PDA

View Full Version : free sweeney campaign



firegoat7
02-06-2005, 12:14 AM
Hello everyone,

Its time to end this injustice.

Let's get the campaign going. Free Matt!

Don't make him jump the seawall fence like the orca willy.
Don't leave him in prison like Nelson Mandela, so that somebody else can get at his wife.
Don't leave him in a cell with Schappelle whatshername smoking some gunja.
Don't send him to the middle of Australia without access to human rights groups.

Set him free, set the date.

Cheers Fg7

antichrist
02-06-2005, 02:24 AM
Some disasters can be blessings in disguise. With that tsunami hitting UCJ and wiping all of Matt's swearing and denigration off the face of the earth, starting from today if he can keep it clean over there for say 2 months let him back in with P plates

Bill Gletsos
02-06-2005, 09:11 AM
Hello everyone,

Its time to end this injustice.There was no injustice.
He is a continual re-offender.
The fool got himself banned for using foul & vulgar language. Based on the language on his own board he has shown no signs of reforming.
He then deliberately circumvented the ban by usinf false accounts.
Since then he has deliberately Spammed the mmebers of this baord on at least 2 occasions.

Let's get the campaign going. Free Matt!

Don't make him jump the seawall fence like the orca willy.
Don't leave him in prison like Nelson Mandela, so that somebody else can get at his wife.
Don't leave him in a cell with Schappelle whatshername smoking some gunja.
Don't send him to the middle of Australia without access to human rights groups.Rambling rubbish.


Set him free, set the date.You still dont get it.
Internet bulletin baords are not democratic. They are run by the admin(owner) & the moderators.
The admin/mods determine who/when and for how long someone gets banned, not the likes of you and me.

Thunderspirit
02-06-2005, 09:18 AM
I like Matt but his posts here were innappropriate. I supprt the continuation of his ban.

firegoat7
02-06-2005, 09:40 AM
Hello,

Thanks people, Im just ticking the names off in case the revolution occurs.
AC u can move to the left side of the room thank you, Bill Bot and Lee you can move to the right. Remember hard work never killed anybody. :eek:
Cheers Fg7

ursogr8
02-06-2005, 09:57 AM
Hello,

Thanks people, Im just ticking the names off in case the revolution occurs.
AC u can move to the left side of the room thank you, Bill Bot and Lee you can move to the right. Remember hard work never killed anybody. :eek:
Cheers Fg7


No, no, no, no!
fg7
You misread Bill's gruffness.
He just said he was not empowered to influence the date. Nothing more.
Just wait aminute and he will clip Lee across the ears, as he clipped you, for thinking you (and Lee) could influence the date.

hi btw.

regards
starter

eclectic
02-06-2005, 11:33 AM
if a reconciliation is perhaps long overdue then it is up to karthick and matt to talk directly and make it happen

eclectic

Spiny Norman
02-06-2005, 11:43 AM
Its time to end this injustice. Let's get the campaign going. Free Matt!

Unfortunately he has shown himself on repeated occasions to be incapable of observing our community's standards. There's no injustice to get all worked up about. Matt's made his own bed, he's got to lie in it. I've always gotten along very well with him, so as far as I am concerned he's more than welcome back here any time once he ceases to disqualify himself. Then again, I have little say in the matter as I am neither a MOD nor the ADMIN.

Bill Gletsos
02-06-2005, 11:48 AM
Some disasters can be blessings in disguise. With that tsunami hitting UCJ and wiping all of Matt's swearing and denigration off the face of the earth, starting from today if he can keep it clean over there for say 2 months let him back in with P platesI would expect the old content of his board will be back once it is recovered from backups by his board provider. Recent data may be missing if they dont have backups just prior to the hacker attacking the board providers servers.

antichrist
02-06-2005, 01:24 PM
I would expect the old content of his board will be back once it is recovered from backups by his board provider. Recent data may be missing if they dont have backups just prior to the hacker attacking the board providers servers.

My posts there are still the only ones, I can see that Matt checked in once but not a word from him. Maybe he does not care anymore about it and is feeling prodical.

A bit of a record me having all the posts on a site. Doesn't say much for the site maybe, but they were all read often enough.

Bill Gletsos
02-06-2005, 01:37 PM
My posts there are still the only ones, I can see that Matt checked in once but not a word from him. Maybe he does not care anymore about it and is feeling prodical.He did have a post there since the crash showing the email he had received from the bb provider. That post is however now inaccessible, probably due to recovery issues.

A bit of a record me having all the posts on a site. Doesn't say much for the site maybe, but they were all read often enough.I suspect posters are waiting to see if the board is recovered/recoverable.

antichrist
02-06-2005, 08:40 PM
The site was already "dead" and the tsunami was a convenient burial. That, I think, is behind the move for his rehabilitation. How can his site have any credibility if he lets it run for days like a floating stinking fish.

There is a poll in the gloves off section asking if the site is dead?

antichrist
03-06-2005, 12:36 PM
Now Nige, when posting these I was actually asleep at the wheel as had been working, surfing and was totally buggered.

Was total co-incidence, just stabbing anywhere. Had to force myself to finish.

I think Matt has realised the site wasn't a goer anyway and so is letting go. I would if I was him.

If he is going to take on chesskit, it needs to be a classy site program-wise like chesskit, and classy content.

Have it focus on organising comps with prizes, promotions like radio stations etc.

ursogr8
03-06-2005, 12:48 PM
<snip>

If he is going to take on chesskit, it needs to be a classy site program-wise like chesskit, and classy content.

Have it focus on organising comps with prizes, promotions like radio stations etc.

hi a/c

Congratulations on your 5 green globes. Did you get your +2 bonus when you took out Premium membership? How about giving some feedback on the (Premium) thread you started in the Coffee Lounge; it is languishing for content.

And, congratulations on reaching 1700 posts. I never thought you would make it; but that sprint to the post got you over the line. I would understand now if you took a breather, because it has been a mighty, concerted effort all round (readers included).

Some of your better posts are at UCJ. Keep those pigeons well fed in case you have to re-locate the 'best of a/c' back to here.

regards, and just watching with awe,
starter

antichrist
03-06-2005, 04:03 PM
Someone the other day told me they were giving me one, before that I had no idea where they come from. I am not much into froth and bubble. It was only I seen Kathlick in a comp in Sydney so greased his palm. Otherwise wouldn't have bothered as wasn't particularly happy about some decisions.

I know one person, not a heavy or interesting poster, who goes around canvassing for them and has amassed quite a few. Reading between the lines over there you may sense it.

Do you think "best of a/c" could be a twin album set?

I am doing another concrete pour any time now. Last one - at last.

ursogr8
03-06-2005, 04:32 PM
<snip>

Do you think "best of a/c" could be a twin album set?


a/c

Why stop at a set? I reckon you could do a whole line.



:hmm:
Yes, that is what I recommend. ;)

The best of a/c...in your signature line.

eclectic
03-06-2005, 06:45 PM
[with sincerest apologies to radiohead]


* = eclectic
& = chesschat coffee lounge ensemble
% = chesschat outer choir
$ = chorus of moderators


*:
karthick p' lease
redress this man
he talks in "matt's" [%:aaaah]
though rebuilding a bridge
he's like a derailed maverick

[%: oooh...]

*:
karthick p' lease
redress this man
his headline hairdo [%: aaaah]
made wollongong feel ill
and have we crashed
his hard drive (yeah)?

[%: oooh...]

*:
karthick p' lease
he's given it all he can [%: aaaah]
it's not enough
is he back on your "payroll" (yeah)?

$:
this is what he got
this is what he got
this is what he got
when he messed with us

&:
and for a moment there
they lost themselves
they lost themselves

{fade ... }

&:
and for a moment there
they lost themselves
they lost themselves

{fade ... }

&:
and for a moment there
they lost themselves
they lost themselves

{fade ... }


;)

eclectic

WhiteElephant
03-06-2005, 11:06 PM
[with sincerest apologies to radiohead]


* = eclectic
& = chesschat coffee lounge ensemble
% = chesschat outer choir
$ = chorus of moderators


*:
karthick p' lease
redress this man
he talks in "matt's" [%:aaaah]
though rebuilding a bridge
he's like a derailed maverick

[%: oooh...]

*:
karthick p' lease
redress this man
his headline hairdo [%: aaaah]
made wollongong feel ill
and have we crashed
his hard drive (yeah)?

[%: oooh...]

*:
karthick p' lease
he's given it all he can [%: aaaah]
it's not enough
is he back on your "payroll" (yeah)?

$:
this is what he got
this is what he got
this is what he got
when he messed with us

&:
and for a moment there
they lost themselves
they lost themselves

{fade ... }

&:
and for a moment there
they lost themselves
they lost themselves

{fade ... }

&:
and for a moment there
they lost themselves
they lost themselves

{fade ... }


;)

eclectic


Dude, what are you on?

antichrist
03-06-2005, 11:43 PM
Nigel Barrow
Reply Re: Barry Cook Rincewind
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paypal, yeah, I've heard they suck, but I've had no problems with them myself.

Ah, Barry Cook... that brings back memories!

He was one of the famous "3 Cooks" who used to play in Muttaburrabung chess circles. They created some confusion for tournament organizers, with Greg Cook, Phil Cook and of course Barry, all entering in the same tournaments.

One weekend, the tournament venue, unbeknownst to the competitors and organizers was actually next door to a rather ordinary looking building, which was discretely known to those in the know as: "Mistress B&D's House of Pain".

During the middle of round 3, no one paid attention to the rather small, nondescript, bespectacled gentleman wearing a grey suit who came in to view the games... he walked around for about 15 minutes, seeming to take interest in the matches being played.

Suddenly, a large, leather clad woman flexing a whip stormed through the front door. The chessplayers all looked looked up in surprise as she bellowed: "I'm here for Mr Cook! He's late for his appointment!".

Greg Cook fainted dead away, Barry Cook attempted to hide under his chair, and Phil Cook rushed to the toilets and locked himself in (and could only be coaxed out many hours later).

The small, nondescript gentleman who had been spectating, fled past the dominatrix and out the front door crying, "now everyone knows who I am!".

(He was last seen sprinting down the street and boarding the number 72 tram out of Muttaburrabung.)

Which only goes to prove that the old maxim that "too many cooks spoil the brothel".




I used to have one, but the wheels fell off.

Edited by: Nigel Barrow at: 3/6/05 7:42 pm
_________________________________________________

firegoat7
04-06-2005, 05:18 PM
Hi,

Back to the issue. Silence is noted as approval.

Cheers FG7

Bill Gletsos
04-06-2005, 05:51 PM
Hi,

Back to the issue. Silence is noted as approval.

Cheers FG7Irrlevant and immaterial.
The Admin/mods wont be making any changes based on what you or other posters say or dont say here.

firegoat7
04-06-2005, 05:56 PM
Irrlevant and immaterial.
The Admin/mods wont be making any changes based on what you or other posters say or dont say here.

Keep repeating yourself pete, you damn bot

Bill Gletsos
04-06-2005, 05:58 PM
Keep repeating yourself pete, you damn botActually you clown, you are the the one repeating yourself.

firegoat7
04-06-2005, 06:00 PM
Actually you clown, you are the the one repeating yourself. shut up you negative bot

firegoat7
04-06-2005, 06:05 PM
Irrlevant and immaterial.
The Admin/mods wont be making any changes based on what you or other posters say or dont say here.

I guess the bot is programmed to go off about every 2 or 3 days



nternet bulletin baords are not democratic. They are run by the admin(owner) & the moderators.
The admin/mods determine who/when and for how long someone gets banned, not the likes of you and me.

Its like an endless version of the twilight zone....dodeeedodo..dodeedodo

Cheers fg7

Bill Gletsos
04-06-2005, 06:28 PM
I guess the bot is programmed to go off about every 2 or 3 daysActually it appears its just you who goes off on a regular basis.

Its like an endless version of the twilight zone....dodeeedodo..dodeedodoYou just demonstrate that you have no idea about how BB's work.

I'm sure someone like Frosty will tell you exactly the same as what I did.

firegoat7
04-06-2005, 06:47 PM
Actually it appears its just you who goes off on a regular basis.
You just demonstrate that you have no idea about how BB's work.

I'm sure someone like Frosty will tell you exactly the same as what I did.

Actually bot, for some strange reason you keep on dragging everybody elses conversations into your own agenda. Why do you have to keep on repeating yourself in the same thread. Answer: Because your a bot, who always wants to be right, why don't you just let everyone express their opinions without having to have the last word, bot. Why? bot Why? bot Why?

Cheers Fg7
P.S post 21 bot gets involved, negatively, damn bot!

Bill Gletsos
04-06-2005, 06:54 PM
Actually bot, for some strange reason you keep on dragging everybody elses conversations into your own agenda. Why do you have to keep on repeating yourself in the same thread. Answer: Because your a bot, who always wants to be right, why don't you just let everyone express their opinions without having to have the last word, bot. Why? bot Why? bot Why?I just highlighted how your comment in post #20 was irrelevant.
Since then you are the one repeating yourself.

P.S post 21 bot gets involved, negatively, damn bot!Actually I've been in this thread from post #3, highlighting your inaccuarcies in post #1.

firegoat7
04-06-2005, 07:11 PM
I just .....blahblahblahblahbla.

Bot you've expressed your robotics, now give other people a go or say something new. DP was onto you when he said...

What's the point of Gletsos anyway?

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

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
04-06-2005, 07:16 PM
Bot you've expressed your robotics, now give other people a go or say something new. DP was onto you when he said...Good to see you are as useless as ever.

Rincewind
04-06-2005, 07:42 PM
Why? bot Why? bot Why?

Am I the only one reminded of the madness of Lady Macbeth?

Bill Gletsos
04-06-2005, 07:44 PM
Am I the only one reminded of the madness of Lady Macbeth?No. ;)

Gringo
04-06-2005, 10:29 PM
BonhamBot will get jealous from not getting a mention....

Duff McKagan
04-06-2005, 11:26 PM
Irrlevant and immaterial.
The Admin/mods wont be making any changes based on what you or other posters say or dont say here.


:eek:

And you think that that is good?

:hand:

Bill Gletsos
04-06-2005, 11:30 PM
:eek:

And you think that that is good?

:hand:Its the way internet bulletin boards work.

Duff McKagan
05-06-2005, 01:04 AM
Its the way internet bulletin boards work.

:eek:

And you think that that is good?

:hand:

Alan Shore
05-06-2005, 01:08 AM
:eek:

And you think that that is good?

:hand:

I have in the past criticised Bill for making such flawed ubiquitous statements, there is no 'way' internet BB's work, they may fluctuate wildly dependent on the nature of the community.

Bill Gletsos
05-06-2005, 01:13 AM
I have in the past criticised Bill for making such flawed ubiquitous statements, there is no 'way' internet BB's work, they may fluctuate wildly dependent on the nature of the community.I said the vast majority of BB's are ruled by their admins and mods. The admins and mods decide the policy.

Alan Shore
05-06-2005, 01:16 AM
I said the vast majority of BB's are ruled by their admins and mods. The admins and mods decide the policy.

But that's not what you said. You said:


The Admin/mods wont be making any changes based on what you or other posters say or dont say here.

... with the implication the community of posters have no impact on any kind of evolution of policy. This is untrue, not only here but on other boards - feedback is a valued commodity.

Duff McKagan
05-06-2005, 01:26 AM
I have in the past criticised Bill for making such flawed ubiquitous statements, there is no 'way' internet BB's work, they may fluctuate wildly dependent on the nature of the community.
Very true D. The problem is that Bill seems to think that it is OK for Australian chess, that mods/and admins can arbitarily censor the Australian on-line chess community.

Note, however, how much he was squealing like a stuck pig when UCJ was minsing him with impunity. Now contrast that with the apparent case that, as long as Chess Kit is receiving his substantial donation, he wont have to criticise it.

Cheers

Bill Gletsos
05-06-2005, 01:26 AM
But that's not what you said. You said:It is exactly what I said.

... with the implication the community of posters have no impact on any kind of evolution of policy. This is untrue, not only here but on other boards - feedback is a valued commodity.In some areas yes but raraley if ever will the admins/mods of boards unban offenders based on the opinions of a few other BB posters. This is especially true of offenders like Matt who have offended repeatedly.

Bill Gletsos
05-06-2005, 01:30 AM
Note, however, how much he was squealing like a stuck pig when UCJ was minsing him with impunity.UCJ was doing more than that. In a number of cases there were posts on it that defamed both myself and others.

Now contrast that with the apparent case that, as long as Chess Kit is receiving his substantial donation, he wont have to criticise it.I'll criticise it when and if I feel the need. Other than when we first moved from the ACF board to here I have rarely felt the need to criticise either the Admin or the mods. The same cannot be said for some of the clowns that post here.

Duff McKagan
05-06-2005, 01:34 AM
... unban offenders based on the opinions of a few other BB posters. This is especially true of offenders like Matt who have offended repeatedly.

A few? Show us your data. Prove a negative. Exactly how do you know that ony "a few other BB poster" have that opinion. Show us. Show us now.

Bill Gletsos
05-06-2005, 01:48 AM
A few? Show us your data. Prove a negative. Exactly how do you know that ony "a few other BB poster" have that opinion. Show us. Show us now.I dont see the masses on the board jumping in to support fg7s call for Matt to be reinstated.
I see their silence as being happy with the status quo.
After all if they were unhappy they would be inclined to speak up now wouldnt they.

Duff McKagan
05-06-2005, 02:17 AM
I dont see the masses on the board jumping in to support fg7s call for Matt to be reinstated.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. So you had better start finding some proof.


I see their silence as being happy with the status quo.

And the 100 milion American who did not vote, all wanted Bush back in office.


After all if they were unhappy they would be inclined to speak up now wouldnt they.

Not if they thought that a bully like you was going to metaphorically punch them in the face and call them names.

Look at the evidence. You are the only person supporting a continuation of the Sweeney ban. If you want hard evidence, that is it. If you want to summise truths using false logic bathed in wishfull thinking, just keep talking the way you have been.

Enough from me. I dont want to continue a discussion with a person who only has the vision of a microscope.:rolleyes:

Bill Gletsos
05-06-2005, 02:30 AM
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. So you had better start finding some proof. Actually it is. fg7 was calling for support in post #1. The masses have failed to provide it.

And the 100 milion American who did not vote, all wanted Bush back in office.If they really didnt want him they should have voted against him.

Not if they thought that a bully like you was going to metaphorically punch them in the face and call them names.More than likely they didnt want to have to put up with the likes of fg7 or you.
Look at the evidence. You are the only person supporting a continuation of the Sweeney ban. If you want hard evidence, that is it.Incorrect. Just look at post #4 and you will see Lee supports his ban being continued. Frosty in post #8 certainly isnt calling for it to be lifted.

If you want to summise truths using false logic bathed in wishfull thinking, just keep talking the way you have been.Look at the evidence only fg7, A/C and you have steadfastly come out in support of unbanning him.

Enough from me. I dont want to continue a discussion with a person who only has the vision of a microscope.:rolleyes:You are the one practicing proctology on yourself. :hand:

Duff McKagan
05-06-2005, 03:00 AM
You are the one practicing proctology on yourself. :hand:

Nice one from the President of the NSWCA. :hmm:

BTW - proctology is undertaken with an endoscope more than a microscope, but then again the witty comeback was never your strong suit. ;)

Perhaps you could try the old technique of: If you cant be bright, be polite. :buttkick:

firegoat7
05-06-2005, 05:48 AM
Look at the evidence only

I have examined the evidence and it is quite clear to me now.

Bill lives in a garden with a weed and his partner Ben

Bill and Ben. Bill and Ben. Bill and Ben. Bill and Ben. Flowerpot men.
Goodbye Bill, Goodbye Ben, Bill and Ben. Bill and Ben. Flowerpot men.

'Flodobbadop' ;)

antichrist
05-06-2005, 07:01 AM
Bill, you manipulate facts to suit the situation.

When stating that the NSWCA constitution barred members from observing council meetings this was a misrepresentation, by ommission of mentioning it, it only gave the council the power to decide the issue as it did with many other facets of running the association.

Your response should have been: the council, using the powers bestowed on it in the constitution decides to bar members from observing council meetings.

As president you have a moral and maybe even legal duty to present and intrepret the constitution correctly.

You have used the device in this thread re presenting BB admins MO.

Bill Gletsos
05-06-2005, 02:21 PM
Bill, you manipulate facts to suit the situation.Not at all. I stated the facts. You are the one who is attempting to manipulate and distort things.

When stating that the NSWCA constitution barred members from observing council meetings this was a misrepresentation, by ommission of mentioning it, it only gave the council the power to decide the issue as it did with many other facets of running the association.

Your response should have been: the council, using the powers bestowed on it in the constitution decides to bar members from observing council meetings.Incorrect. I never said the constitution barred members.
What I said was:

Non council members (other than life members) have no right afforded them by the constitution to attend Council meetings.That is a statement of fact.

As president you have a moral and maybe even legal duty to present and intrepret the constitution correctly.I did.

You have used the device in this thread re presenting BB admins MO.fg7 called on support for Matt to be unbanned.
That support has not been forthcoming except for a few posters like yourself and Duff.
However I pointed out the Admin/mods will determine if and when matt is unbanned not other posters..

Duff McKagan
05-06-2005, 02:23 PM
I have examined the evidence and it is quite clear to me now.

Bill lives in a garden with a weed and his partner Ben

Bill and Ben. Bill and Ben. Bill and Ben. Bill and Ben. Flowerpot men.
Goodbye Bill, Goodbye Ben, Bill and Ben. Bill and Ben. Flowerpot men.

'Flodobbadop' ;)


Purhaps I should break the bad news to you, FG.

Ben was on the turps every day, and everyone knew it. I heard Ben say one day, "Dip dop bib bob a lop," to Bill and Ben just replied, "Christ Ben,. Are you totally pissed again?" Anyway, he died a few years back, alcoholic poisoning. :( That was when he was replaced by Baz. :)

Bill and Baz.
Bill and Baz.
Bill and Baz, Bill and Baz,
Chucking a spaz.

Bill Gletsos
05-06-2005, 03:33 PM
I have examined the evidence and it is quite clear to me now.

Bill lives in a garden with a weed and his partner Ben

Bill and Ben. Bill and Ben. Bill and Ben. Bill and Ben. Flowerpot men.
Goodbye Bill, Goodbye Ben, Bill and Ben. Bill and Ben. Flowerpot men.

'Flodobbadop' ;)All the evidence points to you being an idiot.
You have received virtually no support from posters for Matt to be unbanned.

ursogr8
05-06-2005, 03:48 PM
All the evidence points to you being an idiot.
You have received virtually no support from posters for Matt to be unbanned.

But Bill, I thought your point was that there was no point in supporting one way or the other. I remember well your sentence in post #3 of this thread (becaus eyou have repeated it a few times) >>
BILL....The admin/mods determine who/when and for how long someone gets banned, not the likes of you and me.
So, why would we post?

After your post #3
................no post by POSTERS = they have taken your ADVICE not to post.

It does not mean anything about the thread title.

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
05-06-2005, 04:04 PM
After your post #3
................no post by POSTERS = they have taken your ADVICE not to post.
There certainly is no evidence in the past to support that claim, so I see no reason to believe it is true now.

In fact fg7 has argued against my position. If his supporters believe him then surely they would have come out in droves to support his call for Matt to be unbanned. That hasnt happened.

ursogr8
05-06-2005, 05:09 PM
There certainly is no evidence in the past to support that claim, so I see no reason to believe it is true now.

In fact fg7 has argued against my position. If his supporters believe him then surely they would have come out in droves to support his call for Matt to be unbanned. That hasnt happened.


If his supporters believe you then surely they would have not come out in droves to support his call for Matt to be unbanned. .

Both coloured bits are possible.

fg7 is arguing that he prefers Matt to have access here to post.
Bill is arguing that there is no point appealing to the MODS nor ADMIN.

Both can be true mate.

The lack of posters may simply be that both of you are believed, on your separate points.


Btw...do you do the new Sudoku puzzles in the paper. They could help with this logic stuff you know. ;) :P

regards
starter

ps
You are correct on one point thought. There is very little evidence to assist in the drawing the conclusions. So, you can believe what you like.

Bill Gletsos
05-06-2005, 05:19 PM
If his supporters believe you then surely they would have not come out in droves to support his call for Matt to be unbanned. .

Both coloured bits are possible.

fg7 is arguing that he prefers Matt to have access here to post.
Bill is arguing that there is no point appealing to the MODS nor ADMIN.

Both can be true mate.

The lack of posters may simply be that both of you are believed, on your separate points.Perhaps but I prefer my interpretation. ;)

Btw...do you do the new Sudoku puzzles in the paper. They could help with this logic stuff you know. ;) :PI have done some of them, but I have better things to do with my time.

ps
You are correct on one point thought. There is very little evidence to assist in the drawing the conclusions. So, you can believe what you like.That goes without saying. :hand:

antichrist
05-06-2005, 08:03 PM
It is okay for me for Matt to come back, I enjoyed his humour, but he did severely attack admin in a very rude manner after the banning, if I was admin my attitude may well be different.

It is a bit unfair to give mods a big responsibilty in moderating Matt when it is virtually an unpaid thankless job. I can understand them even getting tired even of myself.

If I was admin I would want the biggest possible public apology from him. And even then maybe I would not be satisfied.

But it is up to them.

ursogr8
05-06-2005, 09:31 PM
It is okay for me for Matt to come back, I enjoyed his humour, but he did severely attack admin in a very rude manner after the banning, if I was admin my attitude may well be different.

It is a bit unfair to give mods a big responsibilty in moderating Matt when it is virtually an unpaid thankless job. I can understand them even getting tired even of myself.

If I was admin I would want the biggest possible public apology from him. And even then maybe I would not be satisfied.

But it is up to them.

hi a/c

Just help me here on this issue my friend.
Now, Bill says that it doesn't matter how hard you lobby on the banning, you are going to be ignored by the MODs and ADMIN. So just who are you lobbying, on what?

:hmm: :hmm:

a) a/c is going for the cc.org sympathy vote and hopes to score a green globe in appreciation of his humanity
b) a/c is appealing to posters to breathe life into UCJ so that it can be phoenix-like
c) a/c plans to run for the next NSW Prez election, and he wants Matt's vote
d) any public apology by Matt should be delivered from a kneeling postion, with head bowed, at a NSW committee meeting, before a/c nods off to sleep
e) Matt transfers all his UCJ posts to the Fischer Random web-site that Jose is advertising, and the Punters Club runs a book on how long it is before Matt is banned.


Just some ideas a/c.
I miss your polls you see.


starter

antichrist
05-06-2005, 09:56 PM
hi a/c

Just help me here on this issue my friend.
Now, Bill says that it doesn't matter how hard you lobby on the banning, you are going to be ignored by the MODs and ADMIN. So just who are you lobbying, on what?

I was not lobbying only stating my view, which is a selfish one basically.
:hmm: :hmm:

a) a/c is going for the cc.org sympathy vote and hopes to score a green globe in appreciation of his humanity
b) a/c is appealing to posters to breathe life into UCJ so that it can be phoenix-like
c) a/c plans to run for the next NSW Prez election, and he wants Matt's vote
d) any public apology by Matt should be delivered from a kneeling postion, with head bowed, at a NSW committee meeting, before a/c nods off to sleep
e) Matt transfers all his UCJ posts to the Fischer Random web-site that Jose is advertising, and the Punters Club runs a book on how long it is before Matt is banned.


Just some ideas a/c.
I miss your polls you see.


starter

I am beginning to nod off now as had big day. I loved your D option. A shame that Tzu got clobbered today.

I still don't reakon I attended that meeting in Nov. and none earlier. Have you ever nodded off at a meeting. I remember tonnes doing it at church. Even my double who is...

Kevin Bonham
05-06-2005, 10:12 PM
... with the implication the community of posters have no impact on any kind of evolution of policy. This is untrue, not only here but on other boards - feedback is a valued commodity.

I think it's exceedingly unlikely anything said here will change policy because the issue has been thrashed out so many times before.

For the record my view is that Matt should be banned permanently unless he shows evidence that he is willing to do everything reasonable to avoid the various behaviours that ultimately got him banned.

If something comes from him along those lines then I have no problem with him being unbanned. However the admins are free to unban him as they please and this may happen at some stage. I just see no point unbanning him if we just end up re-banning him a few weeks later.

Duff McKagan
06-06-2005, 07:46 AM
For the record my view is that Matt should be banned permanently unless he shows evidence that he is willing to do everything reasonable to avoid the various behaviours that ultimately got him banned.

What a load of duplicitous and sanctimonious hot air!! How can anyone "show evidence that he is willing" to do something? :lol: Get real. You have no intention of unbanning and have convieniently placed the hoops to be jumped through, in the past.

You could prove me wrong by listing realistic examples of the evidence your highness requires. However, it is highly likely that the evidence you might list will not be evidence of willingness, but evidence of grovelling to you. As such, we all know Sweeeney as not one to grovel, the condition of readmission that you stated originally is, as I said, duplicitous sanctamonious hot air.

As an aside, a question to posters generally. Why do some posters continually try to pull swifty logic swindles like the one above and Jessops recent 'the ACF doesnt tax' rubbish? What is is about these people that makes them continually treat us like children who can be easly tricked? :rolleyes:

Spiny Norman
06-06-2005, 08:02 AM
I fail to see why this is an on-going, apparently contentious issue. Some questions:

1) Are we going to have standards of behaviour to be observed on this board, or not?

If not, let Matt back in. If we are to have standards of behaviour:

2) Are we going to have consequences for those that break the standards, or not?

If not, let Matt back in, we're kidding ourselves. If we are to have consequences:

3) Get over it. Matt disqualified HIMSELF. Nobody did it to him, he did it to himself, despite repeated warnings. I'm sure he's a nice guy in person (as many have attested, and I have no reason to doubt them). I have had several pleasant dealings with him via PM.

None of that is the point. If we have rules, we have rules. Finito. End of story. What's the big fuss about? He's welcome back here provided he sticks to the rules.

Personally I wish he WAS back here ... but not at any price ...

eclectic
06-06-2005, 08:18 AM
Personally I wish he WAS back here ... but not at any price ...

agreed Frosty,

so if he can negotiate a "price" which is the "equivalent" of the one David Cordover aka ChessGuru "paid" to have his ban lifted then is Matthew Sweeney allowed back in?

eclectic

ursogr8
06-06-2005, 08:25 AM
I fail to see why this is an on-going, apparently contentious issue.

If you fail to see why it is
> ongoing ....then you need to revisit your notes on the Negotiating Laboratory 101

>> contentious...then you don't know the root cause agenda item behind the issue

It just means you have to collect more information (in order to understand).


Some questions:

1) Are we going to have standards of behaviour to be observed on this board, or not?
This not a question for All, but the MODS .


If not, let Matt back in. If we are to have standards of behaviour:

See above


2) Are we going to have consequences for those that break the standards, or not?
See above


If not, let Matt back in, we're kidding ourselves. If we are to have consequences:

See above


3) Get over it.
Why?


Matt disqualified HIMSELF. Nobody did it to him, he did it to himself, despite repeated warnings. I'm sure he's a nice guy in person (as many have attested, and I have no reason to doubt them). I have had several pleasant dealings with him via PM.

Is anybody but Matt arguing otherwise?
And with the removal of UCJ, even that outlet is finito.




None of that is the point. If we have rules, we have rules. Finito. End of story. What's the big fuss about?
See above


He's welcome back here provided he sticks to the rules.
No he is not.


Personally I wish he WAS back here ... but not at any price ...

You don't set the price...the MODs do.


yours,
in appreciation that you are buckling under the pressure of lack of consensus,

warmest and friendliest regards
starter

ursogr8
06-06-2005, 09:16 AM
What a load of duplicitous and sanctimonious hot air!! How can anyone "show evidence that he is willing" to do something? :lol: Get real. You have no intention of unbanning and have convieniently placed the hoops to be jumped through, in the past.

You could prove me wrong by listing realistic examples of the evidence your highness requires. However, it is highly likely that the evidence you might list will not be evidence of willingness, but evidence of grovelling to you. As such, we all know Sweeeney as not one to grovel, the condition of readmission that you stated originally is, as I said, duplicitous sanctamonious hot air.

Duff

You may be guilty of the same logic trap that you list below.
It might just be a simple as eclectic suggests. Sweeney saves $x on server rental at UCJ, followed by Sweeney shakes hands with PayPal.
If this were the case your your highness jibe would be at the wrong end of the spectrum. You would probably have said your lowness ;)


As an aside, a question to posters generally. Why do some posters continually try to pull swifty logic swindles like the one above and Jessops recent 'the ACF doesnt tax' rubbish? What is is about these people that makes them continually treat us like children who can be easly tricked? :rolleyes:
It is just accidental...


starter

Bill Gletsos
06-06-2005, 10:14 AM
It just means you have to collect more information (in order to understand).This is quite clear.
He posted foul and vulgar language whilst drunk. He was banned for 48 hrs.
He returned and again used foul language and was banned.
He created other accounts and used them to circumvent the ban.
He spammed posters here via PM whilst banned again by creating a new account.

Is anybody but Matt arguing otherwise?
And with the removal of UCJ, even that outlet is finito.Only because he apparently chooses to let it be. So he lost 1200 posts. He could continue with his board if he wanted to.

Bill Gletsos
06-06-2005, 10:17 AM
Duff

You may be guilty of the same logic trap that you list below.
It might just be a simple as eclectic suggests. Sweeney saves $x on server rental at UCJ, followed by Sweeney shakes hands with PayPal.Given the vulgarity and abuse he heaped on Karthick on UCJ for him to do this would be extremely hypocritical.

It is just accidental...Not at all. Some posters just try and be precise in the langauge they use.

ursogr8
06-06-2005, 10:31 AM
This is quite clear.
He posted foul and vulgar language whilst drunk. He was banned for 48 hrs.
He returned and again used foul language and was banned.
He created other accounts and used them to circumvent the ban.
He spammed posters here via PM whilst banned again by creating a new account.

Just a repeat of what you have supplied many, many times before. No-one is arguing against this. :rolleyes:
But there are as your signature line suggests...other agendas.


Only because he apparently chooses to let it be. So he lost 1200 posts. He could continue with his board if he wanted to.
:hand:


Given the vulgarity and abuse he heaped on Karthick on UCJ for him to do this would be extremely hypocritical.

It is unknown territory whether K. extracts a higher price from the GURU or SWEENEY.
Btw, this 'deal' (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=60081&postcount=63) was first mooted by another.



starter

Spiny Norman
06-06-2005, 05:29 PM
It just means you have to collect more information (in order to understand).

That's why I asked the question ...


This not a question for All, but the MODS.

I actually think its a question for the Admin, not the Mods. The role of the Mod is to enforce the rules set down by the Admin. Your role (and mine) is to have a view, express it, and perchance to influence the opinion of the Admin.

Given the language that the banned individual has used towards the Admin, I'd suggest all of us (!) are probably pushing a bucketload uphill ... but one never knows does one, so perhaps its worthwhile expressing opinions.


yours,
in appreciation that you are buckling under the pressure of lack of consensus,
warmest and friendliest regards
starter

Ditto, reciprocated, etcetera, etcetera. BTW, "lack of concensus" has never troubled me in the slightest ... I'll cling like a limpet to what I believe to be right, no matter the odds, until such time as someone can convince me otherwise. Only then will I let go and embrace the "new truth" just as firmly. On this issue I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why things should be different to the way they are right now. But I look forward to being educated in turn.

Cheers mate,

Frosty

ursogr8
06-06-2005, 06:15 PM
That's why I asked the question ...



<snip>Cheers mate,

Frosty

Sorry Frosty,
What I know came from a PM.
starter

Spiny Norman
06-06-2005, 07:41 PM
Sorry Frosty, What I know came from a PM.

:eek: :naughty: :silenced: :evilb:

ursogr8
06-06-2005, 08:23 PM
:eek: :naughty: :silenced: :evilb:

What does all that mean Frosty?



You made a mistake in reasoning based on incomplete facts.
I tell you that you are missing something.
It is in a PM...Ok
I can't tell you.


Am I allowed to say who the PM is from? :hmm: :hmm:
Should be safe because you can't guess the content.

starter



ps (Baz)
How do you like this ttt?

Spiny Norman
06-06-2005, 09:22 PM
Sorry Frosty, What I know came from a PM.

:eek: :naughty: :silenced: :evilb:

What does all that mean Frosty?

:eek: = eek! PMs are sacrosanct ... sharing them gets you banned!

:naughty: = that would be naughty. mustn't be naughty, or Jo-Jo will send you to the naughty room. you don't want to go to the naughty room do you starter?

:silenced: = you have been silenced

:evilb: = something to do with an evil banana (the relevance of this one escapes me too ... so perhaps someone can explain it to ME?)

ursogr8
06-06-2005, 09:41 PM
:eek: = eek! PMs are sacrosanct ... sharing them gets you banned!

:naughty: = that would be naughty. mustn't be naughty, or Jo-Jo will send you to the naughty room. you don't want to go to the naughty room do you starter?

:silenced: = you have been silenced

:evilb: = something to do with an evil banana (the relevance of this one escapes me too ... so perhaps someone can explain it to ME?)

Frosty

Stick to the text and psalms, mate, and leave the humour to ....to....to Bill.

Now listen....I have two more PMs, making a total of three. I could become a clearing house for PMs. :cool:



Apparently he is priceless. :rolleyes:
So that is going to make it hard to negotiate.

Btw, just musing, is revealing a PM from UCJ a banning offence here, now that UCJ is pushing up daisies? Thought you might know from your MOD background elsewhere.


regards
starter

Spiny Norman
06-06-2005, 09:45 PM
Btw, just musing, is revealing a PM from UCJ a banning offence here, now that UCJ is pushing up daisies? Thought you might know from your MOD background elsewhere.

I would've thought that it might get you banned on the other board ... but not here. Then again, I wouldn't rely on my mod experience elsewhere to protect you in any given scenario here. Of course, if you had permission to reveal the contents, then that would be different presumably, as that would be in line with the guidelines published would it not?

Kevin Bonham
06-06-2005, 11:15 PM
What a load of duplicitous and sanctimonious hot air!! How can anyone "show evidence that he is willing" to do something? :lol: Get real.

The irony of you accusing anyone else of "hot air" is palpable - quite a lot of your posts involve fairly hotheaded criticism of those who are attempting to be rational about an issue. I do suspect it's partly in jest, but still ...

He could show such intention, for instance, by stating that in future he would make his best effort to abide by the guidelines in place and that he would attempt to control his biggest problem - posting while drunk.


You have no intention of unbanning and have convieniently placed the hoops to be jumped through, in the past.

Give examples.


However, it is highly likely that the evidence you might list will not be evidence of willingness, but evidence of grovelling to you. As such, we all know Sweeeney as not one to grovel, the condition of readmission that you stated originally is, as I said, duplicitous sanctamonious hot air.

In a case like Matt's, if he is not willing to do some degree of what some might see as "grovelling" (but more sensible people would simply see as expressing a willingness to change) then it is because he has no intention of changing his behaviour and therefore he should not be permitted back on.


What is is about these people that makes them continually treat us like children who can be easly tricked? :rolleyes:

If you really think that's true, then you tell me what makes other people sometimes think you're childish. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
06-06-2005, 11:25 PM
I'd like to ask those making claims about deals between ChessGuru and STML to come out and produce firm evidence. If there was any such deal I certainly don't know anything about it, and it would make sense that if CG had made such a deal he would personally use the board more. Seems to me this is just a rubbish conspiracy theory with nothing behind it - pretty shabby stuff if so.

WhiteElephant
06-06-2005, 11:44 PM
I'd like to ask those making claims about deals between ChessGuru and STML to come out and produce firm evidence. If there was any such deal I certainly don't know anything about it, and it would make sense that if CG had made such a deal he would personally use the board more. Seems to me this is just a rubbish conspiracy theory with nothing behind it - pretty shabby stuff if so.

We have no life and like to speculate :owned:

Alan Shore
07-06-2005, 02:24 AM
!!!!!

Matt's back!


The Admin/mods wont be making any changes based on what you or other posters say or dont say here.

LOL! I guess that's another of Bill's theories crushed ;)

Edit: The real question I suppose is 'for how long?' Perhaps starter will run a punter's club syndicate on it, or perhaps a poll from AC.

Alan Shore
07-06-2005, 02:41 AM
And a sign of things to come:

http://alliancetao.free.fr/images/obiwandarth.gif

Kevin Bonham
07-06-2005, 03:34 AM
LOL! I guess that's another of Bill's theories crushed ;)

Wasn't because of this thread, although I am unable to tell you any more than that.


Edit: The real question I suppose is 'for how long?' Perhaps starter will run a punter's club syndicate on it, or perhaps a poll from AC.

Matt hasn't logged in yet since his unbanning. I'll be getting directions from STML on how harsh/light he wants me to be on Matt if Matt reoffends, though I doubt I'll have much to do with it as I could be about to go away for a while.

skip to my lou
07-06-2005, 02:11 PM
LOL! I guess that's another of Bill's theories crushed ;)

Actually, you're making an incorrect assumption.

I made it clear the Matt will be unbanned, it was just a matter of when.

Matt is unbanned because I have a lot of free time soon, and not because of any crying and bitching.

skip to my lou
07-06-2005, 02:12 PM
I'd like to ask those making claims about deals between ChessGuru and STML to come out and produce firm evidence. If there was any such deal I certainly don't know anything about it, and it would make sense that if CG had made such a deal he would personally use the board more. Seems to me this is just a rubbish conspiracy theory with nothing behind it - pretty shabby stuff if so.

There was no such deal.

firegoat7
07-06-2005, 03:02 PM
Hi,

The Chesskit cup has been won...and what a match it was. Sweeney Football club winning a thriller 4-3, despite the game being called off in the 81st minute, against Bot United, to win promotion thus making up for last years relegation.

It was a tough match, but ultimately the deciding point was the lack of defence, led by captain coach Billy Bot Gletsos, who despite playing a sterling game with over probably 100 possesions on the day, easily the most prolifiic player, could not marshall the troops effectively, in his essentially defensive setup of 1-4-5.


The Admin/mods wont be making any changes based on what you or other posters say or dont say here.

this proved to be a non-sensical defence and it showed in the game.

The game started off at a crackerjack pace, with notoroius Sweeney stalwarts Starter and Fg7 both scoring in under 10 minutes, fg7 (1) openend up with a beauty of a thread and Starter ensured a lively contest with a crackerjack shot at the 6th minute mark...Bill Bot to his credit played the counterattck and produced his best work at the 3 minute mark. A fiery beginning saw the score at 2-1, in what was to be an arm-wrestle. Liberace and Frosty had played well for the Bots in the midfiled, posing serious problems, while it was unsure who AC had chosen to represent in the middle of the pitch.

At the 17th minute Sweeney FC, saw the brilliance of Ecletic's middlegame flair create opportunites for the team. WhiteElephant was bewildered by this unothodox style, but ultimately the game turned quite ugly with both Fg7 and BillBot lucky not to get red carded.

Gringo dribbled two players at the 33 minute mark, but was never sighted again, while Duff McKagan showed what an integral part he played in the Sweeney camp as he contested BillBots ball possesion. Belthaser was subbed on at the 37th minute mark and immediately went onto the attack, despite his long injury lay off.

The game really was becoming interesting. Duffs orthodox approach at the 47th min had the Bot defence in turmoil, combined with Fg7s unorthodox attacking flair at the 48th, Team Sweeney produced two attacking chances. Indeed Antichrist entered the game as a Sweeney sympathiser (49) but the Bot defense scored against the run of play with a lucky counter strike lob (50). Bill bot had produced two goals with his stubborn defence.

Starter then became the dominant player on the pitch as he produced good chances at the (53) minute mark. The Bots made the right choice in subbing off RW, who really had a poor game, hardly sighted with minimal contribution, for the Chesskit footballer of the year 2004, KB (60). KB added solidness to the defensive lines, providing much needed support for the heoic BillBot, who was playing a lone hand in defence albeit with the enthusiastic support of Frosty, who made some nice passes but was unable to penetrate Sweeney FCs defences.

The next period saw duff get ruffled, and Eclectics brilliance negated by the determined Frosty, no doubt a promising player. But it was Starter who proved to be the best player on the day. In a brilliant piece of attacking flair, he ran rings around the Bot defense to score the goal of the match at the (64) minute mark and another follow up at the (68) minute mark to show his class, shoring up the betting for his footballer of the year nomination in Chesskit 2005. The Bots placed Frosty on Starter, who at least prevented him from scoring further, before an ugly incident at the (76) minute mark with KB playing the man instead of the ball, saw KB show us his old skills by scoring in the next (77) minute. With the score at 4-3 it was a hard fought victory, that was signalled by the joy of Belthaser as he proclaimed victory when the whistle blew at the 79th minute mark.

Sweeney FC 4 goals- fg7 (1), Starter (6), (64), (68) defeated Bot united 3 goals- Billbot (3), (50), KB (77)

Best Players Sweeney FC; Starter (man of match),Duff, Eclectic, Belthaser, Fg7, WhiteElephant
Best Players Bot United; Billbot, Frosty, Bonham, Liberace

Injuries, gringo, liberace, Rincewind

Cards: yellow; Billbot, Fg7, Duff, Bonham, Antichrist (for time wasting ;) )
Umpire: STML

Cheers Fg7

Spiny Norman
07-06-2005, 03:13 PM
:clap: Good effort FG7 ... made me grin ... no small effort either on an otherwise unforgiving work day here in Melbourne.

eclectic
07-06-2005, 03:16 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

eclectic

(getting liniment rubbed into some tired muscles)

Rincewind
07-06-2005, 03:29 PM
I must say one of fg7's better posts. :clap:

eclectic
07-06-2005, 03:30 PM
FG7,

i just realised something ...

where was kegless during the match?

or had he laid a wager at betfair.com beforehand

and therefore is busy collecting now?

:owned:

;)

eclectic

Bill Gletsos
07-06-2005, 03:31 PM
Yes, very clever fg7.
Well done. :clap:

The only point you would be unaware of was that the captain of Bots United had been in private discussion with the Umpire prior to the start of the match on June 2nd. :whistle:
As such he was aware of what the determining factor was likley to be as to when the ban would possibly be lifted. The conditions leading to the player ban being lifted only changed in the past 48 hrs. If that hadnt have been the case the player would still be banned. :hand:

Lucena
07-06-2005, 03:43 PM
It remains to be seen whether the club president, when he arrives, will manage to avoid disqualification for infringement of behaviour regulations during his victory speeches :hmm:

Duff McKagan
07-06-2005, 04:40 PM
Wasn't because of this thread, although I am unable to tell you any more than that.

What do mean by "unable?"

Kevin Bonham
07-06-2005, 06:17 PM
What do mean by "unable?"

Wasn't sure if it was public domain or not, but the posts made since I wrote that by STML and Bill tell you all you need to know - plans for the unbanning of Sweeney have been in the pipes for a while now.

firegoat's post was very funny even although the discussion on the board had little if any bearing on when Sweeney was liberated.

It will be interesting to see whether he returns and if so what happens. Too bad I'll miss the show.

antichrist
07-06-2005, 06:22 PM
FG7, a chap who reakons he is a mate of yours, called Ibrahim ogada-Osir he reakons, has just walked away with some of my chess books, hope I can trust him. He said sorry he can't do that gig with you as he is travelling round Oz. Also what was that incident at the club be mentioned???

Bill Gletsos
07-06-2005, 07:50 PM
It will be interesting to see whether he returns and if so what happens. Too bad I'll miss the show.When and how long do you expect to be away for this time Kevin?