PDA

View Full Version : Kevin Bonham, stand up!



Cat
19-03-2005, 07:44 AM
Kevin Bonham says we don't know the real him, we simply don't understand the really nice person he truely is! Well this is our chance to find out, do you know who he really is?

Cat
19-03-2005, 09:01 AM
***post accidentally deleted***

[David - I accidentally replied to this post in edit mode when I thought I was quoting, and hence removed all the text except for the bit about the characters above supposedly representing aspects of my personality. Oops!

I can assure readers that the rest was nothing new.

Were it not for the fact that one of your claims falsely implied I was gay (that option now edited out) - I would apologise for my blunder, but given your homophobic trash I suggest we call it both a draw and poetic justice. If you post false claims about the sexuality of any other poster here you can expect a long suspension. - KB]

Rincewind
19-03-2005, 09:43 AM
For a fair poll I think a deprecating option should also be included. That shortcoming has now been addressed.

firegoat7
19-03-2005, 10:53 AM
Great Poll Dave,

I voted for Mother Thatcher.

I think Bon Bons personality is a mixture between Thatchers- "There is no society just individuals", A-social, narcisistic personality. Maggie, daughter of a petty bourgeoisie, with her pathetic individual philosophies really appears to be the correct choice.

However, it dawned on me that Bon Bon also has a puritan streak in him. So I opted for a synthesis between Mother Theresea and Maggie T.

In regards to Mother T, It is well known that this old bag, helped the poor and in doing so helped herself. Some have suggested that starvation was a better option for the poor she helped, arguing that being subjected to propaganda from the Catholic church was to higher price to pay then death.

I find Bonhams arguementitive style operates on the same agenda. You can have an opinion, but I will send you to the Bonham inquisitations if "I-Bon Bon" , rule that the discussion falls outside the boundaries of my moderation.

Thus I nominate his new name as Mother Bon Bon Thatcher. I will use this title in addressing him in the future.

Thanks Fg7

Libby
19-03-2005, 05:03 PM
Kevin's behaviour has been outrageous!. They way he has treated myself, firegoat, noidea, libby, dion and anyone that dares stand up to him is deplorable. I may have reacted stridently, but from my previous exchanges with Kevin its the only way to deal with him. He has no respect for personal sensitivity.

I'm not feeling grossly mistreated you know. I didn't feel attacked by Kevin although I don't think my "style" of posting is easy for him to translate as I often feel misunderstood :(

My opinion (for Kevin & others, the highlighting is important & intentional) -

Australian chess would be well served by a BB full of interesting debate not threads which degenerate rapidly into thinly veiled opportunities to work out personal animosities & grievances. Kevin (& others) should not read that as targeting them (unless the shoe fits) but as a general observation about the flaming that goes on in a lot of threads.

Now maybe it's because I'm a girl :confused: that I don't understand that what happens on the field, stays on the field (as in my hubby's footy opponents being able to flatten him or cast aspersions on his "squeeze" but everyone gets together for some backslapping & drinks afterwards). In my experience, girls who don't like you on the court, don't like you off it either. So maybe everyone blusters away here but works productively together (and plays together) in chess.

If you guys are happy with the tone of the BB, and my observations make no sense to you, and my cliche-ridden statements are unsupported by the quality of the debate, then so-be-it. This is me expressing an opinion of my own. Shoot it down in flames if you wish, I shan't bolt off and cry over it.

But when you get up in the morning and find someone has started a poll like this, you do wonder ...

antichrist
19-03-2005, 06:04 PM
Libby,
I can fully understand your frustration with all this "men's business". Who would believe it was KB upsetting you and not me!!

Even before you said we should be more civil and classy I had already birthed the thread "Piano or Violin more important" Poll. You, ElevatorEscapee and myself know there is better and I guess it is our burden to enlighten the hoi polloi. Don't despair you are with friends.

I have already being ridiculed by one and sundry but you come and vote and show solidaritory. We may not be appreciated but we have each other.

Bill Gletsos
19-03-2005, 06:14 PM
But when you get up in the morning and find someone has started a poll like this, you do wonder ...Actually if you started a poll like this we would wonder.
The likes of DR, fg7 or A/C starting polls like this involves no wonderment whatsoever.

arosar
19-03-2005, 06:43 PM
I wish to object to this practice of creating threads for the purpose of ad hominem attacks. It's quite low and cheap actually.

AR

antichrist
19-03-2005, 06:49 PM
I wish to object to this practice of creating threads for the purpose of ad hominem attacks. It's quite low and cheap actually.

AR

You hypocrite!!

You have just come from the classy "Piano or Violin" thread and put poop on us for being classy and high brow, now you come over here and put poop on them for being low and cheap. You can't have your cake and eat hopia as well!!

Your sins will find you out.



I can see this Sat is shaping up as a lively one. But I want to go out.

arosar
19-03-2005, 06:56 PM
You hypocrite!!

You have just come from the classy "Piano or Violin" thread and put poop on us for being classy and high brow, now you come over here and put poop on them for being low and cheap. You can't have your cake and eat hopia as well!!


FMD...good point.

AR

Rincewind
19-03-2005, 08:18 PM
FMD...good point.

Not really as in one case you were disagreeing on tastes in music, in this one you were making a moral point. The cultural cringe vs the fair go. No hypocrisy at all.

antichrist
19-03-2005, 10:44 PM
Not really as in one case you were disagreeing on tastes in music, in this one you were making a moral point. The cultural cringe vs the fair go. No hypocrisy at all.

AR has already resigned the game and shook hands on it. No post mortems.

I prefer not to see threads like this one unless very funny to compensate for personal factor. But when attacking the music thread it was not only on bases of taste but also because of being bourgeoisie, i.e., of higher class than himself - could that be also a moral point. When attacking this thread for being low and cheap he is implying that it is of lower class than himself to do so.

Kevin Bonham
20-03-2005, 03:00 AM
Kevin Bonham says we don't know the real him, we simply don't understand the really nice person he truely is!

Absolute rubbish. What I said was that you don't know the real me.

That you included a gay option in the list when you know that I am heterosexual and strongly opposed to homophobia makes me wonder whether you are a closet homophobe, and also shows you to have an arrested (or more probably, no) maturity. But that's nothing that we did not know already.

Kevin Bonham
20-03-2005, 03:38 AM
Australian chess would be well served by a BB full of interesting debate not threads which degenerate rapidly into thinly veiled opportunities to work out personal animosities & grievances. Kevin (& others) should not read that as targeting them (unless the shoe fits) but as a general observation about the flaming that goes on in a lot of threads.

My dissatisfaction with Libby's "oh I'm criticising, but I'm not criticising anyone" attitude has already been aired on the firegoat thread. It is a fact in defamation law that a statement is read as criticising any individual it could be reasonably read as criticising, whether they are named or not. Libby's statement could be read as referring to me (and also to several others) therefore it does in effect refer to all these people no matter what she may say otherwise.

I believe that the proportion of threads that turn into flamewars is small and most of them get split to the non-chess section whenever this occurs.


Now maybe it's because I'm a girl :confused: that I don't understand that what happens on the field, stays on the field (as in my hubby's footy opponents being able to flatten him or cast aspersions on his "squeeze" but everyone gets together for some backslapping & drinks afterwards). In my experience, girls who don't like you on the court, don't like you off it either. So maybe everyone blusters away here but works productively together (and plays together) in chess.

No, it isn't "because you're a girl". The playing of a gender card in cases like this is totally mistaken.

On the main other BB I post on the females are as much into this sort of flaming you deplore as the males. We have males making the same kinds of comments as you are making and females responding by calling them hippies (and worse). One of my best (female) friends got banned from attending a gig by sulky males whose friends she had slagged off online, and could not see why they couldn't understand the principle that except in extreme cases, online stuff should stay online.

Also I have good reason to believe firegoat takes this personally offline, but I haven't needed to attempt to work with him on anything offline to judge whether it affects his ability to do so. Certainly I have had no trouble working with Matthew offline.

Kevin Bonham
20-03-2005, 03:47 AM
However, it dawned on me that Bon Bon also has a puritan streak in him. So I opted for a synthesis between Mother Theresea and Maggie T.

I dislike Thatcher but Mother Theresa is a far bigger insult.

Go Maggie!

antichrist
20-03-2005, 08:56 AM
KB,
You should know by now that posters here vote for the hilarious putdown, whether they think it bears truth or not and whether it represents their views or not. Notice that the two most personal options of different people got the highest votes. Obviously both voted for by the same voters.

I voted for the DaddyDD one, as well as all of the above, and none of the above, plus the one against the pollbearer.
Anyway, happy crucifixion for the coming weekend.

You were complaining of my sleazy image, well now I have put up a classy poll, but you have not voted yet???

Happy Ressurection as well

Libby
20-03-2005, 11:54 AM
Libby begins to feed a new BB addiction - the need to have the last word :P


My dissatisfaction with Libby's "oh I'm criticising, but I'm not criticising anyone" attitude has already been aired on the firegoat thread. It is a fact in defamation law that a statement is read as criticising any individual it could be reasonably read as criticising, whether they are named or not. Libby's statement could be read as referring to me (and also to several others) therefore it does in effect refer to all these people no matter what she may say otherwise.

My apologies to all for my habit of sweeping and unsound generalisations. I might suggest you put it down to my BB "virginity" (this being my only such experience :angel: ). My shallow statements come from a level of dissatisfaction I feel (personally, I am expressing my feelings only) when I log on and imagine I might read something interesting or amusing or find a discussion to which I wish to contribute, and do not. Instead I find myself scrolling through a number of threads which are unable to capture my attention, or through which I do not find myself to have the required brainspace to absorb the argument in all its sophistication and complexity.

The answer is pretty simple I guess - I should find something else to do. Especially once I start posting like this. :rolleyes:


No, it isn't "because you're a girl". The playing of a gender card in cases like this is totally mistaken.

Note - when Libby uses a smilie she only half intends to be taken seriously. Generally speaking. ;)

I was trying to equate what happens here with the differences I have observed personally on the sporting field between the way men in many cases and women in many cases, respond to sledging and underhanded tactics from opponents. If the behaviour here, between many posters who have some form of working relationship in the whole Australian chess scene, is not impacting on relationships outside of the BB, then my concern that the tone could be counter-productive for Australian chess is ill-founded.

And, as I also suggested, if everyone if hunky-dory with this kind of stuff, I'm not interested in telling you what to do. I 100% accept responsibility for buying into the argument. Flame on!

But Kevin, if I trot out an example like "creation v evolution" as an example of how inflexible and black-and-white the views can be, it's not because I need a lecture on the need to debunk the propaganda of the creationists (an issue - without having read everything you have ever posted - I believe we have common ground on), it's because I am attempting to illustrate (what I perceive to be) the pointlessness of page after page of diametrically opposed positions which have no chance of reaching middle ground because there is none. But there is the chance to fall back on the use of the word fool, moron, cretin etc (and more if you have visited Matt's site :lol: ).

So Libby finishes up with another superficial generalisation. :wall: I'll try to work harder to live up to the overall standard of the board. :hmm:

eclectic
20-03-2005, 02:50 PM
Libby begins to feed a new BB addiction - the need to have the last word :P

libby,

to do this effectively, ie actually have the last word, you need to become a moderator so that you can say:

this thread is now LOCKED !!

:P

eclectic

antichrist
20-03-2005, 03:24 PM
Or Libby do my trick -- declare victory in the debate!

Libby
20-03-2005, 03:29 PM
Or Libby do my trick -- declare victory in the debate!

It might take a poll to determine the victor ;)

In my (many years past) debating experience, you didn't win just because you got to be last speaker

Rincewind
20-03-2005, 03:30 PM
Or Libby do my trick -- declare victory in the debate!

The 'Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf manouver'. Not everyone can get away with it AC, they have a reputation to consider. :D

Kevin Bonham
20-03-2005, 09:29 PM
Libby begins to feed a new BB addiction - the need to have the last word :P

Good luck!


If the behaviour here, between many posters who have some form of working relationship in the whole Australian chess scene, is not impacting on relationships outside of the BB, then my concern that the tone could be counter-productive for Australian chess is ill-founded.

One thing to bear in mind here is that the roles of the trolls in the chess community are generally quite minor. firegoat and David Richards, for instance, both do useful things in chess at a local level when not flagellating themselves with their beatups on here, but they're not people who have to work with Bill or I on a regular basis (for instance). I do have a lot of experience of leaving personal stuff at the door when working in an official capacity on anything. For instance I've been cordial and friendly as a tournament organiser to people who I was refusing to even speak to or be in the same room as socially outside of chess.


But Kevin, if I trot out an example like "creation v evolution" as an example of how inflexible and black-and-white the views can be, it's not because I need a lecture on the need to debunk the propaganda of the creationists (an issue - without having read everything you have ever posted - I believe we have common ground on), it's because I am attempting to illustrate (what I perceive to be) the pointlessness of page after page of diametrically opposed positions which have no chance of reaching middle ground because there is none.

Not quite sure what you mean by that - do you mean because the middle ground is logically untenable (you're either a Young Earth Creationist or you're not) or do you mean because both sides are locked in?

I would question that the evolution vs creation arguments here are really so locked in and pointless. We've certainly seen some significant softening of positions from the hopelessly outgunned and scientifically naive creationists on this board already.

antichrist
21-03-2005, 12:42 AM
Kevin Bonham, Stand UP and do the right thing as per my post 16!

Kevin Bonham
21-03-2005, 01:49 AM
I'd rather lie down and go to sleep.

antichrist
21-03-2005, 09:53 AM
I'd rather lie down and go to sleep.

Where your brain is below your navel!

antichrist
21-03-2005, 06:31 PM
But this holds up or drops down if no pillow is used. Must go.

antichrist
08-02-2009, 04:10 PM
KB, in the underworld there is an allegation, false I am sure, that you tried to have a snail declared a vermin and could be eaten forewith -but some conservation council opposed it - care to fill us in?

Kevin Bonham
08-02-2009, 08:28 PM
KB, in the underworld there is an allegation, false I am sure, that you tried to have a snail declared a vermin and could be eaten forewith -but some conservation council opposed it - care to fill us in?

Actually I have not seen that exact allegation anywhere in the other place unless it was in the shoutbox, the archive of which I cannot presently read as dimwit has placed me in the "Admonished Users" group.

In any case the version above is nonsense. I succeeded in having a native snail removed from the state Threatened Species List despite several conservation groups and some Green politicians opposing this. However, the snail was not declared vermin (nor is it vermin), and while it is technically true that it became possible to eat it as a result of this decision, no-one in their right mind would bother unless very desperately hungry.

Indeed if you found an adult of the species in good condition, you could get a better feed by selling the shell to an overseas collector and buying yourself a pizza with the proceeds (disclaimer: I have never done this!)

antichrist
08-02-2009, 09:59 PM
Actually I have not seen that exact allegation anywhere in the other place unless it was in the shoutbox, the archive of which I cannot presently read as dimwit has placed me in the "Admonished Users" group.

In any case the version above is nonsense. I succeeded in having a native snail removed from the state Threatened Species List despite several conservation groups and some Green politicians opposing this. However, the snail was not declared vermin (nor is it vermin), and while it is technically true that it became possible to eat it as a result of this decision, no-one in their right mind would bother unless very desperately hungry.

Indeed if you found an adult of the species in good condition, you could get a better feed by selling the shell to an overseas collector and buying yourself a pizza with the proceeds (disclaimer: I have never done this!)

it was defintiely over there, the vermin part and being eaten was my poetic license

Kevin Bonham
08-02-2009, 10:06 PM
it was defintiely over there, the vermin part and being eaten was my poetic license

OK, then you're referring to the crock that I refuted here (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=215132&postcount=17).

antichrist
17-02-2009, 05:20 PM
they also reakon over there that you are a frustrated defama lawyer - I would go along with that the way you formula-ised all my penalties - this goes with that at Suzanne.

Kevin Bonham
17-02-2009, 08:38 PM
they also reakon over there that you are a frustrated defama lawyer - I would go along with that the way you formula-ised all my penalties - this goes with that at Suzanne.

I think one has to be a lawyer to be a frustrated lawyer, so no.

The comment to which Alex applied his usual brand of either wilful or extremely stupid misrepresentation was this:



OK, I'll Start of:
1. If you could go back in time and change somthing in your life what would it be??

Oh. I forgot one. I would find some way, in addition to all the other things I have studied, to also become a lawyer specialising in defamation.

Basil
17-02-2009, 08:51 PM
OK, I'll Start of:
1. If you could go back in time and change somthing in your life what would it be??
Can I have a go? If I were allowed to go bck in time, drop my regard for the law and general adult conduct and decided to go and kick the living f***king sh&t out of someone, who would it be?

Kevin Bonham
17-02-2009, 09:00 PM
I'd be reluctant to kick any excrement out of him actually; it might be the last remaining stabilising influence.

Desmond
18-02-2009, 01:42 PM
Just a wave out to [Alex], I'm sure he will read this sooner or later...

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0248.gif

Garrett
18-02-2009, 07:02 PM
Just a wave out to [Alex], I'm sure he will read this sooner or later...

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0248.gif

f*ck me I laughed for 15 minutes non-stop when I saw this.

I'm gonna have to bookmark this page.

Space_Dude
21-02-2009, 05:03 PM
its a bit rude this commnents

antichrist
11-11-2010, 12:49 PM
Can I have a go? If I were allowed to go bck in time, drop my regard for the law and general adult conduct and decided to go and kick the living f***king sh&t out of someone, who would it be?


Goebbels, for being your illegitimate father?

Not casting asperions or anything, I was just wondering where you got your right wing fascist tendencies from

antichrist
23-07-2013, 08:33 PM
I think one has to be a lawyer to be a frustrated lawyer, so no.

The comment to which Alex applied his usual brand of either wilful or extremely stupid misrepresentation was this:

Wrong, a frustrated lawyer is a person who wants to be a lawyer but does not have the bit of paper
Like we are frustrated grand masters

Kevin Bonham
23-07-2013, 08:43 PM
Wrong, a frustrated lawyer is a person who wants to be a lawyer but does not have the bit of paper

Most hits I can find for the term literally mean a lawyer who is frustrated. A minority suggest someone who at some stage had hopes, dreams or intentions of becoming a lawyer but never got there - they either failed or decided to do something else. I still don't qualify.


Like we are frustrated grand masters

I was never one of those either.

antichrist
23-07-2013, 08:48 PM
Most hits I can find for the term literally mean a lawyer who is frustrated. A minority suggest someone who at some stage had hopes, dreams or intentions of becoming a lawyer but never got there - they either failed or decided to do something else. I still don't qualify.



I was never one of those either.

I was only thinking today about ZYZ how his pop made him do all those uni degrees and also how Torre got to be 17th in the world going brilliantly in that Olympid. Did ZyZ waste some of his best years at uni as some visiting GM stated