PDA

View Full Version : Senseless diatribe - Split from OZ Champs and Juniors



firegoat7
07-05-2005, 12:00 AM
I gave you a legitimate answer yet you couldnt help yourself but just had to refer to the ACF Council as the old boys club. By doing so you demonstrated you were still playing the fool. Therefore if you dont wish to be called an idiot dont make idiotic statements.


I gave you enough warnings so from now on no correspondence between you and I will ever be civil again.

Warning- this post has nothing to do with MCC, its wholly of my own making in response to my new way of dealing with that tockley Bill Gletsos

Get this into your thick head! You are an absolute old creep! You are a moronic clown who wouldn't even understand a conflict of issues if it slapped you in the face! For years jokers like you having been running chess thinking that its ok to be on state and ACF organisations at the same time. You would possibly have to be the most those stupidest bunch of insular clowns I have ever met. The reason the ACF does not function properly is because peaheads like yourself actually believe that they can fulfill both tasks without any shaking of their eyes about ethical issues. Don't worry about the real world. It is dinosaurs like you- control freaks- who actually have no understanding of how democracy works, who are preventing chess from prospering. Why do you think democracies have seperation of power idiot? Why is somebody not allowed to be a premier and a prime minister at the same time stupid! Why do people elect officials nationally instead of relying on parties to choose them from state ranks for the people. Dont tell me gooseboy you know better don't you, with your stupid bureaucracies that just buck pass. You nothing better then to carry on like a parrot with "take it to your state association". What would you know about Vic chess idiot, absolutely nothing. You wouldn't even be aware that GW has written into the constitution that if he gets defeated in a presidential nomination that he is allowed to run for every position on the ChessVictoria board or that the president has the right to rule by decree if he so desires. Not that you care, you don't give a toss about democracy do you clown. You like the circus.



What are you prattling on about. I didnt insult you at all. I simply pointed out how the ACF charges its admin fee.
Maybe you do and maybe you dont. The reason I say that is because I wonder how long has CV been charging this $5 fee.

Your such an arrogant piece of trash. I don't give a rats about what you think we pay. I am telling you what we actually pay moron.

And get this through your thickhead aswell peabrain. When ChessVictoria charges us $5 and says half is for us and half is for the ACF, then disaffiliates us because we question the figures, while buttheads like you say we deserve it and make stupid statements without ever bothering to check what is actually happening in Victorian chess. Absolute clowns who do nothing to help despite years of telling you there is a problem. then I say stick it where the sun dosen't shine your part of a sinking ship and the sooner you go down the better.

Bring on the privateers, at least we know where we stand with these people.

No phone calls. No communication and no mediation with no new ideas.


Cheers Fg7

P.S I apologise to everyone else in advance. But hey if he can get away with this abusive language for so long on this site then I'm just going to drag the correspondece down to his imbecile level.

Bill Gletsos
07-05-2005, 12:32 AM
I gave you enough warnings so from now on no correspondence between you and I will ever be civil again.Do I look like I care about you, your opinion of me or your behaviour. If you think I do then you are deluding yourself.

Warning- this post has nothing to do with MCC, its wholly of my own making in response to my new way of dealing with that tockley Bill Gletsos

Get this into your thick head! You are an absolute old creep! You are a moronic clown who wouldn't even understand a conflict of issues if it slapped you in the face! For years jokers like you having been running chess thinking that its ok to be on state and ACF organisations at the same time. You would possibly have to be the most those stupidest bunch of insular clowns I have ever met. The reason the ACF does not function properly is because peaheads like yourself actually believe that they can fulfill both tasks without any shaking of their eyes about ethical issues. Don't worry about the real world. It is dinosaurs like you- control freaks- who actually have no understanding of how democracy works, who are preventing chess from prospering. Why do you think democracies have seperation of power idiot? Why is somebody not allowed to be a premier and a prime minister at the same time stupid! Why do people elect officials nationally instead of relying on parties to choose them from state ranks for the people. Dont tell me gooseboy you know better don't you, with your stupid bureaucracies that just buck pass. You nothing better then to carry on like a parrot with "take it to your state association". What would you know about Vic chess idiot, absolutely nothing.Probably more than you know about chess in other states. However why is it only you on here complaining about Chess Victoria. Maybe Chess Victoria isnt the problem. Maybe you are.

You wouldn't even be aware that GW has written into the constitution that if he gets defeated in a presidential nomination that he is allowed to run for every position on the ChessVictoria board or that the president has the right to rule by decree if he so desires. Not that you care, you don't give a toss about democracy do you clown.If you feel so strongly about it then why dont you write a letter to the ACF Bulletin expressing your views. Perhaps then the rest of us could see all the other Victorians flock to support you.
Or possibly when you get your copy of the CV Constitution you could post it on the bulletin board for all of us to see, rather than us take your interpretation of it as gospel.

You like the circus.I would have thought a clown like you would be at home in a circus..


Your such an arrogant piece of trash.The only arrogant one is you. You just wont use whats between your ears. I was simply telling you what the ACF charges the state associations.

I don't give a rats about what you think we pay. I am telling you what we actually pay moron.What you pay isnt my concern. What CV charges is up to them. You can pay it or not. Thats up to you.


And get this through your thickhead aswell peabrain. When ChessVictoria charges us $5 and says half is for us and half is for the ACF, then disaffiliates us because we question the figures, while buttheads like you say we deserve it and make stupid statements without ever bothering to check what is actually happening in Victorian chess.So explain it to all us non Victorians on this board why all the other Victorian clubs are not complaining like you.

Absolute clowns who do nothing to help despite years of telling you there is a problem. then I say stick it where the sun dosen't shine your part of a sinking ship and the sooner you go down the better.[/quote}Maybe what MCC needs is less of people like you.
[QUOTE=firegoat7]Bring on the privateers, at least we know where we stand with these people.Yes, but who knows where you stand.

P.S I apologise to everyone else in advance. But hey if he can get away with this abusive language for so long on this site then I'm just going to drag the correspondece down to his imbecile level.Unfortunately for you I'm not easily intimidated by your bullying tactics.
I treat you with the respect you have shown me both on here previously and on UCJ.

firegoat7
07-05-2005, 01:12 AM
Probably more than you know about chess in other states. However why is it only you on here complaining about Chess Victoria. Maybe Chess Victoria isnt the problem. Maybe you are.



In case you haven't noticed dimwit hardly anybody with over 5 years chess administration experiences posts here from Victora, with the exceptions of Starter,Baz and Macavity, who hardly bare the hostilities you do towards my posts.

Now we know that Starter and Baz are gentleman diplomats and Macavity basically agrees with my general position on these posts, so what are you talking about you old coot?


The only arrogant one is you. You just wont use whats between your ears. I was simply telling you what the ACF charges the state associations.
What you pay isnt my concern. What CV charges is up to them. You can pay it or not. Thats up to you.
Your a buck passing peanut! Clearly we do not want to see our club disaffiliated from the ACF, that would be highly irresponsible to our members, who believe it or not are the same members of the ACF that pay your fees. Since you are on the ACF isn't it an issue for you mothball


So explain it to all us non Victorians on this board why all the other Victorian clubs are not complaining like you.
Show me who posts from all the other Victorian clubs then put 2+2 together.


Maybe what MCC needs is less of people like you.
Yes, but who knows where you stand.
Unfortunately for you I'm not easily intimidated by your bullying tactics.
I treat you with the respect you have shown me both on here previously and on UCJ. Maybe you suffer from incontinence aswell.
Im not bullying you-I'm responding in your own language. I dont care whether you agree with me or not. I am simply responding in the only manner you understand, with abuse. Your a dinosaur an idiotic moronic clownboot jackleg dinosaur. I care as much about your stupid opinions as I care about Joh Bjke Peterson dying, in fact I hope you join him soon.

X (0) X

Fg7

Bill Gletsos
07-05-2005, 01:37 AM
In case you haven't noticed dimwit hardly anybody with over 5 years chess administration experiences posts here from Victora, with the exceptions of Starter,Baz and Macavity, who hardly bare the hostilities you do towards my posts.Jammo used to post. He certainly didnt think much of your comments/views.

Now we know that Starter and Baz are gentleman diplomats and Macavity basically agrees with my general position on these posts, so what are you talking about you old coot?So basically what you are saying is that one other individual from MCC supports you.

Your a buck passing peanut! Clearly we do not want to see our club disaffiliated from the ACF, that would be highly irresponsible to our members, who believe it or not are the same members of the ACF that pay your fees.Firstly I dont get paid any fees. I'm a volunteer. Secondly get this though your head they are not ACF members. You may be members of CV but that doesnt make you ACF members. CV as a State Association is part of the ACF via its appointed state delegate on the council and its appointed state delegates at national conferences.

Since you are on the ACF isn't it an issue for you mothballHow CV structures its finances isnt a concern of the ACF's.

Show me who posts from all the other Victorian clubs then put 2+2 together.Who said anything about other clubs posting. I said how come you are the only club complaining. Surely if there was a groundswell of support for your position others outside Victoria would have heard about it.

Maybe you suffer from incontinence aswell.No but you obviously suffer from delusions.

Im not bullying you-I'm responding in your own language.Incorrect. I have never sworn at you. You on the other hand have sworn at me.

I dont care whether you agree with me or not. I am simply responding in the only manner you understand, with abuse. Your a dinosaur an idiotic moronic clownboot jackleg dinosaur.You can carry on like this as much as you like. To me its like water off a ducks back.

I care as much about your stupid opinions as I care about Joh Bjke Peterson dying, in fact I hope you join him soon.Guess that just shows your caring nature.

firegoat7
07-05-2005, 11:48 AM
Jammo used to post. He certainly didnt think much of your comments/views.

Firstly moron,
Jammo did a lot of good things for chess, but he also did a lot of ordinary things for chess. Like you Jammo has a problem with people contesting issues, he is simply unable to communicate without insulting people. I have seen him insult people countless times. I know a lot of Victorians who didn't like Jammo at all.

Secondly idiot,


So basically what you are saying is that one other individual from MCC supports you.
No your saying that chimp, don't be such a try hard.

Thirdly cretin,


Firstly I dont get paid any fees. I'm a volunteer.


Who cares egomaniac, who actually cares if you get paid or not.
fourthly clown


Secondly get this though your head they are not ACF members. You may be members of CV but that doesnt make you ACF members. CV as a State Association is part of the ACF via its appointed state delegate on the council and its appointed state delegates at national conferences.


You really are a very very dogmatic and unfortunate excuse for a human being.
Any fool who believes that the ACF would function without chess players simply has rocks in their heads. While you may deny that they are your membership and that you are democratically accountable to them- a policy utilised by most dictatorships. The simple fact is that if people did not play in any ACF run events you would not even have an organisation. You may rule chess administrations like its your private villa, but at the end of the day your supposed to have peoples best interests at heart. You can structure your membership naming constitution anyway you like, but if you don't acknowledge that the rank and file is your membership base, then you are clearly more stupid then I had ever thought previously.

Fifthly fool


How CV structures its finances isnt a concern of the ACF's.


For an astute political leader you make a very good mushroom
Sixth (ly) (lol), goose


Who said anything about other clubs posting. I said how come you are the only club complaining. Surely if there was a groundswell of support for your position others outside Victoria would have heard about it.

You are a simpleton. How many players play chess in Victoria? How many of them are registered bulletin board members at Chesskit? At least if your going to do some comparative analysis, make it realistic, instead of huffing about something you know next to nothing about. When you come down to Victoria and discuss things honestly with people then maybe we could show your opinions some respect . Unfortunately, you have little understanding of Victorian chess politics nor do you want to understand.

seventhly, carpetbagger



Incorrect. I have never sworn at you. You on the other hand have sworn at me.


Your perception is a joke. You don't even understand what tolerable language is. Your views exist in a decade that is close to the 1940s. Your a moral purist who understands absolutely nothing about moral relativity.

eigth (ly), tockley


You can carry on like this as much as you like. To me its like water off a ducks back.
Guess that just shows your caring nature.

Thats right! I don't care about you. Why should I? Your language and the way you put people down constantly is symptomatic of how sick you really are. If you were a horse Gletsos you would be put down.

Furthermore, your such a victim! retreating in your lame little ways, ohhh "they are all so nasty to me", "I never swear Im so polite"..well your not. Your an idiot..a moronic stupid goose when you stop using such language in the future when discussing things with people they will reciprocate until then you are a fool

X(0)X
Fg7

BFG
07-05-2005, 12:17 PM
Bill and Firegoat. Your act is getting really tired.

JUST GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON!!!!!!!

If you have to snipe at each other do it as PMs so the rest of us don't have to put up with this childish and spiteful crap every time you too are involved in a discussion.

Rincewind
07-05-2005, 12:59 PM
Bill and Firegoat. Your act is getting really tired.

JUST GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON!!!!!!!

If you have to snipe at each other do it as PMs so the rest of us don't have to put up with this childish and spiteful crap every time you too are involved in a discussion.

I agree. But whoever wants to vent their spleen, please do so here and not in the original thread.

Bill Gletsos
07-05-2005, 01:09 PM
Firstly moron,
Jammo did a lot of good things for chess, but he also did a lot of ordinary things for chess.Well we all know what you did for chess at Doeberl, but perhaps you could point out to all and sundry what your contribution to chess has been in Victoria.

Like you Jammo has a problem with people contesting issues, he is simply unable to communicate without insulting people.While I've disagreed with Robert, I wouldnt call him insulting. Perhaps its just that you consider everyone who disagrees with you as being insulting.

I have seen him insult people countless times. I know a lot of Victorians who didn't like Jammo at all.There are probably a lot of Victorians who cant stand you.

Secondly idiot,
No your saying that chimp, don't be such a try hard.The only one carrying on like a monkey is you. There certainly hasnt been anyone other than your MCC mates support your view and even then they have been far more rational.

Thirdly cretin,
Who cares egomaniac, who actually cares if you get paid or not.You falsely claimed that I was paid. That was a simply untrue.

fourthly clown
You really are a very very dogmatic and unfortunate excuse for a human being.Actually that sounds like you are talking about yourself.

Any fool who believes that the ACF would function without chess players simply has rocks in their heads.I never said that.

While you may deny that they are your membership and that you are democratically accountable to them- a policy utilised by most dictatorships. The simple fact is that if people did not play in any ACF run events you would not even have an organisation.The players are only members of their respective State Associations. The ACF events are the national ttiles. The authority of the CAF with reagrds them comes from the State Associations.

You may rule chess administrations like its your private villa, but at the end of the day your supposed to have peoples best interests at heart. You can structure your membership naming constitution anyway you like, but if you don't acknowledge that the rank and file is your membership base, then you are clearly more stupid then I had ever thought previously.The only one demonstrating stupidity is you.
Fifthly fool
For an astute political leader you make a very good mushroomYou clearly have no clue and are the one acting like a mushroom. In fact all you seem to do is spout a loud of fertilizer. The states are autonomous bodies. How they organise their structure is up to their membership.

Sixth (ly) (lol), goose
You are a simpleton. How many players play chess in Victoria? How many of them are registered bulletin board members at Chesskit? At least if your going to do some comparative analysis, make it realistic, instead of huffing about something you know next to nothing about.I wasnt talking about bulletin baord memebers at all. You have provided absolutely no evidence to show that other clubs in Victoria support youir views.

When you come down to Victoria and discuss things honestly with people then maybe we could show your opinions some respect . Unfortunately, you have little understanding of Victorian chess politics nor do you want to understand. I have more of an understanding of Victorian chess than you do of chess in other australian states.

seventhly, carpetbagger
Your perception is a joke. You don't even understand what tolerable language is. Your views exist in a decade that is close to the 1940s. Your a moral purist who understands absolutely nothing about moral relativity.Ah the defense of the crude and vulgar.

eigth (ly), tockley
Thats right! I don't care about you. Why should I? Your language and the way you put people down constantly is symptomatic of how sick you really are. If you were a horse Gletsos you would be put down.The only really sick individual is you.

Furthermore, your such a victim! retreating in your lame little ways, ohhh "they are all so nasty to me", "I never swear Im so polite"..well your not.I'm not claiming any victim status.
In fact if anyone seems to be claiming victim status its you. Nasty ol' CV and Gary Wastell and jammo all have it in for you.
You poor didums.

b]Your an idiot..a moronic stupid goose[/B] when you stop using such language in the future when discussing things with people they will reciprocate until then you are a foolIf people act intelligently then they will get respect from me whether they agree with me or not. Act like the clown you are and you get exactly what you deserve.

Duff McKagan
07-05-2005, 01:37 PM
I think, it has been a beautiful example of clashing styles. Maybe prophylaxis V romantic :lol: Just imagine what a spectacular spectacular it could be if both Bonham and Sweeney were to wade into the fray :D

Bill Gletsos
07-05-2005, 01:49 PM
I think, it has been a beautiful example of clashing styles. Maybe prophylaxis V romantic :lol: Just imagine what a spectacular spectacular it could be if both Bonham and Sweeney were to wade into the fray :DKB is away until the 15th May whilst Sweeney has been indefinately sin binned.

antichrist
07-05-2005, 02:00 PM
I would call it a good waste of a lovely day, I am out of here. bye bye, ding ding ding

firegoat7
07-05-2005, 02:34 PM
Here is a private post sent to me by Bobby1972 in 2003.

At least he had the common sense to recognise that this bulletin board was a complete waste of time.


hi
hey david how did thai ly go against narrele yesterday i left he had a pawn up by the way i mated hacche he he


cheers Fg7
P.S Beware of the iron cage of rationality- Max Weber

firegoat7
07-05-2005, 02:50 PM
Hello,

Here is a pm I sent myself



seccond warning
David,

I thought I would bring it to your attention in a private post, that Rincewind has warned you that the posting of further private messages will result in your banning.

Please remember that the guys logic is flawed. To have a second warning there must be a first. Since there is no first warning in your pm box, he cannot be as sincere as he has otherwise stated.

Cheers your alter ego Fg7


Cheers Fg7

ElevatorEscapee
07-05-2005, 04:14 PM
Why was Firegoat banned? Was it because of his controversial stance? Or was it because of him posting Private Messages? (Or was there another reason?)

Rincewind
07-05-2005, 04:35 PM
Why was Firegoat banned? Was it because of his controversial stance? Or was it because of him posting Private Messages? (Or was there another reason?)

Posting of private messages. His 'controversial' position is not a problem if he can express this position in a sensible way. However today he seemed unable to do that. I can only assume his medication ran out and all the chemists were closed.

BTW The ban is only for 7 days. Hopefully David can use this time to seek professional help.

Bill Gletsos
07-05-2005, 04:35 PM
Why was Firegoat banned? Was it because of his controversial stance? Or was it because of him posting Private Messages? (Or was there another reason?)It can be seen over in thread http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=13701&postcount=46 that as far back as April 2004 firegoat didnt seem to understand the concept of 'private' in private messaging.

Kevin then warned him with

You shot yourself in the foot by reposting it, which was pretty much what I hoped you'd do in the unfortunate event that you were really that mindlessly hostile. Do it to anyone else and I'll delete it and recommend you for your long-overdue banning.

It would seem that firegoat forgot about that warning.

Rincewind
07-05-2005, 04:58 PM
It can be seen over in thread http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=13701&postcount=46 that as far back as April 2004 firegoat didnt seem to understand the concept of 'private' in private messaging.

Thanks for the research, Bill. David's response to Gandalf's warnng is particularly telling of his inability to understand the notion of confidentiality. Mind you his anti-social tendencies have got him into trouble in the past too.

To be honest though the 1st warning I was thinking of was this one http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=57014&postcount=39

Three strikes on the one day and you're out.

Bill Gletsos
07-05-2005, 05:06 PM
Thanks for the research, Bill. David's response to Gandalf's warnng is particularly telling of his inability to understand the notion of confidentiality. Mind you his anti-social tendencies have got him into trouble in the past too.

To be honest though the 1st warning I was thinking of was this one http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=57014&postcount=39Yes, I assumed that was the first warning you had been referring to.

I just happened to remember that he had previously had an issue with the concept of privacy and went looking for it. Finding Kevins warning was just a bonus. ;)


Three strikes on the one day and you're out.In his case his three strikes were within the one innings (2-3 hr window).

DoroPhil
08-05-2005, 01:42 AM
What's the point of Gletsos anyway?

Posters keep getting banned for losing it over Gletsos' imbicility - BB becomes more and more boring... Soon enough the only people left would be Gletsos clones (gray, cox, etc)... Don't think any of them would ever write something worth reading...

Could the creator of this Gletsos bot feed it some more lines - it's getting way too repetetive...

ElevatorEscapee
08-05-2005, 02:04 AM
OK... so let me get this straight...

Q. People can be banned on this site for posting stuff in private messages that they have received that should remain private.

A. YES!

Q. People are encouraged and applauded for copying and posting nonsense from other forums that no one can link to on this forum because it is considered a "too controversial forum for them to be associated with", and can post their repsonses to it too!

A. YES!

Q. Is there a disparity of protection of privacy evidenced here?

A. YES!

Q. Should Bill be banned for invading the privacy of people on the UCJ forum by copying text he found there and posting it here?

A. YES!!!!!!!

Reasoning: People on UCJ did not give Bill the right to abuse their names in public! If Bill wanted to argue against people on UCJ, he should have done so on UCJ himself, and not given the silly self gratifying response that he did on Chesschat.org. Where he abused and identified otherwise innocent people who wished to remain anonymous.

Q. Will Bill be banned for such transgressions...?

A. NO!!!!!

Rincewind
08-05-2005, 02:46 AM
OK... so let me get this straight...

Q. People can be banned on this site for posting stuff in private messages that they have received that should remain private.

A. YES!

Q. People are encouraged and applauded for copying and posting nonsense from other forums that no one can link to on this forum because it is considered a "too controversial forum for them to be associated with", and can post their repsonses to it too!

A. YES!

Q. Is there a disparity of protection of privacy evidenced here?

A. YES!

Q. Should Bill be banned for invading the privacy of people on the UCJ forum by copying text he found there and posting it here?

A. YES!!!!!!!

Reasoning: People on UCJ did not give Bill the right to abuse their names in public! If Bill wanted to argue against people on UCJ, he should have done so on UCJ himself, and not given the silly self gratifying response that he did on Chesschat.org. Where he abused and identified otherwise innocent people who wished to remain anonymous.

Q. Will Bill be banned for such transgressions...?

A. NO!!!!!

No the posters on UCJ have no expectation of privacy of their posts as they are being posted no public forums where they are visible to all and will be harvested by all and sundry search engines, etc, etc, etc.

Quoting from messages which were sent via PM or posted to restricted access forums, are not readily available and the poster does have a reasonable expectation in the confidentiality of said posts/messages.

I can't see what it is here you are not understanding.

ElevatorEscapee
08-05-2005, 09:13 AM
Fair point Rincewind. :)

Was I sober when I posted that previous post?

NO!!!

Does it make any sense to me reading it back the following morning?

NO!!!

Am I embarrassed by it?

A LITTLE!!! :doh:

antichrist
08-05-2005, 09:19 AM
Fair point Rincewind. :)

Was I sober when I posted that previous post?

NO!!!

Does it make any sense to me reading it back the following morning?

NO!!!

Am I embarrassed by it?

A LITTLE!!! :doh:

EE, in post 20 you were a M-A-N with pints of courage or not. That's an old famous crim cop-out "I was drunk, your honour" -- won't wash with chess strategists.

Your last post qualifies you to become a lapdog for Bill, learn to stand on your hind legs and beg.

Rincewind
08-05-2005, 09:33 AM
Was I sober when I posted that previous post?

NO!!!

Well that also explains some of the shouts I saw last night. ;)

pax
08-05-2005, 09:34 AM
At least he had the courage to admit it ;)

antichrist
08-05-2005, 09:44 AM
C'on boys I have already pointed it out to you -- post 22 is a cop-out. You read post 20, it all makes sense - you don't have to agree with it.

If only Schappele had you two as judges.

WWhat about me in "your feedback"?

Rincewind
08-05-2005, 09:53 AM
What about me in "your feedback"?

Read post 21 in this thread and work it out for yourself.

antichrist
08-05-2005, 09:58 AM
Read post 21 in this thread and work it out for yourself.

Is Shoutbox restricted access? I don't read umteen reams of threads about finer points.

Rincewind
08-05-2005, 10:07 AM
Is Shoutbox restricted access? I don't read umteen reams of threads about finer points.

It is only to the extent that you have to be registered to read it. As registration on this board is open to pretty much everyone, I would not consider it "restricted access." I don't believe shouters have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality in the contents of their shouts.

Bill Gletsos
08-05-2005, 01:02 PM
What's the point of Gletsos anyway?

Posters keep getting banned for losing it over Gletsos' imbicility - BB becomes more and more boring... Soon enough the only people left would be Gletsos clones (gray, cox, etc)... Don't think any of them would ever write something worth reading...Comprehension must be a problem way down there in Mexico. Firegoat wasnt banned because of his argument with me. He was banned for posting contents of private messages.

Bill Gletsos
08-05-2005, 01:04 PM
EE, in post 20 you were a M-A-N with pints of courage or not. That's an old famous crim cop-out "I was drunk, your honour" -- won't wash with chess strategists.Unfortunately his logic in post #20 was flawed. No doubt due as he mentions to not being sober at the time.

Your last post qualifies you to become a lapdog for Bill, learn to stand on your hind legs and beg.He did stand on his own two feet and admitted he was wrong.

Bill Gletsos
08-05-2005, 01:07 PM
C'on boys I have already pointed it out to you -- post 22 is a cop-out. You read post 20, it all makes sense - you don't have to agree with it.It doesnt make sense because his logic is flawed.
As Rincewind pointed out UCJ is a public board and as such posters there should have no expected, implied or actual privacy with regards their posts.

ursogr8
08-05-2005, 05:16 PM
Comprehension must be a problem way down there in Mexico. Firegoat wasnt banned because of his argument with me. He was banned for posting contents of private messages.

Bill

I think Phil O'Dor was claiming that it was provocation that caused them to do whatever it is that gets them banned. That is why he wrote "Posters keep getting banned for losing it over Gletsos' imbicility.

I think you have raised the wrong skill-set by mentioning 'comprehension'.

Feel free to re-examine D's post; and comment again. :uhoh: ;)

starter

Bill Gletsos
08-05-2005, 05:29 PM
Bill

I think Phil O'Dor was claiming that it was provocation that caused them to do whatever it is that gets them banned. That is why he wrote "Posters keep getting banned for losing it over Gletsos' imbicility.Firegoat wasnt provoked to post the contents of "private messages".
He chose to do so.
In fact as I showed in my quoting him from last year he doesnt recognise the idea of privacy in private messages.
As such that is his probelm, especially considering he was warned by Rincewind not to do it.

I think you have raised the wrong skill-set by mentioning 'comprehension'.Given your post I think I was spot on with regards Mexicans and comprehension. ;)

Feel free to re-examine D's post; and comment again. :uhoh: ;)Feel free to stick to your competitive index threads where you can continue with equally useless posts as your one above. :uhoh: ;)

antichrist
08-05-2005, 05:32 PM
It doesnt make sense because his logic is flawed.
As Rincewind pointed out UCJ is a public board and as such posters there should have no expected, implied or actual privacy with regards their posts.

People can make flaws of logic even when cold sober, otherwise according to you I would be an alcohlic.

What of more importance is the re-action amongst many that you ignite. which his post 20 accurately refects. It appears that silent majority in those previous polls are full of woodworms.

Bill Gletsos
08-05-2005, 06:14 PM
People can make flaws of logic even when cold sober, otherwise according to you I would be an alcohlic.False assumption based on flawed logic.
Someone could have flawed logic whilst sober and/or flawed logic whilst not sober.
Just because someone may have flawed logic whilst sober it does not follow that those that have flawed logic must be sober.
Likewise just because someone may have flawed logic when they arent sober it does not follow that all that have flawed logic must not be sober.

What of more importance is the re-action amongst many that you ignite. which his post 20 accurately refects.Again your logic is flawed. I've pretty much only really had extended arguments with Sweeney, firegoat, DR and chesslover on here and even then in chesslovers case it was really only over his self nomination of his own posts for best post of the year.

It appears that silent majority in those previous polls are full of woodworms.I'm sure the silent majority couldnt give a damn what you think.

antichrist
08-05-2005, 06:31 PM
Remain in denial mode, nows it appears, as PaulS touched on, that there are people high in NSW chess who are unhappy with your MO on the BB. Some of whom are also unhappy because they don't like your attitude at meetings.

The fault lines are there.

Bill Gletsos
08-05-2005, 06:58 PM
I notice you totally ignored my respones to your rubbish and instead just had to the resort to the following innuendo.

Remain in denial mode, nows it appears, as PaulS touched on, that there are people high in NSW chess who are unhappy with your MO on the BB.You shouldnt indulge in speculating about which you know nothing. There was one person whose opinion I respect who thought I was a little harsh in my comments to Paul re the NSWCA January Weekender.
Some of whom are also unhappy because they don't like your attitude at meetings.I doubt if anyone was unhappy with me they would be discussing it with the likes of you. However rather than make unfounded accusations, why dont you name names.

ursogr8
08-05-2005, 08:18 PM
Firegoat wasnt provoked to post the contents of "private messages".
He chose to do so.

Bill

Phil O'Dor's point is that fg7 was provoked and as such lost it. Of course when some-one 'loses it' it is hard to predict what rash reaction they will come up with.
Some might become 'unseemly'. :hmm:
Some might just decide to disengage and remain notorious for their moment in the sun.

So, while we all might agree that "Firegoat wasnt provoked to post the contents of "private messages".", it might be a different matter if a/c ran a poll on whether fg7 was provoked. :uhoh:

Phil O'Dor may have quite good comprehension based on this reading of his original post.


starter

antichrist
08-05-2005, 08:49 PM
I ignored your response because I did not think you covered all contingences and as stated previosly on weekends I don't go into heavy thinking, exp whilst the news is on and am catching up on weekend SMH, that is my Sunday religion.

If that was also your habit you would have seen Leunig cartoons that is magificently relevant and I have often stated before. The picture shows a guy looking down at all the cables, leads, battery charges etc surrounding him.

The caption says: "There comes a moment when all the cables, leads, battery charges and power adaptaors we have ever owned, gather together and assemble themselves around us and ask us the terrible question, 'WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO YOUR LIFE?'"

Previously I have also mentioned (Russian Jew immigrant) Leon Berger's old song "Talking LIfe" about people wasting their life wasting away talking. Pity his work never reached CD as he won Australian songwriter's award for a few years in mid seventies.

The point I was getting at which I think was clear enough, even if not expressly stated, was that even if he was sober or drunk. flawed logic or otherwise, his sentiment was there for all to see -- many people don't like your arrogrant and bullying attitude. If you deny that you are either dense (sometimes you are) or in denial mode.

As you are aware I don't mix much in NSW chess these days (years) yet I am making claims about worms in the woodwork -- that is because they have appeared on this site and you choose to deny them. And no I am not going to point them out for you. Pretend you are dense if you wish. Esp because there is a movie I want to watch and it is hotting up.

Bill Gletsos
08-05-2005, 09:15 PM
Bill

Phil O'Dor's point is that fg7 was provoked and as such lost it. Of course when some-one 'loses it' it is hard to predict what rash reaction they will come up with.
Some might become 'unseemly'. :hmm:
Some might just decide to disengage and remain notorious for their moment in the sun.Yes, but if you look at how and when he so called lost it. it was to do with when he posted a private message from jase on the BB and Rincewind warned him about it and deleted it. He then apparently got into an argument with Rincewind about it and ended up banned. If therefore he was 'provoked' to post the private message it wasnt by me. I didnt even comment on it until after he was banned.

So, while we all might agree that "Firegoat wasnt provoked to post the contents of "private messages".", it might be a different matter if a/c ran a poll on whether fg7 was provoked. :uhoh:Antichrists poll's are stupid at the best of times. Fg7 chose to 'lose it' as you put it with a mod over posting private messages on the bb. He was warned but chose to ignore it.

Phil O'Dor may have quite good comprehension based on this reading of his original post.No he claimed posters keep getting banned for losing it in discussions with me. That is clearly false.
Sweeney got banned for his language that wasnt even directed at me at the time. He subsequently got banned for posting whilst banned using other accounts. Firegoat wasnt banned for arguing with me. He got banned for posting a private message on the bb and arguing over its deletion with a moderator.
Apart from Sweeney and firegoat neither of whom were banned for arguing with me I can think of no other posters supposedly banned for arguing with me.

Bill Gletsos
08-05-2005, 09:30 PM
I ignored your response because I did not think you covered all contingences and as stated previosly on weekends I don't go into heavy thinking, exp whilst the news is on and am catching up on weekend SMH, that is my Sunday religion.

If that was also your habit you would have seen Leunig cartoons that is magificently relevant and I have often stated before. The picture shows a guy looking down at all the cables, leads, battery charges etc surrounding him.

The caption says: "There comes a moment when all the cables, leads, battery charges and power adaptaors we have ever owned, gather together and assemble themselves around us and ask us the terrible question, 'WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO YOUR LIFE?'"

Previously I have also mentioned (Russian Jew immigrant) Leon Berger's old song "Talking LIfe" about people wasting their life wasting away talking. Pity his work never reached CD as he won Australian songwriter's award for a few years in mid seventies.All of this having absolutely nothing to do with any issue here.

The point I was getting at which I think was clear enough, even if not expressly stated, was that even if he was sober or drunk. flawed logic or otherwise, his sentiment was there for all to see -- many people don't like your arrogrant and bullying attitude.That wasnt his point at all. His point which was totally falwed was that fg7 got banned for posting private mesages on the BB yet I wasnt banned for copying comments by Sweeney on UCJ and responding to them here.
As Rincewind pointed out UCJ is a public baord and as such posters there have no reason to believe their publically posted messages are in any way private. therefore there is no comparison between fg7 posting private messages to the BB here and me copying public messages from UCJ here.

If you deny that you are either dense (sometimes you are) or in denial mode.I'll deny it because your logic is totally screwed as usual.

As you are aware I don't mix much in NSW chess these days (years) yet I am making claims about worms in the woodwork -- that is because they have appeared on this site and you choose to deny them. And no I am not going to point them out for you.If your so called worms appear on this site then you shouldnt need to point them out. However those from out of state dont count and the others I wouldnt describe as worms. There are just some who may disagree with me on some issues. In most cases they wouldnt just be disagreeing with me but also the whole NSWCA Council.
After all you need to remember that I will always publically support the NSWCA Council viewpoint even if I personally disagree on some issues.

arosar
08-05-2005, 09:49 PM
This is bloody stupid. Reinstate fg7 imediately.

AR

DoroPhil
08-05-2005, 09:54 PM
No he claimed posters keep getting banned for losing it in discussions with me. That is clearly false.


NO, YOU ARE CLEARLY FALSE!!!

Hehe, respond to that, Gletsos!

Now,

If it wasn't for you posting on this board, neither MS nor DB would've been banned. Those people have ideas, some of which were interesting to read and potentially worth considering and maybe pursuing at the right moment.

What do you have? What's the point of Gletsos? Why do you insist on posting the same pointless drivel here day after day? Stick to ratings, ok? They are already ruined, so stay there. I SAID STAY!

Bill Gletsos
08-05-2005, 09:59 PM
This is bloody stupid. Reinstate fg7 imediately.
That is interesting AR because last time firegoat posted a private message on the BB back in April 2004 you said

I agree. The tactic was below the belt. That's a red card for you goat.
It would appear that after fg7 posted a private message on this bb yesterday that Rincewind decided to red card him for a week.

Bill Gletsos
08-05-2005, 10:12 PM
NO, YOU ARE CLEARLY FALSE!!!

Hehe, respond to that, Gletsos!If you insist.
Why dont you show where Sweeney was banned because he lost it with me. He was banned because he posted abusive and unacceptable comments whilst drunk. In fact at the time his comments were not even directed to me but were spread over a number of threads. He followed it up by evading the ban and posting using duplicate accounts. Fg7 got banned for posting private messages.

Now,

If it wasn't for you posting on this board, neither MS nor DB would've been banned.If you believe that then you are deluded. Sweeney would have been banned because of his langauage with or without me. In fact his original banning last Decemeber didnt even involve me in his comments but was due to his posting abuisve and foul language in a number of threads whilst drunk. DB (fg7) had only himself to blame. He got into an argument with a mmod over private messages.

Those people have ideas, some of which were interesting to read and potentially worth considering and maybe pursuing at the right moment.Sweeny had many stupid ideas also and if fg7 has such great ideas he shouldnt have any trouble getting support from his colleagues down in Victoria.

What do you have? What's the point of Gletsos? Why do you insist on posting the same pointless drivel here day after day? Stick to ratings, ok? They are already ruined, so stay there. I SAID STAY!You could ask the same question of starter and his competitive index thread. You could ask it of fg7 and his drivel.
However more importantly whats the point of DoroPhil. I dont hide in gutless anonimity. What has Dorophil done for chess in Australia.

DoroPhil
08-05-2005, 10:30 PM
Ok.

I asked "What's the point of Gletsos?", to which Gletsos replied with this gem:



You could ask the same question of starter and his competitive index thread. You could ask it of fg7 and his drivel.

How ruthlessly absurd.

Gletsos, please don't counter this with: "The only one who is ruthlessly absurd is you". That doesn't it even fly at the kindergarden debates nowadays. Don't say "You'd know". That doesn't fly also.

Following this lovely diversion, I will now ask the question again: What's the point of Gletsos posting here all the time? Does he really believe that this is him improving Australian chess?

Bill Gletsos
08-05-2005, 11:02 PM
However more importantly whats the point of DoroPhil. I dont hide in gutless anonimity. What has Dorophil done for chess in Australia.

antichrist
08-05-2005, 11:06 PM
All of this having absolutely nothing to do with any issue here.

A/C
Not directly but in it's own way it is important as I have brought up before. Look you went to all that trouble to find that quote to rebuff AR, brilliant re memory etc. But does AR deserve it? In the sense that AR only usually makes impetuous outbursts (sorry AR).


I watched a brilliant movie during all of that. I wasn't going to waste my life answering someone on the net who's not a stunner nor going to stimulate me. Your responses to me and others often stimulate me to laugh and so have entertainment value, but you cannot derive the same value from others. So sort of what is in it for you? Yes you hit them out of the paddock for a six but as Cloriform states they do have ideas which for better or worse are about the only ideas I have seen from anyone.

When it was put to me some years ago that I may like to run for president of NSWCA I was warned that it is not necessarily satisfying as it is very difficult to get ideas into action. Some people interpret your style as the main obstacle, I am not referring to Matt in this. From what I see on the BB it could well have some truth.

As far as I am concerned FG7 just lost the plot getting banned or was asking for it -- I could see it coming hours earlier. EE may not have given the correct reasons for his sentiments but his sentiments are there, that cannot be denied as you have attempted or put down to grog. Nothing to do with your "involvement" with UCJ.

BG
If your so called worms appear on this site then you shouldnt need to point them out. However those from out of state dont count and the others I wouldnt describe as worms. There are just some who may disagree with me on some issues.

A/C
And with your style but won't confront you like others will. That is right I should not have to point them out because you are in denial mode and some of the evidence may be lost due to deletions. They were in NSW.

BG
In most cases they wouldnt just be disagreeing with me but also the whole NSWCA Council.
After all you need to remember that I will always publically support the NSWCA Council viewpoint even if I personally disagree on some issues.

A/C
Credit where credit is due, and that was one of FG7's weakneses, he appeared a one man show.

DoroPhil
08-05-2005, 11:21 PM
However more importantly whats the point of DoroPhil.

Why? Why is that more important? Important to what? Important to who? Does your brain fall out everytime you open your mouth?

You are the one posting pointless nonsense here all the time, while you are supposed to be working on improving Australian chess. You are the one who contributed a great deal to posters being banned. Don't be a fool, just answer the question. Its not that difficult, or is it? What's the point of Gletsos???

arosar
08-05-2005, 11:48 PM
That is interesting AR because last time firegoat posted a private message on the BB back in April 2004 you said

It would appear that after fg7 posted a private message on this bb yesterday that Rincewind decided to red card him for a week.

You provoke people Bill. They get banned all over you.

AR

Bill Gletsos
08-05-2005, 11:53 PM
Why? Why is that more important? Important to what? Important to who?Because you are just hiding you identity, obviously to gutless to stand up for your beliefs and identify yourself.
At least I'll give Sweeney and fg7 credit for one thing, they were prepared to be idenified.

Does your brain fall out everytime you open your mouth?Now you are starting to rant.

You are the one posting pointless nonsense here all the time, while you are supposed to be working on improving Australian chess.Actually I'm normally answering questions for other posters. I even answer questions from clown slike you.
You are the one who contributed a great deal to posters being banned.Instead of ontinuing ranting like a madman back that up with facts.
Sweeney was banned because of his langauage whilst posting drunk. that wasnt due to me.
fg7 was banned for posting private messages after being warned by a mod not to do so.

Don't be a fool, just answer the question.The only one ranting like a fool is you.

Its not that difficult, or is it? What's the point of Gletsos???I post here because generally I can contribute by answering peoples questions.
The majority of the posters are polite and ask reasonable questions.
Its only idiots like Matt, fg7, you and a couple of others who seem to have problems being polite when asking questions.

But the real question is still whats the point of DoroPhil. What has Dorophil done for chess in Australia.

Bill Gletsos
08-05-2005, 11:58 PM
You provoke people Bill.I provoke them no more than they provoke me.

They get banned all over you.The facts dont support that statement.
Sweeney wasnt banned because he was arguing with me. He was banned for his language whilst posting drunk. In fact his posts when he was banned werent even directed at me. He was just generally crude and abusive in a number of threads. As such his banning was due to his arguments with me.

Likewise my argument with fg7 wasnt the reason he was banned. it appeared that fg7 took exception to jases comments in a private message and posted it to the bb. He then got in an argument with a mod over posting private messages on the board and ended up being banned.

DoroPhil
09-05-2005, 12:04 AM
You are an idiot, gletsos. No one wants you here. This board would've been much better if you got a life. Stupid bot.

You can't talk to people, ok? The whole new board was created and Australian chess online community had to be divided- and you are at least partly to blame.

You ruined rating system. Ok. You did. All by yourself. Ruined. If lots of people perceive rating system to be ruined then its ruined. No matter what your stupid numbers say. Ruined. Can't u understand that people are somewhat different from machines? All by yourself. Ruined. You stupid bot.

You really are a moron.

Bill Gletsos
09-05-2005, 12:19 AM
You are an idiot, gletsos. No one wants you here. This board would've been much better if you got a life. Stupid bot.You are still ranting.

You can't talk to people, ok? The whole new board was created and Australian chess online community had to be divided- and you are at least partly to blame.Matt brought it all on himself. He just couldnt control his language/behaviour. In fact he continually demonstrates that he still cant on his own board. He was supposedly going to restrict his foul/abusive language to the gloves off section of his board but he has steadily spread it into other sections of his board.

You ruined rating system. Ok. You did. All by yourself. Ruined. If lots of people perceive rating system to be ruined then its ruined. No matter what your stupid numbers say. Ruined. Can't u understand that people are somewhat different from machines? All by yourself. Ruined. You stupid bot.

You really are a moron.You really shouldnt stop taking your medication.

DoroPhil
09-05-2005, 12:29 AM
You are an idiot, gletsos. No one wants you here. This board would've been much better if you got a life. Stupid bot.

You can't talk to people, ok? The whole new board was created and Australian chess online community had to be divided- and you are at least partly to blame.

You ruined rating system. Ok. You did. All by yourself. Ruined. If lots of people perceive rating system to be ruined then its ruined. No matter what your stupid numbers say. Ruined. Can't u understand that people are somewhat different from machines? All by yourself. Ruined. You stupid bot.

You really are a moron.

Bill Gletsos
09-05-2005, 12:40 AM
You are an idiot, gletsos. No one wants you here. This board would've been much better if you got a life. Stupid bot.

You can't talk to people, ok? The whole new board was created and Australian chess online community had to be divided- and you are at least partly to blame.

You ruined rating system. Ok. You did. All by yourself. Ruined. If lots of people perceive rating system to be ruined then its ruined. No matter what your stupid numbers say. Ruined. Can't u understand that people are somewhat different from machines? All by yourself. Ruined. You stupid bot.

You really are a moron.Now you are just looking totally delusional.

Spiny Norman
09-05-2005, 07:36 AM
You ruined rating system. Ok. You did. All by yourself. Ruined. If lots of people perceive rating system to be ruined then its ruined. No matter what your stupid numbers say. Ruined. Can't u understand that people are somewhat different from machines? All by yourself. Ruined. You stupid bot. You really are a moron.

Pardon me for buying into this ... but, DoroPhil, if you're going to have a go at someone who is a volunteer and works for no pay to provide a service to the chess community, then you really do have an obligation to:

1) Explain precisely how it could/should be done better; and

2) Offer yourself as a volunteer to provide the alternative service (or at least put forward an alternative candidate as a volunteer).

Smearing existing leadership/volunteers is not the way to go. If you're not prepared to help make it better, you should :silenced:

ursogr8
09-05-2005, 08:04 AM
<snip>
You could ask the same question of starter and his competitive index thread. <snip>


The point of the competitive index thread is clearly laid out in post #1 of that thread.
Did you miss reading that post Bill?

The advantages of modifying a tournament structure, away from the internationally famous SWISS system, are often rejected because the imprimatur of being in the FIDE handbook gives the bog-standard SWISS an air that it can't be challenged.

Perhaps you need to PM me what is your position on the Box Hill Pairing system.

genuinely yours,
starter

antichrist
09-05-2005, 09:10 AM
Pardon me for buying into this ... but, DoroPhil, if you're going to have a go at someone who is a volunteer and works for no pay to provide a service to the chess community, then you really do have an obligation to:

1) Explain precisely how it could/should be done better; and

2) Offer yourself as a volunteer to provide the alternative service (or at least put forward an alternative candidate as a volunteer).

Smearing existing leadership/volunteers is not the way to go. If you're not prepared to help make it better, you should :silenced:

And that is why I lay off after a few rounds as well not wasting too much time on an issue.

Maybe in the ACF committee that is room for a popular-elected president, I have no idea how they are appointed at present.

Bill Gletsos
09-05-2005, 10:04 AM
The point of the competitive index thread is clearly laid out in post #1 of that thread.
Did you miss reading that post Bill?Of course not. My point was that the competitive index thread has ended up consisting of the 'same pointless drivel' that Dorophil was complaing about.

The advantages of modifying a tournament structure, away from the internationally famous SWISS system, are often rejected because the imprimatur of being in the FIDE handbook gives the bog-standard SWISS an air that it can't be challenged.Never the less there is clear opposition to it from a number of posters here on the BB.

Perhaps you need to PM me what is your position on the Box Hill Pairing system.I think from other thtreads that my position on it is clear.

Libby
09-05-2005, 11:35 AM
Never the less there is clear opposition to it from a number of posters here on the BB.

I think I would be wary of using this as a measure to determine the worth of anything :eek: There is opposition to the current ratings system (and no, not from me) from a number of posters here on the BB. I can sense this being rebutted on the grounds of the calibre of those posters but in the end that's a matter of perception, isn't it?

I can scroll past the competitive index posts. I know what they are about. I know to pause and review if they might be of interest. If I don't want to waste my time ( ;) ) on them - it's easy not to.

Some other things are not so easy to assess. Maybe there's something of interest in this (example only) thread but can I find it? No, it seems to have been lost along the way ...

Bill Gletsos
09-05-2005, 12:26 PM
I think I would be wary of using this as a measure to determine the worth of anything :eek: There is opposition to the current ratings system (and no, not from me) from a number of posters here on the BB. I can sense this being rebutted on the grounds of the calibre of those posters but in the end that's a matter of perception, isn't it?I'm inclined to agree with you.
My point to Dorophil and to a less extent to starter was that there were threads that others may well refer to as drivel or for which there is opposition by some posters. As such Dorophils referring specifically to my posts as drivel was fairly narrow, and was nothing more than being indicitive of his own bias and became just repetitive ranting.

I can scroll past the competitive index posts. I know what they are about. I know to pause and review if they might be of interest. If I don't want to waste my time ( ;) ) on them - it's easy not to.

Some other things are not so easy to assess. Maybe there's something of interest in this (example only) thread but can I find it? No, it seems to have been lost along the way ...Again I'm inclined to agree. However it was fg7 who initiated the diatribe after I answered his original questions in the OZ Champs and Juniors thread. In fact I thought jase summed it up nicely when he said in that thread:

Firgoat writes that Bill Gletsos is dogmatic. Agreed.

I don't think I've ever before felt obliged to defend Bill on this forum, as I don't enjoy or appreciate his style of debate. However the questions firegoat has posted on this thread have been answered succinctly and accurately by Bill. I learnt a few things.

The incredible ignorance, arrogance, and disingenuity, of the last two pages of diatribe from firegoat have sullied the entire thread; can the MCC not find a spokesperson less blinded by their own self-importance? At least Macavity posts thoughtfully and genuinely.

Libby
09-05-2005, 01:05 PM
Again I'm inclined to agree. However it was fg7 who initiated the diatribe after I answered his original questions in the OZ Champs and Juniors thread. In fact I thought jase summed it up nicely when he said in that thread:

And I'd agree with that. I have nowhere near the length of involvement in chess and I thought it took very little effort, on my part, to find the information he was after (?). What's more - if you are seriously considering lodging a bid for any event, anytime in the future, it isn't difficult to approach your ACF delegate, or someone like yourself on the BB, to enquire on how that should be done and in what timeframe.

It's just that sometimes I feel you would be better served by allowing a pot-stirrer to be hoist with his own petard. When I look at Matt's posting on UCJ I think his arguments are diminished by the scurrilous tone he adopts in putting his case. When Fg7 wanted to press a particular agenda, and looks to be going completely over-the-top, it could be let lie. The advice I received (some months after George attempted to slap my face over Mt Buller) was that I should not have taken the silence of others to signal approval of his tone/post. Instead, I should have seen it as others seeing it as so ridiculous it should only be ignored.

I just don't see how this stuff casts anyone in a good light. Some may look worse than others but in the end, almost everyone looks bad. :cool:

Bill Gletsos
09-05-2005, 01:47 PM
And I'd agree with that. I have nowhere near the length of involvement in chess and I thought it took very little effort, on my part, to find the information he was after (?). What's more - if you are seriously considering lodging a bid for any event, anytime in the future, it isn't difficult to approach your ACF delegate, or someone like yourself on the BB, to enquire on how that should be done and in what timeframe.

It's just that sometimes I feel you would be better served by allowing a pot-stirrer to be hoist with his own petard. When I look at Matt's posting on UCJ I think his arguments are diminished by the scurrilous tone he adopts in putting his case. When Fg7 wanted to press a particular agenda, and looks to be going completely over-the-top, it could be let lie. The advice I received (some months after George attempted to slap my face over Mt Buller) was that I should not have taken the silence of others to signal approval of his tone/post. Instead, I should have seen it as others seeing it as so ridiculous it should only be ignored.True.

I just don't see how this stuff casts anyone in a good light. Some may look worse than others but in the end, almost everyone looks bad. :cool:Too be totally honest I seriously considered not even replying to fg7's original post hen he asked the questions because I seriously doubted whether he really was interested in obtaining information or was just looking for an excuse to start an argument in order to push his own agenda. Unfortunately I gave him the beneift of the doubt and replied.

DoroPhil
09-05-2005, 03:37 PM
DoroPhil, if you're going to have a go at someone who is a volunteer and works for no pay to provide a service to the chess community, then you really do have an obligation to:

1) Explain precisely how it could/should be done better



It should've remained the same as it was before stupid gletsos came along.

The number of people who complain about ratings being inaccurate increased considerably since gletsos changed the rating system for the sole reason of being an idiot with way too much free time on his hands.

So, to sum up: to make ratings system better than it is now, gletsos should've never touched it. Similarly, to make this bulletin board better, gletsos should've never came here.

Bill Gletsos
09-05-2005, 03:50 PM
It should've remained the same as it was before stupid gletsos came along.But juniors were way more underrated under the old Elo system than they are under Glicko. You therefore are advocating a sytem of having more underated juniors.

The number of people who complain about ratings being inaccurate increased considerably since gletsos changed the rating system for the sole reason of being an idiot with way too much free time on his hands.Just because people complain doesnt make their complaints valid.

So, to sum up: to make ratings system better than it is now, gletsos should've never touched it.So you would prefer that juniors be more underated than they are now. I'm glad you clarified that for everyone.

Similarly, to make this bulletin board better, gletsos should've never came here.Perhaps you could point out to the other posters here exactly what your contribution has been.

antichrist
09-05-2005, 03:52 PM
Bill, are lining up another six? Which boundary will it be? "Over there" they reakon that I am just in the way. I can't win.

Bill Gletsos
09-05-2005, 04:18 PM
Bill, are lining up another six? Which boundary will it be? "Over there" they reakon that I am just in the way. I can't win.I agree. They dont need you batting/fielding.
You should leave them to play with their own bats.

ursogr8
09-05-2005, 04:27 PM
Bill, are lining up another six? Which boundary will it be? "Over there" they reakon that I am just in the way. I can't win.

Look a/c, I think I can help you.
Anything you want posted at UCJ...just PM to me...and I will pick the best of it and re-post at UCJ.
I will guarantee no cc.com protocols are infringed. :uhoh:

at your service
starter

Bill Gletsos
09-05-2005, 04:33 PM
Look a/c, I think I can help you.
Anything you want posted at UCJ...just PM to me...and I will pick the best of it and re-post at UCJ.Why cant the clowns at UCJ pick it up themselves if so so desire rather than requiring carrier pigeons. In fact Denovo has previously been doing just that.

antichrist
09-05-2005, 04:37 PM
Why cant the clowns at UCJ pick it up themselves if so so desire rather than requiring carrier pigeons. In fact Denovo has previously been doing just that.

But they leave out the juciest, embarrassing parts of your posts where you really sock it to'em.

As someone said of your bringing posts over, they should be unabridged!

BIll, You started the reposting, over here at least. I am just following in my heroes footsteps.

Duff McKagan
09-05-2005, 05:05 PM
Antichrist if you are trying to upset Bill until his chip fries all you need to do is crosspost his posts in the Coffee Lounge over there. Hell mate you cannot be caught because all you have to do is log on as some newb poster there. :cool: Now that everyone knows what you are going to do it doesnt matter if someone else does it first it will be you that they suspect :lol:

Cheers

antichrist
09-05-2005, 05:37 PM
If someone else does it I will take the blame, okay? Go for it. Before 6pm.

Bill Gletsos
09-05-2005, 11:47 PM
But they leave out the juciest, embarrassing parts of your posts where you really sock it to'em.

As someone said of your bringing posts over, they should be unabridged!

BIll, You started the reposting, over here at least. I am just following in my heroes footsteps.I just knew I could depend on you, you are so predictable.
As Hannibal from the A-Team used to say I love it when a plan comes together :owned:

DoroPhil
10-05-2005, 02:53 AM
Just because people complain doesnt make their complaints valid.


Dude, you are an imbecile.

If people perceive the rating system to be ruined than it means it's ruined.

End of discussion.

EGOR
10-05-2005, 05:51 AM
If people perceive the rating system to be ruined than it means it's ruined.

No! The reason people hate the new rating system and perceive ti to be ruined is because it's new & different. All Australians hate anything that is new & different, that's what makes us great.

Duff McKagan
10-05-2005, 03:10 PM
No! The reason people hate the new rating system and perceive ti to be ruined is because it's new & different. All Australians hate anything that is new & different, that's what makes us great.

I dont know about that. A new girl friend is something most of us enjoy ;)

WhiteElephant
10-05-2005, 03:14 PM
I dont know about that. A new girl friend is something most of us enjoy ;)

Even better if she has a twin sister :owned:

antichrist
10-05-2005, 04:11 PM
Look boys, this thread is sacred ground. Battles have been thought, blood spilt, FG7 barred, just like Galliopi.

Wives probably left husbands etc. And here you are talking flippantly. Have a little respect.

ursogr8
10-05-2005, 04:36 PM
Look boys, this thread is sacred ground. Battles have been thought, blood spilt, FG7 barred, just like Galliopi.

Wives probably left husbands etc. And here you are talking flippantly. Have a little respect.

I am with you a/c.
This thread has even had Libby out checking the THREAD TITLE matches the content.
This is OFFICIAL SACRED.


starter

Libby
10-05-2005, 06:24 PM
I am with you a/c.
This thread has even had Libby out checking the THREAD TITLE matches the content.
This is OFFICIAL SACRED.

starter

I did?

I think much of the content matches the description of senseless diatribe :rolleyes: It appears this thread is not off-topic - although what is it with you guys & twins?

(& no, a/c - I'm not really looking for an answer :eek: )

Bill Gletsos
10-05-2005, 11:00 PM
Dude, you are an imbecile.

If people perceive the rating system to be ruined than it means it's ruined.Perception does not equate to fact.
After all at times I perceived you may be reasonably intelligent where as in actuality you have demonstrated you are not.

Axiom
10-05-2005, 11:20 PM
checkmate! Gletzos 1-0 Dorophil

Spiny Norman
11-05-2005, 06:55 AM
Frosty (a.k.a. Dr Phil) here ...


The number of people who complain about ratings being inaccurate increased considerably since gletsos changed the rating system ...

Q: Is this true? Bill, can you perhaps offer some insight?

Who changed the rating system? Was it BG alone, or were others involved in the decision (pardon my ignorance, but I wasn't around at the time).

If true, what are the factors that are likely to have introduced such an increase of complaints?

Are they similar complaints to ones of old, or a new kind of complaint?

Is it because people are now "more educated" about ratings?

Are there more people competing in chess now than before?

etc etc


But juniors were way more underrated under the old Elo system than they are under Glicko. You therefore are advocating a sytem of having more underated juniors. So you would prefer that juniors be more underated than they are now. I'm glad you clarified that for everyone.

I doubt that anyone would be supportive that juniors be more underrated. So there must be a different issue at stake.


Just because people complain doesnt make their complaints valid.

No .... but neither should they be dismissed until they are clearly understood.

DoroPhil: Are there any other complaints that you want to raise? Anything at all in relation to ratings? Or is it simply down to the fact that you believe the old system to be better than the current system?


If people perceive the rating system to be ruined than it means it's ruined.

No .... not quite right ... but I know where you're coming from.

Who are "people"? How many people?

1) Are they prepared to identify themselves?
2) Are they prepared to actually do something about it?

If the answer to either of those two questions is "no" then its "case closed and no further discussion required". Anonymous complainents really aren't worth the time of day. Waste of time.


Perception does not equate to fact.

True .... but DoroPhil is correct .... in that perception, whilst not fact, is REALITY. If people believe something to be true, then no amount of factual evidence to the contrary is likely to disuade them.

This is down to two things I reckon: Education (about how ratings systems work and the pros/cons of each) and relationship (how people communicate with each other).

DoroPhil .... if you're seriously proposing that things should go back to the way they were .... why don't you get in touch with Bill via PM, arrange to meet with him some time, have him explain how things are done today and how they were done in days gone by ... then see whether you can HELP.

I've always got a hundred ideas about doing things different/better, but for now I'm biding my time and working with the current system(s) so that I get to understand them and can properly test my ideas so see if they're valid. This process is likely to take years (!). By the end of that time I expect to find that the vast majority of my ideas:

1) Have been tried before and haven't worked; or
2) Clearly won't work based on the additional knowledge I have acquired (about people, not just systems)

A small number of ideas may prove to be valuable. If they are, then hopefully by then I will have demonstrated personal COMMITMENT and VALUE to the existing leadership structures within the chess community and will therefore have some kind of basis from which to express my opinions.

I'll point out again, sniping from the sidelines at existing leadership isn't going to change anything for the better. I've been guilty of that in the past and I know it doesn't work. Perhaps you'd be surprised at how much change can be wrought when one SERVES instead of snipes?

Rhubarb
11-05-2005, 07:21 AM
The number of people who complain about ratings being inaccurate increased considerably since gletsos changed the rating systemMore likely, these are the people who mistakenly overestimate their current strength, and can't handle the reality of a rating system that immediately searches for their current strength, rather than dwelling on their past glories.

EDIT: Without specifically wishing to take the wind out of Frosty's good-natured sails, in my view the people most likely to complain are those older folk used to sitting on their rating, which they earnt some time ago. They can't handle a system that doesn't artificially inflate their worth. They can't handle the truth.

antichrist
11-05-2005, 10:27 AM
Perception can be deceptive. I was often accused by losers in social games of being too slow. But when we used the clock I always had better time and still won. As in that C of S rapid play the other day, every game I think I had better time.

So I would support Kegless on this.

And if juniors can win some prizes because underrated (which cannot be avoided if improving) well good on them and they are encourged to come back again. I know a son of a Ukrainian club player, a top junior at the time, beat many at the club and some oldies were sour at him so he never come back. Now they wonder why as a club they are dying.

Bill Gletsos
11-05-2005, 10:57 AM
All of my following comments have been described previously either here or on the old ACF bulletin board.


Frosty (a.k.a. Dr Phil) here ...

Q: Is this true? Bill, can you perhaps offer some insight?

Who changed the rating system? Was it BG alone, or were others involved in the decision (pardon my ignorance, but I wasn't around at the time).The ACF Council authorised the ACF Ratings Officers to change the system as they saw fit. We had explained to the Council at the time that we planned to introduce a system that contained a variability factor. Originally we were considering reintroducing the rating system that the ACF had used back in the 70's (designed by Roger Cook ACF Ratings Officer back then) which had contained a variability factor. However we found that Glickman had designed and published his Gicko system and we saw it as a better solution. In fact if I recall correctly I believe at around the same time as we found out about Glickmans system, Shaun Press mentioned the Glicko system to me and that it was worthy of investigation.

If true, what are the factors that are likely to have introduced such an increase of complaints?

Are they similar complaints to ones of old, or a new kind of complaint?The number of complaints where people emailed me about their ratings did not increase with the introduction of the Glicko system. The complaints were of the same nature. e.g. I scored 4.5 from 7 in tournamnet X but my rating only went up 5 points why. The answer being that the player based on his rating was expected to score 4.2.
Or they would complain that they expected their rating to go up and it had gone down. They conveniently had forgotten that they had played in tournament X where they performed poorly.

Is it because people are now "more educated" about ratings?I doubt it. Even when the rating system was ELO people still got the maths wrong.

I doubt that anyone would be supportive that juniors be more underrated. So there must be a different issue at stake.Not if Dorophil is arguing that the old Elo system was better. The Glicko is much better at handling improving juniors (or improving adults) compared to Elo. Therefore suggesting ELo is better is suggesting you prefer a system that gives more underrated juniors (players).

No .... but neither should they be dismissed until they are clearly understood.Kegless summed it up pretty well.
Players seem to believe that their rating should reflect their past glories. That their rating should reflect their best performances and not their current. Some players also seem to think that if they beat some one 300 points above their rating they should gain more points than if they lose to someone 300 points below their rating. These issues all existed under Elo.
The difference underr Glicko is that Glicko will move a players rating quicker towards how they are currently performing than how they used to perform.

DoroPhil: Are there any other complaints that you want to raise? Anything at all in relation to ratings? Or is it simply down to the fact that you believe the old system to be better than the current system?It is clear based on what he has said that he is claiming the old system was better and we ruined the rating system when we went to Glicko. As I said if he believes that then he is in favour of a system that gives more underrated juniors.

No .... not quite right ... but I know where you're coming from.

Who are "people"? How many people?

1) Are they prepared to identify themselves?
2) Are they prepared to actually do something about it?

If the answer to either of those two questions is "no" then its "case closed and no further discussion required". Anonymous complainents really aren't worth the time of day. Waste of time.I could count on one hand the number of players who have complained to me to my face about the rating system. Their biggest complaint is that they feel it is to dynamic and adjusts ratings too quickly.
The point is for relatively active players the Glicko is very similar in its adjustments to the Elo system with a K factor of 25 instead of 15. It is only for relatively inactive players or rapidly improving players where the Glicko would have an Elo equivalent of a K factor higher than 25. Now the greater the K factor in Elo the greater impact (movement) current performances have over your rating.
In fact Jeff Sonas showed when he did calculations on masters events that in the ELo system a K factor of around 24 was far better than the FIDE K factor of 10 or 15 with regards to accuracy of the rating system. In fact he showed that using the ELo system any K factor greater than 15 and less than 35 is more accuarte than a K factor of 15 and that any K greater than 10 and less than 40 was more accurate than a K of 10.

True .... but DoroPhil is correct .... in that perception, whilst not fact, is REALITY. If people believe something to be true, then no amount of factual evidence to the contrary is likely to disuade them.

This is down to two things I reckon: Education (about how ratings systems work and the pros/cons of each) and relationship (how people communicate with each other).All of this has been discussed at length on this and the previous ACF bulletin board. In fact a number of these issues were discussed back in the ACF bulletins around March 2003.

DoroPhil .... if you're seriously proposing that things should go back to the way they were .... why don't you get in touch with Bill via PM, arrange to meet with him some time, have him explain how things are done today and how they were done in days gone by ... then see whether you can HELP.Nice idea but flawed. Dorophil has shown by his words on this BB that he has no interest in factual debate when it comes to rating systems.

I've always got a hundred ideas about doing things different/better, but for now I'm biding my time and working with the current system(s) so that I get to understand them and can properly test my ideas so see if they're valid. This process is likely to take years (!). By the end of that time I expect to find that the vast majority of my ideas:

1) Have been tried before and haven't worked; or
2) Clearly won't work based on the additional knowledge I have acquired (about people, not just systems)

A small number of ideas may prove to be valuable. If they are, then hopefully by then I will have demonstrated personal COMMITMENT and VALUE to the existing leadership structures within the chess community and will therefore have some kind of basis from which to express my opinions.Exactly.
Like you say many ideas that people have made we have previously tested and found them wanting. Some ideas of our own we thought may be worthwhile turned out not to be the case.
Before Graham Saint and I make any changes to the rating system we test that they actually lead to a more accurate predictive model.

Bill Gletsos
11-05-2005, 11:00 AM
I think ex ACF Ratings Officer Shaun Press summed it up quite well and highlighted the perception/beliefs that a number of players have with regards ratings when he posted the following on the old ACF BB back in March 2003.


New Ratings System Proposal
=====================

Premise: A rating system should be easy to understand, transparent, and reflect the percieved strength of the participants.

Rule 1: When I beat someone rated above me my rating should go up
Rule 2: When I beat someone rated way above me my rating should go up heaps
Rule 3: When I lose to someone rated below me my rating should only drop a little as they were probably lucky or I was off form, and anyway they shouldn't be beating me, otherwise they would be rated above me.
Rule 4: When I lose to someone rated way below me they are cleary an underated player and the system is at fault so I shouldn't lose any ratings points, and indeed should get a couple of extra for the embarrasment and inconvenience.
Rule 5:If I have a good tournament where I perform above my rating, then this tournament reflects my true strength and my rating should be adjusted accordingly.
Rule 6:If I have a couple of bad tournaments these results should be discounted as they don't reflect my true strength (see rule 5) and to include them would make a mockery of the ratings system.
Rule 7: It is an historical fact that players in my state of <insert state name here> are underated compared to all the other states and an adjustment factor is required for each list

Some proposed values
Rule 1: +10 points
Rule 2: +50 points
Rule 3: -1 point
Rule 4: +5 points
Rule 5: Players performance rating
Rule 6: 0 points
Rule 7:+100 points

A simple system, easy to understand.
Comments invited.

EGOR
11-05-2005, 12:46 PM
Put simply, if I don't the rating I think I should, than it's someone elses falt, and that someone is Bill. Well, it's Bill until he steps down, than it's all the falt of the new guy who has ruinned a perfectly good rating system!

antichrist
11-05-2005, 02:44 PM
Bill, your list of varying factors did not include players who give a queen or rook odds.

Bill Gletsos
11-05-2005, 02:50 PM
Bill, your list of varying factors did not include players who give a queen or rook odds.I was trying to be sensible.
I suggest you try doing the same

Libby
11-05-2005, 06:40 PM
Surely, at the end of the argument, you either enjoy your game of chess or you don't.

At the very, very pointy end of things a rating can unduly influence selections and maybe some adults/children are disadvataged by the pool in which they play.

And maybe your seeding in a tournament is not exactly what you would like. However, if you win most games then your rating will likely go up, and if you have a bad trot it will most likely go down.

Why do you play? Because you like to play chess or because you want your rating to go up? :wall: Maybe you enter a tournament to win prizemoney. in that case, you'd better worry about winning enough games irrespective of the rating of those you play.

You'd think the world hung on this stuff.

ursogr8
11-05-2005, 07:56 PM
^^
You still a bit grumpy Libby?

Mate (or should that be Matesse...I am not up with this PC stuff)........

mate, it is only a few days to go before the Blues take on the Cats at the Dome...and could win as The Fev. is back (from memory).
It could all look better next week.

I just checked....you've got 4 green globes too. :clap:


starter

antichrist
11-05-2005, 08:00 PM
Surely, at the end of the argument, you either enjoy your game of chess or you don't.

At the very, very pointy end of things a rating can unduly influence selections and maybe some adults/children are disadvataged by the pool in which they play.

And maybe your seeding in a tournament is not exactly what you would like. However, if you win most games then your rating will likely go up, and if you have a bad trot it will most likely go down.

Why do you play? Because you like to play chess or because you want your rating to go up? :wall: Maybe you enter a tournament to win prizemoney. in that case, you'd better worry about winning enough games irrespective of the rating of those you play.

You'd think the world hung on this stuff.

Now Libby why have you come in with this question "Why do we Play?" immediately after my previous post. You just wanted some of my "attention". Who do I give rook starts to, do you remember by any chance? It is so I will progress in an entirely different game!! Who doesn't know that? And I don't expect a reply.

It's okay luv, if you want the same treatment next time we meet that's fine by me. I knew I would get a "win" eventually.

Libby
11-05-2005, 08:50 PM
Now Libby why have you come in with this question "Why do we Play?" immediately after my previous post. You just wanted some of my "attention". Who do I give rook starts to, do you remember by any chance? It is so I will progress in an entirely different game!! Who doesn't know that? And I don't expect a reply.

It's okay luv, if you want the same treatment next time we meet that's fine by me. I knew I would get a "win" eventually.

Hmm - my post actually follows Bill's. And the question was only in the nature of wondering why - for some - the rating is so significant.

I know as much as the next person how we like to have our inflated sense of our own importance/skill/intellect validated, but surely people must, or should, play for the pleasure and the challenge first. Ratings seems to have an inflated level of importance, starting with kids & their parents but seemingly continuing well into the adult population.

How many games are published? If you lose to a lower rated player, how often does the "audience" actually peruse the moves and assess the result on the quality of the play? How many wins against much higher rated players owe a little to luck, or a blunder by the opponent? Points & ratings mean almost nothing unless you have insight into each game as it was played.

BTW Starter - we'll talk footy later. With the other half being a long-suffering Tigers man it isn't my favourirte topic. :mad:

Duff McKagan
11-05-2005, 09:06 PM
Why - for some - is the rating is so significant?

You are such a female ;) ... but maybe you are being coy. If you had to choose a a guy to be the father of your children and all knew was their chess rating who would you choose. The 1800 or the 1900. :owned:

Libby
11-05-2005, 09:11 PM
You are such a female ;) ... but maybe you are being coy. If you had to choose a a guy to be the father of your children and all knew was their chess rating who would you choose. The 1800 or the 1900. :owned:

:rolleyes:

Duff McKagan
11-05-2005, 09:15 PM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

ursogr8
12-05-2005, 08:36 AM
I think ex ACF Ratings Officer Shaun Press summed it up quite well and highlighted the perception/beliefs that a number of players have with regards ratings when he posted the following on the old ACF BB back in March 2003.

Bill
Thanks for the re-print of a long list of 7 rules for a proposed new rating system. :clap:
And it is not that Mexico wants to be different from the rest, but, I understand Gazza is codifying a simpler approach. :uhoh:


Gazza is proposing a system >
where your rating only could go up
*** one player would get points for a win
*** both players a few points for a draw
*** and not lose anything ever.

(He should have the by-laws written in time for the AGM ;) )

starter

EGOR
12-05-2005, 10:31 AM
Bill
Gazza is proposing a system >
where your rating only could go up
*** one player would get points for a win
*** both players a few points for a draw
*** and not lose anything ever.

i like this system, but only if I'm the only one who it applies to! :owned:

Spiny Norman
13-05-2005, 07:42 AM
... They can't handle the truth.

He he he. "They don't want the truth ..."

or perhaps:

"You WANT me on that wall, you NEED me on that wall"

I like Shaun's rules the best. :clap:

ElevatorEscapee
13-05-2005, 08:46 PM
This seems to be the relevant thread for this:

Yub nub
eee chop yub nub
ah toe meet toe pee-chee keene
g'noop dock fling oh ah
Yah wah
eee chop yah wah
ah toe meet toe pee-chee keene
g'noop dock fling oh ah
Coatee chah tu yub nub
coatee chah tu yahwah
coatee chah tu glowah
allay loo ta nuv
Glowah
eee chop glowah
ya glowah pee chu nee foam
ah toot dee awe goon daa
Coatee cha tu goo (Yub nub!)
coatee cha tu doo (Yahwah!)
coatee cha tu too (Ya chaa!)
allay loo ta nuv
allay loo ta nuv
allay loo ta nuv
Glowah
eee chop glowah
ya glowah pee chu nee foam
ah toot dee awe goon daa
Allay loo ta nuv

I rest my case. :)

ElevatorEscapee
13-05-2005, 08:47 PM
Q. What does this have to do with the senseless diatribe at hand!?

A. It doesn't make sense!!!! :wall:

EGOR
14-05-2005, 05:45 AM
Q. What does this have to do with the senseless diatribe at hand!?

A. It doesn't make sense!!!! :wall:
That makes to much sense :rolleyes:

Kevin Bonham
15-05-2005, 08:43 PM
If it wasn't for you posting on this board, neither MS nor DB would've been banned.

Those of us who remember Matthew from the 2002 BBs can vouch that this isn't true - at the time Matt mainly fought with myself and Sarfati and needed no encouragement at all to post extremely banworthy material completely out of the blue. Some of it was some of the most memorably disgusting writing I have ever read (I can still remember phrases of it today) - in a way that probably would have brought him much praise if posted to alt.toilet-humour (or nearest existing equivalent) rather than on an all-ages website.

Matt is one of those types on the net who always runs up against the censors sooner or later ... unless he becomes one himself. I'd be interested to know of any non-chess forums he has posted on.

four four two
23-10-2005, 11:45 AM
What I want to know is,if the Glicko system is so good,why arent more countries using it? :hmm: Why isnt FIDE using it? :hmm:

Alan Shore
23-10-2005, 12:08 PM
What I want to know is,if the Glicko system is so good,why arent more countries using it? :hmm: Why isnt FIDE using it? :hmm:

Cos FIDE are corrupt despots who are only interested in keeping power rather than trying to advance chess in any way?

four four two
23-10-2005, 12:27 PM
FIDE has been using the ELO system long before Kirsan and Campomanes.No professional chess player would accept being "punished" by a rating system for not playing for a year.Imagine what Polgars rating would be if they used Glicko,you would hear the outcry from all the way from San Luis! ;)

ElevatorEscapee
08-11-2005, 08:19 PM
Decimal Change Over Song
In come the dollars and in come the cents
To replace the pounds and the shillings and the pence
Be prepared for change when the coins begin to mix
On the fourteenth of February 1966.

Chorus:
Clink go the coins, clink, clink, clink
Change over day is closer than you think
Learn the value of the coins and the way that they appear
And things will be much smoother when the decimal point is here.

In come the dollars and in come the cents
To replace the pounds and the shillings and the pence
Be prepared folks when the coins begin to mix
On the fourteenth of February 1966.