PDA

View Full Version : HappyFriend



Garvinator
11-04-2005, 12:48 AM
Poll attached.

Rincewind
11-04-2005, 12:54 AM
Not on the evidence to date.

HappyFriend
11-04-2005, 01:05 AM
Watch out YOU dont get banned my friend. Amazing though I am on for 8 hours and already you of all people want to ban me? LOL

Garvinator
11-04-2005, 01:08 AM
Watch out YOU dont get banned my friend. Amazing though I am on for 8 hours and already you of all people want to ban me? LOL
:hmm: i am thinking that you think you know me :uhoh: which is doubtful. Me being banned on here, trust me, if me setting up a poll to see what ppl thought of your behaviour so far got a poster banned, then many posters on here would have been banned already :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2005, 01:12 AM
:hmm: i am thinking that you think you know me :uhoh: which is doubtful. Me being banned on here, trust me, if me setting up a poll to see what ppl thought of your behaviour so far got a poster banned, then many posters on here would have been banned already :whistle:Your poll is as useless as most of A/C's polls.

HappyFriend's targeting the MCC is no different than Matt targetting me, the NSWCA and the ACF. Matt wasnt banned for that behaviour, but for continued use of foul language and evading bans.
HappyFriend has done none of that.

Garvinator
11-04-2005, 01:16 AM
Your poll is as useless as most of A/C's polls.
my poll wasnt intended to be much use at all. More it was just to get discussion of goosefriend out of the chess threads and onto here ;)

HappyFriend
11-04-2005, 01:19 AM
Peace to you Garvin. I play chess and travel throughout Asia. I see, hear and read things about the Melbourne Chess Club and I stand by ALL of my statements. In my opinion the Melbourne Chess Club is bringing down the reputation of chess in Victoria at least! They must be made to answer to that in some form.

ursogr8
11-04-2005, 07:56 AM
I am happy to side with Barry's response
"Not on the evidence to date."

And if our unhappy amigo, Happy Friend, continues to be non-specific in what annoys him then there will be little progress in resolving or improving whatever issues he has.

starter

Rincewind
11-04-2005, 10:14 AM
And if our unhappy amigo,or amiga
Happy Friend, continues to be non-specific in what annoys himor her
then there will be little progress in resolving or improving whatever issues heor she
has.

Thank you brother (or sister).

ursogr8
11-04-2005, 10:21 AM
or amigaor heror she

Thank you brother (or sister).

Very humourous Baz.
And if I tried the weasel approach and said that I was using Esperanto, and claimed it was gender_generic......how would you respond?

starter(ette)

Rincewind
11-04-2005, 10:31 AM
Very humourous Baz.
And if I tried the weasel approach and said that I was using Esperanto, and claimed it was gender_generic......how would you respond?

starter(ette)

As your post was not written in Esperanto you might have trouble substantiating such a position. ;)

Rincewind
11-04-2005, 02:32 PM
HappyFriend,

You seem happy to bandy around and drag through the mud the names of Beaumont, Pyke, Woodstock and others. Don't you think it is hypocritical to not make known who you are?

JGB
11-04-2005, 02:39 PM
I know who you are Happy Friend. ;)
We understand your regards for MCC. You have personally expressed them to myself twice at the club yourself. Would I be correct in assuming that we both speak a common European language other than English.

HappyFriend
11-04-2005, 03:07 PM
Sylvia Beck is coming to the Deutcher Verein here! I cant wait!

JGB
11-04-2005, 04:01 PM
Sylvia Beck is coming to the Deutcher Verein here! I cant wait!

Where is the Verein here? I would like to check it out!

HappyFriend
11-04-2005, 04:19 PM
Starter, Please I am being VERY specific. You are from Box Hill yes? Don't you know that "Der Kapitan Gerrit" is your club captain? Don't you need his permission to talk here? I remember Gerrit telling me that he considers Zworstein (or however his name is spelt) to be arrogant. Gerrit complaining someone else is arrogant????????OMG wait while I pick myself up off the floor ROFL ...............

ursogr8
11-04-2005, 05:03 PM
^^^^

I wll not feed the TROLL.

Spiny Norman
11-04-2005, 06:34 PM
Thank you brother (or sister).

From now on I want you all to call HappyFriend "Loretta" ....

antichrist
11-04-2005, 06:38 PM
[QUOTE=Bill Gletsos]Your poll is as useless as most of A/C's polls.

Bill, thanks for reminding me due to travelling I forgot the usual week-end poll. See what happens GG can't wait to get my job.

No one can do a poll like I can, can they Bill?

HappyFriend
11-04-2005, 06:56 PM
I will call Frosty "Loretta" from now on, ok.

antichrist
11-04-2005, 06:58 PM
I will call Frosty "Loretta" from now on, ok.

If you really want to stir him make it "Miss Vanawaitu"!

HappyFriend
11-04-2005, 07:00 PM
starter I will not address you until you have written permission from "Der Kapitan Gerritt". He outranks you significantly. He also has a loud voice and is tall! Remember this.

Spiny Norman
11-04-2005, 07:45 PM
I will call Frosty "Loretta" from now on, ok.

<chuckles>

"What do you want to be a woman for Frosty?"

"I want to have babies."

"You can't have babies, where's the foetus gonna gestate, you gonna keep it in a box?"

"Don't you oppress me!"

ElevatorEscapee
11-04-2005, 07:52 PM
:lol:

firegoat7
12-04-2005, 01:46 AM
Hello Starter,

Well the late mail is all in. The MCC crowd have placed their bets. It seems the tip is that the problem is not internal since the complainer is not actually a member of MCC.

Cheers Fg7

P.S jeez I can be a naive clown sometimes. Anyway some of it needed to be said, well 10% at least.

Bereaved
12-04-2005, 02:54 AM
all the same, the impetus behind this level of vitriol and the concommittant level of knowledge of MCC is hardly that of an outsider; as such the PEST should be outed, Herr Secretary?

ursogr8
12-04-2005, 07:47 AM
^
hi macavity

See posts on UCJ and read between the lines.

starter

ursogr8
12-04-2005, 07:54 AM
From the shoutbox
W.E, > He must hang out at Box Hill if he knows Gerritt and starter thinks his identity is obvious.

Not true George. He is not a member of Box Hill and has not played in a Box Hill event that I can recall.

starter

WhiteElephant
12-04-2005, 10:44 AM
Ok. It's like this:

1) I have read all the clues in the Shoutbox
2) I have read all the clues in the posts
3) I have read all the clues at UCJ
4) I have looked through the ratings list using starter's helpful tip at UCJ

But I still don't know who it is.

There are 2 logical explanations:

Either I am the thickest person ever or I simply don't know this person (which is likely as I have been out of the chess scene for some time)

However, noidea/ Mischa knows who it is and I would have thought I would know at least as many chessplayers as her.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Mischa
12-04-2005, 10:49 AM
But do you ? You learn a lot just handing around.

ursogr8
12-04-2005, 10:55 AM
Ok. It's like this:

1) I have read all the clues in the Shoutbox
2) I have read all the clues in the posts
3) I have read all the clues at UCJ
4) I have looked through the ratings list using starter's helpful tip at UCJ

But I still don't know who it is.

There are 2 logical explanations:

Either I am the thickest person ever or I simply don't know this person (which is likely as I have been out of the chess scene for some time)

However, noidea/ Mischa knows who it is and I would have thought I would know at least as many chessplayers as her.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR


Mate

W.E.

I didn't tip on ratings on UCJ.
I named .....
But cryptic.

Go back and re-read


have a nice day


starter

WhiteElephant
12-04-2005, 10:57 AM
Mate

W.E.

I didn't tip on ratings on UCJ.
I named .....
But cryptic.

Go back and re-read


have a nice day


starter

I thought you had provided initials so I looked up chessplayers using those initials.

Maybe my interpretation of your clue was wrong. Will re-read.

Mischa
12-04-2005, 10:58 AM
People tell me things too little elephant....As you know I now have another secret after yesterday's phone call.

WhiteElephant
12-04-2005, 11:02 AM
People tell me things too little elephant....As you know I now have another secret after yesterday's phone call.

Heh you still haven't told me that secret you mentioned ages ago....

You definitely hold much power after finding out yesterday's secret :)

Mischa
12-04-2005, 11:03 AM
Power to be used only for good little elephant.
Kidding. Good at keeping them aren't I?

WhiteElephant
12-04-2005, 11:06 AM
Power to be used only for good little elephant.
Kidding. Good at keeping them aren't I?

Hope so :)

Mischa
12-04-2005, 11:10 AM
Now you will have them all wondering!!!
It is not my secret so not my business to tell!

WhiteElephant
12-04-2005, 11:13 AM
Now you will have them all wondering!!!
It is not my secret so not my business to tell!

Actually I had been wondering whether the other party would divulge the secret as the other party has much at stake. It seems the other party has strong faith in your discretion.

Mischa
12-04-2005, 11:24 AM
Just the kinda girl I am!!!
Actually I think the other party assumed I knew.
Funny how that works.

WhiteElephant
12-04-2005, 11:27 AM
Just the kinda girl I am!!!
Actually I think the other party assumed I knew.
Funny how that works.

Aaah yes you are very sly. I like it.

Mischa
12-04-2005, 11:30 AM
No not sly...don't say that.
I meant the circumstances may have led to that assumption. The other party probably would have told me anyway!

WhiteElephant
12-04-2005, 11:57 AM
No not sly...don't say that.
I meant the circumstances may have led to that assumption. The other party probably would have told me anyway!

I know the other party would would have told you anyway and if not, I would have.

Anyway, the secret is not so significant now but may be in a couple of weeks time.

Mischa
12-04-2005, 12:02 PM
Whatever...it is still not my business, but I hope it all works out. These things can go pear shaped at times.

ursogr8
12-04-2005, 02:03 PM
I thought you had provided initials so I looked up chessplayers using those initials.

Maybe my interpretation of your clue was wrong. Will re-read.

W.E.

fg7 has taken pity on your dilemma and explained nearly all, on another thread. ;)





In another place. :uhoh:

starter

WhiteElephant
12-04-2005, 02:48 PM
W.E.

fg7 has taken pity on your dilemma and explained nearly all, on another thread. ;)





In another place. :uhoh:

starter

Yes, much has been revealed.

In an alternate universe to this one.

Bill Gletsos
12-04-2005, 07:40 PM
So for all the non Mexicans who is this A.M. character.

ursogr8
12-04-2005, 08:16 PM
So for all the non Mexicans who is this A.M. character.

Gee whiz Bill

Your question puts us in a bit of a dilemma.
What if we detailed stuff that infringed K.'s (yet to be published policy) on what is acceptable here?
Or, are you just looking a name, mate?

You could of course wander over to the place of exile and have a look at what the MCC have decided to do about the collateral damage.

Me? I am just going to pull my head in. :uhoh:



Oh....and I nearly forgot. I thought some of his posts were unseemly.


yours in :silenced: , until you buy me a drink
starter

Bill Gletsos
12-04-2005, 08:27 PM
Gee whiz Bill

Your question puts us in a bit of a dilemma.
What if we detailed stuff that infringed K.'s (yet to be published policy) on what is acceptable here?
Or, are you just looking a name, mate?What was so difficult about my question. I simply asked who he was.
All it requires is an equally simple answer.

You could of course wander over to the place of exile and have a look at what the MCC have decided to do about the collateral damage.That gives no indication as to who he is for non Mexicans.

Me? I am just going to pull my head in. :uhoh:Thats a change.

Oh....and I nearly forgot. I thought some of his posts were unseemly.Too bad you never stated Mat's were prior to his being banned last december.

ursogr8
12-04-2005, 08:40 PM
^^

Good to see you back posting in your usual form Bill.

regards
starter

Rhubarb
12-04-2005, 08:55 PM
Good evening starter,

Like Bill, I went over to Elba St Helena but all I found were more crypticisms, not the identity of this A.M. nutter. Don't s'pose you could PM me the cheat guide if you're truly concerned about unacceptability.

In anticipation,
kegless

WhiteElephant
12-04-2005, 08:57 PM
Oh....and I nearly forgot. I thought some of his posts were unseemly.
starter

He was an interesting case because:
he never used any foul language
he was articulate
he had a sense of humour

However, the personal attacks against people were his downfall. That is not on.

WhiteElephant
12-04-2005, 09:02 PM
Oh and I am planning an outing to his home turf this Saturday afternoon. Mischa - will you be there - you will have to introduce me...

Lucena
12-04-2005, 09:06 PM
There aren't that many AMs on the rating list(especially if you assume victorian). I think I have a pretty good idea which one it is. I will say who I think it is tomorrow evening if Starter won't.

ursogr8
12-04-2005, 09:16 PM
There aren't that many AMs on the rating list(especially if you assume victorian). I think I have a pretty good idea which one it is. I will say who I think it is tomorrow evening if Starter won't.


I do have a slight problem in that he is standing reading our calendar and notice-board as I type.

Bill Gletsos
12-04-2005, 09:22 PM
However, the personal attacks against people were his downfall. That is not on.Thats strange, because Matt's personal attacks on people never got him banned here or on the old ACF board.

Lucena
12-04-2005, 09:24 PM
Is he still there starter?

Mischa
12-04-2005, 09:29 PM
little elephant please join us...we sit and chat...I will be there and look forward to your joining us.

ursogr8
12-04-2005, 09:30 PM
Is he still there starter?

GBC

Yes
But I think I owe him the courtesy still to not out him.


starter

Mischa
12-04-2005, 09:30 PM
Yes starter he mentioned he would be there tonight!

antichrist
12-04-2005, 10:11 PM
Thats strange, because Matt's personal attacks on people never got him banned here or on the old ACF board.

Do you mean I may have a case against PaulS? Thanks, I will prepare

bobby1972
13-04-2005, 01:24 PM
I liked to please ask that the remarks by "happy friend "be removed ,because they are bad for the MCC and bad for chess in general his account was banned because of the remarks he wrote so it is only logical to get rid of those post.it seems to me that remarks that target sick or homeless people or any other people have no place here,chess is for everyone.by the way the mcc is a fantastic chess club with a lot of history.

arosar
13-04-2005, 02:56 PM
Hey bobby, do you think your mob over at MCC should take retaliatory action and name this fella? Don't you think it's only fair?

AR

Bereaved
13-04-2005, 03:56 PM
AR, to give the transgressor the dignity of infamy is more than he deserves. However the fact that he has been removed from the site owing to the posting of content deemed inappropriate begs the question as to why the aforementioned content remains in the public domain. If it is offensive, why allow it to remain? Surely something along the lines of a announcement by the administrators as to the inappropriateness of his comments leading to his being banned should be sufficient. As to the integrity of the threads ( of which there are numerous in which he posted ), surely there should be some way to allow the dialogues to be edited such that the content not relating to happy friend could be altered to allow the thread to remain logical.
In any case whether such modifying is possible or not, the offense caused by the posts by happy friend remain while they remain in the public arena. In fact as I am regularly reading at the base of the welcome page about people joining the bulletin board, of what use, or what positive use is it for them to be exposed to the increasingly vitriolic and incoherent, and defamatory comments of someone who is no longer part of our community?
As to his name, I will send you a PM if you promise that the name does not enter the public arena; elsewise, no
Macavity VP

PS It would seem to me that the question of thread integrity should be of secondary importance to the cessation of these posts continuing to cause offence. I call on the administrators to remove them immediately!!!

Bill Gletsos
13-04-2005, 04:17 PM
In this thread only post #6 deserves to be removed.

In the other threads his comments against your "concierge" as he puts it should be removed, but apart from those most of his other posts are not defamatory.

arosar
13-04-2005, 04:48 PM
There seems to be a lot of bad vibes in Mexico. Next time I visit, we do a get-together and have a big group hug. That should fix it.

AR

firegoat7
13-04-2005, 05:03 PM
In the other threads his comments against your "concierge" as he puts it should be removed, but apart from those most of his other posts are not defamatory.

Your a sick puppy Gletsos.

What do you call this...

Basically it goes like this:-friends of Firegoat/goat/Jackass and "Pykey" will complain that they have to play X and not Y (or Z even) they will have a "last minute discussion" and redo the draw to obtain the following results.1/ Better (easier opponents for "special friends" and merely a change in board number for IMs from board 8 say, to board 2/ People who suffer are "peripherals" ie.members who do not have political sway with commitee. Also, decisions made by arbiters are strongly in favour of friends of committee. Another thing look at how it suited certain people to have records of tournament results "lost". I will break this down more if you like...?

This is simply a load of garbage. Not only is it illogical in the extreme, but it is not even accurate. Happytroll is not even a member of MCC, he has no idea why the draw was paired the way it was in round 2. Furthermore, he never even bothered to check his facts as to find out why. While the only thing 'lost' to suit certain people, was the perception between Happytrolls brain and mouth.

then there was this beauty



The Grand Prix was ruined by extremely bad publicity when some thug attacked Alexander Gaft at a Grand Prix tournament.

Only an idiot would believe there was a causal connection between this particular biased interpretation of the Doeberl incident and the Grand prix tournament circuit. Moreover, only a goose would defend the assertion.

cheers Fg7

P.S These are only two examples of the many perpetuated upon us, be a man and apologise Gletsos for defending the indefensible.

Bill Gletsos
13-04-2005, 05:14 PM
Your a sick puppy Gletsos.But I'm a lot healthier than you.

What do you call this...I call it the same misrepresentative type of rubbish you mate Matt used to sprout here and continues to spout on his own board. I dont recall seeing you take exception to anything he said about me, the NSWCA or ACF.

This is simply a load of garbage. Not only is it illogical in the extreme, but it is not even accurate. Happytroll is not even a member of MCC, he has no idea why the draw was paired the way it was in round 2. Furthermore, he never even bothered to check his facts as to find out why. While the only thing 'lost' to suit certain people, was the perception between Happytrolls brain and mouth.

then there was this beauty


Only an idiot would believe there was a causal connection between this particular biased interpretation of the Doeberl incident and the the Grand prix tournament. Moreover, only a goose would defend the assertion.

cheers Fg7

P.S These are only two examples of the many perpetuated upon us, be a man and apologise Gletsos for defending the indefensible.If the statement is defamatory then it should be deleted. If all it is, is a gross misrepresenation of facts then the mods have never seen fit to delete them in the past.
It is amazing how you are so offended when you are the recipient of some dopes posts. Happyfriends attacks on you are no worse than Matt's attacks on me both previously here and on his current BB. I havent seen you jumping up and down about that.

Bereaved
13-04-2005, 05:21 PM
That the events in question in Canberra are to my mind in no way to be associated with the GP is an easy one. It is not exactly rocket science ( though perhaps someone would like to draw a correlation with Chaos theory ?)
But why would someone who was the recipient of a medal for chess administration Australia wide this year ( that would be you Bill ) seek to look upon posts which irrespective of your definition of defamatory are certainly well beyond the realms of accuracy that the continued maintaining of the aforementioned posts on the site is not only silly and wrongheaded, foolish and distasteful, it serves no positive purpose.

Why would you wish for things to remain in a public arena which could be seen to be a condemnation of chess in Victoria or indeed Australia? To forstall the coming interjection regarding the location of the topic of discussion being the MCC not Victoria in general, of what point is it to worry about such things as location when the comments featured are of a type which could easily lead to people with little knowledge of chess heirarchy into forming a poor judgement of chess, and make the lives of chess administrators ( of which you are one, Bill ) harder?

I look forward to some answer which approaches this matter in a fashion not solely based on a MCC vs NSW vs ACF mentality, as I feel that we would all ( hopefully!) like to avoid the type of emotions and organisational difficulties that such incidences as this cause to arise

Macavity VP

arosar
13-04-2005, 05:28 PM
Gee Mac, could you write any longer sentences mate? ;)

Look, if it's a defamatory statement - then remove them. But if it's just some humungously dumb statement like the one about some rule in chess being equal to child abuse (remember that?) - then it's doing no real harm other than to the writer's repute or state of mind. This is the chesschat. We've had some real classics here you know.

So on that note, let me say welcome!

AR

Bill Gletsos
13-04-2005, 05:33 PM
That the events in question in Canberra are to my mind in no way to be associated with the GP is an easy one. It is not exactly rocket science ( though perhaps someone would like to draw a correlation with Chaos theory ?)
But why would someone who was the recipient of a medal for chess administration Australia wide this year ( that would be you Bill ) seek to look upon posts which irrespective of your definition of defamatory are certainly well beyond the realms of accuracy that the continued maintaining of the aforementioned posts on the site is not only silly and wrongheaded, foolish and distasteful, it serves no positive purpose.I'm simply highlighting fg7's complete lack of consistency. Matt made statements about me the NSWCA etc that were well beyond the realms of accuracy yet fg7 never took exception to them. It is funny how he is suddenly indignant when the boot is on the other foot.

Why would you wish for things to remain in a public arena which could be seen to be a condemnation of chess in Victoria or indeed Australia? To forstall the coming interjection regarding the location of the topic of discussion being the MCC not Victoria in general, of what point is it to worry about such things as location when the comments featured are of a type which could easily lead to people with little knowledge of chess heirarchy into forming a poor judgement of chess, and make the lives of chess administrators ( of which you are one, Bill ) harder?

I look forward to some answer which approaches this matter in a fashion not solely based on a MCC vs NSW vs ACF mentality, as I feel that we would all ( hopefully!) like to avoid the type of emotions and organisational difficulties that such incidences as this cause to arise

Macavity VP.I have some sympathy for you and the MCC however that does not extend to fg7 who has only complained about such posts now when he and the MCC is the recipient of them. He never raised a voice when his mate was making accusations against myself, the NSWCA or the ACF in the past.

WhiteElephant
13-04-2005, 05:34 PM
Gee Mac, could you write any longer sentences mate? ;)
AR

Haha exactly! I was thinking macavity might help me out with my Phd thesis :)

firegoat7
13-04-2005, 05:57 PM
I'm simply highlighting fg7's complete lack of consistency. Matt made statements about me the NSWCA etc that were well beyond the realms of accuracy yet fg7 never took exception to them. It is funny how he is suddenly indignant when the boot is on the other foot.


Your a liar, Gletsos.
Show me one post where I supported a post from Matt that both involved NSWCA and clearly defamed you with an assertion that was not opinion.

Cheers Fg7

Bereaved
13-04-2005, 06:23 PM
Bill, when I refer to things pertaining to HF and his posts on this board which I take exception to, I am somewhat puzzled that in every response to me, or my quotes per se, you refer to firegoat as a point of reference.

If you truly wish to repond, feel free. But if you wish to use my post as a vehicle to hitchhike onto Firegoat's back, please refrain. As only in the commencement of my post was Firegoat referred to peripherally, the constant use of him throughout your response is hard to understand.

Please feel free to let me know how this topic is pertaining to my discussion of non complimentary posts and I'll be delighted to continue. Please let us be clear though; any past posts from Firegoat that are not in direct relation to this specific topic are not in any way my concern or pertinent to this discussion,
Yours, Macavity VP

Bill Gletsos
13-04-2005, 06:39 PM
Your a liar, Gletsos.
Show me one post where I supported a post from Matt that both involved NSWCA and clearly defamed you with an assertion that was not opinion.Learn to read you clown.
I never said you supported his comments, I said you never took exception to his comments and I made it clear that was in regards to grossly misrepresnted facts.

I previously stated that defamatory comments should be deleted.

Bill Gletsos
13-04-2005, 06:47 PM
Bill, when I refer to things pertaining to HF and his posts on this board which I take exception to, I am somewhat puzzled that in every response to me, or my quotes per se, you refer to firegoat as a point of reference.You posted immediately after I replied to fg7 in post #28 and titled your post as "Firegoat knows best". Since as far as I was concerned he didnt know best then I responded as to why I felt that way.


If you truly wish to repond, feel free. But if you wish to use my post as a vehicle to hitchhike onto Firegoat's back, please refrain. As only in the commencement of my post was Firegoat referred to peripherally, the constant use of him throughout your response is hard to understand.

Please feel free to let me know how this topic is pertaining to my discussion of non complimentary posts and I'll be delighted to continue. Please let us be clear though; any past posts from Firegoat that are not in direct relation to this specific topic are not in any way my concern or pertinent to this discussion,
Yours, Macavity VPThere are times I would have liked to have seen certain posts deleted but what posts are moderated is decided by the mods not the posters.
The Mods here have never seen fit to delete non complimentary posts, only ones that were either defamatory or where foul langauge was used.

firegoat7
13-04-2005, 07:00 PM
learn to read you clown.
I never said you supported his comments, I said you never took exception to his comments.
As if it can be inferred any other way, just admit it your a liar. Either that or your just really really weird

Your arguement is just so strange...... If I supposedly say nothing you want to find me accountable (what about everyone else who said nothing)....does that mean that everyone else who dosen't say anything is also accountable. Thank goodness the real world dosen't work like this Bill. Imagine, walking down the street and getting arrested for not expressing an opinion about something.

As for hypocrisy, You are the only person on this bulletin board defending the posts of Happytroll. The only person Bill, what do you think that means? You Bill, the same person who pontificates about standards all the time. Your guilty of double standards.

cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
13-04-2005, 07:24 PM
As if it can be inferred any other way,Of course it can. You never criticicised Matt for his comments re me, the NSWCA or the ACF but you expect me to criticise HF for his comments about you and MCC.

just admit it your a liar.I admit no such thing. You seem to have a problem with HF making defamatory claims yet now make one of your own. I expect you to retract it.

Either that or your just really really weirdThe only one around here who is really really weird is you.

Your arguement is just so strange...... If I supposedly say nothing you want to find me accountable (what about everyone else who said nothing)....does that mean that everyone else who dosen't say anything is also accountable. Thank goodness the real world dosen't work like this Bill. Imagine, walking down the street and getting arrested for not expressing an opinion about something.I would hold them all accountable too if they demanded that all of HF's posts be deleted and not just his defamtory ones. That however has not been the case as the masses are not demanding all his posts be deleted, just his defamatory ones and I have already agreed that his defamatory ones should be deleted.

As for hypocrisy, You are the only person on this bulletin board defending the posts of Happytroll. The only person Bill, what do you think that means? You Bill, the same person who pontificates about standards all the time. Your guilty of double standards.Perhaps you can show me where the masses are asking that all his posts be deleted.

Rincewind
13-04-2005, 07:37 PM
Macavity (and fg7),

with all due respect the issue is not a clear cut as you imagine. While HappyFriend was banned for the content of some of his posts, how is it you can make the argumenet that all of the posts should be removed? By that argument a polgrom of MS posts should be undertaken to purge the board of all of that banned user's posts too.

Anything defamatory has been removed as best as I can determine (mainly thanks to KB :clap: ). If you have any specific requests and can make a convincing argument that it is defamatory, then that will also be considered. However, don't make a lot of nonsense requests as the time and patience of the moderators are limited.

For example, HappyFriend's argument that the Doeberl 2000 incident can be significantly linked to the demise of the GP is just trolling. However, (lamentably) trolling is not the measure of what should or should not be removed.

Kevin Bonham
13-04-2005, 11:34 PM
Copied and posted from "visitor fees" - HappyFriend content there has now been merged with this thread.

No apologies to those whose posts no longer make sense with the threads moved and merged - these things happen when you post off-topic. ;)


RW, for me the arguement is clear cut. Here is the linear order. Post 22 and 24 belong to Bobby1972 and Macavity, not me. They are their opinions not mine. My opinion had been expressed in another thread. I was happy enough to let Kevin edit as he saw fit (Coffee lounge).

Post 25 by Gletsos was the post I took exception to because I believe he treated us all with contempt. He became a defender of HF by taking such a position, as such I called him on it. He is simple wrong if he believes only one post was defamatory. I asked him to retract his claim and apologise.

Post 28 was my attempt to call Gletsos on his actions. He is still in denial.

Its been dealt with, its not an issue for me. What is an issue is Gletsos' defense of the indefensible.


Agreed its trolling. It is also empirically false. The alleged demise of the grand prix circuit has no causal relationship to me.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
13-04-2005, 11:38 PM
Of course it can. You never criticicised Matt for his comments re me, the NSWCA or the ACF but you expect me to criticise HF for his comments about you and MCC.

I do not expect any such thing. What I expect is for you to acknowledge that you are simply wrong in suggesting that only one of Happytrolls post was defamatory.



I admit no such thing. You seem to have a problem with HF making defamatory claims yet now make one of your own. I expect you to retract it.
The only one around here who is really really weird is you.


I will possibly retract it if I get an apology for defending the indefensible.




I would hold them all accountable too if they demanded that all of HF's posts be deleted and not just his defamtory ones. That however has not been the case as the masses are not demanding all his posts be deleted, just his defamatory ones and I have already agreed that his defamatory ones should be deleted.
Perhaps you can show me where the masses are asking that all his posts be deleted.
I never wanted nor suggested that the masses wanted the posts deleted, goose. I said you are the only person defending the indefensible. Left to his own decision process KB cut 12 posts, left to your ridiculous interpretations the number would have been 1. Wake up!

Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
13-04-2005, 11:43 PM
RW,


Since the thread has moved the linear progression is now 61,63,64 and 66.

Cheers Fg7
P.S My post was lost in the thread move

arosar
13-04-2005, 11:46 PM
But I don't. Ok, this should give it away.

GBC, mate, you need to learn to hold it in.

For excitement.

AR

Kevin Bonham
13-04-2005, 11:47 PM
But why would someone who was the recipient of a medal for chess administration Australia wide this year ( that would be you Bill ) seek to look upon posts which irrespective of your definition of defamatory are certainly well beyond the realms of accuracy that the continued maintaining of the aforementioned posts on the site is not only silly and wrongheaded, foolish and distasteful, it serves no positive purpose.

Possibly because he realises that if the mods deleted everything here that was "well beyond the realms of accuracy" we would have our hands more than full.


Why would you wish for things to remain in a public arena which could be seen to be a condemnation of chess in Victoria or indeed Australia?

If we deleted everything that could be seen in that light we would have a very limited debate on many issues. People should be allowed to voice both (+)ve and (-)ve opinions.

I've deleted 12 Happy Friend posts of which about nine were defamatory or probably defamatory, most fairly mildly. The rest didn't make sense without the deleted posts.

Lucena
13-04-2005, 11:50 PM
GBC, no you're not correct - I suggest you delete your post. The answer's been given on St Helena anyway.

Will do.

firegoat7
13-04-2005, 11:50 PM
KB,

You lost one of my posts

Cheers fg7

Spiny Norman
13-04-2005, 11:55 PM
KB, You lost one of my posts

Maybe it quoted something inappropriate/defamatory ... I believe that some posted which quoted HF may have suffered from collateral damage.

firegoat7
14-04-2005, 12:02 AM
Maybe it quoted something inappropriate/defamatory ... I believe that some posted which quoted HF may have suffered from collateral damage.

Nope, It was my reply to RW, it ought to be post 79. I posted it after RWs 78 and before my next reply to BG.

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
14-04-2005, 12:12 AM
I will possibly retract it if I get an apology for defending the indefensible.Defending the indefensible does not make me a liar. As such you should retract the liar claim.

Kevin Bonham
14-04-2005, 12:14 AM
KB,

You lost one of my posts

Cheers fg7

I deleted a post of yours which appeared after the threadsplit, however I quoted the text of it in full in #79. This was easier than splitting it to a thread by itself and then threadmerging again. Apologies for any confusion caused.

Kevin Bonham
14-04-2005, 12:33 AM
In this thread only post #6 deserves to be removed.

I also decided that one sentence in the former post #5 on that thread was mildly defamatory and removed the whole post as the whole post was irrelevant to the thread.


In the other threads his comments against your "concierge" as he puts it should be removed, but apart from those most of his other posts are not defamatory.

(my emphasis)

This is, strictly speaking, correct and I think firegoat is reading things into it in his subsequent attacks. However firegoat is right that the post he quotes in #66 was defamatory and it was one of the non-concierge posts that was zapped.

Basically a defamatory claim is a claim of fact that would lower a reasonable person's opinion of the target, rather than just subjecting them to harmless abuse or legitimate political criticism/debate. If the person making the claim substantiates it to a level that proves it to be true it ceases to be defamatory. In general Happy Friend gave no evidence to support his claims.

Plenty of stuff Matt's said over the years was probably mildly defamatory too, but where people are just getting stuck into each other rather than asking for moderation, mods generally just let mild defo go.

Bill Gletsos
14-04-2005, 12:34 AM
I do not expect any such thing. What I expect is for you to acknowledge that you are simply wrong in suggesting that only one of Happytrolls post was defamatory.What I said you dope was the following.

In this thread only post #6 deserves to be removed.

In the other threads his comments against your "concierge" as he puts it should be removed, but apart from those most of his other posts are not defamatory.Post #6 was in the visitors fees thread. I never limited his posts re your concierge to just one post and I acknowledged they were defamatory.
What I did say was that most of his posts were not defmatory.
I stand by this statement because KB only deleted 12 posts from happtFriends total of 46 posts. KB notes only 9 of those 12 were defamatory.

Maths is clearly not your strong point because 80.4% of something a fairly significant majority and thats how many of his posts (37) KB deemed were not defamatory.

I never wanted nor suggested that the masses wanted the posts deleted, goose. I said you are the only person defending the indefensible. Left to his own decision process KB cut 12 posts, left to your ridiculous interpretations the number would have been 1. Wake up!It is clear from my post above that I never limited his defamatory posts to just one let alone even 2. As such the only person who needs to wake up is you.
However I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

firegoat7
14-04-2005, 01:27 AM
What I said you dope was the following.




Maths is clearly not your strong point


I would hold them all accountable too if they demanded that all of HF's posts be deleted and not just his defamtory ones.



It is clear from my post above that I never limited his defamatory posts to just one let alone even 2. As such the only person who needs to wake up is you.
However I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

Here is your maths, Mr Rocket Scientist,
100% lies,
your judgement= 1, potential lawsuits= 9, demands that Fg7 made for all posts by HF to be deleted 0% which ironically is equal to the level of understanding you show with your quasi semantic/mathematic logic.

cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
14-04-2005, 01:27 AM
I also decided that one sentence in the former post #5 on that thread was mildly defamatory and removed the whole post as the whole post was irrelevant to the thread.I wasnt so sure it was thats why I didnt explicitly mention it.

(my emphasis)

This is, strictly speaking, correct and I think firegoat is reading things into it in his subsequent attacks. However firegoat is right that the post he quotes in #66 was defamatory and it was one of the non-concierge posts that was zapped.True but thats why I covered all the others by saying the majority of his posts were not defamatory because I couldnt be bothered singling all the defo ones out. In fact 80.4% werent defamatory.

Kevin Bonham
14-04-2005, 01:33 AM
potential lawsuits= 9

The risk of legal action in any of those cases was very slight. Most people can't afford to sue and even those who can afford will nearly always contact a site first, even if armed with a threat. Basically in defo actions only lawyers win unless you are very well off indeed. Defo cases drag on for years and often end up costing five or six figure sums - most people have more sense.

Bill Gletsos
14-04-2005, 01:38 AM
Here is your maths, Mr Rocket Scientist,
100% lies,
your judgement= 1,Where did I ever say only one of his posts were defamatory you clown. I said the majority of his posts were not defamatory. Surely even you wouldnt suggest 80.4% isnt a majority.

potential lawsuits= 9, demands that Fg7 made for all posts by HF to be deleted 0% which ironically is equal to the level of understanding you show with your quasi semantic/mathematic logic.The facts are simple enough that even you should be able to understand it.
The majority of HF's posts (80.4%) were not defamatory.

firegoat7
14-04-2005, 01:44 AM
Kevin,

Nobody is going to, nor would they want to sue over this stuff. All the moderators and admins have handled this dispute really well.

Cheers fg7

ursogr8
14-04-2005, 12:01 PM
Good evening starter,

Like Bill, I went over to Elba St Helena but all I found were more crypticisms, not the identity of this A.M. nutter. Don't s'pose you could PM me the cheat guide if you're truly concerned about unacceptability.

In anticipation,
kegless

kegless

Did you look over the entire island?
Here is a hint that is a bit more pointed. :uhoh:
Put your pointer over the Active Members link. :cool:

In retrospect this HF_episode has been a litmus test of each of our tolerance levels.


starter

ursogr8
04-02-2006, 10:04 PM
So for all the non Mexicans who is this A.M. character.

I think he is the guy who holds the record for aliases. :uhoh:


The Punters Club is a bit (mathematically) disturbed by all these bannings btw.
It used to be a simple metric to bet on...the % of banned members who were outside Sydney CBD.
But with aliases, and with members requesting banned status, it (the %) has become a very unreliable metric.

We must move on.

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2006, 11:26 PM
I think he is the guy who holds the record for aliases. :uhoh:


The Punters Club is a bit (mathematically) disturbed by all these bannings btw.
It used to be a simple metric to bet on...the % of banned members who were outside Sydney CBD.
But with aliases, and with members requesting banned status, it (the %) has become a very unreliable metric.This is not correct.
Those posters who requested their accounts to be suspended are shown as suspended not banned.

ElevatorEscapee
04-02-2006, 11:51 PM
Credit where credit is due!

There was a very distasteful, supposedly female, name that was the "latest member" joined today ... "she" didn't make any posts though.

I think it was a good, swift, pick up by the mods to snuff out the gunfire before it had a chance to cause emotional wounds! :D

Garvinator
04-02-2006, 11:58 PM
Credit where credit is due!

There was a very distasteful, supposedly female, name that was the "latest member" joined today ... "she" didn't make any posts though.

I think it was a good, swift, pick up by the mods to snuff out the gunfire before it had a chance to cause emotional wounds! :D
this poster did in fact make some posts, have a look at the help and feedback thread.

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2006, 12:08 AM
this poster did in fact make some posts, have a look at the help and feedback thread.All their posts along with those of frock were deleted as were any that quoted them.

ElevatorEscapee
05-02-2006, 12:34 AM
Whoa! Well done Bill! :D

eclectic
05-02-2006, 07:08 AM
this is a post which does not quote anyone

Davidflude
05-02-2006, 07:24 AM
All their posts along with those of frock were deleted as were any that quoted them.

Well done administrators. It is the first time that I have run headlong into a cyber-troll and he sucked me in.

The billy goat gruff would be proud of you guys. (For those who do not know the story billy goat gruff fixed up a troll who was hiding under a bridge).

PHAT
05-02-2006, 09:10 AM
Sorry fellows, I cannot agree with the bannings in recent days. Too heavy handed and flies in the face of the general pinciples of liberty and freedom of speech.

eclectic
05-02-2006, 09:38 AM
yeah ... something akin to the statute of limitations should be applied here to test the patience of trolls ...

like change the rules so you can register here but you can't post for 7 years!!

:owned:
:eek:
:rolleyes:
:uhoh:

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2006, 07:44 PM
Sorry fellows, I cannot agree with the bannings in recent days. Too heavy handed and flies in the face of the general pinciples of liberty and freedom of speech.

*sigh*

I'm not going to bother refuting this rubbish again this time unless I see evidence that a credible poster takes it seriously. :hand:

PHAT
07-02-2006, 08:12 AM
*sigh*

I'm not going to bother refuting this rubbish again this time unless I see evidence that a credible poster takes it seriously. :hand:


http://www.**********.com/Post-Crap-Family_cry.jpg

Free speech is important! This is a monoply BB. The mods have a duty to allow any new registration to post.


Get out of my face, idiot :hand:

ElevatorEscapee
07-02-2006, 08:18 AM
this is a post which does not quote anyone
So is this.... oh damn! :wall: