PDA

View Full Version : Should FG7 have been barred? [ancient thread bumped by AC]



antichrist
09-05-2005, 04:02 PM
A second Leader of the Opposition has been expelled from parliament. Was it just, is he regrouping with other exiles to launch a counter-attack? You be the judge.

Multi-voting is allowed. It is a confidential poll.

EGOR
09-05-2005, 05:17 PM
I'm not quite sure what he did wrong, can someone explain?

antichrist
09-05-2005, 05:34 PM
I'm not quite sure what he did wrong, can someone explain?

he broadcast a private message, a hot piece from someone else to himself. When warned about it he did it again, but this time may have been from himself to himself. He was warned about 18 months ago for the same offense.

Garvinator
09-05-2005, 05:35 PM
i see the fg7 has been banned. is antichrist's version of events correct?

EGOR
09-05-2005, 05:37 PM
he broadcast a private message, a hot piece from someone else to himself. When warned about it he did it again, but this time may have been from himself to himself. He was warned about 18 months ago for the same offense.

Is this normally a barring offence?

Rincewind
09-05-2005, 05:42 PM
i see the fg7 has been banned. is antichrist's version of events correct?

Is it ever? :hmm:

antichrist
09-05-2005, 05:43 PM
Is this normally a barring offence?

It is the first time it has occurred. All the barring etc is only the melodrama which came afterwards. The juciest part was what was in the PM, it was a real bitch from a promient NSW chess official.

Garvinator
09-05-2005, 05:45 PM
Is it ever? :hmm:
hence why i thought i would ask for some type of 'official' confirmation before making comment, which i might not even comment, just hoping for some type of official confirmation :cool:

EGOR
09-05-2005, 05:48 PM
It is the first time it has occurred. All the barring etc is only the melodrama which came afterwards. The juciest part was what was in the PM, it was a real bitch from a promient NSW chess official.

Gee! I wonder who that could have been?

antichrist
09-05-2005, 05:50 PM
hence why i thought i would ask for some type of 'official' confirmation before making comment, which i might not even comment, just hoping for some type of official confirmation :cool:

It was RW who made the warning and did the barring so you can't get more official than that. As I have stated earlier FG7 was all fired up that day, it was a long day and he wanted answers and was not taking a step backwards. RW wouldn't you agree?

antichrist
09-05-2005, 06:10 PM
Gee! I wonder who that could have been?

It is definitely in the Shoutbox if not also some threads.

Rincewind
09-05-2005, 06:28 PM
hence why i thought i would ask for some type of 'official' confirmation before making comment, which i might not even comment, just hoping for some type of official confirmation :cool:

It began when fg7 posted a horrendously inflammatory post in the OZ Junior and Champ thread (now post 1 in the Senseless Diatribe thread). This thread was split and public warning was issued to not make more work for the moderators than absolutely necessary.

He then began a thread quoting a PM from another poster after previously being warned not to do so (albeit some time ago). This was removed and he was warned again via a PM to not do this again.

He then began flouting this rule by various quoting of inane PMs. As it was obvious he had no intention of behaving sensibly (and was generating may more work than he warranted) his account was banned for a period of 7 days.

After this ban lapses his continued membership on here will depend on him.

NB firegoat7's ban lapses in 4 days and 21 hours.

Bill Gletsos
09-05-2005, 06:33 PM
Gee! I wonder who that could have been?The PM fg7 posted was from jase.

jase
10-05-2005, 12:19 AM
it was a real bitch from a promient NSW chess official

I do not, and have never held, any position on the NSWCA. Nor would I consider myself prominent, having not attended nor directed any chess tournaments for about a year. I would consider my post count here to be relatively insignificant.

You have described my message to Firegoat7 "scurrilous" and "a real bitch". Could you please explain aspects of my correspondence you are referring to?

--------------------------------------

I chose to protest the manner of Firegoat7's posts by Private Message because I did not wish to exacerbate the flame war being waged on the thread in question. As I was making direct and strident criticisms of Firegoat7's style and substance, I chose to do it directly rather than publicly.

Direct communication is often a more fruitful course of action. People post such diatribe on forums that they would never utter in person; on this line of thinking I chose to address Firegoat7 directly.

I find it somewhat insidious that he has elected to publish my PM without consulting me, or having the dignity to reply. My email is widely available in the chess community, however I'm yet to receive any response from firegoat7, despite his view that the message was worthy of public comment and publication.

Given that on the thread in question he could not locate very basic information about the ACF process for allocating Australian title events, perhaps his research skills are lacking.

antichrist
10-05-2005, 12:36 AM
[QUOTE=jase]I do not, and have never held, any position on the NSWCA. Nor would I consider myself prominent, having not attended nor directed any chess tournaments for about a year. I would consider my post count here to be relatively insignificant.

You have described my message to Firegoat7 "scurrilous" and "a real bitch". Could you please explain aspects of my correspondence you are referring to?

A/C
Frankly speaking I only remember you were having a go about something, but I thought at the time you were getting stuck in. If I have exaggerated or misled then I apologise. But you could do clear the matter up properly by reposting it here. I am sure everyone would appreciate it.

You are correct he doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're". He has that blue again "over there". But admit you are enjoying all the commotion between your "mates".

jase
10-05-2005, 01:01 AM
If I had wanted to strongly criticise Firegoat7 publicly, I would have done so. I didn't think it appropriate. It wasn't adding anything to the debate, and my message could only be classed as constructive if it quelled the flame war.

I had already made a criticism of Firegoat7 on the thread, and even that might have been better addressed personally, rather than publicly. slanging matches ultimately do the chess community no good at all.

Therefore I am not "enjoying all the commotion". I find it uncomfortable. I would prefer this forum be used for constructive debate and socialising, rather than bickering.

I'd prefer Beaumont, Sweeney, and whoever else has been booted, to be a part of that here. However I doubt that on balance, they make a positive contribution. And sometimes the bile is overwhelming. I just find that unfortunate; we're a very small community and some of the loudest noises are having a diminishing effect.

antichrist
10-05-2005, 01:19 AM
Well said but it seems all too late for that. Like a marriage that has gone down a certain path it is very hard to rescue it.

Funny isn't it, the first bile I can think of was maybe the SEC issue years ago with we lined up having it out. That went for ages with everyone else. So we are not immuned.

jase
10-05-2005, 01:46 AM
I disagree. I don't think it's too late at all. There's some terrific people on this forum discussing chess, and making friends along the way.

I had my first look tonight at UCJ. There's just no content. It's a Venting Machine. Matt is a good bloke; his Common Man tourney has some strong ideas, but he's failed to develop it into much at all. His ideas about improving chess are much like that guy Roach from the Central Coast about 8 years ago - turn it all upside down and follow me into Neverland. Akin to the new office junior at a company calling a meeting after his first week on the job to demand that the firm sack the board and move to a new location.

David Beaumont I must speak less about, because I do not know a lot about what his involvement is down at the MCC, and in Melbourne circles generally. Most of my knowledge is gleaned from this forum, and it doesn't make for a healthy assessment.

antichrist
10-05-2005, 02:09 AM
I gave up on the NSW mob when I seen the body language was against the purchase of a premises.

Even migrants who noa speaka da English can manage to buy premises but the Assoc with hundreds of intelligent, educated members who have been here for their whole lives maybe, cannot manage.

My grandparents whose only English was virtually being able to count money owned many houses and shops in OZ.

I have been involved in atheist mobs who would virtually fit in a phone box and they all own their own premises.

I wanted to do it for the Assoc a few years ago now before prices almost doubled.

How do you think I feel!

The Assoc wanted wanted a background feasiblilty study etc. Do migrants do a background study?? They would not know what one was.

Duff McKagan
10-05-2005, 03:02 PM
I had my first look tonight at UCJ. There's just no content. It's a Venting Machine. Matt is a good bloke; his Common Man tourney has some strong ideas, but he's failed to develop it into much at all.

Matty wants you to know that the Commonman is a duel tournament now with the NSW Transfer Chess Tournament. He thinks that Transfer is going to be the social game that holds normal chess together in the future :eek: or so the story goes hehe. I guess we will see :hmm:

Cheers.

antichrist
10-05-2005, 04:14 PM
Matty wants you to know that the Commonman is a duel tournament now with the NSW Transfer Chess Tournament. He thinks that Transfer is going to be the social game that holds normal chess together in the future :eek: or so the story goes hehe. I guess we will see :hmm:

Cheers.

It will be after they see the film I am considering making. Strip transfer chess. A guy and chic on each team and they swap clothes as well as pieces.

jase
10-05-2005, 05:14 PM
Matty wants you to know that the Commonman is a duel tournament now with the NSW Transfer Chess Tournament. He thinks that Transfer is going to be the social game that holds normal chess together in the future

Transfer is great fun but it's no saviour - regular chess will always be the overwhelming choice.

Presumably you mean dual, not duel. Does this mean running two tournaments side by side? Simultaneously? Seems a strange development, when the first tournament has yet to take off.

EGOR
10-05-2005, 05:27 PM
If Bill got barred who would everyone hate?

Bill Gletsos
10-05-2005, 05:29 PM
Jase he doesnt plan to run them simultaneously.
He is running his Common man on the Saturday with 3 rounds from 10.30 with round three starting around 3.15pm. Rounds 4 to 6 are on the Sunday.

However on Saturday from 7pm to 9pm he plans on running his Transfer event.

Bill Gletsos
10-05-2005, 05:30 PM
If Bill got barred who would everyone hate?6 clowns does not equate to everyone.

EGOR
10-05-2005, 05:36 PM
6 clowns does not equate to everyone.
True, i don't hate you. But it seems like a lot of people who post here take delight in hating you.
Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on your persective.

jase
10-05-2005, 06:00 PM
Jase he doesnt plan to run them simultaneously.
He is running his Common man on the Saturday with 3 rounds from 10.30 with round three starting around 3.15pm. Rounds 4 to 6 are on the Sunday.

However on Saturday from 7pm to 9pm he plans on running his Transfer event.

Ahh okay, that's good. although if transfer is the domain of the young ones, 7-9pm seems an illogical timeframe.

Previous Common Man tournaments have not attracted a very good turnout. Since Matt is apparently reading these threads, dude you can email me if you think my input could be of use regarding publicity. I'm on MSN and Yahoo with the same email handles.

Bill Gletsos
10-05-2005, 06:24 PM
Ahh okay, that's good. although if transfer is the domain of the young ones, 7-9pm seems an illogical timeframe.I made that exact point previously and coped a typical Sweeney response.

Previous Common Man tournaments have not attracted a very good turnout.Actually his first Common man in 2003 got 38 entrants which was ok for a first attempt. Unfortunately his second attempt in 2004 was a shocker with only 16 entrants.

Since Matt is apparently reading these threads, dude you can email me if you think my input could be of use regarding publicity. I'm on MSN and Yahoo with the same email handles.I'm sure he can use all the help he can get.

Bill Gletsos
10-05-2005, 06:27 PM
True, i don't hate you. But it seems like a lot of people who post here take delight in hating you.Actually it probably only comes down to a handful like Sweeney, fg7, DR (aka the cat), dorophil and maybe a couple of others.

Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on your persective.Actually it depends on who dislikes you.
If the likes of Sweeney and fg7 dislike me then I must be doing the right thing. ;)

Don_Harrison
10-05-2005, 11:24 PM
6 clowns does not equate to everyone.

Depends on the power of the survey. Any of you chappies or chappetts done that factoring?

Oh by the way Bill, I am one of the "clowns" who voted to ban you. Why? Simply because you do not seem to have the ability or wit to know when to shut up. >5900 posts! Sweet Suffering Jesus Christ Al-bloody-mighty, go and get a life.

And that folks, was the final post from me on this forum and the last time I even bother to visit stuff here. Got better things to do than read the trash that is posted. With the approach a number of you have, and that of your brethern on "that other site", it is no wonder that chess will always be an "also ran" event in Australia. Pity.

Axiom
10-05-2005, 11:39 PM
it certainly is a sad indictment , i likewise am appalled at the childish sniping that goes on here, chess needs ppl with sound assertive skills who above all put chess first, not their fragile egos.

Bill Gletsos
10-05-2005, 11:50 PM
Depends on the power of the survey. Any of you chappies or chappetts done that factoring?

Oh by the way Bill, I am one of the "clowns" who voted to ban you. Why? Simply because you do not seem to have the ability or wit to know when to shut up. >5900 posts! Sweet Suffering Jesus Christ Al-bloody-mighty, go and get a life.Admittedly there is a fair percentage of those posts aimed at answering the clowns but perhaps if you had payed more attention you would have seen that many of those 5900 posts were providing useful information, including even some of the ones addressed to the clowns.

And that folks, was the final post from me on this forum and the last time I even bother to visit stuff here. Got better things to do than read the trash that is posted. With the approach a number of you have, and that of your brethern on "that other site", it is no wonder that chess will always be an "also ran" event in Australia. Pity.I seem to have missed where you have provided any recommendations in your 58 posts on how you would have improved chess in Australia.

Duff McKagan
11-05-2005, 09:13 PM
I seem to have missed where you [DH] have provided any recommendations in your 58 posts on how you would have improved chess in Australia.

I think this is EXACTLY the kind of ad hominem that DH and others are refering to. Chill out Bill. :cool:

Cheers :D

Rhubarb
12-05-2005, 09:39 AM
I think this is EXACTLY the kind of ad hominem that DH and others are refering to. Chill out Bill.

Well, that's amazing Duff. I could have sworn that Harrison attacked Bill first, and Bill's post was a comparitively mild and polite reaction.

That's the thing about Bill. Although he has a truly voluminous post count, he is an essentially reactive poster, rather than a thrower of the first punch.

ursogr8
12-05-2005, 10:19 AM
Well, that's amazing Duff. I could have sworn that Harrison attacked Bill first, and Bill's post was a comparitively mild and polite reaction.

That's the thing about Bill. Although he has a truly voluminous post count, he is an essentially reactive poster, rather than a thrower of the first punch.

hi ****kegless****

You know I always wondered about the word 'essentially'. It is upper-class and sort of rolls off the tongue.
But I have never quite been sure whether it is a weasel word. Can you advise me...say in regard to an example...let me pick one ...... :hmm: .... :hmm: ......search.....rummage.... :hmm: ....hey, here is one.

Is Bill counter-punching here? (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=55557#post55557) Post #13.

It's sort of one of those overhang things they talk about in the share market. You guess that he probably going to swing one and is just waiting for the first sign of unseemliness.


starter

Rhubarb
12-05-2005, 10:26 AM
hi ****kegless****

You know I always wondered about the word 'essentially'. It is upper-class and sort of rolls off the tongue.
But I have never quite been sure whether it is a weasel word. Can you advise me...say in regard to an example...let me pick one ...... :hmm: .... :hmm: ......search.....rummage.... :hmm: ....hey, here is one.

Is Bill counter-punching here? (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=55557#post55557) Post #13.

It's sort of one of those overhang things they talk about in the share market. You guess that he probably going to swing one and is just waiting for the first sign of unseemliness.


starterNaturally, starter, I am likely to use my adverbs and adjectives in a weaselly fashion. Essentially, it can be anywhere between 50% and approximately 99% of the time. You will probably have difficulty successfully refuting that.

antichrist
12-05-2005, 10:29 AM
Well, that's amazing Duff. I could have sworn that Harrison attacked Bill first, and Bill's post was a comparitively mild and polite reaction.

That's the thing about Bill. Although he has a truly voluminous post count, he is an essentially reactive poster, rather than a thrower of the first punch.

But Bill previously did label the 6 voters against him as clowns many times. He could have just rolled with the punch (of the votes) realising that you can't please everyone all the time. Last night Jase and I in the Shoutbox were perfect role models of turning the other cheek. Lebanon 1-0

Bill Gletsos
12-05-2005, 11:40 AM
But Bill previously did label the 6 voters against him as clowns many times.Yes, but I didnt know who those 6 clowns were and neither did any other posters here.
DH chose to out himself and my response to him was very mild.

He could have just rolled with the punch (of the votes) realising that you can't please everyone all the time. Last night Jase and I in the Shoutbox were perfect role models of turning the other cheek. Lebanon 1-0Rubbish. You were not a perfect role model at all. Jase noted you seemed to have no constructive purpose. Your responses did not in any way repudiate that claim. The result was clearly Jase 1 - Antichrist 0.

antichrist
12-05-2005, 11:50 AM
Yes, but I didnt know who those 6 clowns were and neither did any other posters here.
DH chose to out himself and my response to him was very mild.
Rubbish. You were not a perfect role model at all. Jase noted you seemed to have no constructive purpose. Your responses did not in any way repudiate that claim. The result was clearly Jase 1 - Antichrist 0.

I was looking forward to a second round with Jase.

I can see that this poll result has certainly hit a soft spot and that you are not taking prisoners. You won't lure me in because I have an important job to do with a deadline. I regret sending you that apologetic email now. You would just love to know who the other 5 were so you can run them down and mow over them.

Jase does not particularly like you either so in that way we are "mates". We "the odd couple" do get over things whereas he and PaulS do not. I think my earlier post re chess premises holds up, he was twisting it. I lost a bit of respect for him over that.

Bill Gletsos
12-05-2005, 12:11 PM
I was looking forward to a second round with Jase.

I can see that this poll result has certainly hit a soft spot and that you are not taking prisoners. You won't lure me in because I have an important job to do with a deadline. I regret sending you that apologetic email now. You would just love to know who the other 5 were so you can run them down and mow over them.It doesnt concern me who the other 5 are and I hardly ran down and mowed over DH. I treated him rather mildly.

Jase does not particularly like you either so in that way we are "mates".I'm sure Jase just loves you speaking on his behalf.
We "the odd couple" do get over things whereas he and PaulS do not.I may disagree with PaulS and Jase on some issues but I dont believe they hold any sort or grude towards me, nor do I hold any sort of grudge against them.

I think my earlier post re chess premises holds up, he was twisting it. I lost a bit of respect for him over that.Actually I thought Jase's comments were reasonable.

antichrist
12-05-2005, 12:19 PM
Bill, I am sorry to say this to you in public but have said before... Sometimes you are a bit thick.

When I said a few posts back "that Jase and I are perfect role models..." of course I was having a joke - we had done exactly opposite and I had showed the score (Lebanon 1-0) to prove the point.

You made the same blunder the other day as well but I did not pull you up.

You had done two long unnecessary posts now -- don't make it three!

Bill Gletsos
12-05-2005, 02:30 PM
Bill, I am sorry to say this to you in public but have said before... Sometimes you are a bit thick.

When I said a few posts back "that Jase and I are perfect role models..." of course I was having a joke - we had done exactly opposite and I had showed the score (Lebanon 1-0) to prove the point.As can be seen you made no mention of perfect role models when you first posted the (Lebanon 1-0) in the shoutbox at 2.33am. You were simply claiming victory in you argument with Jase.
It wasnt until nearly 10hrs later at 10.29am that made your "perfect role models" statement and repeated your (Lebanon 1-0) comment.
Given you make some of the most stupid comments on this board it was more than likely that you actually believed what you were saying.


You had done two long unnecessary posts now -- don't make it three!Those posts were neither long nor unnecessary, especially the later one. Neither is this one.

antichrist
12-05-2005, 02:50 PM
You are totally hopeless and helpless Bill. Of course whilst debating Jase I would not say we are role models of restraint.

And how could I be seen to be serious re restraint as I had also stated I was looking to Round 2 (put the alarm on for tonight). It was all mentioned this morning in the context of Kegless' comments re DH and yourself, and of your post, where it obviously has some relevance -- as a joke.

How thick and big a fool are you. And a bigger fool because you don't know when to back down -- Basil Gletsos if ever there was one.

Now I know why less-patient people than myself hate you.

Go and read Don's post again, it contains very good advice.

Bill Gletsos
12-05-2005, 03:52 PM
You are totally hopeless and helpless Bill. Of course whilst debating Jase I would not say we are role models of restraint.

And how could I be seen to be serious re restraint as I had also stated I was looking to Round 2 (put the alarm on for tonight). It was all mentioned this morning in the context of Kegless' comments re DH and yourself, and of your post, where it obviously has some relevance -- as a joke.

How thick and big a fool are you. And a bigger fool because you don't know when to back down -- Basil Gletsos if ever there was one.You are deluding yourself as usual A/C.

Now I know why less-patient people than myself hate you.

Go and read Don's post again, it contains very good advice.It doesnt especially given he voted in one of your polls.

antichrist
12-05-2005, 06:23 PM
Bill, in today's thread you are wrong and arrogrant and everyone can see it. Keep some pride.

ElevatorEscapee
13-05-2005, 08:38 PM
I personally don't think that Bill should be banned.

This might surprise some members as I am one who is often disgruntled with Bill, (especially with his copy-paste antics from other forums).

However, I think that he benefits this forum by providing a much needed 'comic relief' on the posts here... especially the posts where everyone else is taking things way too seriously.

Bill will quote the posts of those having a go at him (even nonsense posts!), and offer a point by point rebuttal! Now either this man has no life and takes things here way too seriously... or he is a comedic genius, just having fun by parodying others' perceptions of himself!

In any case, his postings make rather amusing readings... I am still undecided if I find them to be in a "laugh with" kind of experience or a "laugh at" kind of experience.

Does Bill seem to take a thread "too seriously" in a parody of the "seriousness" of those others who have previously posted... or is he just "playing a character" to stir up some emotions in the negative posters!?

In any case, Bill's antics have made me laugh, (albeit in a 'laugh at' rather than 'laugh with' kind of way), and for that reason alone, in my mind, he very much deserves to remain an active poster here.

antichrist
13-05-2005, 09:52 PM
EE,
I think unfortunately my last fling with Bill in this thread shows his true and sad character.

He is thick, gets into hot water over it, then, like Basil Faulty, can't face the music so creates an arrogant facade to draw out and exhaust any debater. Filipbustering is what it is called.

This is his MO.

Yes, often he is correct and does terrific research. But he has not learnt that he must admit mistakes or back off. His arrogance is a disrespect to other posters and he should be cold-shouldered until he learns some humility and common decency.

Rincewind
13-05-2005, 10:23 PM
Yes, often he is correct and does terrific research. But he has not learnt that he must admit mistakes or back off. His arrogance is a disrespect to other posters and he should be cold-shouldered until he learns some humility and common decency.

So your position is that the only difference between you and Bill is that he is often correct and does terrific research?

antichrist
13-05-2005, 10:29 PM
So your position is that the only difference between you and Bill is that he is often correct and does terrific research?

I occasionally have had to back off because realised I was in error. And I have apologised sometimes.

Bill has not created enemies for nothing. You are not helping him by deflection and trying to get him off - nor being honest.

ursogr8
13-05-2005, 10:39 PM
So your position is that the only difference between you and Bill is that he is often correct and does terrific research?

Can we have a poll on this question? ^^^^ :uhoh:

Rincewind
13-05-2005, 10:48 PM
I occasionally have had to back off because realised I was in error. And I have apologised sometimes.

Bill has not created enemies for nothing. You are not helping him by deflection and trying to get him off - nor being honest.

I'll take that as a "yes".

antichrist
13-05-2005, 10:56 PM
I'll take that as a "yes".

Are you as thick as Bill?

Bill Gletsos
13-05-2005, 11:10 PM
I personally don't think that Bill should be banned.

This might surprise some members as I am one who is often disgruntled with Bill, (especially with his copy-paste antics from other forums).

However, I think that he benefits this forum by providing a much needed 'comic relief' on the posts here... especially the posts where everyone else is taking things way too seriously.

Bill will quote the posts of those having a go at him (even nonsense posts!), and offer a point by point rebuttal! Now either this man has no life and takes things here way too seriously... or he is a comedic genius, just having fun by parodying others' perceptions of himself!

In any case, his postings make rather amusing readings... I am still undecided if I find them to be in a "laugh with" kind of experience or a "laugh at" kind of experience.

Does Bill seem to take a thread "too seriously" in a parody of the "seriousness" of those others who have previously posted... or is he just "playing a character" to stir up some emotions in the negative posters!?

In any case, Bill's antics have made me laugh, (albeit in a 'laugh at' rather than 'laugh with' kind of way), and for that reason alone, in my mind, he very much deserves to remain an active poster here.You clowns post crap like this when I havent even referred to you in a post and then you wonder why you end up getting a serve.

Clearly you would be better off pushing your barrow over on UCJ where comments like this are sure to get a favourable reception.

antichrist
14-05-2005, 06:26 AM
Bill,

Just as an example of how thick you, when I posted on Shoutbox that I was issuing a delux framed print of poll banning you that you were sucked in! You even believed that I had 6 orders already.

You even have one over Basil Faulty - you are thick as well!

Rincewind
14-05-2005, 09:39 AM
Are you as thick as Bill?

I may be but fortunately no where near as thick as you. ;)

Rincewind
14-05-2005, 09:42 AM
firegoat7's ban lifts in 6 hours.

antichrist
14-05-2005, 11:08 AM
Will he come with 6 guns firing or be humblified? I hope he bring some those posts with him cursing you, then you can bar him again.

He may do a Corby and bring the whole Cowardly Pr..k folder - I'd like to see that.

Rincewind
14-05-2005, 11:16 AM
Will he come with 6 guns firing or be humblified? I hope he bring some those posts with him cursing you, then you can bar him again.

He may do a Corby and bring the whole Cowardly Pr..k folder - I'd like to see that.

Despite Dave's claims to the contrary, he was not banned for insulting me. His insults would only matter to me if I had any regard for his opinion, which I don't.

He was banned for not following the established rules of the board of which he was well informed. If he continues to flout said rules he will be banned again. As I said last weekend, I resent having to waste time on posters who can't operate within the framework. If he wants do that, he should continue to post on UCJ.

antichrist
14-05-2005, 11:33 AM
Yeah, I was wondering if I copied a post from the BB which stated "this post may be sent as PM and reposted on the BB", sent it as a PM, and then reposted the PM on the BB, would that flout the rules? I am afraid so.

I feel sorry for you having to mod the likes of myself.

RWIPI 8.5

ElevatorEscapee
17-05-2005, 09:15 PM
"Most people think, oh Jerry Lewis is the funny man -- what does Dean Martin do? The answer is, he makes Jerry Lewis funny.", Peter Cook.


You clowns post crap like this when I havent even referred to you in a post and then you wonder why you end up getting a serve.

Clearly you would be better off pushing your barrow over on UCJ where comments like this are sure to get a favourable reception.

This is wonderful humour, thank you Bill! :clap:

This is top class comedy and I personally find it highly entertaining. :)

For the layperson who thinks Bill is simply teasing me, let's think this through logically for a moment:

I complain about Bill copying and pasting stuff from UCJ, so he tells me to go over there to post my opinions... (presumably so he can then copy and paste whatever I write back here to respond to ;) ).

This would apparently have the effect of getting me even more steamed up... with delightfully fun results for the audience. :D :P

Bravo! :lol:

Furthermore, there is the reference to 'clowns'.

Now clowns have had bad press of late, with horror movies, and coulrophobia (fear of clowns) tainting their image.

Yet every circus needs it's clowns.. (and this site is perhaps the most wondrous Internet chess circus in Australia! ... although no one has copped a cream pie in the face as of yet... )

The most amusing circus clown show I remember seeing as a kid had several clowns going through their usual clownly tomfoolery, far too many of them getting out of a volkswagen, throwing cream pies at one another and evidentally having a lot of fun... only to be chastised and chased out of the ring by an overbearing, overly pompous, and rather stern ringmaster.

Of course the clowns kept on coming back throughout the show, which irritated the stern ringmaster even further and sent him into a frenzy, waving his stick about and chasing the clowns out of the ring again and yet again.

As a kid, if you had asked me what I thought was the funniest part of the circus, I would have said, without hesitation: "the clowns!"

However, looking back as an adult, I would think that the funniest individual of the circus was that ringmaster, because he played so hard at "not being funny" that he made the clowns so much more funny than if he had never been there.

So, by all means, send in the clowns. :laugh:

PS On a personal note, I don't mind being called a clown so long as nobody tries to pop little white balls in my mouth. ;)

Rincewind
17-05-2005, 09:44 PM
Not sure if you realise this EE but Bill's use of the word "clown" was not accidental. It has a certain significance to this thread. ;)

ursogr8
18-05-2005, 08:09 AM
I do not, and have never held, any position on the NSWCA. Nor would I consider myself prominent, having not attended nor directed any chess tournaments for about a year. I would consider my post count here to be relatively insignificant.

You have described my message to Firegoat7 "scurrilous" and "a real bitch". Could you please explain aspects of my correspondence you are referring to?

--------------------------------------

I chose to protest the manner of Firegoat7's posts by Private Message because I did not wish to exacerbate the flame war being waged on the thread in question. As I was making direct and strident criticisms of Firegoat7's style and substance, I chose to do it directly rather than publicly.

hi jase

It takes a while for underground e-mails to find there way to me; I am usually the last to be in the know; but, I have finally had a chance to read your PM to fg7.

fg7 was unaware that he could block PMs on cc.com, and I have now shown him how to do this.

A strident (your word) PM would be upsetting to some folk. If a more open method, i.e. posting on the bb, was selected, some authors would perhaps be more circumspect with their stridency and paradoxically cause less angst to the receiver of the message.

The receiver of a strident PM has limited recourse for retaliation, if that is how he feels. He is limited to either IGNORE, or a retaliatory PM. What is lacking in this cycle is the peer pressure to not be so strident if both authors were posting in open forum.


Direct communication is often a more fruitful course of action. People post such diatribe on forums that they would never utter in person; on this line of thinking I chose to address Firegoat7 directly.

But on the other hand, direct communication can contain more stridency than bb posts moderated by peer pressure.


I find it somewhat insidious that he has elected to publish my PM without consulting me, or having the dignity to reply.

fg7 has been peer pressured (with a 7-day ban) for his breaking of bb protocols on posting PMs.
I would not have chosen 'insidious' (your word) to describe his action; perhaps 'retaliatory', as a consequence of stridency.
He is under no obligation, as I understand it, to reply to your PM with a PM of his own.


My email is widely available in the chess community, however I'm yet to receive any response from firegoat7, despite his view that the message was worthy of public comment and publication.

I hope my comments indicate that others can form different conclusions about the 'correct' course of action.


Given that on the thread in question he could not locate very basic information about the ACF process for allocating Australian title events, perhaps his research skills are lacking.

Thank goodness Bill does not call for me to be banned every time I have to ask for help to search for material ;), but he does often point out similar inadequacies of my skill set. Us Mexicans will have to lift our game.


regards
starter

jase
18-05-2005, 09:28 PM
A strident (your word) PM would be upsetting to some folk.
A thoughtful correspondent ought to vary their tone according to the occasion, and the target audience, if their prose is to be effective. Perhaps this author took this into account.


If a more open method, i.e. posting on the bb, was selected, some authors would perhaps be more circumspect with their stridency and paradoxically cause less angst to the receiver of the message.

There is significant difference between being criticised openly on a public forum, and being addressed directly. Your comments on circumspection lack the necessary context - stridency was an issue I was addressing. Given your choice of quotes in your post, it seemed you ought to have addressed this point.

Some folk are at least as concerned with prominence and the sound of their own 'voice', as they are with constructive debate. I had already sought to hose down Firegoat7's flaming on the thread in question. I took up my objections in a PM because I was playing the man, not the ball, in an attempt to steer the thread back on course.


The receiver of a strident PM has limited recourse for retaliation, if that is how he feels.

When you are addressed in person, it would be impudent to turn, walk away, and place your response on a bulletin board. What is lacking is a sound perspective on communication. Firegoat7 inferring that I am out of line for sending him a PM, because he didn't ask for such a communication, is a little akin to suggesting I should not speak to him when we next meet because he hasn't asked to be spoken to. Your implied support for this logic is noted.


obligation

dignity
Be clear. Be concise. Be accurate.

Addressing someone directly facilitates and encourages a direct response. There's no obligation. However any reply ought to address the points made. Firegoat7 did not address the points I made in my PM, either directly, or in his forum post. He shirked it.

My observation is that some folk need a little heat on these fora to alleviate the boredom, given that so little is happening in chess. What does one do with so much time and so little to say?

I hope that, predominantly, my posts are relevant, and address points of interest raised in a thread. I'm not always on the mark there, but it strikes me as a reasonable objective. Some folk do not share this purpose, as indicated by their content and post counts. Some folk appear, to me, to have self-gratification in mind, rather than, or in addition to, being a contributor.

ursogr8
18-05-2005, 09:53 PM
A thoughtful correspondent ought to vary their tone according to the occasion, and the target audience, if their prose is to be effective. Perhaps this author took this into account.

There is significant difference between being criticised openly on a public forum, and being addressed directly. Your comments on circumspection lack the necessary context - stridency was an issue I was addressing. Given your choice of quotes in your post, it seemed you ought to have addressed this point.

Some folk are at least as concerned with prominence and the sound of their own 'voice', as they are with constructive debate. I had already sought to hose down Firegoat7's flaming on the thread in question. I took up my objections in a PM because I was playing the man, not the ball, in an attempt to steer the thread back on course.

When you are addressed in person, it would be impudent to turn, walk away, and place your response on a bulletin board. What is lacking is a sound perspective on communication. Firegoat7 inferring that I am out of line for sending him a PM, because he didn't ask for such a communication, is a little akin to suggesting I should not speak to him when we next meet because he hasn't asked to be spoken to.
jase

I have no problem with this part of your later post. It says again, and is clear, what you were trying to achieve, and what you were thinking at the time of the PM.
What I was trying to expand on was fg7's different view of how he received/looked/judged your message.
We are not at odds on what you write (above).





Your implied support for this logic is noted.

But we are a bit at odds on this. I am not defending, nor supporting fg7; just helping explain his reaction. In fact, if you read elsewhere, you will see that I said (on that day) I thought he was spoiling for an argument and a banning.




Be clear. Be concise. Be accurate.

I must have misread because I thought you had some issue with his non-PM response. I will go back and re-read.


Addressing someone directly facilitates and encourages a direct response. There's no obligation. However any reply ought to address the points made. Firegoat7 did not address the points I made in my PM, either directly, or in his forum post. He shirked it.

I will leave this for fg7 if he wants to pursue.


My observation is that some folk need a little heat on these fora to alleviate the boredom, given that so little is happening in chess. What does one do with so much time and so little to say?

Not sure if this ^^ meets your criteria of clear and concise, see above; because I am having to read between the lines.
Can I guess
> you didn't want me to post on the jase-fg7 issue?
> I post too many competitive indices
> I debate with Bill
?



I hope that, predominantly, my posts are relevant, and address points of interest raised in a thread. I'm not always on the mark there, but it strikes me as a reasonable objective. Some folk do not share this purpose, as indicated by their content and post counts. Some folk appear, to me, to have self-gratification in mind, rather than, or in addition to, being a contributor.

I would be guessing again on this ^^, because I find it a little oblique.

But I think you are probably telling me to stop. Ok. Will do.

starter

antichrist
18-05-2005, 10:41 PM
Starter, I think this thread has become redundant because FG7 does not want to participate in this board anyway. It is now 5 days and has only poked his head in and out - like one does to a church.

He could at least have given a farewell speech, thanked everyone and wished us well etc., and making friends of old enemies.

Duff McKagan
19-05-2005, 12:18 AM
I hope that, predominantly, my posts are relevant, and address points of interest raised in a thread. I'm not always on the mark there, but it strikes me as a reasonable objective. Some folk do not share this purpose, as indicated by their content and post counts. Some folk appear, to me, to have self-gratification in mind, rather than, or in addition to, being a contributor.

Jase, we go to parties and BBQs and gigs and book clubs and mud wrestling and the beach, with friends and acquaintances, so that we can share our thoughts and our own selves with those whose company we enjoy. The BB is no more than a social exchange facilitator like all those places I just mentioned is.

You might think that the BB should be used more for noble causes, but it will not, because we are humans, and humans bicker and cooperate in approximately equal measure. Chill, because just like the "corridors of power" and in the "menís room", plenty of real progress is made even while people shout and finger point.


:cool:

jase
19-05-2005, 01:17 AM
...we go to mud wrestling...

With apologies to Mr.T: who's "we", sucker? :hand:


You might think that the BB should be used more for noble causes, but it will not,

A social envirnoment this is, but it also serves the purpose of being a conduit for constructive debate and communication concerning chess matters. Whilst you may not engage in that aspect of the forum, many others do.


Chill, because just like the "corridors of power" and in the "menís room", plenty of real progress is made even while people shout and finger point.

The evidence for these cliches here seems minimal.

Kevin Bonham
19-05-2005, 01:20 AM
Starter, I think this thread has become redundant because FG7 does not want to participate in this board anyway.

I don't want to speak for firegoat but I think your conclusion, while not necessarily false, is extremely premature unless you know something that I don't.

As for the discussion above, I've often found a frank and forthright PM will cut through more nonsense than fifty flames. Doesn't always work though.

Garvinator
19-05-2005, 04:23 AM
As for the discussion above, I've often found a frank and forthright PM will cut through more nonsense than fifty flames. Doesn't always work though.
then if that doesnt work, you try email, unless you have been blocked :eek: ;)

ursogr8
19-05-2005, 07:54 AM
Starter, I think this thread has become redundant because FG7 does not want to participate in this board anyway. It is now 5 days and has only poked his head in and out - like one does to a church.

He could at least have given a farewell speech, thanked everyone and wished us well etc., and making friends of old enemies.

Good morning a/c

If your post is an invite for me to try to read fg7's mind, or current state of composure, then you would be better advised making this the subject of your next plebiscite.

OTOH if you are trolling me, please add +1 to your metric.


<snip>

As for the discussion above, I've often found a frank and forthright PM will cut through more nonsense than fifty flames. Doesn't always work though.

KB

Good morning

Thanks. That was a point I was making.


starter

firegoat7
19-05-2005, 09:32 AM
I hope that, predominantly, my posts are relevant, and address points of interest raised in a thread. I'm not always on the mark there, but it strikes me as a reasonable objective. Some folk do not share this purpose, as indicated by their content and post counts. Some folk appear, to me, to have self-gratification in mind, rather than, or in addition to, being a contributor.

Let us cut to the chase here. If you want to be believed then give me permission to make public your pm. It is only through public discourse that the rules of engagement can be understood, democratically. Now you may believe that your opinions on the initial threads were reasonable, but it is only when scrutinised by others that your subjective interpretations become mediated. It is a bit rich for you to carry on about moral standings concerning pms, if most of the people here have no idea about what you actually expressed, isn't it?

If that issue is addressed then it may become apparent to you what my responding motives where all about....it seems a little better then talking as if you actually have a legitimate position without contested dispute. That is of course, presuming you actually want engagement instead of rhetoric.

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2005, 02:58 PM
fg7 was unaware that he could block PMs on cc.com, and I have now shown him how to do this.However note that since the ban was lifted he has so far chosen not to do so.
Therefore one can only conclude that he is prepared to accept PM's but let the sender beware because fg7 apparently does not and will not accept that private messages are indeed private and should not be published without the express permission of the sender.

ursogr8
19-05-2005, 04:03 PM
However note that since the ban was lifted he has so far chosen not to do so.
Therefore one can only conclude that he is prepared to accept PM's but let the sender beware because fg7 apparently does not and will not accept that private messages are indeed private and should not be published without the express permission of the sender.

hi Bill

I think you have drawn the correct conclusion for strident PMs. It would be courageous to presume otherwise.

starter

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2005, 04:23 PM
hi Bill

I think you have drawn the correct conclusion for strident PMs. It would be courageous to presume otherwise.It has nothing at all to do with whether the PM is as you put it [i]strident[/b] or not.

ursogr8
19-05-2005, 04:57 PM
It has nothing at all to do with whether the PM is as you put it [i]strident[/b] or not.

Bill

'Strident', was not as you (I) put it ; it was jase's word.


It is the evidence we have that he will not respect that type of PM.


I don't know what fg7 would do with a PM if you sent him one inviting him to a BBQ. :cool:
Or a drive of your car. ;)


starter

Kaitlin
19-05-2005, 05:05 PM
FG7 should be roasted

- oh has anyone seen a tv show on ABC called 'I am not a animal'

ursogr8
19-05-2005, 05:41 PM
FG7 should be roasted



Caketin. :uhoh:

Ok. I will bite..

Roasted
As in roasted chess-nut?




starter

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2005, 06:23 PM
Bill

'Strident', was not as you (I) put it ; it was jase's word.Yes, but you are the one who has focused on it.

It is the evidence we have that he will not respect that type of PM.Incorrect. He made it clear back in http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=13701&postcount=46 that it is not restricted to any specific type of PM but to all PM's.

I don't know what fg7 would do with a PM if you sent him one inviting him to a BBQ. :cool:
Or a drive of your car. ;)The likelihood of either happening is zero.

jase
19-05-2005, 06:32 PM
If you want to be believed then give me permission to make public your pm. It is only through public discourse that the rules of engagement can be understood, democratically.

You have already published the PM on at least two occasions. As per Starter's post yesterday, it's been read by all the relevant/interested parties.

Public discourse has established these rules of engagement, and you have, and continue, to flout them.


Now you may believe that your opinions on the initial threads were reasonable, but it is only when scrutinised by others that your subjective interpretations become mediated.

That may be; my posts are available for scrutiny. And some may find posts of mine that are less than reasonable. Maybe.


It is a bit rich for you to carry on about moral standings concerning pms, if most of the people here have no idea about what you actually expressed, isn't it?

Am I moralising about PMs? :uhoh: Perhaps tarring me with that brush is unwarranted. About the only point I can recollect making on this issue is that if I communicate with someone and they are disgruntled in some fashion by the content therein, they ought to take it up with me.

ursogr8
19-05-2005, 07:24 PM
Yes, but you are the one who has focused on it.

Bill

jase is very particular.
Remember his request >
Be clear. Be concise. Be correct.
I am not veering away from his word, whatever word games you want to play.

starter

antichrist
19-05-2005, 07:29 PM
If someone does not want a bitchy PM exposed then they should not send one, as simple as that. On having one exposed they will think again before a repeat performance.

Why can people abusive and get away with it just because it is so-called private. It is not private to the person receiving it, it can be hurting.

And Jase calling for decorum on the BB is hypocritical, if he does not follow his own advice in private.

Your sins will find you out.

ElevatorEscapee
19-05-2005, 07:32 PM
Not sure if you realise this EE but Bill's use of the word "clown" was not accidental. It has a certain significance to this thread. ;)

Would this, perchance, have anything to do with the gentleman named Ronald MacDonald who appears on the ratings list? :eh: ;)

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2005, 07:51 PM
Bill

jase is very particular.
Remember his request >
Be clear. Be concise. Be correct.
I am not veering away from his word, whatever word games you want to play.
As I said jase used it but you chose to focus on it.
fg7 has made it clear that strident has nothing to do with it.
As his post http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=13701&postcount=46 shows he just doesnt accept that private messages should remain private especially unsolicited private messages.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2005, 07:52 PM
Would this, perchance, have anything to do with the gentleman named Ronald MacDonald who appears on the ratings list? :eh: ;)No. It is to do with the fact that when fg7 first appeared back on the old ACF BB he chose to label people as clowns.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2005, 07:53 PM
If someone does not want a bitchy PM exposed then they should not send one, as simple as that. On having one exposed they will think again before a repeat performance.What part of private dont you understand. The communication was a private message. It should have remained private.

Why can people abusive and get away with it just because it is so-called private.Although parts of jase's PM to fg7 were critical of him, there was nothing abusive in them.

It is not private to the person receiving it, it can be hurting.Even if the person receiving it was hurt by its contents, that is no justification for publishing what was a private message.
And Jase calling for decorum on the BB is hypocritical, if he does not follow his own advice in private.Public slanging is entirely different from private slanging.

Your sins will find you out.As no doubt will yours.

ElevatorEscapee
19-05-2005, 08:05 PM
Ah, thanks for the clarification.

Here's me thinking that it was because someone involved in this thread made a living out of dressing up as a children's entertainer or something like that... :oops:

I recall an interview in one of the Australian Championships bulletins from a few years ago, when one Australian chess personality was asked about her job she replied with one word: "Koala", (apparently it involved wearing a koala costume).

Interviews with different personalities in later rounds revealed some rather interesting responses to the job question; one wag replied "Emu" and another replied "Koala killer". :lol:

ursogr8
19-05-2005, 09:37 PM
As I said jase used it but you chose to focus on it.


What is happening here (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=58081&postcount=74) Bill?

It clearly shows that "as starter put it" was what you said.
But in fact, now you agree the word came from jase.



fg7 has made it clear that strident has nothing to do with it.

I will leave it to fg7 to comment on whether he reacts differently at different levels of stridency or provocation. And maybe 'stridency' will have something to do with how he reacts.



As his post http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=13701&postcount=46 shows he just doesnt accept that private messages should remain private especially unsolicited private messages.

This post indicates he reserves the right to not respect the confidentiality of any unsolicited PM. But it does not say that he will automatically go public.
There is so far only the non-trivial example of the strident (jase' word) PM.

Incidentally, I think it is poor form to reveal PMs (without permission), and I agree with Barry's right to ban.
I guess that will get me off-side with a/c. :rolleyes:

starter

Duff McKagan
19-05-2005, 09:49 PM
Exactly who has a right to privacy?

The pedophile at preschool? No
The shifty owner of a car wrecking yard? No
The kid with smokes at school? Maybe
The dismissed worker at a job interview? Maybe
The squealing dobber at the cricket club? Maybe
The backstabber drinking at the local? No
The PMer with strident opinions in private? No
The patient with a sexual disorder? Yes
The child with their mother? Yes
The client in their lawyer's chambers? Usually

Privacy comes with caveats and limits. If someone expresses a negative opinion about a public figure, privately, it ought to be seen as OK for that opinion to be repeated in public. Anything else could be seen as ethically suspect.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2005, 10:03 PM
What is happening here (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=58081&postcount=74) Bill?

It clearly shows that "as starter put it" was what you said.
But in fact, now you agree the word came from jase.You are missing the point. Jase described his post as strident. You wre the one that decided to run with the word strident and to suggest that it was because it was strident that fg7 possibly chose to publish it. jase made no such claim.

I will leave it to fg7 to comment on whether he reacts differently at different levels of stridency or provocation. And maybe 'stridency' will have something to do with how he reacts.So far he has given no indication that stridency had anything to do with it either here or at the other place.

This post indicates he reserves the right to not respect the confidentiality of any unsolicited PM. But it does not say that he will automatically go public.Of course he did. Back when he was fist challenged last year about posting private Pm's he said
My position is quite simple. If you do not want information made public that you send to me, then don't send private information to me. Quite simple really isn't it.There was no ands, ifs or buts in that sentnece.

There is so far only the non-trivial example of the strident (jase' word) PM.Incorrect. If you look at the PM that he originally posted back then there was nothing strident about it. Refer http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=13639&postcount=38

Incidentally, I think it is poor form to reveal PMs (without permission), and I agree with Barry's right to ban.No there is something we can agree on.

Iguess that will get me off-side with a/c. :rolleyes:I wouldnt worry about that if I were you. ;)

Rincewind
19-05-2005, 10:48 PM
Privacy comes with caveats and limits. If someone expresses a negative opinion about a public figure, privately, it ought to be seen as OK for that opinion to be repeated in public. Anything else could be seen as ethically suspect.
Are you a complete loon?

Ethical issues are not reasons for someone to lose their right to privacy. All the semi-legitimate example you provide you describe people who are a danger to society and who's privacy is only impinged as much as is required to mediate that risk. You present no ethical based argument for loss of privacy whatsoever.

Duff McKagan
19-05-2005, 11:29 PM
Are you a complete loon?
No I dont think so. Have you become a disciple of the Bill Gletsos mode of greeting posters? Quid custodiet ipsos custodes?




Ethical issues are not reasons for someone to lose their right to privacy.

Says who?



All the semi-legitimate example you provide you describe people who are a danger to society and who's privacy is only impinged as much as is required to mediate that risk.

There is a risk to individuals in society from gossip, white anting, back stabbing etc.



You present no ethical based argument for loss of privacy whatsoever.

I have now.

Barry, if a person does not have the rectitude to say something confronting to another, they ought not blab it to a third party. Talking behind someone's back is "not good form" [to use starter's phrase]. Such behavior is dangerous to both individuals and social cohesion. Ethically, it is a balance between outing a gossiper, or allowing the gossiper to continue their practice unchallenged by the group.

Cheers :cool:

PS I like Jase he is OK with me :D

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 12:38 AM
What part of private dont you understand.

Well here goes,

Let me guess. Jase sends me a pm, complaining about my behaviour on a public bulletin board.

Let the jury note: A public bulletin board.

He then offers a private opinion of which, it is presumed, he has formed because of interacting with that said public bulletin board.

Let the jury note: The private pm message was formed as a result of a public interaction.

I then decide to publish that private pm, with rebuttal, since it involves aspects of a very public debate.

And all you seem to be able to suggest to me is that 'I have transgressed the right to privacy'.

Well I am going to suggest there is no automatic right to privacy. Human beings are social creatures. Social interaction in the form of 'privacy' is normally associated with moral respect. It must be obvious now that I have little moral respect for anybody who attempts to manipulate myself (or anyone else) 'individually' through the use of power. Much better to nip it in the bud straight away and say to somebody ''Claiming authority: Deal with it in the open-where everyone can see."

I just look at it from a different moral perspective. I don't believe in individualism, I think its a sickness.

Chesskit law: private pms ought to remain so
Middle Ages law: Poor people ought to be institutionalised.

Just because it is a law, does not mean it is non-contestable, nor is it necessarily a right, to be respected. How do you think laws change?


Cheers Fg7

P.S And please don't confuse 'individualism' with personal autonomous expression.

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2005, 01:20 AM
Well here goes,

Let me guess. Jase sends me a pm, complaining about my behaviour on a public bulletin board.

Let the jury note: A public bulletin board.

He then offers a private opinion of which, it is presumed, he has formed because of interacting with that said public bulletin board.

Let the jury note: The private pm message was formed as a result of a public interaction.

I then decide to publish that private pm, with rebuttal, since it involves aspects of a very public debate.

And all you seem to be able to suggest to me is that 'I have transgressed the right to privacy'.

Well I am going to suggest there is no automatic right to privacy. Human beings are social creatures. Social interaction in the form of 'privacy' is normally associated with moral respect. It must be obvious now that I have little moral respect for anybody who attempts to manipulate myself (or anyone else) 'individually' through the use of power. Much better to nip it in the bud straight away and say to somebody ''Claiming authority: Deal with it in the open-where everyone can see."

I just look at it from a different moral perspective. I don't believe in individualism, I think its a sickness.

Chesskit law: private pms ought to remain so
Middle Ages law: Poor people ought to be institutionalised.

Just because it is a law, does not mean it is non-contestable, nor is it necessarily a right, to be respected. How do you think laws change?


Cheers Fg7

P.S And please don't confuse 'individualism' with personal autonomous expression.Firstly you have not responded to jases's post #79. Perhaps you found it too difficult.
Secondly my comment you quoted was directed at starter not you. Perhaps you are just looking for an argument.

However the fact it is a public bulletin board is irrelevant. Jase engaged you in a private conversation via PM. It is obvious that if jase had wanted it publically published he would have done so himself instead of sending it via a PM.

You could have ignored it.
You could have responded to his PM with a PM.

Yet even though it was obvious that jase did not want it pubically published otherwise he would have done so himself, you chose to publish a private communication on a public board. As such your action should be held in the contempt it deserves.

BTW do you publish private letters you receive in local newspapers or pin them up on the noticebaord at MCC. If not why not.

ursogr8
20-05-2005, 08:04 AM
<snip>
So far he has given no indication that stridency had anything to do with it either here or at the other place.

Well he has now (indicated that he is discerning about which PMs he reveals) in this later post (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=58122&postcount=92)


Of course he did. Back when he was fist challenged last year about posting private Pm's he said There was no ands, ifs or buts in that sentnece.

And in that sentence there is no indication he will automatically publish a PM. As I said "This post indicates he (fg7) reserves the right to not respect the confidentiality of any unsolicited PM. But it does not say that he will automatically go public."

<snip>



Incidentally, I think it is poor form to reveal PMs (without permission), and I agree with Barry's right to ban.[/quote}No there is something we can agree on.
I wouldnt worry about that if I were you. ;)

I think you have got you quoting laces tangled. ;)


starter

Rincewind
20-05-2005, 09:21 AM
No I dont think so. Have you become a disciple of the Bill Gletsos mode of greeting posters? Quid custodiet ipsos custodes?

Terribly sorry about that. It was meant to be light hearted. I felt bad and was going to remove it but was distracted and too late. I just thought the goose family was overworked on this board and so some other bird species could do with a job. Perhaps I should have stuck with grebe. ;)



Says who?
There is a risk to individuals in society from gossip, white anting, back stabbing etc.

So we have gone from quoting Latin to the equivalent if "I know you are but what am I?" Society sets these rules. We are fortunate to live in a relatively free democracy with civil liberties which include those of privacy. These liberties were not easily won and should not be surrendered without a fight. At the moment, our society does not believe being a gossipper is worthy of surrendering any of these liberties. If you want to change the rules, you have to make the case, not I.


I have now.

Barry, if a person does not have the rectitude to say something confronting to another, they ought not blab it to a third party. Talking behind someone's back is "not good form" [to use starter's phrase]. Such behavior is dangerous to both individuals and social cohesion. Ethically, it is a balance between outing a gossiper, or allowing the gossiper to continue their practice unchallenged by the group.

Listen I can tell you are a macho guy. But gossipping is not cause for loss of liberties. Society needs gossip, white anting and back-stabbing. That's why a free press is considered such a good thnig, along with the moral fortitude of some reporters to maintain the confidentiality of their sources even though such confidentiality is not protected by law.

Perhaps you would prefer an Orwellian society where kids are trained to rat on their parents if they foster anti-government sentiment. However, I don't nor do I wish to live in such society.

Duff McKagan
20-05-2005, 09:32 AM
Guys, can we cut through all the rubbish here please.

when we talk to people face to face we often say "can I say something privately? or this is in the strictest of confidence ... We have all received or sent an email or PM starting with " this is about ... if you dont want to be involved ... *delete this email and dont read further* Sometimes there is standing privacy between two people or there is a known protocol within a group.

Jason and David are just two BBers trying to find the best way forward. I am absolutely sure FG would have kept the PM off the front page had he been specifically asked to. He didnt and FG though on balance that Jason's views would be a good contrbution to the debate.

One more thing, Jase and Bill can and do work things out together up here, they are both mature enough to know that not everyone can be best buddies because of different styles. There is no harm done here. Chill out.

OK?

PS remember FG& was not banned for reposting Jase PM. He got a warning for that. He was bannned for posting a trivial PM to stir RW into doing something totally stupid and it worked too! :doh: :lol:

ursogr8
20-05-2005, 09:41 AM
<snip>
We are fortunate to live in a relatively free democracy with civil liberties which include those of privacy. These liberties were not easily won and should not be surrendered without a fight. At the moment, our society does not believe being a gossipper is worthy of surrendering any of these liberties. If you want to change the rules, you have to make the case, not I.



I agree with Baz. Sorry about that Duff. The rules are rather clear here, and generally accepted. PMs are private.
But we also accept that some individuals may wish to be slightly eccentric and may reveal PMs. We wish they did not do it. We will heap opprobium on them for doing it. But they are still members of our community; just a bit different.

starter

Rincewind
20-05-2005, 09:52 AM
PS remember FG& was not banned for reposting Jase PM. He got a warning for that. He was bannned for posting a trivial PM to stir RW into doing something totally stupid and it worked too! :doh: :lol:

All three incidents and prior history contributed to his barring. The overriding reason was he was more trouble (ie caused me to waste my time) than he was worth, and was showing no signs that this behaviour was not going to continue. I have no regrets as to barring him and would do it again to David or any poster who behaved likewise.

One could argue that perhaps 7 days was slightly heavyhanded. I was open to arguments of leniency. However, none were put forward in earnest.

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2005, 09:55 AM
Well he has now (indicated that he is discerning about which PMs he reveals) in this later post (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=58122&postcount=92)I would suggest he simply makes that point now because it suits his purpose to do so.
When he divulged Kevins PM back in 2004 he made it clear that he did not respect ones right to privacy in private messages.

And in that sentence there is no indication he will automatically publish a PM. As I said "This post indicates he (fg7) reserves the right to not respect the confidentiality of any unsolicited PM. But it does not say that he will automatically go public."In that sentence I quoted there was no indication that it only referred to unsolicited PM's.

I think you have got you quoting laces tangled. ;)I had, but I have now fixed it. ;)

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 10:04 AM
Firstly you have not responded to jases's post #79. Perhaps you found it too difficult.
If Jason found it an issue, no doubt he will bring it up with me himself. If you have a specific concern, why don't you quote the question.



Secondly my comment you quoted was directed at starter not you. Perhaps you are just looking for an argument.

I cut and pasted the point. Are you seriously suggesting that this is no longer an appropriate form of responding?



However the fact it is a public bulletin board is irrelevant.

I beg to differ. It is a very important point. It is an intellectual arguement worth a thread of its own. I also believe that this sort of arguement has a moral relevency, that is of the upmost importance in todays society.



Jase engaged you in a private conversation via PM.

Incorrect. Jase did not engage in a private conversation with me. My pocket Collins defines conversation as -an informal talk between two or more people. Lets be clear here- Jason engaged in a private diatribe , not a conversation



It is obvious that if jase had wanted it publically published he would have done so himself instead of sending it via a PM.

That is Jasons concern not mine, maybe next time he will think twice before responding to me in such a manner.


You could have ignored it.
You could have responded to his PM with a PM.

Im happy with the response I took.


Yet even though it was obvious that jase did not want it pubically published otherwise he would have done so himself, you chose to publish a private communication on a public board.
See the above about obvious presumptions. If your looking for shame you won't find it here.


As such your action should be held in the contempt it deserves.

Ahhhh the real point. Now if you were interested in the issue maybe you ought to start a new thread. You have implied that my action was immoral, but first you have to define the basis upon which you measure your ethical concerns.


BTW do you publish private letters you receive in local newspapers or pin them up on the noticebaord at MCC. If not why not.
These questions are absurd, rephrase them and put them in a relevent context.

Cheers Fg7

Duff McKagan
20-05-2005, 10:28 AM
Bill: you are shooting the messenger FG7. Maybe you need to deal with the message :eek:

Starter: I agree i would not have posted Jasons PM and I also agree that FG is simply another person who has a right to be who he is just like we all have the right to be who we are.

RW:

These liberties were not easily won and should not be surrendered without a fight. At the moment, our society does not believe being a gossipper is worthy of surrendering any of these liberties.

Let us put the boot on the other foot. :hmm: FG posting a PM is quite similar to "gossiping" . Similar in action, similar in effect, similar in intent, similar in ethical terms. Now you are the one who deprived FG of his liberties for 7 days. :owned:

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 10:41 AM
All three incidents and prior history contributed to his barring.


Mate your really need to stop lying to yourself!!
To suggest that prior history was a reason is just false. a) You were not aware of this history until Bill pointed it out, hence you are kidding yourself if you thought it was a reason at the actual moment of banning. b) How long does the statuary limit last for (would I be tried for assault, for pushing my brother over when we were kids? -somehow I doubt it).

Notice the three incidents- Reason 3 I called you a moron....If this is an offense (it is clearly not), then how come Bill Gletsos has never been warned for such behaviour?
Show some consistency.



The overriding reason was he was more trouble (ie caused me to waste my time) than he was worth, and was showing no signs that this behaviour was not going to continue.

Player: I move that Rincewind be now banned from Chesskit for wasting my time!
Umpire: First you have to prove his worth
Player: There is no reason to that statement
Umpire: There is no reason to his behaviour
Player: So do I get a freekick or what?
Umpire: Show me where the mark is
Player: Mate, your the umpire
Umpire: Hang on a minute...Im waiting for a sign
Player: A sign?
Umpire: A sign from Godot, that I understand.
Player: How long are we going to wait for?
Umpire: As long as it takes
Boy: Godot will see you tommorrow


I have no regrets as to barring him and would do it again to David or any poster who behaved likewise.

Unreflective


One could argue that perhaps 7 days was slightly heavyhanded. I was open to arguments of leniency. However, none were put forward in earnest.
Tautology. To be open you actually need to be open.

Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 10:49 AM
When he divulged Kevins PM back in 2004 he made it clear that he did not respect ones right to privacy in private messages.

Stop re-inventing history. Your taking the arguement out of its logical historical context. Define 'ones rights' in this specific case before embarking on a witch hunt about respect. Tsk tsk.

Cheer Fg7

Rincewind
20-05-2005, 10:57 AM
As noted earlier, David, childish insults of that strength will not get you banned or even warned. If you think I'm a moron you may say so to your heart's content and I will not lose any sleep over it. On that day you were simply causing more trouble than it was worth me spending my time on fixing.

BTW unremorseful does not mean unreflective. As I said one could have argued that perhaps the sentence was heavy-handed. But one-day, 3-days or 7, a suspension was called for, of that I have no doubt.

Have a good day and play nice, ok?

Rincewind
20-05-2005, 11:03 AM
Let us put the boot on the other foot. :hmm: FG posting a PM is quite similar to "gossiping" . Similar in action, similar in effect, similar in intent, similar in ethical terms. Now you are the one who deprived FG of his liberties for 7 days. :owned:

FG was quite aware of the dim view taken of such actions as he was previously warned. He is also on record of vehemently disagreenig with this rule but unfortunately that just mean that perhaps FG doesn't want to be a part of this community.


So by this change in tack am I to assume you know realise your position on outing gossippers is indefensible?

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 11:15 AM
As noted earlier, David, childish insults of that strength will not get you banned or even warned. If you think I'm a moron you may say so to your heart's content and I will not lose any sleep over it. On that day you were simply causing more trouble than it was worth me spending my time on fixing.



Rincewind,
Firstly, you are simply not consistent.
Secondly, you do not explain things rationally
Thirdly, this habit of yours, the one in which you adjudicate without answering any questions, nor involving yourself in any direct defence of facts is annoying. At best you are weak and inconsistent, at worst you are a deliberate malefactor.

While, I do not believe you are a moron, I will say this;
Until you demonstrate a logical reasoning of the events that led to my banning, that can be defended based on evidence, without rhetoric, then and only then will you get some respect from me.

You cannot at one minute show action that calling you a 'moron' in a shoutbox is a reason to be banned, while at the next minute deny that the usage of the word means anything at all.

You cannot claim this position, if you want respect. In fact I believe you should resign as a moderator. Resign and admit your own error. That would be the honorable thing to do.

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2005, 11:23 AM
Stop re-inventing history. Your taking the arguement out of its logical historical context. Define 'ones rights' in this specific case before embarking on a witch hunt about respect. Tsk tsk.I disagree that I took it out of context. However rather than waste my time on the likes of you the posters here can judge for themselves by viewing thread http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=521

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 11:27 AM
He was bannned for posting a trivial PM to stir RW into doing something totally stupid and it worked too! :doh: :lol:

Well observed Duff, but please let me correct you...I was not banned for this either, in fact I was not warned, nor was any action taken over these posts, despite my best efforts. :clap:

If we reconstruct the whole event by looking at the times, we can easily notice that I was banned after calling RW a moron in the shoutbox.

I make this point. I logged off for 30 minutes before making that shout. If I had been banned earlier I would not have been able to do such a thing. As soon as made the shout, I was then ex-communicated.

Therefore All posters beware The usage of the word Moron will not be tolerated at Chesskit. I support this action and hope that the moderators enforce this policy diligently. Furthermore, it would be helpful if there was some transparency in the regulation of such a policy.

Cheers fg7

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2005, 11:37 AM
That would be the honorable thing to do.This is rich you talking about honor when the honorable thing to do would have been for you to not publish jases private message in the first place.

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2005, 11:38 AM
If Jason found it an issue, no doubt he will bring it up with me himself. If you have a specific concern, why don't you quote the question.I'm simply noting you havnt responded to him.

I cut and pasted the point. Are you seriously suggesting that this is no longer an appropriate form of responding?I was simply pointing out you chose to respond to my post to starter but had not responded to jases post to you.

I beg to differ. It is a very important point. It is an intellectual arguement worth a thread of its own. I also believe that this sort of arguement has a moral relevency, that is of the upmost importance in todays society.Differ all you like. The fact this is a public board is irrelevant. Jase sent you a private message, not a public one.

Incorrect. Jase did not engage in a private conversation with me. My pocket Collins defines conversation as -an informal talk between two or more people. Lets be clear here- Jason engaged in a private diatribe , not a conversationHa and you have the temerity to accuse Kevin Bonham of being pedantic. Jase sent you a private message. It did not warrant a public posting.

That is Jasons concern not mine, maybe next time he will think twice before responding to me in such a manner.In fact maybe all posters will think twice before engaing you in future via PM's and expecting you to act in an acceptable manner.

Im happy with the response I took.No doubt. However clearly others are not.

See the above about obvious presumptions. If your looking for shame you won't find it here.Yes, you are obviously shameless.

Ahhhh the real point. Now if you were interested in the issue maybe you ought to start a new thread. You have implied that my action was immoral, but first you have to define the basis upon which you measure your ethical concerns.This wont be happening as I cant be bothered wasting any more time on you.

These questions are absurd, rephrase them and put them in a relevent context.The questions are not absurd. You clearly have no issue with publishing private messages. My question was simply wondering if this extended to other forms of private messages such as letters.

However as far as I am concerned you publishing a private message was unacceptable and none of your self serving rhetoric is going to change my mind.

As such feel free to argue with someone else who cares what you think, because I dont. :hand:

Rincewind
20-05-2005, 11:42 AM
FG7,

I was not monitoring the board at 5 minute interevals and rarely do. Therefore you should not read anything into the timing of the banning with your ability to log off. I assure you the reasons you were banned was as I described earlier. You were warned for previous transgressions and was obviously unremorseful. I will noly spend so much time explaining something to you. If you still can't abide by the rules you will be banned. Hopefully that logic is straightforward enough for you.

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 11:47 AM
I disagree that I took it out of context. However rather than waste my time on the likes of you the posters here can judge for themselves by viewing thread http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=521

You are really being unreasonable here.

Firstly, in the context of that debate I wanted to make Bonhams post public for a very specific reason. Up until that moment I had suspected Bonham for tampering with my post. I was annoyed that he had even framed the whole MCC arguement since, while it was a remote possibility, it was nevertheless not the obvious suspect. Notice in an indirect way I was doing Bonham a favor, but instead of picking up on the clues...again people pounced on the alleged moral transgressor.

Secondly,
I had in actual fact complained in a private email to Paul about this very controversial tampering of my thread.

Thirdly,
I have little doubt that the person who tampered with my post was Gandalf.

Fourthly,
If you care to notice, the person who gives the historical warnings about pm posting, is actually Gandalf himself. Why would that be? What possible motive do you believe would be behind that idea? Have you ever wondered why Gandalf was so interested in pms remaining private?

Finally, How is the context of these two seperate incidents related morally?

Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 11:53 AM
FG7,
I assure you the reasons you were banned was as I described earlier.
The facts speak for themselves. It is possible that you may be probably unconscious of the idea that you are lying to yourself if you believe otherwise.

Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 12:02 PM
In fact ... who cares what you think, because I dont. :hand:

Well spoken Bill. This clearly establishes the basis of your position. I on the other hand, actually do care what other people think.

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2005, 12:03 PM
You are really being unreasonable here.Not at all.
The thread spoke for itself.

Firstly, in the context of that debate I wanted to make Bonhams post public for a very specific reason. Up until that moment I had suspected Bonham for tampering with my post. I was annoyed that he had even framed the whole MCC arguement since, while it was a remote possibility, it was nevertheless not the obvious suspect. Notice in an indirect way I was doing Bonham a favor, but instead of picking up on the clues...again people pounced on the alleged moral transgressor.Rather than accuse the post of being tampered with by a moderator or a admin it was much more likely that it was posted by someone at the MCC computer.

Secondly,
I had in actual fact complained in a private email to Paul about this very controversial tampering of my thread.You could of course have been covering your own butt.

Thirdly,
I have little doubt that the person who tampered with my post was Gandalf.Good for you but you have no evidence to support it.

Fourthly,
If you care to notice, the person who gives the historical warnings about pm posting, is actually Gandalf himself. Why would that be? What possible motive do you believe would be behind that idea? Have you ever wondered why Gandalf was so interested in pms remaining private?No because like most people Gandalf obviously believed that private messages are considered just that private.

Finally, How is the context of these two seperate incidents related morally?They demonstrate that you dont recognise the concept of private in private messages.

Bottom line is posters can judge for themselves by reading thread http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=521

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2005, 12:04 PM
Well spoken Bill. This clearly establishes the basis of your position. I on the other hand, actually do care what other people think.I care what other people think, just not what you think.

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 12:05 PM
:eek:

Just a little anecdote. My post count has never worked properly since the Gandalf dispute. At the moment it says 774. What does it say on your screen?

Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 12:06 PM
I care what other people think, just not what you think.
Tautology

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 12:12 PM
Rather than accuse the post of being tampered with by a moderator or a admin it was much more likely that it was posted by someone at the MCC computer.


I cannot stop you believing in this myth. All I can say is that it is completely wrong.

Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 12:14 PM
:eek:

Now it says 757.

Cheers Fg7

shaun
20-05-2005, 12:15 PM
Sykes and Matza - Five Techniques of Neutralization.

Denial of responsibility. (It wasn't my fault)
Denial of injury. (Why is this such an issue? No one got hurt)
Denial of the victim. (He had it coming anyway)
Condemnation of the condemners. (You're just hypocrites, and are doing this out of personal spite)
Appeal to higher loyalties (I was doing this for the benefit of others)

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2005, 12:21 PM
I cannot stop you believing in this myth. All I can say is that it is completely wrong.You were not able to show it as being wrong at the time.

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 12:39 PM
Sykes and Matza - Five Techniques of Neutralization.

Denial of responsibility. (It wasn't my fault)
Denial of injury. (Why is this such an issue? No one got hurt)
Denial of the victim. (He had it coming anyway)
Condemnation of the condemners. (You're just hypocrites, and are doing this out of personal spite)
Appeal to higher loyalties (I was doing this for the benefit of others)

Thanks for that little detour. I found it interesting and thought provoking. I do have one question for you, how do you find this discussion relevent to the thread? I am finding it a bit difficult to understand its context (not suggesting this is necessarily a bad thing).

Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 12:42 PM
You were not able to show it as being wrong at the time.
Which is of course a different statement from actually proving that I was wrong or proving that you were right.

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2005, 12:55 PM
Which is of course a different statement from actually proving that I was wrong or proving that you were right.In post #119 that you replied to I never claimed I was right, I simply pointed out that you were not necessarily right.

Duff McKagan
20-05-2005, 12:56 PM
So by this change in tack am I to assume you know realise your position on outing gossippers is indefensible?

No more indefensible than your banning him.

Nothing is black and white. Your or my "infedensible" exist on a continuum and we are arguing over shades of grey. Therefore I think I might leave it at that. No point in going spaz over this. :D

Cheery cherrs big ears :D

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 01:03 PM
This is rich you talking about honor when the honorable thing to do would have been for you to not publish jases private message in the first place.

Bill do you understand how your morality is measured? If so could you please explain it to me, as I have difficulty understanding from where you think you have the legitimacy to make such a statement. Do you believe that 'others' ought to hold and respect your moral positions?

Cheers fg7

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 01:19 PM
In post #119 that you replied to I never claimed I was right, I simply pointed out that you were not necessarily right.

You need to learn how to analyise language.




Rather than accuse the post of being tampered with by a moderator or a admin it was much more likely that it was posted by someone at the MCC computer.

These statements contradict each other.

Cheers Fg7

P.S Your really wearing me out with the tediousness of your claims. Unfortuantely I cannot take any of them seriously. If you want to make a productive point- make it simple. Discuss one or two points in a rational way and I will co-operate as best I can to reach a position of mutual understanding (if that is possible).

Kevin Bonham
20-05-2005, 01:48 PM
Firstly, in the context of that debate I wanted to make Bonhams post public for a very specific reason. Up until that moment I had suspected Bonham for tampering with my post. I was annoyed that he had even framed the whole MCC arguement since, while it was a remote possibility, it was nevertheless not the obvious suspect. Notice in an indirect way I was doing Bonham a favor, but instead of picking up on the clues...again people pounced on the alleged moral transgressor.

I don't get this, because on 05-04-2004 I publicly posted this:


If it was tampered, must have been an admin job or a hacker. I wouldn't amend firegoat's messages, and I don't see how anything could embarrass him more than what he posts anyway. And if it was another moderator I would be able to see who it was.

and my PM to you of 06-04-2004 which you made public on 11-04-2004 really added nothing to my defence, apart from maybe "I don't have the technical skill, and if I edited something a note saying I'd done it would be visible to the other admins and mods". So I don't see why my PM itself would have convinced you I was innocent, nor do I see how your posting of it or your response to it would have assisted in any way in clearing my name, assuming that was your intention. Furthermore the MCC argument was made public in my post of 08-04-2004 so there was no need to quote my PM to bring it up.


If you care to notice, the person who gives the historical warnings about pm posting, is actually Gandalf himself.

True - Gandalf warned you twice, then I did.

As for a statute of limitations, there isn't one, but there's no doubt that we'll be harsher on someone who repeats an offence immediately after being warned for it than a long time after, all other things being equal.

shaun
20-05-2005, 01:51 PM
Thanks for that little detour. I found it interesting and thought provoking. I do have one question for you, how do you find this discussion relevent to the thread? I am finding it a bit difficult to understand its context (not suggesting this is necessarily a bad thing).

Cheers Fg7

Against my better judgement I will answer .....

The point of the post was to draw attention to what this debate has now boiled down to, which is a group of individuals trying to prove they are right by selectively choosing (and/or creating) evidence that suits their position. In doing so they utilizing some of the 5 techniques listed above.
As a specific example, I feel that your continual accusations that RW banned you for personal reasons is a perfect example of point 4. But having said that, both sides of what I feel is an increadibly pointless debate are exhibiting some of the behaviour listed above.

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 02:15 PM
I don't get this, because on 05-04-2004 I publicly posted this:



and my PM to you of 06-04-2004 which you made public on 11-04-2004 really added nothing to my defence, apart from maybe "I don't have the technical skill, and if I edited something a note saying I'd done it would be visible to the other admins and mods". So I don't see why my PM itself would have convinced you I was innocent, nor do I see how your posting of it or your response to it would have assisted in any way in clearing my name, assuming that was your intention.

What your post did show was that you were concerned enough to actually want to gather more informantion about the event privately. By making the post public, regardless of my motives (yes they were objectively tainted by our much public previous disputes), I was able to show that you did express some doubt about the whole event and the blaming of guilt publically.

Now I am presuming that you were not actually acting maliciously, but I'm fine with that presumption. We were both protected morally against such an outcome anyway, by outing the PM. In hindsight it was probably the right thing to do, even if my initial motivations had been somewhat self interested.

What is more, it must be remembered that average posters are less inclined to know or understand the technical limitations of moderators and administrators.
In hindsight, I still believe that Gandalf's interest in the thread, aswell as his childish cryptic clues, were fairly convincing indicators that my presumption about his guilt was pretty much correct.

Cheers Fg7

ElevatorEscapee
20-05-2005, 02:33 PM
Looks like you buggers had some fun last night after I went to bed! :lol:

FYI Firegoat, your postcount now shows 764 on my computer screen.

Cheers :)

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 02:40 PM
Against my better judgement I will answer .....

The point of the post was to draw attention to what this debate has now boiled down to, which is a group of individuals trying to prove they are right by selectively choosing (and/or creating) evidence that suits their position. In doing so they utilizing some of the 5 techniques listed above.


Look I don't mean to be mean here, but this really ought to be put in its correct context....why would you want to frame this arguement within a discourse of criminality and delinquency? I don't believe it serves much purpose. Neither Rincewind, Gletsos or myself are criminals or delinquents. If you wish to frame us within that discourse then may I suggest it has more to do with the structures within your own mind, rather then reality. Please don't take that the wrong way, its not an insult, merely an observation.

Furthermore, after reading some of the analysis about the sources you quoted, I was able to gather that such a categorisation was clearly contested anyway.

Nevertheless, personally I found it interesting, so I did actually enjoy the diversion.



As a specific example, I feel that your continual accusations that RW banned you for personal reasons is a perfect example of point 4.

Thats fine! I do believe it was out of spite, hell knows I have been very spiteful to him, it is definately a two way street. But this is a different question in the context of justice. The question of justice is rigorous, it requires qualification. It is not an issue about whether I deserved to be banned morally. The issue is the protocal for banning, followed by the logical rational of the procedure for it. The issue is one of the transgression of behavioural norms, who sets those norms and why are they legitimate.



But having said that, both sides of what I feel is an increadibly pointless debate are exhibiting some of the behaviour listed above.
It is only meaningless if nothing is obtained from it. While I sympathise with some of your points, I can't help thinking that you believe interaction itself needs to be positive to have a point. I'm not sure I share the same ideals.

Cheers fg7

Rincewind
20-05-2005, 03:00 PM
No more indefensible than your banning him.

Well I clearly disagree since I have not abandoned my position on that.

shaun
20-05-2005, 03:03 PM
Look I don't mean to be mean here, but this really ought to be put in its correct context....why would you want to frame this arguement within a discourse of criminality and delinquency? I don't believe it serves much purpose. Neither Rincewind, Gletsos or myself are criminals or delinquents. If you wish to frame us within that discourse then may I suggest it has more to do with the structures within your own mind, rather then reality. Please don't take that the wrong way, its not an insult, merely an observation.


Because while the study it came from concerned criminality and deliquency, the observations aren't just restricted to that area. Indeed I am surprised that you didn't instantly realise that the points listed did apply to this debate, even if you did not apply them to yourself.
But some background ....
My attention was drawn to this study by a sociologist friend of mine (retired as a Reader in Sociology at the ANU yada yada yada) when I was discussing with him some examples of chatroom 'wolf-pack' behaviour (and no it wasn't here but on the usenet forum rec.games.bridge). In the course of this discussion he mentioned the 5 techniques above, and said they pretty much turn up whenever someone is trying to defend themselves of wrong-doing (criminal/non criminal) or justify their actions to others.
And my intention was not to accuse anyone of criminality, but simply to tack on an extension to the hall of mirrors (Appeal to higher loyalties)

shaun
20-05-2005, 03:06 PM
It is only meaningless if nothing is obtained from it. While I sympathise with some of your points, I can't help thinking that you believe interaction itself needs to be positive to have a point. I'm not sure I share the same ideals.

Cheers fg7

It doesn't have to be positive, but I feel that it should be going somewhere ("This is just contradiction", "No it isn't" "Yes it is"). Of course if I feel the debate is pointless the smart thing to do is not to bother participating, or even read it.

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 03:33 PM
Indeed I am surprised that you didn't instantly realise that the points listed did apply to this debate, even if you did not apply them to yourself.
Yeah I realised the intention, I just question its legitimacy as a focal lense. Having said that I personally found it interesting. While I am not familiar with the intricacy of the debate, I suspect being American theorists and formed around the 50-60s it is basically a functionalist debate. As a person interested in conflict theory it nevertheless goes completely against the grain of the sociology I know.
However,
Some of what the functionalists said does make some sense. It would be both naive to suggest that little valuable insight can be gleaned from such thought. I am just skeptical of anybody who claims uncontested rationality in regards to societal interaction, not to mention the questions concerning functional hierarchy. Having said all that without reading the authors in depth, I am not in a position to label their theories, as belonging to a particular school, without some self doubt. I also suspect that this debate is more in the field of psychology.



But some background ....
My attention was drawn to this study by a sociologist friend of mine (retired as a Reader in Sociology at the ANU yada yada yada) when I was discussing with him some examples of chatroom 'wolf-pack' behaviour (and no it wasn't here but on the usenet forum rec.games.bridge). In the course of this discussion he mentioned the 5 techniques above, and said they pretty much turn up whenever someone is trying to defend themselves of wrong-doing (criminal/non criminal) or justify their actions to others.
And my intention was not to accuse anyone of criminality, but simply to tack on an extension to the hall of mirrors (Appeal to higher loyalties)

This is pretty cool! I must admit I often wonder how all these things work and certainly do appreciate seeing different perspectives.

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2005, 03:55 PM
Bill do you understand how your morality is measured? If so could you please explain it to me, as I have difficulty understanding from where you think you have the legitimacy to make such a statement.
You suggested that RW should resign as it would be honorable. I disagree.
Likewise I suggested that the honourable thing for you to have done was to not have published jases private message. You disagree.

Do you believe that 'others' ought to hold and respect your moral positions?Not necessarily but you seem to believe that 'others' should hold and respect the same moral position as you.

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2005, 03:59 PM
You need to learn how to analyise language.
You need to improve your comprehension.

These statements contradict each other.No they dont.

P.S Your really wearing me out with the tediousness of your claims. Unfortuantely I cannot take any of them seriously.I guess that makes us even as I cant take any of yours seriouslyy.

If you want to make a productive point- make it simple. Discuss one or two points in a rational way and I will co-operate as best I can to reach a position of mutual understanding (if that is possible).
My points have been just as productive as yours.

Kevin Bonham
20-05-2005, 04:20 PM
What your post did show was that you were concerned enough to actually want to gather more informantion about the event privately. By making the post public, regardless of my motives (yes they were objectively tainted by our much public previous disputes), I was able to show that you did express some doubt about the whole event and the blaming of guilt publically.

Actually I had always shown myself to be open to all logically possible explanations and the PM added nothing in that regard. On that thread in message #7 I said it must have been an admin job or a hacker. In #13 I again said it could have been an admin job. In #15 I said you could have done it although I doubted this. Other posters added various comments. In #24 I referred to someone having seen your post and said that if this was after Gandalf's reply then the editor couldn't have been you.


What is more, it must be remembered that average posters are less inclined to know or understand the technical limitations of moderators and administrators.

True.


In hindsight, I still believe that Gandalf's interest in the thread, aswell as his childish cryptic clues, were fairly convincing indicators that my presumption about his guilt was pretty much correct.

Maybe we should ask him back to see if he has any further information. :P

(Gandalf last visited 23-04-2005 03:20 PM. He is still rustling about ...)

antichrist
20-05-2005, 05:23 PM
IF ANYONE SENDS ME A PRIVATE MESSAGE OF A VEXATIOUS NATURE I GUARANTEE TO PM IT TO EVERYONE AND SUNDRY, and even god if she/he/it exists

Spiny Norman
20-05-2005, 06:35 PM
IF ANYONE SENDS ME A PRIVATE MESSAGE OF A VEXATIOUS NATURE I GUARANTEE TO PM IT TO EVERYONE AND SUNDRY, and even god if she/he/it exists

:hmm: this could be fun ... lemme see ... "vexatious" eh?

1 : causing vexation : DISTRESSING b : intended to harass
2 : full of disorder or stress : TROUBLED

I think that could be arranged. :whistle:

Rincewind
20-05-2005, 06:40 PM
IF ANYONE SENDS ME A PRIVATE MESSAGE OF A VEXATIOUS NATURE I GUARANTEE TO PM IT TO EVERYONE AND SUNDRY, and even god if she/he/it exists

Last time I checked he/she/it wasn't a registered ChessChat user. Mind you, if he/she/it was, and assuming omniscience, a PM would hardly infringe on anyone's privacy. :)

Kevin Bonham
21-05-2005, 12:57 AM
IF ANYONE SENDS ME A PRIVATE MESSAGE OF A VEXATIOUS NATURE I GUARANTEE TO PM IT TO EVERYONE AND SUNDRY, and even god if she/he/it exists

How could anyone be expected to anticipate what you would or wouldn't find vexatious?

Spiny Norman
21-05-2005, 11:22 AM
How could anyone be expected to anticipate what you would or wouldn't find vexatious?

I can think of a few things that would wind him up something chronic! ;)

Paul S
22-05-2005, 04:17 PM
I have not been looking much at Chess Chat in recent weeks as it has become rather boring and full of rubbish in recent weeks. Still, I think it is better than the rubbish that is on Matt Sweeney's BB.

Firegoat 7 sometimes makes good posts. However he was in the wrong to post a private PM from Jase - if Jason had wanted to make the content public then he would have responded via the BB and not via PM. I have read Firegoat 7's drivel on Matt's BB trying to justify his actions (and his complaints against Rincewind) and find them to be a waste of space.

Considering both FG7's original action (publishing a private PM on this BB) and his drivel on Matt's BB on this issue, a one week ban seems about right.

Lets move on, children! The matter is OVER - the ban has passed! How about some intelligent and constructive posts about Australian chess instead of all this trivia and feuding? Get on with life! Is it any wonder that so few people bother to post on this forum when they see all the garbage that is posted here?

firegoat7
28-05-2005, 10:50 AM
AC,

What is your reasoning for displaying this post here?

Cheers Fg7

Rincewind
28-05-2005, 10:57 AM
What fg7 continually fails to understand is that I didn't disagree with what he was saying but the way he was saying it. His post was abrupt to the point of being rude and offered little in the way of anything practical. I'm all for challenging the status quo but it must be sensible and reasoned. fg7 post simply calling various of Michael's ideas dogma was nothing more than antiestablishmentarianist dogma itself!

As an aside, I think the existence of UCJ is good as it gives disgruntles like fg7 somewhere to go whinge about the gross inequity of CC and relive their past glories of "scoresheet wins and draws" against Australia's chess royality. AC "service"of posting his replies over here would causes more embarrassment to fg7 as the depth of his pettiness becomes apparent to all and not just his like-minded cohorts.

antichrist
28-05-2005, 11:00 AM
AC,

What is your reasoning for displaying this post here?

Cheers Fg7

You appear as thick as Bill if you expect sense out of me lol

firegoat7
28-05-2005, 11:47 AM
What fg7 continually fails to understand is that I didn't disagree with what he was saying but the way he was saying it.
What sort of nonsense is this. I cannot avoid you reading anything into the expression,regardless of whether its really there or whether its simply inside your mind. This is why I believe your actually emotionally retarded- If you look for controversy you will find it.



His post was abrupt to the point of being rude and offered little in the way of anything practical.

Really?? This is just a ridiculous claim. Define what rude actually means, did I swear-no, was I abusing the individual psychologically-no. So what do you mean? Maybe you didn't like my manners?? I mean really what are you talking about....do you understand nothing about perspective.

'offered little in the way of practical'- again such a non-descript and completely biased way of looking at things. Who are you to judge such a thing? Whats your level of chess competence? Granted I may not have explained anything the way you do, but so what??



I'm all for challenging the status quo but it must be sensible and reasoned. fg7 post simply calling various of Michael's ideas dogma was nothing more than antiestablishmentarianist dogma itself!
Suddenly Im "non-sensible' and 'non-reasoned' as classified by who? RW-self proclaimed expert on logic (not).
Well let me make this point. My friend Kelvin McBride read that post last night. Kelvin is a practicing Christian, a top bloke,a good friend. My partner, I and our kids were all around at their house having dinner. I showed this post to Kelvin and his comment was this 'That was really good advice for a young player'. So i guess that makes him a non-sensible and unreasonable person aswell, doesn't it Bazza.



As an aside, I think the existence of UCJ is good as it gives disgruntles like fg7 somewhere to go whinge about the gross inequity of CC and relive their past glories of "scoresheet wins and draws" against Australia's chess royality.
Look I know your a bit slow, so i will spell it out for you. a) I complain there because you, and your lynchmen seem incapable of giving a person a fair hearing. b) Bringing up former victories is a way of showing you that at some point in my life, I must have understood something about chess. I am simply contesting your assertions that you know better about ,what is l and what is not beneficial to teaching kids how to play chess.



AC "service"of posting his replies over here would causes more embarrassment to fg7 as the depth of his pettiness becomes apparent to all and not just his like-minded cohorts.
It doesn't bother me actually. I just wonder why AC wants to stir the pot so much. I figure pretty much that I will never get a fair hearing here anyway. So this is why I vent my spleen at UCJ, thats the way democracy works, people are allowed to have different opinions. They are allowed to speak freely in different places, without being intimidated by suspect moderation.

Cheers Fg7
P.S 'depth of petiness'- have a good look in the mirror.

firegoat7
28-05-2005, 11:51 AM
You appear as thick as Bill if you expect sense out of me lol

HaHa,

AC 1-FG7 0. Yep it just might be true. Who sez you have to be rational to make sense...I agree AC, I agree :clap: :clap:

Cheers Fg7

Rincewind
28-05-2005, 12:39 PM
Dave,

I'm not really interested in discussing anything with you and I have discovered before you are uniquely irrational. Some of your comments deserve rebuttal though so I will make the following point but please excuse me if I don't descend with you into a full scale flame war.

Your post was abrupt and abrasive. You may not want to admit this but it you will find that people tend to take criticism poorly despite bravado and negative comments need to be more gently phrased than praise. Your post did not contain any reasons for your dogmatic claims. Some reasoned explanation would have been helpful and therefore you were being unreasoned. Perhaps areasoned would be a better word, if it actually existed.

Regarding the rest, I have no doubt you know more chess than I and am a better player than I ever will. But look at my post. I never disagreed with what you said, just the way you said it. This has always caused you more problems than the things you actually say.

Finally, spleen venting is fine. That's why threads like this one are created. I think AC's motives were primarily to annoy me, however I think he has caused you more angst by doing this. He is a stirrer and any reaction is better (for him) than none.

firegoat7
28-05-2005, 01:40 PM
Barry,

Frankly your waffling again...




I'm not really interested in discussing anything with you and I have discovered before you are uniquely irrational. Some of your comments deserve rebuttal though so I will make the following point but please excuse me if I don't descend with you into a full scale flame war.
:wall: Again this is oh so boring.
How may times do people have to put up with this nonsense. 'I'm not interested in discussing X with Y, but here are my points'- Have a good look at yourself. As if 'I' was ever the only one behaving 'irrationally here'.



Your post was abrupt and abrasive. You may not want to admit this but it you will find that people tend to take criticism poorly despite bravado and negative comments need to be more gently phrased than praise. Your post did not contain any reasons for your dogmatic claims.

What we have here people, is the scientific rational (sic) mind trying to grasp at authority by suggesting that anyone who holds a different opinion is both (irrational) and (not-credible). Now it may come as a complete surprise to you Bazza, but there are competing forms of rationality. The logical/scientific paradigm is not the only valid form of interpretation. This is the last time I am saying this to you- "you are quite entitled to interpret this post as being abrupt and abrasive' , but that does not mean that your logic is well founded, nor that you have any real evidence to support your position.

Here is my initial position- the alleged abrasive one.





Dogma to be de-programmed.

Attacks can and should often be launched without complete development

Castling does not necessarily make your king safer

advance pawns without piece support when the moment is necessary.

Cheers Fg7

Now, show me where the post is being abusive? Point to it physically! Spell it out to me in words where exactly this interpretation comes from. Because when you reply.....

Michael, your new here and not used to firegoat's debating 'style'. Suffice to say that 90% of the time he is a troll who can be safely ignored.
You are already influencing another (MM) into believing that what I was saying was an error. Unmistakeable power abuse Bazza, you may want to reflect on why you found this necessary.Or for that matter why these issues happen to you instead of some of the more reasonable moderators like TCN or JGB. In other words, why Bazza, what on earth did you think, was actually happening here?

Without even bothering to ask MMs opinion, the usual position held by people who talk for others, you naturally jump in as if somehow there was a problem. Was there? Was there ever a problem that was not constructed by your own mind? Black and White, day and night, good versus bad, wrong versus right.

Cheers Fg7
P.S 'thoughts are the shadows of our sensations-Always darker, emptier, simpler than these..' F.N

antichrist
28-05-2005, 06:06 PM
Admit it FG7, you just like posting in here because of that beautiful poll result up on top. You owe me a few beers for that one. A shame you weren't here to trade punches with Bill over that one. He certainly came out fighting.

firegoat7
29-05-2005, 01:58 PM
AC,

Indeed I do AC, would u like imported or local product. ;)

Cheers Fg7

arosar
29-05-2005, 02:14 PM
Go for James Boags. It's a Filipino beer actually.

AR

Alan Shore
29-05-2005, 11:35 PM
FFS, what a waste of time this thread was. Think of what you could of achieved in the time it took to waffle on here....

Anyway, whatever.. if some dodgy PM thing transgressed rules, couple of days time out would have been ok, maybe a week was excessive but meh, I already think the mods are too strict (i.e. Sweeney).

firegoat7
30-05-2005, 12:16 AM
FFS, what a waste of time this thread was. Think of what you could of achieved in the time it took to waffle on here....

Anyway, whatever.. if some dodgy PM thing transgressed rules, couple of days time out would have been ok, maybe a week was excessive but meh, I already think the mods are too strict (i.e. Sweeney).

Hi BD,

Welcome back after your self-imposed hiatus!!

Anyway, I will take exception to your post, (sorry in advance).
'what a waste of time this thread was'. Initially yes, I agreed wholeheartedly, but..there are problems at chesskit. These problems are not going to be resolved without contesting them. Hence, I fail to share your negatively...yes the issues are trivial, even juvenille, but the issues are also a working praxis of democracy. Slowly, ever so slowly..I believe some democracy is being established. Bills language is slowly changing. KB has calmed down. ACs playful nature has been revealed. Starters creative genius has come to the fore.

Moreover,
'achievement' itself is a suspect ideology. The road travelled, not the goal reached is my motto.

Cheers Fg7
P.S Anyway its great to see you posting again...could you give us some thorny philosphical problems to ponder!

Alan Shore
30-05-2005, 12:55 AM
Hi BD,

Welcome back after your self-imposed hiatus!!

Anyway, I will take exception to your post, (sorry in advance).
'what a waste of time this thread was'. Initially yes, I agreed wholeheartedly, but..there are problems at chesskit. These problems are not going to be resolved without contesting them. Hence, I fail to share your negatively...yes the issues are trivial, even juvenille, but the issues are also a working praxis of democracy. Slowly, ever so slowly..I believe some democracy is being established. Bills language is slowly changing. KB has calmed down. ACs playful nature has been revealed. Starters creative genius has come to the fore.

Moreover,
'achievement' itself is a suspect ideology. The road travelled, not the goal reached is my motto.

Cheers Fg7
P.S Anyway its great to see you posting again...could you give us some thorny philosphical problems to ponder!

Well FG7, if things are changing for the better then I hope it was worth the time. Good to see your presence here is still strong.

Philosophical problems eh? I have a few beauties.. I think I'll post one on a new thread for you all.. then I'll have to skedaddle off again (this was only a fleeting visit) until I have a little more time available at my disposal!

Kevin Bonham
30-05-2005, 07:12 PM
KB has calmed down.

Hmmm. Perhaps someone who used to provoke him suddenly backed off.

antichrist
01-11-2010, 09:58 PM
about 5 years to the date FG abdicated KB kowtowed before FG to return - but NO, FG had found a new home and demanded that certain personnel here should not engage with bods that have been banned.

You could invite Starter next time

Kevin Bonham
01-11-2010, 10:30 PM
What are you babbling about AC? As usual you have your facts completely wrong; firegoat did not leave as a result of the ban in 2005 but continued to post until leaving voluntarily in early 2008. Stop trolling, being an idiot and trying to stir up silly fights.

antichrist
02-11-2010, 02:08 AM
What are you babbling about AC? As usual you have your facts completely wrong; firegoat did not leave as a result of the ban in 2005 but continued to post until leaving voluntarily in early 2008. Stop trolling, being an idiot and trying to stir up silly fights.

No wonder he abdicated - the poll overwhelmly agreed with him, it makes Bill appear like Bee, that bitchy warden in Prisoner who all of Australia hated, including my wife, and she was of the same character so she should know.

Kevin Bonham
02-11-2010, 12:00 PM
Actually the poll was overwhelmingly stupid like virtually all your polls. It made it impossible to cast a "Yes" vote without tying the "Yes" vote to one or other of two durations and to firegoat's behaviour "over there" (which at the time meant Sweeney's UCJ site). For that reason many who would have agreed with the barring itself would not have voted. I was one of those who did not vote for that reason.


including my wife, and she was of the same character

Yes, well, I can imagine that having to put up with you would do that to somebody. :lol:

antichrist
03-11-2010, 06:22 AM
Actually the poll was overwhelmingly stupid like virtually all your polls. It made it impossible to cast a "Yes" vote without tying the "Yes" vote to one or other of two durations and to firegoat's behaviour "over there" (which at the time meant Sweeney's UCJ site). For that reason many who would have agreed with the barring itself would not have voted. I was one of those who did not vote for that reason.



Yes, well, I can imagine that having to put up with you would do that to somebody. :lol:

When you kowtowed to FG and re refused, you must have felt like you had gone up to the most undesirable girl at the dance and in front of everyone she refused you bluntly - what a put down, have you recovered?

Kevin Bonham
03-11-2010, 11:18 AM
When you kowtowed to FG and re refused

Faulty first premise as usual. I never "kowtowed" to anyone. I did reduce one of his bans and remove another one but I never begged the guy to come back here. So this is all just you making up nonsense and being a silly troll. Get it right!