thread very dubious. Particularly when a PM in my own PM mailbox has to be edited so it no longer even contains a link to the offending website :doh: (Had to go find the address all by myself after that!)

I don't regard myself a big "Matt-defender." I just can't pick under which circumstances references to UCJ content are credible and appropriate, and in which circumstances they're inappropriate, promotional or spam. I'm sure I could get into a long semantic argument with someone over my failure to understand but it's just one of those black-and-white things where I'm not sure i can be shifted from the opposing corner.

I'm sure it's girl thing :P

ursogr8
29-03-2005, 09:13 PM
I still find the whole "point" of the thread very dubious. <snip>
I'm sure it's girl thing :P

Oooh. AAAah

Perhaps you can get away with this criticism.
I would have had to check if it was created by Kev_Poster, or Kev_Mod, or Kev_ACF.
If the second, then you are in potential trouble. But the 'girl thing' may save you. :uhoh:


starter

Libby
29-03-2005, 09:21 PM
But the 'girl thing' may save you. :uhoh:
starter

Well that just depends if I tossed it in there because I wanted to be saved.

Just how I feel. Most willing to express that as a very "general" and "non-specific" opinion and I'm sure, completely unsubstantiated by the debate.

Kevin Bonham
29-03-2005, 10:35 PM
I don't regard myself a big "Matt-defender." I just can't pick under which circumstances references to UCJ content are credible and appropriate, and in which circumstances they're inappropriate, promotional or spam.


It's extremely simple.

Posting to comment on UCJ content - positively, negatively, whatever is fine.

Posting to intentionally spam for UCJ is not. Matt was sending PMs containing misleading advertising material for UCJ to people who often did not want to read them after he had been banned from this site.


Plus I've already explained this - while I do want to address any drivel these idiots may post about me over there (knowing that most UCJ readers read this board too), I am clearly not going to do it on a site where the moderator claims he will moderate for defamation but clearly lacks the first clue about what it is and in fact posts truckloads of it himself.


I'm sure it's girl thing :P

I'm sure it's not. :hand: