PDA

View Full Version : PaulS vs antichrist (sf. should fg7 have been banned)



antichrist
22-05-2005, 04:54 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?

What are you getting at, you have never wrote anything intelligent and constructive about my projects, only lied and misrepresented, and you have swore profusely on the net sometimes - you are the last person who can complain.

You hippocrite!

Trent Parker
22-05-2005, 05:05 PM
What are you getting at, you have never wrote anything intelligent and constructive about my projects, only lied and misrepresented, and you have swore profusely on the net sometimes - you are the last person who can complain.

You hippocrite!

Well antichrist. IMHO PaulS has contributed a helluva lot more than you have. I applaud Paul's post.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Paul S
22-05-2005, 10:51 PM
What are you getting at, you have never wrote anything intelligent and constructive about my projects, only lied and misrepresented, and you have swore profusely on the net sometimes - you are the last person who can complain.

You hippocrite!

Huh? What are YOU getting at, Peter?

I made no mention of you (or your posts) in my post! In fact you were not even in my thoughts when I made my post! You are a JOKE! Believe me, you rarely come into my thoughts!

As for your statement "you have never wrote anything intelligent and constructive about my projects", would you care to give some examples of your "intelligent and constructive projects"? We could all do with a good laugh!!! If anything, you are more like a vacuum cleaner withot a dustbag - you just make existing problems worse!

Like Bill Gletsos said on this BB recently, you are fortunate that STUPIDITY is not a criteria for being banned from this BB! Personally, I think stupidity (like yours!) should be a criteria for being banned from this forum, as when people see your idiotic posts it just turns people away from wanting to be involved in this forum!

As for lying and misrepresenting your projects, would you care to give some examples, Peter? Because I have NO IDEA what you are crapping on about (and I am sure neither does anyone else!).

As for "swearing profusely on the net", would you care to give some examples?

Peter, you are a JOKE and a FOOL and everyone (with the possible exception of yourself!) can see that! You are one of few people whose presence in the Australian chess community causes more harm than good to Australian chess!

Paul S
22-05-2005, 11:06 PM
Well antichrist. IMHO PaulS has contributed a helluva lot more than you have. I applaud Paul's post.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Thankyou Trent!

However, I think just about everyone involved in Australian chess has contributed more than Peter Hanna, so my contributing more than Peter Hanna is no real achievement, especially when one considers that Peter is one of the few people who has made a net NEGATIVE contribution to Australian chess! Just on this BB alone his idiotic posts turn people away from wanting to participate in this forum! As Bill Gletsos says, Peter can consider himself fortunate that STUPIDITY is not a criteria for being banned from this forum!

Garvinator
23-05-2005, 02:39 AM
Thankyou Trent!

However, I think just about everyone involved in Australian chess has contributed more than Peter Hanna, so my contributing more than Peter Hanna is no real achievement, especially when one considers that Peter is one of the few people who has made a net NEGATIVE contribution to Australian chess! Just on this BB alone his idiotic posts turn people away from wanting to participate in this forum! As Bill Gletsos says, Peter can consider himself fortunate that STUPIDITY is not a criteria for being banned from this forum!
are you saying then Paul that a person who has contributed nothing to Australian chess has contributed more than a/c? ;)

Paul S
24-05-2005, 12:17 AM
are you saying then Paul that a person who has contributed nothing to Australian chess has contributed more than a/c? ;)

In the case of Peter Hanna the answer is YES!!! If you had to put up with Antichrist at your chess club for 5 years like I did, you would know what I mean! He is like a vacuum cleaner without a dustbag - he just makes existing problems worse! IMO he is a waste of space!

antichrist
24-05-2005, 06:06 AM
Well antichrist. IMHO PaulS has contributed a helluva lot more than you have. I applaud Paul's post.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Well Trent, as you said and as Bill says, that is only your opinion. I repeat, losers in chess games often accuse me of being too slow in moves, but when put clock on I always have better time and still win, so perception can be very deceptive or people like to deceive themselves.

The only contribution I saw from PaulS when he was on Committee was when I went along to borrow some chess equipment. Something got into his head that he did not want to lend it and initiated debate. Well on a very busy agenda-wise night he managed to waste about 35 precious minutes of their time and lost the vote very decisively. It should not even have been debated.

They have now woken up to themselves and just hire/lend it out automatically -- which they used to do before boofhead Sike butted in and tried to carry silly personal vendettas in the NSWCA. If he was unable to leave personal vendettas at the door he should have disqualified himself from going on committee. This goes for everyone.

Bill who regularly accesses the minutes can confirm this but he should not waste his time on it.

As I stated earlier perception can be misleading.

As the committee knifed him if the back re the newsletter they could not have valued him too much when it comes to the crunch. They may be nice to his face. I will try and join you one day on committee and we can move mountains together. After Bill goes that is.

antichrist
24-05-2005, 06:36 AM
PaulS
In your opening post you insulted everyone in case you don't know. And you have sworn the f... word a few times in the coffee lounge seeing that you challenged me to expose it. Don't say you are going to be like your hero Gletsos and hide behind the Coward's Castle of the coffee lounge as he did concerning Matt.

Concerning quoting Bill, he has been proven thick - but I suppose that is an improvement for you.

So where are your quality posts? You and Matt are the only people I can remember swearing on the BB and yet you are criticising him. The hide of you -- hippocrite!

As in my reply to TCN you were not constructive nor intelligent whilst on committee, you got voted down decisively for wasting time.

You were destructive in your lies concerning myself and the Hokaoh Club and I am still waiting for a public apology. In fact I won't answer anymore of your BS until you do apologise.

As stated earlier in past, present and future tense -- a lying nobody!

Trent Parker
24-05-2005, 10:28 AM
PaulS
In your opening post you insulted everyone in case you don't know. And you have sworn the f... word a few times in the coffee lounge seeing that you challenged me to expose it.

Um a/c it's ok to swear in the coffee lounge! it's unmoderated. No one else but those who have over 200 posts can see there...
:rolleyes:


you and Matt are the only people I can remember swearing on the BB and yet you are criticising him. The hide of you -- hippocrite!

Matt has sworn on an open forum. I cannot remember paul swearing in an open forum. So I think paul is not much of a hypocrite if at all.


As in my reply to TCN you were not constructive nor intelligent whilst on committee, you got voted down decisively for wasting time.

So your basing your claims on one visit to the council?

Hey paul weren't you the contact person for the NSWCA for a while there?
What other things did you do whilst on council?


You were destructive in your lies concerning myself and the Hokaoh Club and I am still waiting for a public apology. In fact I won't answer anymore of your BS until you do apologise.

I know nothing about this.... *best pauline hanson impersonation* "please explain"

antichrist
24-05-2005, 09:31 PM
In the case of Peter Hanna the answer is YES!!! If you had to put up with Antichrist at your chess club for 5 years like I did, you would know what I mean! He is like a vacuum cleaner without a dustbag - he just makes existing problems worse! IMO he is a waste of space!

This is an amazing claim, because at the time I was at Canterbury PaulS and myself never crossed words, never needed to.

His big high was for some stupid reason insisting on making a speech at the SEC a few years go. We had the hall full and Paul is the most embarrassing pubic speaker one could come across. I just hid my face in my hands. And he says he had to put up with me.

I went there a few years ago giving out pamphlets and playing games and he did not open his mouth in spite of all of his bravado on the BB.

Another bad memory of him is his swearing after I would beat him a few times. And he says he had to put up with me???

Paul S
24-05-2005, 11:23 PM
The only contribution I saw from PaulS when he was on Committee was when I went along to borrow some chess equipment. Something got into his head that he did not want to lend it and initiated debate. Well on a very busy agenda-wise night he managed to waste about 35 precious minutes of their time and lost the vote very decisively. It should not even have been debated.

They have now woken up to themselves and just hire/lend it out automatically -- which they used to do before boofhead Sike butted in and tried to carry silly personal vendettas in the NSWCA. If he was unable to leave personal vendettas at the door he should have disqualified himself from going on committee. This goes for everyone.

Peter, you are just making a fool out of yourself. I get no joy/satisfaction out of challenging you on this BB, as your posts are just so easy to refute that it is just not funny. Your posts are like a bad smell - most of the time I "just let them go though to the wicketkeeper" (ie ignore the smell), but other times (like this) the "smell" is so bad that I have to respond (ie "clean up the faeces"). Like the sad old man you truly are, you distort and twist things to suit your own purposes, and your posts in this thread are just yet another example.

Anyway, lets get to the TRUTH of this matter (which can be verified by Bill Gletsos and other 2003 NSWCA Councillors)!

When I was on NSWCA Council in 2003 Peter Hanna sent an email to the NSWCA Secretary (Tom Accola) on the morning of our March meeting informing Tom that Peter would be attending our March meeting for the purpose of borrowing chess equipment for the 2003 Sydney Easter Cup (SEC). Peter Hanna invited HIMSELF to the monthly March NSWCA Council meeting! Sure enough, I get to the March monthly NSWCA Council meeting at 7pm and there is Peter Hanna (at his OWN invitation!)! The then NSWCA Vice-President (de-facto President) Bill Gletsos even (quite rightly) told Peter Hanna off that he was WRONG to invite himself to NSWCA Council meetings and that he should NOT do this in future and that in future he should go through the PROPER channels!

The 35 minutes we wasted discussing Peter borrowing/hiring NSWCA equipment was because of PETER HANNA!!! My recollection is that all the NSWCA Councillors (including myself) were very annoyed at Peter inviting HIMSELF to our March meeting and WASTING 35 minutes of our time (when we had so many other things to deal with!) before we could get on with scheduled business (actually I think it was a bit less than 35 minutes all up - probably more like around 25 minutes).

I suggested to NSWCA Council that it may not be wise to lend Peter equipment for the 2003 SEC due to all the controversy of the 2002 SEC and that some sections of the chess community may think badly of the NSWCA if we lent Peter chess equipment for the 2003 SEC. About 5 minutes of debate ensued. A vote was taken (in which I abstained - not opposed - as Peter incorrectly asserts) and the majority decision was that the NSWCA COuncil allowed Peter Hanna to borrow/rent NSWCA chess equipment for the 2003 SEC.

I suspect that the reason the NSWCA now just automatically lend out chess equipment to Peter Hanna is because they want to avoid unneccessary hassles for themselves (and that they do NOT want to waste time with having Peter attend at his own invitation their busy Council meetings)!



Bill who regularly accesses the minutes can confirm this but he should not waste his time on it.

That is up to Bill to decide. Regardless of whether he does or not, I have no doubt he will back my version of events.


As I stated earlier perception can be misleading.

Yeah, it sure can! If people only had your untruthful and distorted version of events to rely on, then they would have the wrong perception of events for sure!


As the committee knifed him if the back re the newsletter they could not have valued him too much when it comes to the crunch. They may be nice to his face.

The way things ended up with the Newsletter was disappointing, although some NSWCA Councillors (eg Trent Parker) were quite supportive of my efforts with the Newsletter. I believe that the root cause was due to "difficulties in communication" as a result of me not being on NSWCA Council rather than any "stbbing in the back" (while I am disappointed with the way things turned out with the Newsletter, I nonetheless have a high regard for the time, work and effort that NSWCA Council members do for the benefit of NSW chess - and I have made mention of this fact at various times). Overall, its probably for the best (for practical and other reasons) that the NSWCA Council has decided that Trent Parker should take over the role of Newsletter editor/collator. I wish the NSWCA well with upcoming editions of the Newsletter.


I will try and join you one day on committee and we can move mountains together. After Bill goes that is.

The NSWCA Council is better off without your "help"!

Garvinator
24-05-2005, 11:28 PM
Anyway, lets get to the TRUTH of this matter (which can be verified by Bill Gletsos and other 1993 NSWCA Councillors)!

sorry to nit pick Paul, but just trying to understand the situation, should this be 2003, not 1993.

firegoat7
24-05-2005, 11:32 PM
Peter, you are just making a fool out of yourself.
Man its the Bill Bot on auto pilot again...what has he done to our language?



I suspect that the reason the NSWCA now just automatically lend out chess equipment to Peter Hanna is because they want to avoid unneccessary hassles for themselves (and that they do NOT want to waste time with having Peter attend at his own invitation their busy Council meetings!



AC, a grassroots agitator, congrats AC :clap: keep up the good work. Involving yourself is to be celebrated. :clap: :clap: Democracy not Autocracy.

Cheers FG7

Paul S
24-05-2005, 11:34 PM
sorry to nit pick Paul, but just trying to understand the situation, should this be 2003, not 1993.

You are correct - I have fixed it up now!

antichrist
24-05-2005, 11:38 PM
You all could have gotten rid of me in 1 minute if that was the case. No debate went right around the table on the issue, not on my attendance there.

When I returned home that evening I received a message on my answering machine that one should not attend committee meetings, well too late mate, and as well of course members should be able to listen in quietly on committee meetings. In all other organisations one can as it may encourage them to get onto committee. It is a bad rule and should be changed otherwise you sound like the central committee of the communist party. And if you cared about informed members like you profess to you should have tried to change it while you were there.

Again, how could one so called unwanted person hold up a large committee for 35 minutes. I only spoke once briefly in that time if my memory is correct. You are distorting again.

firegoat7
24-05-2005, 11:48 PM
In all other organisations one can as it may encourage them to get onto committee. It is a bad rule and should be changed otherwise you sound like the central committee of the communist party. And if you cared about informed members like you profess to you should have tried to change it while you were there.


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Well stated Mr A

Cheers Fg7

Paul S
25-05-2005, 12:03 AM
PaulS
In your opening post you insulted everyone in case you don't know. And you have sworn the f... word a few times in the coffee lounge seeing that you challenged me to expose it. Don't say you are going to be like your hero Gletsos and hide behind the Coward's Castle of the coffee lounge as he did concerning Matt.

I have made around 700 posts on this BB.

About 100 posts have been on the Coffee Lounge, of which about 5 of them have had swearing. Peter, you FOOL, the Coffee Lounge is an unmoderated forum - refer tothe very frst post in that forum from Karthick!

As for the remaining 600 posts of mine, I have probably used bad language in TWO of them. 2 out of 600 - big deal, you wowser! So once in every 300 posts someone has got the better of my 1/8 Irish heritage and I lose my temper and swear! Is this really such a big deal? If anything it shows I am human!

Get a life, Peter! You really are a sad old man who just wants to try and bring everyone down to your level!


Concerning quoting Bill, he has been proven thick - but I suppose that is an improvement for you.

Actually I consider Bill to be highly intelligent (IMO the second highest IQ behingd Kevin Bonham on this BB). While Bill (like myself) has his flaws, he is FAR more intelligent than a fool like Peter Hanna!


So where are your quality posts? You and Matt are the only people I can remember swearing on the BB and yet you are criticising him. The hide of you -- hippocrite!

My posts have a lot more quality than yours! Mind you, just about anyone has better quality posts than your moronic efforts!

Oh, BTW, I wasn't aware that I had recently criticised Matt Sweeney for swearing - where did I say that?

I did criticise his BB though - and I stand by that criticism - not much has happened on his BB over the last few weeks - it has been rather dull and boring when I have looked at it.


As in my reply to TCN you were not constructive nor intelligent whilst on committee, you got voted down decisively for wasting time.

You were an UNINVITED guest for 35 minutes to the March 2003 NSWCA Committee meeting. You have NO IDEA about how the NSWCA Committee ran during 2003.

Now, my contribution on the 2003 NSWCA Council was FAR less than the efforts of others (eg Peter Cassettari, Norm Greenwood, Bill Gletsos etc). Nonetheless, I did some useful things (eg I was NSWCA contact person for about 6 months, did most of the work drafting the opinion survey, updated all the Sydney chess club details in the NSWCA chess clubs directory etc).

Now, Peter Hanna was on the NSWJCL council at around the same time. What was HIS legacy? Well, from what I have been told, this is his leagacy from one year on NSWJCL Council:
1) Contributed NOTHING of substance!
2) Attended only one NSWJCL Council meeting during the year, at which he promptly fell asleep!
3) As a result of his behaviour, some people would refuse to be on NSWJCL Council if Peter Hanna was on it!


You were destructive in your lies concerning myself and the Hokaoh Club and I am still waiting for a public apology. In fact I won't answer anymore of your BS until you do apologise.

I made no lies concerning you and the Hakoah club. Go have a read of my posts on this issue - you obviously either have not read them or you have not read them closely enough.

Therefore you get NO apology from me!


As stated earlier in past, present and future tense -- a lying nobody!

The only lying nobody is Peter Hanna!

Paul S
25-05-2005, 12:15 AM
This is an amazing claim, because at the time I was at Canterbury PaulS and myself never crossed words, never needed to.

That is not true and you know it.

In fact I crossed words with you too often for my liking.



His big high was for some stupid reason insisting on making a speech at the SEC a few years go. We had the hall full and Paul is the most embarrassing pubic speaker one could come across. I just hid my face in my hands. And he says he had to put up with me.

I am not the best public speaker (but I am by no means the worst). As I recall I was more or less drafted into that role (I prefer to let others do the public speaking if at all possible).


I went there a few years ago giving out pamphlets and playing games and he did not open his mouth in spite of all of his bravado on the BB.

That was in 2003 when you handed out pamphlets the week before the SEC promoting it. Like many people in Sydney chess, I chose to take "the easy option" and avoid you rather than run the risk of getting involved in stupid arguments and conversation with you. Besides, I had enough to deal with that night - from memory I had to organise the first round of the Canterbury Club Championship that night.


Another bad memory of him is his swearing after I would beat him a few times. And he says he had to put up with me???

I can't recall swearing after losing a game against you. I find it amazing that the only times you have bought up this "issue" is several years AFTER the event! I occasionally do swear if I make a stupid blunder - maybe that is what the case was. Anyway, my opponents over the years can attest that (while nobody likes to lose!) I am a fairly gracious when I lose a game.

Bill Gletsos
25-05-2005, 12:16 AM
The only contribution I saw from PaulS when he was on Committee was when I went along to borrow some chess equipment. Something got into his head that he did not want to lend it and initiated debate. Well on a very busy agenda-wise night he managed to waste about 35 precious minutes of their time and lost the vote very decisively. It should not even have been debated.Actually my recollection was that it lasted nowhere near 35 minutes. It was considerably less.
As Paul notes you had just invited yourself to the Council meeting and we were aware you were just going to turn up, an action the council did not approve of. Therfore we moved you to the first item of the agenda because the Council wanted you out of the way so we could get on with our planned business. There had been considerable controversy with regards the SEC and as such Paul had every right to express his opinion regarding this and the loaning of NSWCA equipment to you.

They have now woken up to themselves and just hire/lend it out automaticallyIncorrect. There is nothing automatic about it. Every year we discuss if we are going to lend you the equipemnt.

As the committee knifed him if the back re the newsletter they could not have valued him too much when it comes to the crunch.Again incorrect. If we were trying to kill of the newsletter we would not have agreed to continue publishing it.

Bill Gletsos
25-05-2005, 12:24 AM
Man its the Bill Bot on auto pilot again...what has he done to our language?Its good to see you are as useless as ever.

AC, a grassroots agitator, congrats AC :clap: keep up the good work. Involving yourself is to be celebrated. :clap: :clap: Democracy not Autocracy.Just because I'm a member of the NRMA or MBF etc does not mean I can just waltz in and attend a board meeting. It is no different with NSWCA Council meetings and the NSWCA Contitution gives members no such right.

Bill Gletsos
25-05-2005, 12:26 AM
When I returned home that evening I received a message on my answering machine that one should not attend committee meetings, well too late mate, and as well of course members should be able to listen in quietly on committee meetings. In all other organisations one can as it may encourage them to get onto committee.What rubbish. I suggest you try that at the next NRMA board meeting.

antichrist
25-05-2005, 12:28 AM
FRom PaulS
Now, Peter Hanna was on the NSWJCL council at around the same time. What was HIS legacy? Well, from what I have been told, this is his leagacy from one year on NSWJCL Council:
1) Contributed NOTHING of substance!
2) Attended only one NSWJCL Council meeting during the year, at which he promptly fell asleep!
3) As a result of his behaviour, some people would refuse to be on NSWJCL Council if Peter Hanna was on it!
_______________________________________
I only wish this was correct as I travelled right across Sydney a number of times to attend meetings.

Find out what time their meetings finished because about 11pm or later I used to go home, having to go across Sydney for approx 1.5 hours, waiting for a number of trains and walking to and from stations as well. I had a job I had to get up real early for as well, 7.00am start and it was about 1 hour from my home.

So you work it out why I stopped attending, getting about 4 hours sleep after a very heavy day's work, having to front the next day for the same and never been asked on committee to get involved. I admit they were too busy organising the big national juniors.

But as Richard told me before going on committee, that I was already doing a lot more work than some committee members were doing, as was helping out at their big comps. I still do it when possible even though I am not on committee.

If they did not like my ways I also did not like them always commencing their meetings quite late. Each time I far as I can rememeber I was the only one ready on time. But I didn't publicly criticise because they do work hard, but someone there is obviously feeding wrong info. or you are making up lies again.

There is a rule in the ALP, that any business carried out after 10.30pm is not valid and does not hold. This should have been the case there also. Maybe they finished 1 in the morning or later???

antichrist
25-05-2005, 12:33 AM
And what I was silently upset about was that I was never offered a cup of tea or coffee and bickie. They are un-Australian. Even at the Catholic rosary at my mother's home there would be tea and bickies.

antichrist
25-05-2005, 12:42 AM
[QUOTE=Bill Gletsos]Actually my recollection was that it lasted nowhere near 35 minutes. It was considerably less.
A/C
You ask the other committee members how long it took.

BG
As Paul notes you had just invited yourself to the Council meeting and we were aware you were just going to turn up, an action the council did not approve of. Therfore we moved you to the first item of the agenda because the Council wanted you out of the way so we could get on with our planned business. There had been considerable controversy with regards the SEC and as such Paul had every right to express his opinion regarding this and the loaning of NSWCA equipment to you.

A/C
Officially there was no controversy at all, only huff and puff on the BB. As far as I know there was never any motion brought up at NSWCA so how much controversy could there have been!

BG
Incorrect. There is nothing automatic about it. Every year we discuss if we are going to lend you the equipemnt.

A/C
Do you mean that after wasting 35 minutes a couple of years ago you mob go through the same routine every year. Don't you have anything better to do. I don't believe it. Discuss purchasing a chess centre instead.

Bill Gletsos
25-05-2005, 12:49 AM
You ask the other committee members how long it took.There is no need as I have an excellent memory.

Officially there was no controversy at all, only huff and puff on the BB. As far as I know there was never any motion brought up at NSWCA so how much controversy could there have been!Incorrect. The SEC clashing with the Doeberl Cup had been discussed in previous years at Council meetings prior to Paul S being on council.

Do you mean that after wasting 35 minutes a couple of years ago you mob go through the same routine every year. Don't you have anything better to do. I don't believe it.No You idiot. It isnt an automatic given that just because you get the equipment one year that you will automatically get it the next year.


Now while you are at it why dont you try and show some real brains and try and get quoting right on this board. After all its not like you are a novice poster.

antichrist
25-05-2005, 01:06 AM
There is no need as I have an excellent memory.

A/C: still ask around as I recall we looked at our watches and were shocked.

BG
Incorrect. The SEC clashing with the Doeberl Cup had been discussed in previous years at Council meetings prior to Paul S being on council.

A/C
Well then why was it discussed again on the night I was there? But looking back I did achieve a lot with the SEC in that now other states are also taking the inititive and also doing their own comps. without much controversy. I want to do exactly the same in another organisation, maybe next year when I will not be so busy.

BG
No You idiot. It isnt an automatic given that just because you get the equipment one year that you will automatically get it the next year.

A/C
But committee has already established a policy on the where and what nots. Surely they are not going to also debate it over and over every time A/C rings up.

BG
Now while you are at it why dont you try and show some real brains and try and get quoting right on this board. After all its not like you are a novice poster.

A/C
Fancy you criticising my quoting, you deliberately you left out the crack in the tail of the whip. Read the full para again down below. Or is my method just superior.

A/C (repost)
Do you mean that after wasting 35 minutes a couple of years ago you mob go through the same routine every year. Don't you have anything better to do. I don't believe it. Discuss purchasing a chess centre instead.

antichrist
25-05-2005, 01:07 AM
Thanks for keeping me awake till "my" serial comes on.

Bill Gletsos
25-05-2005, 01:16 AM
A/C
Fancy you criticising my quoting, you deliberately you left out the crack in the tail of the whip. Read the full para again down below. Or is my method just superior.Your method is stupid, like you.
I left it out because not only was it irrelevant to the current discussion, but as was reported to the NSWCA AGM a chess centre was not financially viable at this time. Nothing has changed in the mean time for the NSWCA Council to revisit the issue.

antichrist
25-05-2005, 01:23 AM
Your method is stupid, like you.
I left it out because not only was it irrelevant to the current discussion, but as was reported to the NSWCA AGM a chess centre was not financially viable at this time. Nothing has changed in the mean time for the NSWCA Council to revisit the issue.

You never heard one third the story on the chess centre so how would you know if it was feasible at that time. And you may never hear the other 2/3. Certain times and circumstances can offer unique opportunities and that is what NSWCA did not know and did not seem interesting in knowing so I did not waste my precious time with them.

Bill Gletsos
25-05-2005, 01:29 AM
You never heard one third the story on the chess centre so how would you know if it was feasible at that time. And you may never hear the other 2/3. Certain times and circumstances can offer unique opportunities and that is what NSWCA did not know and did not seem interesting in knowing so I did not waste my precious time with them.You were all words and no action.
You were asked at the 2002 NSWCA AGM the following: "The Chairman invited Peter Hanna to present a proposal and budget to Council."
You didnt decline this invitation at the time, however you never did anything about it. This was noted in the minutes of the 2003 NSWCA AGM.

antichrist
25-05-2005, 01:37 AM
WE have donw this trail before so good night.

But remember one thing, I led other people into excellent real estate investments at this time and I had an excellent building "maybe" lined up for the NSWCA which would also have been an absolute bargain. And I had a "maybe" terrific way of funding it.

I won't broadcast it but can discuss in person one day if you are in the mood.

Bill Gletsos
25-05-2005, 01:40 AM
WE have donw this trail before so good night.

But remember one thing, I led other people into excellent real estate investments at this time and I had an excellent building "maybe" lined up for the NSWCA which would also have been an absolute bargain. And I had a "maybe" terrific way of funding it.Unfortunately we only have your word for it. You never discussed it with anyone on Council.

I won't broadcast it but can discuss in person one day if you are in the mood.Your lack of broadcasting it last time at least to Council no doubt contributed to nothing being done.

Duff McKagan
25-05-2005, 01:48 AM
Is it just me or is there something a highly distasteful about discussing IQs. eg
Actually I consider Bill to be highly intelligent (IMO the second highest IQ behingd Kevin Bonham on this BB). While Bill (like myself) has his flaws, he is FAR more intelligent than a fool like Peter Hanna!

Perhaps a discussion about the EQ of some prolific posters might not be so flattering. Is it just me who sees a pattern emerging over time, of BB fights with the NSWCA President at the centre every time? :hmm:


There is a bunch of BB rules just been posted by Kevin Bonham. May be being a toxic poster should be a banning offence too. May be Bill Gletsos should be sent to UCJ for 12 months. :uhoh:

Cheers and play nice :D

PS Paul Sike is a nice guy in person and so is Peter Hanna and I wish they would cut it out.

PPS Bill, stay out of other peoples nonsence because it only makes the fight worse. :rolleyes:

Kevin Bonham
25-05-2005, 03:25 AM
Is it just me or is there something a highly distasteful about discussing IQs. eg

Actually I'd rather avoid it myself, mainly because there is no IQ level that seems to prevent some people holding it from debating poorly and generally making fools of themselves in public. On another BB I just dealt with someone who was gloating (I believe truthfully) about his former MENSA membership, but I ripped his silly arguments to shreds without any real effort and felt much as if I was arguing with any other ineffectual waffler. So I'm not sure how easy it is to pick IQ from online debating ability. Some people who debate stupidly and appear to be idiots based on their online efforts may still actually be very bright (and IQ is a contentious measure of "intelligence" anyway.)


Perhaps a discussion about the EQ of some prolific posters might not be so flattering. Is it just me who sees a pattern emerging over time, of BB fights with the NSWCA President at the centre every time? :hmm:

I'm not sure you understand what EQ (or EI) supposedly consists of. It is not explicitly a measure of one's ability to be a hippy to all who one encounters. It is a measure of abilities to identify and understand emotions, to control and alter emotions, to have constructive emotions towards a task, and to comprehend and influence the emotions of others.

It is also a very recent and somewhat faddish concept that has not, so far as I'm aware, been proven to correlate to anything much except itself, and that does sound decidedly value-laden. However I don't know all that much about it so would welcome further comments from anyone who is qualified to give them.


There is a bunch of BB rules just been posted by Kevin Bonham.

This simply reflects existing standards, there is nothing new in there.


May be being a toxic poster should be a banning offence too.

That has been discussed to death before - the concept is hopelessly subjective and would arguably result in many bannings and the deletion of the post I am now replying to. :P


PPS Bill, stay out of other peoples nonsence because it only makes the fight worse. :rolleyes:

Bill sees it as relevant to intervene where the NSWCA is attacked. I don't think this is unreasonable.

antichrist
25-05-2005, 07:43 AM
Unfortunately we only have your word for it. You never discussed it with anyone on Council.
Your lack of broadcasting it last time at least to Council no doubt contributed to nothing being done.

I was going to pull off the old Lebo Muslim trick. I would donate $10,000 towards the building and get about another 50 to 100 people to do likewise. The form of the donation or loan could be flexible, with some it could be a staight out donation, and others a perpetual loan or a fifty-year loan interest free. Any combination.

I had put it to P. Parr at the time, now for the $10,000 question: would you and PaulS have contributed your $10,000. You are not going to be seen to be outdone by A/C are you. And all those people I was supposed to have upset on all those committees, they are not going to be seen to be out done by the A/C are they? The money would have come in pouring in. Or otherwise they would have seen to be weak. For donations of , for example, $50,000 one could have a room named after them. For say a much bigger amount even the building named after them.

I know an atheist mob who did this, and though fitting in a phone box they own a premises worth about 3/4 million bucks. They rent the upstairs out which pays for the outgoings of the association plus they accumulate thousands over the long term.


At that time I was negiotating with a person who had the perfect building. I was busting to show Bob Keast but we never got around to it.

That site now has been reclassified under those home unit rules close to the station and can fit about 40-50 home units. It is worth a few million now at least.

You don't have only my word for it on doing that investment mentioned earlier. I and a few other people have documents, tax returns, bank statements, valuations etc to prove it. We were getting a whopping 12% when we went in, then had the biggest rise in all Sydney according to those lists of suburbs etc. No bulls...... their price went up 300%. AND BEFORE GOING IN EVERYBODY SAID I WAS MAD. JUST AS I WANTED TO INVEST IN LEBOLAND WHILST THE CIVIL WAR WAS GOING ON AND EVERYBODY SAID I WAS MAD. Now they are pulling their hair out that they did not follow my advice. The price of buildings went up hundreds of percent and currency went up a few times over as well. Well if it had gone from about 2:1$US down to about 2000:1$US, of course there is only one way it is going to go - AND THAT IS UP UP UP. Sometimes I can see the obvious which others, maybe more intelligent than myself, don't even think of. So PaulS and maybe yourself should not judge people based on perceived intelligence. I have made a handful of people quite richer than they ever would have been and I will always be their messiah.

So if you like I will put on my long list for free financial advice, but you must have the guts to jump in even when you think I am mad. The ones who followed me are now retiring early and the ones who never are squirming, spewing and kicking themselves -- and slaving away at jobs which they may hate.

And you must shout me to many free lunches at top restaurants like the others do in appreciation. But I am a tee-totaller so don't worry, just the grub is enough.

ursogr8
25-05-2005, 08:15 AM
^^
In the share -market we call them counter-cyclicalists (not sure of spelling...Baz?...kegless?).
Anyhow, you have lunch with the official investment analysts from the large broking houses; you listen to their gossip on what to buy_sell; and then you sell_buy.
Can work a treat.


Sounds like a/c uses a similar strategem.

starter

antichrist
25-05-2005, 08:55 AM
^^
In the share -market we call them counter-cyclicalists (not sure of spelling...Baz?...kegless?).
Anyhow, you have lunch with the official investment analysts from the large broking houses; you listen to their gossip on what to buy_sell; and then you sell_buy.
Can work a treat.


Sounds like a/c uses a similar strategem.

starter

No not really, I just do my own thing, I don't consult anyone or listen to anyone to counter. People around me just try to caution me, that is how I know what the prevailing position is.

When I think of it, this method would be the last place a conservative NSWCA would be likely to jump in. One can't do a in-depth financial report on one's intuition. And my character is just to explain by one sentence and if they can't understand or want to query it I am not interested in discussing anymore. Because they cannot see what I can see, it is as simple as that. I did the same thirty years ago and got 300% also in three years. And against all professional advice. I bought six properties would you believe, and I was only on a wage. My mother used to accuse me of being the patron saint of .........

This is why I don't respect all the previous and current chess admininstrators in NSW. If they would have had one Lebo in there they would have had their premises 100 years ago.

Duff McKagan
25-05-2005, 09:54 AM
So I'm not sure how easy it is to pick IQ from online debating ability.
Debating ability is not a good place to look for "IQ" because all the logic and discipline required is so easily lost when people become emotional about their side of the argument.


Some people who debate stupidly and appear to be idiots based on their online efforts may still actually be very bright (and IQ is a contentious measure of "intelligence" anyway.)


Yes, agreed IQ measurements are contentious but these kinds of measurements are the only yardsticks we have. If your ruler is made of elastic you treat the measurements as rubbery :doh:



I'm not sure you understand what EQ (or EI) supposedly consists of. It is not explicitly a measure of one's ability to be a hippy to all who one encounters. It is a measure of abilities to identify and understand emotions, to control and alter emotions, to have constructive emotions towards a task, and to comprehend and influence the emotions of others.

My grandma has already taught me how it suck eggs :hand:

Someone with a good EIQ "enjoys quiet time to be alone in thought, understands his own motives and reasons for doing things, likes to daydream about new ideas and explore his own feelings and thoughts. is reflective, thoughtful, likes to be with smart people, good with others, can mediate arguments, knows what to do to connect with someone else, sensitive to others, likes contact with people, teams, committees, social events."


It is also a very recent and somewhat faddish

Nope. It has been around forever. It just needed someone to put a label on it. Therefore, while the term EQ might be a few decades old (faddish? No) these people have been around forever and we (still) say they "good with people". Try Thorndike from the 1920's.


concept that has not, so far as I'm aware, been proven to correlate to anything much except itself,

Is that a problem for you? Last time I checked, the concept of criminality most closely correlates with breaking the law. EQ is what it is. However, I recall read ing that there is a correlation with being more effective in high-pressure employment, and can "get over it" at will.



and that does sound decidedly value-laden.

There is nothing wrong in placing a value on being able to "get along with people" and your self.


That has been discussed to death before - the concept is hopelessly subjective and would arguably result in many bannings and the deletion of the post I am now replying to. :P

Sure would be subjective !! :lol: What about a negative reputtation score. The positive reputation seems OK but it isnt balanced with any negative tick boxes. Just a thought.


Bill sees it as relevant to intervene where the NSWCA is attacked. I don't think this is unreasonable.

But it is the way he intervenes :cool:


cheers

firegoat7
25-05-2005, 11:09 AM
Its good to see you are as useless as ever.
positive?


Just because I'm a member of the NRMA or MBF etc does not mean I can just waltz in and attend a board meeting. It is no different with NSWCA Council meetings and the NSWCA Contitution gives members no such right.
Autocrat!

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
25-05-2005, 11:15 AM
PPS Bill, stay out of other peoples nonsence because it only makes the fight worse. :rolleyes:If you look at this thread I did not comment until A/C referred to what happended at a NSWCA Council meeting and decisions regarding the SEC. I therefore responded in post #19 as I was actually at those meetings.

firegoat7
25-05-2005, 11:22 AM
Actually I'd rather avoid it myself, mainly because there is no IQ level that seems to prevent some people holding it from debating poorly and generally making fools of themselves in public. On another BB I just dealt with someone who was gloating (I believe truthfully) about his former MENSA membership, but I ripped his silly arguments to shreds without any real effort and felt much as if I was arguing with any other ineffectual waffler. So I'm not sure how easy it is to pick IQ from online debating ability. Some people who debate stupidly and appear to be idiots based on their online efforts may still actually be very bright (and IQ is a contentious measure of "intelligence" anyway.)

flagellation




I'm not sure you understand what EQ (or EI) supposedly consists of. It is not explicitly a measure of one's ability to be a hippy to all who one encounters. It is a measure of abilities to identify and understand emotions, to control and alter emotions, to have constructive emotions towards a task, and to comprehend and influence the emotions of others.



It is also a very recent and somewhat faddish concept that has not, so far as I'm aware, been proven to correlate to anything much except itself, and that does sound decidedly value-laden. However I don't know all that much about it so would welcome further comments from anyone who is qualified to give them.

incongruity




This simply reflects existing standards, there is nothing new in there.

recidivism

firegoat7
25-05-2005, 11:24 AM
I was going to pull off the old Lebo Muslim trick. I would donate $10,000 towards the building and get about another 50 to 100 people to do likewise. The form of the donation or loan could be flexible, with some it could be a staight out donation, and others a perpetual loan or a fifty-year loan interest free. Any combination.



Sensible

Cheers Fg7

antichrist
25-05-2005, 11:25 AM
Bill, I have re-ignited chess centre debate to NSW Chess centre thread in Aust Chess

Bill Gletsos
25-05-2005, 11:29 AM
Autocrat!No practical.
Virtually all committee meetings/board meetings are open only to the commiteee/board members.
However if you disdagree with such practices then take it up with the VIC Government and have them change the rules with regards Incorporated bodies so that committee meetings must be open to all members. I would assess your chances of success at somewhere between none and buckleys.

antichrist
25-05-2005, 11:33 AM
Constitutions in NSW voluntarily organisations usually state that visitors may remain with the permission of the chairman or the meeting. I would imagine the NSWCA constitution also has this provision. It would be crazy if it never. It would mean that all the office bearers that night I was there were not upholding the constitution???!!!

Change the constitution so that it does reflect this intention I have stated above.

Bill Gletsos
25-05-2005, 11:35 AM
I was going to pull off the old Lebo Muslim trick. I would donate $10,000 towards the building and get about another 50 to 100 people to do likewise. The form of the donation or loan could be flexible, with some it could be a staight out donation, and others a perpetual loan or a fifty-year loan interest free. Any combination.I remember Peter Parr announcing this sort of idea (I think the amount was much less than $10,000) with regards a chess centre back in his Chess in Australia/Australian Chess Magazine and as I understand it he never got very many takers.

antichrist
25-05-2005, 11:48 AM
Have replied in NSWCA chess centre thread.

firegoat7
25-05-2005, 11:52 AM
No practical.
Virtually all committee meetings/board meetings are open only to the commiteee/board members.
However if you disdagree with such practices then take it up with the VIC Government and have them change the rules with regards Incorporated bodies so that committee meetings must be open to all members. I would assess your chances of success at somewhere between none and buckleys.
nonsense

Cheers Fg7

antichrist
25-05-2005, 11:57 AM
Bill, concerning my last post on previous page re changing the constitution of NSWCA. What clause, seb-section etc would it involve as I want to frame a motion accordingly?

Kevin Bonham
26-05-2005, 06:32 PM
Debating ability is not a good place to look for "IQ" because all the logic and discipline required is so easily lost when people become emotional about their side of the argument.

And if some bright people lose control of their emotions to the point that they cannot debate properly, while others do not, what does that say about their respective "emotional intelligences"? I think you're shooting your own case in the foot here and would be better off just agreeing with me that debating ability is just one limited facet of intelligence.


Someone with a good EIQ "enjoys quiet time to be alone in thought, understands his own motives and reasons for doing things, likes to daydream about new ideas and explore his own feelings and thoughts. is reflective, thoughtful, likes to be with smart people, good with others, can mediate arguments, knows what to do to connect with someone else, sensitive to others, likes contact with people, teams, committees, social events."

It would be very hard to tell whether anyone here fitted those categories on the basis of their BB scrawlings. For instance, just because someone engages in flamewars doesn't mean they cannot mediate arguments when they feel inclined to do so.


Nope. It has been around forever. It just needed someone to put a label on it. Therefore, while the term EQ might be a few decades old (faddish? No) these people have been around forever and we (still) say they "good with people". Try Thorndike from the 1920's.

What I mean is that the formalised measurement of it is recent thing so I would assume that the nuts and bolts of what you include and what you don't are still to be completely sorted out.


Is that a problem for you? Last time I checked, the concept of criminality most closely correlates with breaking the law. EQ is what it is. However, I recall read ing that there is a correlation with being more effective in high-pressure employment, and can "get over it" at will.

One would hope for a lot more since IQ, for all its faults, corellates with an enormous list of attributes commonly considered desirable. For instance, I'd like to know if there is a causative corellation between emotional intelligence and relationship success. Surely this would be not too hard to establish (or at least hint at?) if EI was all it was cracked up to be?


There is nothing wrong in placing a value on being able to "get along with people" and your self.

That's true. But again whether a person is able to do these things when they want to is a different issue from whether they do them all the time, just as having a 160 IQ doesn't preclude lying around drunk watching the footy. I think you're jumping to the conclusion that because Bill argues with lots of people here means he can't relate to someone he disagrees with any other way.


Sure would be subjective !! :lol: What about a negative reputtation score. The positive reputation seems OK but it isnt balanced with any negative tick boxes. Just a thought.

We had negative rep boxes and in the teething stages some members seemed to be getting worse reps than they deserved (which in turn stopped them from giving good reps to other members - I suspect there are some spiralling issues in the maths of the reputation system). Belthesar publicly threatened to leave the board if they were not removed. Positive reps only, hippy as they are, seem to be well received and I think the emotionally intelligent thing to do is leave it like that - however dubious it may be from the point of scientific measurement of reputation. :P


But it is the way he intervenes :cool:

Is that entirely fair though? There have been a number of cases where Bill's response has been a lot more restrained than the outburst provoking it.

Kevin Bonham
26-05-2005, 06:37 PM
flagellation

ambiguous.


incongruity

uncontextual.


recidivism

theory.

(I've played this game before, ran across a forum troll called Wordy whose posts were all exactly one word long. Amusing for five minutes or so, but sorry firegoat, not a TN.)

Rhubarb
27-05-2005, 01:07 AM
... having a 160 IQ doesn't preclude lying around drunk watching the footyActually, my remote's batteries are flat at the moment so I have to get up occasionally.

Duff McKagan
27-05-2005, 08:42 AM
Actually, my remote's batteries are flat at the moment so I have to get up occasionally.

Tell your genius remote that if it wants to juice up, electrons are better than ethanol.

Rhubarb
27-05-2005, 09:35 AM
Tell your genius remote that if it wants to juice up, electrons are better than ethanol.You got me there! You're so clever!

Duff McKagan
27-05-2005, 01:45 PM
And if some bright people lose control of their emotions to the point that they cannot debate properly, while others do not, what does that say about their respective "emotional intelligences"?

That IQ and EQ are different parts of the same intellect. What else ……… geez.


I think you're shooting your own case in the foot here and would be better off just agreeing with me that debating ability is just one limited facet of intelligence. "?

First, I wasn’t aware that I had a “case” or that I was flogging one.

Second, I don’t think you ever said that debating was "just one limited facet." You did say "So I'm not sure how easy it is to pick IQ from online debating ability." I disagree because IQ is there, between the lines of emotional fireworks. Vocab, novel slants, quirkiness, all point to IQ submerged beneath the rant and rave. Of course, an obtuse wit similarly manifests.



It would be very hard to tell whether anyone here fitted those categories on the basis of their BB scrawlings. For instance, just because someone engages in flamewars doesn't mean they cannot mediate arguments when they feel inclined to do so.



If a person has the capacity to consciously switch from flame to diplomacy “when they feel inclined to do so,” it suggests a knowledge of internal motivations and a playful free spirit. This person would be exhibiting strong evidence of high EQ.

A person who regularly slips unconsciously from diplomat to meany shows little awareness of self, or of others. This person would be exhibiting evidence ofa low EQ. Perhaps an indicator of a boarderline personality disorder.

starter has genius EQ and rarely gets as far as flaming. BG explodes at the slightest provocation without knowing he is doing it or the damage he is doing to the image of chess administrators as a group.




What I mean is that the formalised measurement of it is recent thing so I would assume that the nuts and bolts of what you include and what you don't are still to be completely sorted out.



So what, Kevin. I dont know of mmuch that is “completely sorted out.” But plenty of psychology proves useful as a predictive tool. :hand:




One would hope for a lot more since IQ, for all its faults, corellates with an enormous list of attributes commonly considered desirable. For instance, I'd like to know if there is a causative corellation between emotional intelligence and relationship success. Surely this would be not too hard to establish (or at least hint at?) if EI was all it was cracked up to be?


Look it up. It is all there. Try marriage / predict* / personality :rolleyes:



… just as having a 160 IQ doesn't preclude lying around drunk watching the footy.

but being drunk does preclude a 160 IQ :owned: ...... In fact it often mandates a 40 IQ.



I think you're jumping to the conclusion that because Bill argues with lots of people here means he can't relate to someone he disagrees with any other way.



I am not “jumping” to a conclusion at all , I am concluding a pattern from a very large body of available longitudinal evidence. Deny it at your perril.




We had negative rep boxes and in the teething stages some members seemed to be getting worse reps than they deserved (which in turn stopped them from giving good reps to other members - I suspect there are some spiralling issues in the maths of the reputation system). Belthesar publicly threatened to leave the board if they were not removed. Positive reps only, hippy as they are, seem to be well received and I think the emotionally intelligent thing to do is leave it like that - however dubious it may be from the point of scientific measurement of reputation. :P



The rep boxes are divisive. They are:
> open to manipulation and
>> create a hierar chy which prejudices the contributions from some posters.




There have been a number of cases where Bill's response has been a lot more restrained than the outburst provoking it.

Once swallowed pride does not a sumo make. :D (with apologies to Aristotle)



Look Kevin, I am not going to keep on with this Bill thing, it isnt helpful. I am sure he understands how badly he behhaves from time to time. But we forgive him because we hope that the same forgiveness will be given to us if or when we step out of line on a regular basis. Unfortunately there is a demonstrable double standard opperating, that sits like the proverbial elephant in the livingroom. :whistle:

Anyways, that is enough from me. I am not going to get into a flamewar over this. You just think about it all. :cool:

Cheers
:D

Kevin Bonham
27-05-2005, 07:38 PM
That IQ and EQ are different parts of the same intellect. What else ……… geez.

I must have been too subtle. One of the differences between Bill and some of his regular adversaries is that he doesn't go to emotional pieces under fire but frequently responds with the dry facts, unless the opponent is a habitual antagonist. This would seem to count against your attempts to claim that Bill is not emotionally intelligent.


First, I wasn’t aware that I had a “case” or that I was flogging one.

See above.


Second, I don’t think you ever said that debating was "just one limited facet."

You're right, I didn't.


You did say "So I'm not sure how easy it is to pick IQ from online debating ability." I disagree because IQ is there, between the lines of emotional fireworks. Vocab, novel slants, quirkiness, all point to IQ submerged beneath the rant and rave. Of course, an obtuse wit similarly manifests.

A matter of degree. Good chessplayers who post on BBs would presumably have fairly high IQs on average. What I doubt is that you (or anyone else) could adequately pick the very bright from the fairly bright on the basis of BB postings - say could you pick the 120s from the 140s?


If a person has the capacity to consciously switch from flame to diplomacy “when they feel inclined to do so,” it suggests a knowledge of internal motivations and a playful free spirit. This person would be exhibiting strong evidence of high EQ.

This is what I suspected, and would again undermine an attempt to claim that a persistent flamer lacked emotional intelligence for that reason alone - because you have to know their motivations to say that, or see examples of them attempting to smooth things over but failing.


A person who regularly slips unconsciously from diplomat to meany shows little awareness of self, or of others. This person would be exhibiting evidence ofa low EQ. Perhaps an indicator of a boarderline personality disorder.

The bit you can't possibly have evidence of unless they say so is in bold. A person could slip unconsciously, responsively or as part of a premeditated strategy.


starter has genius EQ and rarely gets as far as flaming.

starter is very good at staying out of unwanted fights. However I've also fairly often seen him get flamed after apparently failing to anticipate how a comment he has made will be read.


BG explodes at the slightest provocation without knowing he is doing it

Not my impression.


So what, Kevin. I dont know of mmuch that is “completely sorted out.” But plenty of psychology proves useful as a predictive tool. :hand:

Exactly one of the points at hand.


Look it up. It is all there. Try marriage / predict* / personality :rolleyes:

Your hobbyhorse, you bring the bacon. :P


but being drunk does preclude a 160 IQ :owned:

I can vouch otherwise. (no, not me).


I am not “jumping” to a conclusion at all , I am concluding a pattern from a very large body of available longitudinal evidence. Deny it at your perril.

I deny that your case is convincing.


The rep boxes are divisive.

That being the first we've heard of it since bringing them back would rather tend to suggest otherwise.


They are:
> open to manipulation and
>> create a hierar chy which prejudices the contributions from some posters.

Don't take them too seriously then. I don't think anyone else does. However they may play some useful role in encouraging people to make the effort to make the odd good post now and then.


Look Kevin, I am not going to keep on with this Bill thing, it isnt helpful.

Agreed but for entirely different reasons - namely that you don't appear to be able to make it stick.

Lucena
27-05-2005, 08:13 PM
It is also a very recent and somewhat faddish concept that has not, so far as I'm aware, been proven to correlate to anything much except itself, and that does sound decidedly value-laden. However I don't know all that much about it so would welcome further comments from anyone who is qualified to give them.


EQ was discussed in one of my psych lectures some years ago. The lecturer was saying it has some intrinsic usefulness but it is not so useful in the form in which the concept has been popularly disseminated, and he said not to believe Goleman, who wasn't the first to come up with the idea anyway.

Lucena
27-05-2005, 08:15 PM
^^
In the share -market we call them counter-cyclicalists (not sure of spelling...Baz?...kegless?).
Anyhow, you have lunch with the official investment analysts from the large broking houses; you listen to their gossip on what to buy_sell; and then you sell_buy.
Can work a treat.


Sounds like a/c uses a similar strategem.

starter

My finance textbook calls them "contrarians".

antichrist
28-05-2005, 12:06 PM
My finance textbook calls them "contrarians".

I call myself prophetic, first cousin of pathetic.

GC, if only I was not absolutely too flat out a few years back to take on NSWCA re chess centre I may have been a hero - walking on water.

If not flat out I would not have let their demeanor put me off.