PDA

View Full Version : What can a person be banned (temporarily) for?



Lucena
08-06-2005, 04:54 PM
I have reached the conclusion that there may be some general uncertainty of what is and what is not permisible on this bulletin board, and what the penalties can be for various actions. I have tried to compile a representative list of all the hypothetical misdeeds one could imagine to be perpetrated on this bb, but in doing it I have realised no such list can ever hope to be exhaustive. DISCLAIMER: Please note I am in no way insinuating that all such behaviours have necessarily occurred on this bb nor am I accusing any particular person of any such behaviour. As far as I know, options 10, 11 and 12 do not apply to Matt.

Lucena
08-06-2005, 05:19 PM
Any comments?

Alan Shore
08-06-2005, 05:22 PM
Any comments?

You don't have a 'none of the above' option.

EGOR
08-06-2005, 05:23 PM
2 & 3 really depend on what you past while drunk.
As for 7, I don't know what a hydra is apart from a mythical creature, or a secret sociaty dedicated to evil. :)

Lucena
08-06-2005, 05:23 PM
You don't have a 'none of the above' option.

Gee, didn't think of that. Is that what you would have voted for? If so, click "other" and post that here, "none of the above" or whatever

Lucena
08-06-2005, 05:29 PM
2 & 3 really depend on what you past while drunk.
As for 7, I don't know what a hydra is apart from a mythical creature, or a secret sociaty dedicated to evil. :)

hydra accounts are multiple accounts that originate from the one user, many heads, one body, like the original hydra.

Alan Shore
08-06-2005, 05:32 PM
Gee, didn't think of that. Is that what you would have voted for? If so, click "other" and post that here, "none of the above" or whatever

Nah, I found some. Two of those are legal issues (defamation and sexually suggestive to a minor) so had to vote yes on those. Another (improper promotion/spam) is also kind of a legal issue.

The only one that's not that I voted for is the 'continual warnings plus continual disobedience' thing. If a forum has such rules then sure, temp ban. However, I will say that policy can be too strictly adhered to at times, so there should be a degree of discretion on which those moderation powers are exercised.

Banned for insulting Bill? Shouldn't that instead carry some kind of reward, like +reputation? (oh wait it's been disabled... maybe just some free cookies then).

And come on.. posting drunk?! That's where all the fun posts originate, i.e. kegless! ;)

firegoat7
08-06-2005, 05:44 PM
GC,

Ironically none of these options applied in the last 3 bannings...Liberace, Fg7 and AC.

Cheers fg7

Lucena
08-06-2005, 05:53 PM
GC,

Ironically none of these options applied in the last 3 bannings...Liberace, Fg7 and AC.

Cheers fg7

I considered the "business interests" one would apply reasonably well to Liberace-was he not banned for plugging the Guru's business(which he is now part of)? As for the last two, those bannings related to the disclosure of PMs, is that correct? Guess I forgot about that one. Well, if anyone wants to vote for that they can do it in "other" and specify "disclosure of PMs" or something in a post. I assume you won't?

firegoat7
08-06-2005, 06:05 PM
I considered the "business interests" one would apply reasonably well to Liberace-was he not banned for plugging the Guru's business(which he is now part of)?

I apologise GC, I missed that option.

As for ACs banning wasn't it thread related?

Cheers Fg7

Lucena
08-06-2005, 06:06 PM
I apologise GC, I missed that option.

As for ACs banning wasn't it thread related?

Cheers Fg7

No problem. Not quite sure re AC, I'll ask.

Lucena
08-06-2005, 06:35 PM
Apparently was because he kept trying to repost a post that was deleted as it was deemed off-topic.

Lucena
08-06-2005, 09:05 PM
Come on, people! Nowhere near enough votes on this poll!

pax
08-06-2005, 10:08 PM
Aren't "can" and "should" totally different questions?

Garvinator
08-06-2005, 10:19 PM
I also voted other and as asked:

Disclosing PM's without other person's permission.
Re posting posts/comments from the coffee lounge to open forum.
Continually posting off topic, especially with the purpose of creating mischief and trouble.
i am sure there are others, but cant think of them at the moment

Lucena
08-06-2005, 10:48 PM
Aren't "can" and "should" totally different questions?

well I was going to put "can" but then one could assume I was asking what power the mods/admin had to ban people, rather than what is fair.
Just putting "should" on its own might imply a ban would be morally obligatory, whereas I wanted to allow for the potential generosity of admin/mods, who might choose not to impose a ban.

But you're right, for clarity I probly should have stuck with one or the other :uhoh:

Lucena
08-06-2005, 10:54 PM
I also voted other and as asked:

Disclosing PM's without other person's permission.
Re posting posts/comments from the coffee lounge to open forum.
Continually posting off topic, especially with the purpose of creating mischief and trouble.
i am sure there are others, but cant think of them at the moment

Yes these are good and relevant suggestions. I probably would have ended up including them as options if I'd had more time for reflection and investigation, oh well I may still use them as options for the next poll, hehehe... :devious:

PS that emoticon is meant to be "devious". I personally don't think it looks that devious, more like angry/constipated. Can anyone back me up on this?

PPS now that I look at it, it kind of does have a hint of an "ironic smile", but those eyes still look too angry for my liking. Maybe we have a subject for a new thread...

ElevatorEscapee
08-06-2005, 11:07 PM
There's no way I'd have a hint of a smile if I were constipated. :lol:

Back on topic, (gasp!), how about threatening legal action against the forum? Or posting inappropriate pictures (eg pornography)?

[Edit, I meant these as possible reasons why someone should be banned, not as suggestions for people to do!]

PHAT
09-06-2005, 12:14 AM
Disclosing PM's without other person's permission.
Re posting posts/comments from the coffee lounge to open forum.
Continually posting off topic, especially with the purpose of creating mischief and trouble.


You cannot be serious. If you want a community, you have to put up with people. No tolerance = No community.

Alan Shore
09-06-2005, 12:16 AM
There's no way I'd have a hint of a smile if I were constipated. :lol:

Back on topic, (gasp!), how about threatening legal action against the forum? Or posting inappropriate pictures (eg pornography)?

[Edit, I meant these as possible reasons why someone should be banned, not as suggestions for people to do!]

You can post porn, you just have to post it in the.. oh wait, you don't have access to that area yet.

Alan Shore
09-06-2005, 12:17 AM
You cannot be serious. If you want a community, you have to put up with people. No tolerance = No community.

Yep, well said. Otherwise it's be less a community forum and more a.. CENTRELINK OFFICE!

WhiteElephant
09-06-2005, 12:19 AM
You can post porn, you just have to post it in the.. oh wait, you don't have access to that area yet.


I was looking through the restricted area the other day and found many pictures of cute pussies.

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 12:19 AM
You cannot be serious. If you want a community, you have to put up with people.Putting up with people dosnt mean putting up with foul mouthed individuals, especially those that havent got a clue what defamation is all about.

No tolerance = No community.The Admin/Mods determine the community standards on bulletin boards. If posters dont like it they can leave and post elsewhere.

PHAT
09-06-2005, 12:26 AM
OCCASIONAL warnings and/or moderation required

The "and/or" is a problem. Mods say they have had to snip bit of my posts continually. Well lemme tell ya, I dont know if that is true or not. I dont go checking if my posts have been censored - do you check yours?

For the record: No mods send me PMs or emails saying XYZ was snipped. I have not been given warnings and the whole "method" of bannings is ad hoc. I wouldn't know if I had stepped over the line or not. Where is the feedback? Where is the due process? When will these gits behave ethically? Pathetic little Hitlers with naught but their ego to feed ought not be let near a moderator page.

Lucena
09-06-2005, 12:30 AM
There's no way I'd have a hint of a smile if I were constipated. :lol:

Back on topic, (gasp!), how about threatening legal action against the forum? Or posting inappropriate pictures (eg pornography)?

[Edit, I meant these as possible reasons why someone should be banned, not as suggestions for people to do!]

Yes, those are good suggestions. By all means, you can vote for that if you want to, click "other", and specify it in a post.

Lucena
09-06-2005, 12:31 AM
I noticed you haven't voted yet, Bill!

Lucena
09-06-2005, 12:34 AM
Hmm, I see Matt has gone for the minimalist approach :)

PHAT
09-06-2005, 12:36 AM
Putting up with people dosnt mean putting up with foul mouthed individuals, especially those that havent got a clue what defamation is all about.

Is it defo to claim someone's CV is full of "pork pies"? :owned:



The Admin/Mods determine the community standards on bulletin boards. If posters dont like it they can leave and post elsewhere.

They have, they do, and they will. So what's your point, Bilbot.

Alan Shore
09-06-2005, 12:37 AM
I noticed you haven't voted yet, Bill!

Gareth, if I was ever running for a political position, I think I'd want you to run my campaign, you must have made at least 10 posts (and cross-forum) all involving advertising your poll (which is in plain view for everyone to see)!

Hey, and if it was a business you were hawking.. you might be in for a banning! :cool:

Lucena
09-06-2005, 12:38 AM
Is it defo to claim someone's CV is full of "pork pies"? :owned:


Not if they were a pastry chef!

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 12:39 AM
The "and/or" is a problem. Mods say they have had to snip bit of my posts continually. Well lemme tell ya, I dont know if that is true or not. I dont go checking if my posts have been censored - do you check yours?Given your past habit of frequent foul language and crude comments it was almost a given that you could have expected your posts to be moderated.

For the record: No mods send me PMs or emails saying XYZ was snipped.The bb shows that the post was edited and the moderator notes why when they moderate the offending post.

I have not been given warningsSo you claim, however the mods would disagree.

and the whole "method" of bannings is ad hoc.Oh you poor little victim. :boohoo:

I wouldn't know if I had stepped over the line or not.Any fool with an ounce of intelligence would know.

Where is the feedback? Where is the due process?According to the mods you have been warned. I for one am prepared to take their word over yours.

When will these gits behave ethically?What would you know about ethics. Your UCJ board was a disgrace, with a number of clearly defamatory statements. You were just as foul mouthed on its main sections as you were in the Gloves Off section.

Pathetic little Hitlers with naught but their ego to feed ought not be let near a moderator page.And you are nothing but a hypocrite.

Lucena
09-06-2005, 12:42 AM
Gareth, if I was ever running for a political position, I think I'd want you to run my campaign, you must have made at least 10 posts (and cross-forum) all involving advertising your poll (which is in plain view for everyone to see)!

Hey, and if it was a business you were hawking.. you might be in for a banning! :cool:

Yes:embarras:, was a little blatant of me. Thankfully the powers that be don't view my off-topic posting as a banning offence(yet).

That would be ironic-getting banned for advertising my thread on reasons for banning! :doh:

PHAT
09-06-2005, 12:42 AM
Hmm, I see Matt has gone for the minimalist approach :)

Fixity of purpose requires flexability of method.

If you want a healthy community you need to let it develop relatively unhindered.

If you snip too much you get a bonzi.

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 12:43 AM
Hmm, I see Matt has gone for the minimalist approach :)Not only that he is a hypocrite. He voted for banning for defamation, yet clearly posted and allowed defamatory posts to be posted on UCJ.

Lucena
09-06-2005, 12:46 AM
When will these gits behave ethically?

What would you know about ethics. Your UCJ board was a disgrace, with a number of clearly defamatory statements. You were just as foul mouthed on its main sections as you were in the Gloves Off section.
Pathetic little Hitlers with naught but their ego to feed ought not be let near a moderator page.

And you are nothing but a hypocrite.
Ah, just like the good old days...

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2005, 12:46 AM
OK, I'll run through the list. I didn't vote on the poll because I don't want a non-vote on any issue to be taken as evidence that a person should never be banned for any variant of that alleged offence.

1. Insulting Bill - depends on the insults and topicality. Not an offence in itself, just pointless - the man is not thin-skinned.
2. Insulting the admin - if you're stupid enough to do it at all expect no sympathy. STML provides a valuable service by hosting this BB and is entitled to protect himself from people picking fights with him. Mods won't ban for it generally but he might!
3,4. Posting while drunk - not an offence in itself but depends on what is posted.
5. Continual offence - definite ban
6. Occassional offence - depends on nature of offences and on nature of response to warnings (eg if you keep reoffending immediately after a warning you'll get treated more harshly.)
7. arguing over ACF issues or ratings despite cluelessness - generally fine provided other offences (including being extremely off-topic) is avoided.
8. hydra accounts - up to the admin, however hydra accounts to post while banned is a bannable offence - if you are banned you are not allowed on in any guise
9. promoting rival chess forum - depends on forum, nature of promotion, persistence of promotion, etc
10. defamation - this is taken extremely seriously and one poster was banned for it (HappyFriend).
11. improperly promoting business interests - depends how improperly but blatant spam is bannable and we have banned for it
12. sexually suggestive remarks to a minor - certainly bannable, even for a single offence if bad enough, if anyone has seen any cases please bring them to my attention quoting the exact post details

In most cases the answer is "depends on the circumstances".

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 12:48 AM
Is it defo to claim someone's CV is full of "pork pies"? :owned:No.

They have, they do, and they will. So what's your point, Bilbot.There is no reason for you foul mouthed behaviour to be tolerated. Your language and behaviour over on UCJ was a total disgrace. If you cannot behave appropriatley here you should just leave.

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2005, 12:50 AM
Gareth, sorry - realised that when I checked on poll results and edited out that mistake from my post, but you were too fast!

Lucena
09-06-2005, 12:51 AM
Thanks for the input KB. I was hoping to get at least 1 mod's perspective. The numerous helpful suggestions will all be taken on board for the next poll...

Lucena
09-06-2005, 12:55 AM
Come on, vote, STML! You know you want to!

antichrist
09-06-2005, 12:56 AM
Immediately when seeing this poll I was expecting to be included: Just being A/C. Thanks for letting me off.

Alan Shore
09-06-2005, 12:58 AM
Immediately when seeing this poll I was expecting to be included: Just being A/C. Thanks for letting me off.

Now that's interesting.. Peter has made a distinct point in the past saying 'Don't call me A/C' yet he even refers to himself in that way!

You've been caught out sonny!

P.S. Gareth, shhh.. no more posts about the poll. Let Billy and Matty argue in peace.

PHAT
09-06-2005, 01:02 AM
Given your past habit of frequent foul language and crude comments it was almost a given that you could have expected your posts to be moderated.
I expect my posts not to be corrupted


The bb shows that the post was edited and the moderator notes why when they moderate the offending post.
So, what? I do not go looking for that stuff on the end of old posts. Do you?


Oh you poor little victim. :boohoo:
Any fool with an ounce of intelligence would know.
Elitist bastard



According to the mods you have been warned. I for one am prepared to take their word over yours.
Get them to show you these dozens of warnings communications - they have my permission to do so. Don't expect an answer from them.


What would you know about ethics. Your UCJ board was a disgrace, with a number of clearly defamatory statements. You were just as foul mouthed on its main sections as you were in the Gloves Off section.
And you are nothing but a hypocrite.

Tell some one who cares. You are a whinging whining nag and everyone is sick of your sniping from the side with your monotonous terms of abuse.

Just shut up . :hand:

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2005, 01:03 AM
As Matthew continues to claim he was not warned, I hereby reproduce as one example of warnings he was sent, a private message I sent to him. (sent 09-09-2004, 03:45 AM ). Being an obliging soul, I give myself permission to republish this PM.


Hi Matt,

Just to let you know I gave you a warning point for the [details of post deleted - offence was vulgar language as usual -KB], and I don't care what your excuse is, since even if you have one, there's been loads of other posts lately you deserve warnings for.

You now have 2 warnings, I think there's a brief autosuspension if you reach 3.

Cheers, Kevin.

Anyone who cannot figure out that if you keep doing something you've been warned about you'll get suspended, or who cannot work out that if you are suspended you are not allowed to post while suspended (these things basically being the two that got Matt banned) should in my view be banned from the entire internet for chronic unfriendliness towards the clue fairy. I say this as a generally liberal person who means no harm to any living thing. Matt, you're a joke. :lol:

antichrist
09-06-2005, 01:07 AM
Now that's interesting.. Peter has made a distinct point in the past saying 'Don't call me A/C' yet he even refers to himself in that way!

You've been caught out sonny!

P.S. Gareth, shhh.. no more posts about the poll. Let Billy and Matty argue in peace.

There was a reason for this. Because Frosty or someone said that they avoided having to type the dreadful word "Antichrist" by just abbreviating to "A/C". Well being A/C I wanted to make them wear it.

PHAT
09-06-2005, 01:11 AM
No.
Yes it is defo


There is no reason for you foul mouthed behaviour to be tolerated.
Yes there is. Tolerance needs no reason. It is a virtue of which you have none.


Your language and behaviour over on UCJ was a total disgrace.
Then the language was a perfect match with the behaviour that it described.


If you cannot behave appropriatley here you should just leave.

Are you suggesting that I "cannot?"

antichrist
09-06-2005, 01:12 AM
Gareth, getting about a dozen voters is good enough. You would be good selling tickets at the ALP chicken raffles or getting up votes in pre-selection campagins.

I will give you a reference to Richo if you like. Or the NSW Liberals are also having a stosh with terrible Lebos brandishing guns. They brought their homecountry over here with them, they didn't want to feel homesick.

Lucena
09-06-2005, 01:14 AM
Ok goodnight everyone gotta go now. Matt hope you don't get banned before my next poll, will try to post it tomorrow.

Lucena
09-06-2005, 01:16 AM
I will give you a reference to Richo if you like

funny you say that, I gave him his ballot paper when I was working at the elections last year

Alan Shore
09-06-2005, 01:17 AM
There was a reason for this. Because Frosty or someone said that they avoided having to type the dreadful word "Antichrist" by just abbreviating to "A/C". Well being A/C I wanted to make them wear it.

I just did a paper on Revelation.. there are some whacked out interpretations. Did you know for instance that a number of people believe antichrists referred to some previous Popes in history (eg. Innocent III)?

antichrist
09-06-2005, 01:21 AM
I just did a paper on Revelation.. there are some whacked out interpretations. Did you know for instance that a number of people believe antichrists referred to some previous Popes in history (eg. Innocent III)?

Yeah, I have also read about it. I loved the name because was used by Luther to have a go at the Vatican. To me it is only a joke but to some religious types they take it real seriously.

At an anti-religious demo I put on with a big 666 sign, I actually made a mute woman talk/blabber, she was that upset. I have a good pic of that would like to post here some time.

PHAT
09-06-2005, 01:24 AM
As Matthew continues to claim he was not warned, I hereby reproduce as one example of warnings he was sent, a private message I sent to him. (sent 09-09-2004, 03:45 AM ). Being an obliging soul, I give myself permission to republish this PM.


OK I stand corrected. I vaguely recall that PM. I didn't take much notice of it.

Since that PM cliams to be the 2nd, kindly produce the first.

Is there more than two in two years?

Hardly a continual or even occational warning.

Therefore, I stand by the spirit of my complaint. Mods do not communicate to me their "continual" grievences. There is no feed-back and no due process. Just little Hitlers.

antichrist
09-06-2005, 01:24 AM
When I was doing earlier polls the questions were limited to so many characters, whereas now Gareth is making a Mills & Boon out of them.

Maybe the software has been upgraded.

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 01:26 AM
I expect my posts not to be corruptedIt isnt corrupting them to remove your filth from them.

So, what? I do not go looking for that stuff on the end of old posts. Do you?I'm saying given your popensity for foul language on the Bb and knowing that it isnt tolerated by the mods then anyone with an iota of intelligence would realise that the post would be moderated.

Elitist bastardNothing elitist about it at all. Anyone of average intelligence could work it out.

Get them to show you these dozens of warnings communications - they have my permission to do so. Don't expect an answer from them. :lol: :lol: You are a joke. Your posts were even moderated on the old ACF board and it was more lenient than here.

Tell some one who cares. You are a whinging whining nag and everyone is sick of your sniping from the side with your monotonous terms of abuse.As I said you are a hypocrite. You langaugae on UCJ was not only disgraceful but also defamatory.
You are a disgrace to Australian chess.

Just shut up . :hand:I'll keep pointing out what a foul mouthed, do nothing, beatup artist you are.
The sooner you take up another hobby instead of the chess the better for all Australian chess players.

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 01:37 AM
Yes it is defoYou wouldnt have a clue what is defamatory or not as evidenced by your posting and failure to delete defamatory posts over on UCJ.

Yes there is. Tolerance needs no reason. It is a virtue of which you have none.Just because you can do something does not mean you should. The mods have made it clear that your foul mouthed language is unacceptable here.

Then the language was a perfect match with the behaviour that it described.I'll be interested to see you try that excuse with a judge. :hand:

Are you suggesting that I "cannot?"You have given no indication in the past that you could.
You have been back less than 48 hrs and already told people to shut up a number of times.
You should try following your own advice.

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2005, 01:41 AM
Since that PM cliams to be the 2nd, kindly produce the first.

IIRC your first warning point came from Barry (Rincewind).


Is there more than two in two years?

Actually that second warning was only a few months before you were suspended and also less than nine months after the Chesskit BB started.

Alan Shore
09-06-2005, 01:43 AM
When I was doing earlier polls the questions were limited to so many characters, whereas now Gareth is making a Mills & Boon out of them.

Maybe the software has been upgraded.

Yeah, it has, you can have more poll options now - it's a good feature.



Therefore, I stand by the spirit of my complaint. Mods do not communicate to me their "continual" grievences. There is no feed-back and no due process. Just little Hitlers.

Careful Matt, you might invoke KB's dreaded..

Goldbach Conjecture
General Greivous
Patzer's Law

It was something like that.

PHAT
09-06-2005, 02:08 AM
You wouldnt have a clue what is defamatory or not as evidenced by your posting and failure to delete defamatory posts over on UCJ....I'll be interested to see you try that excuse with a judge. :hand:


What is your point? Who was defamed? And how. The way you describe and attack people here is a disgrace. Your behavour invites people to hammer you. Being a "truster" myself, I trust that the BB community judge your behaviour on the BB as the President, is highly damaging to the NSWCA.

And here is my hand too :hand:

PHAT
09-06-2005, 02:28 AM
I'll keep pointing out what a foul mouthed, do nothing, beatup artist you are.

And I s'pose that this little spray is not defamatory. :rolleyes: Get a grip Bilbot. Or may be I should just start listing your hypocrasies.

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 02:38 AM
And I s'pose that this little spray is not defamatory. :rolleyes:Of course it isnt defamatory.
I only have to show your language on UCJ to show how foul mouthed you are.
I only have to show how you did absolutely nothing whilst on the NSWCA Council. How you failed to attend meetings and never apolgised either before or after.
And as for beatup artist the evidence is all over this board, the old ACF board and on UCJ.

Get a grip Bilbot. Or may be I should just start listing your hypocrasies.List what you like.

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 02:41 AM
What is your point? Who was defamed? And how.Dont play cute. You made a number of scurrilous accusations.

The way you describe and attack people here is a disgrace.I describe the likes of you exactly as you are. You generate beatups. You misrepresent things. You criticise people who make contributions like Peter Cassettari and others yet did nothing yourself whilst on the NSWCA Council. All you are is bluster and beatup.

Your behavour invites people to hammer you.I defend myself from the attacks and misrepresentations from the likes of you.

Being a "truster" myself,What you are is simply a misrepresenter of situations. You work based on innuendo and heresay. You never seek to determine the facts before shooting your mouth off.
You never retract you accusations even when they are clearly wrong. You criticised the NSWJCL for supposedly not contributing much to juniors travelling overseas but when confronted with evidence from others like Kerry, you refuse to acknowledge it. You bitched and moaned about the NSWJCL not supporting a Chess centre in the CBD.
However did you go to the NSWJCL AGM meeting and raise this. No, you didnt even attend.
Have you even bothered corresponding with the NSWJCL committee about it. No.
You are all show and hot air.

All the NSWCA Council members know you did absolutely nothing whilst on council last year.

I trust that the BB community judge your behaviour on the BB as the President, is highly damaging to the NSWCA.What I am doing is responding to false and misleading accustions from do nothing like you. I'm not about to sit back and have you personally disparage me, the NSWCA Council or the ACF just to suit your little agendas.
Your foul mouthed language on this BB and the previous ACF BB's has long been a disgrace.

PHAT
09-06-2005, 02:42 AM
What is your point? Who was defamed? And how.

You havn't answer the question.

PHAT
09-06-2005, 03:01 AM
Dont play cute. You made a number of scurrilous accusations.

Cut it out. I haven't said anyone was a crook - I don't know any. I haven't said anyone was a some kind of fruitcake wierdo. I haven't said anything crazy like that. I only say that the NSWCA has no plans and that that is pathetic.


You criticised the NSWJCL for supposedly not contributing much to juniors travelling overseas but when confronted with evidence from others like Kerry, you refuse to acknowledge it.
No figures were forthcoming so I wont retract until they are.


You bitched and moaned about the NSWJCL not supporting a Chess centre in the CBD.
However did you go to the NSWJCL AGM meeting and raise this. No, you didnt even attend.


You yourself have said here and else where that the NSWJCL is not interested, so why go to a stacked meeting.



All the NSWCA Council members know you did absolutely nothing whilst on council last year.
I don't deny it.



What I am doing is responding to false and misleading accustions from do nothing like you.

To you, everything that is not written or said by you is "false and misleading". Your constant you sceaming of foul over pedantic interpretations or trivia makes you sound like a nutcase.


Your foul mouthed language on this BB and the previous ACF BB's has long been a disgrace.

Well, if it has been censored, the "foul mouthed language" aint there. So what is your problem?

Get over it :hand:

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2005, 03:08 AM
Careful Matt, you might invoke KB's dreaded..

Goldbach Conjecture
General Greivous
Patzer's Law

It was something like that.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Actually Matt is probably a counterexample because in his case the probability of a pointless Nazoid comparison starts at 1 and only increases thereafter.

ElevatorEscapee
09-06-2005, 08:21 AM
Come on, vote, STML! You know you want to!

He can't vote gareth, he's been banned. ;)

skip to my lou
09-06-2005, 09:41 AM
He can't vote gareth, he's been banned. ;)

Damn :(

Lucena
09-06-2005, 09:53 AM
Careful Matt, you might invoke KB's dreaded..

Goldbach Conjecture
General Greivous
Patzer's Law

It was something like that.

Very perceptive. I'm starting to think there might be something to it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

antichrist
09-06-2005, 10:04 AM
[QUOTE=Bill Gletsos]Of course it isnt defamatory.
I only have to show your language on UCJ to show how foul mouthed you are.
.............

A/C
No you can't Bill, it has all been wiped out, there is only beautiful praise for you over there from myself - remember.

Hey Matt, BTW did you spew when you seen that post opn UCJ praising Bill? It has had about 50 visits?

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 10:47 AM
[QUOTE=Bill Gletsos]Of course it isnt defamatory.
I only have to show your language on UCJ to show how foul mouthed you are.
.............

A/C
No you can't Bill, it has all been wiped out, there is only beautiful praise for you over there from myself - remember.Thats where you are wrong A/C.
Copies of the offending web pages containing the langauge were saved for future action.

antichrist
09-06-2005, 10:51 AM
[QUOTE=antichrist]Thats where you are wrong A/C.
Copies of the offending web pages containing the langauge were saved for future action.

Now Bill, in your post here did you see the advantage of my form of quoting, viewers could get the whole story without having turn over the leaf. There is method to the madness after all.

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 11:02 AM
Cut it out. I haven't said anyone was a crook - I don't know any. I haven't said anyone was a some kind of fruitcake wierdo. I haven't said anything crazy like that. I only say that the NSWCA has no plans and that that is pathetic.No what you said was that you wondered what sexual favours some people myself included were performing for the admin here. The staement was clearly defamatory.
Also Kevin told me there had been a defmatory comment about him over on UCJ.

No figures were forthcoming so I wont retract until they are.Typical head in the sand attitudew from you.

You yourself have said here and else where that the NSWJCL is not interested, so why go to a stacked meeting.Ah so now you claim NSWJCL AGM's are stacked.
Any proof to back this claim up, or is it just more of you usual innuendo.

I don't deny it.It is about time.

To you, everything that is not written or said by you is "false and misleading".Oh so your hot goss claim that Raymond Song" was retirng from chess wasnt false and misleading. Also Peter Parr told me that he never said to you what you claimed he said last year. Given the choice of believing you or Peter, it isnt I accept his version of events without question.

Your constant you sceaming of foul over pedantic interpretations or trivia makes you sound like a nutcase.Another misrepresentation on your part. I claim your language is foul when it actually is, not because of any pedantic interpretation.
In fact given how you have behaved on the BB over the years makes you sound more like the nutcase.

Well, if it has been censored, the "foul mouthed language" aint there. So what is your problem?The problem is you shouldnt do it in the first place and generate work for the moderators having to moderate your posts.

PHAT
09-06-2005, 11:46 AM
A/C
No you can't Bill, it has all been wiped out, there is only beautiful praise for you over there from myself - remember.

Hey Matt, BTW did you spew when you seen that post opn UCJ praising Bill? It has had about 50 visits?

No I wasnt spewing at all. You are entitled to say what you want.

As for the wipe out, I was very very sad to see all the good stuff gone. And there was a lot there.

As for the flaming stuff being wiped out, in some respects it is probably best to use the opertunity of a blank slate to find more constructive ways to drag the NSWCA into planning a future for NSW chess.

However, Bill is still trying to intent on both shooting the messenger and holding grudges :( A pity, because there are signs that other "important names" are starting to look seriously to the future - the President needs start listening to them instead of fighting with me.

PHAT
09-06-2005, 12:40 PM
No what you said was that you wondered what sexual favours some people myself included were performing for the admin here. The statement was clearly defamatory.
If someone is brown-nosing and you say so, it is coloquial and can be viewed as a sexual act. No reasonable person takes it that way. When one group or individual is said to be doing lude and crudes for another group or individual, it must also be taken in context. ie Coloquial banter in a flame post.

If you could just stop taking yourself and everything so seriously you will relax and live longer.


Also Kevin told me there had been a defmatory comment about him over on UCJ.
If he was troubled by something he should have come straight out and said "get it off right now" We might have been able to fix it up. He is not a timid little thing and had he been genuinely unhappy about something, I am sure he would have got stuck into me. He didn't, so go figure.

The same opertunity was/is also always open to you. You never PM me, you never phoned me last year re the SCC. You have not been communicative in a manner that befits your postion. You choose to air all your dirty linen and grevences in a public manner.



Typical head in the sand attitudew from you.
No, my head is up- getting kicked - and I am still waiting for a real figure. I think the range quoted was between $1k and $10 [EDIT $10k] for a dozen or so Juniors. The range is so wide as to bew meaningless.



Ah so now you claim NSWJCL AGM's are stacked.
Any proof to back this claim up, or is it just more of you usual innuendo.
It is about time.


Now you are just picking fights to be silly - may be to goad?




Oh so your hot goss claim that Raymond Song" was retirng from chess wasnt false and misleading.
No it was not a claim. It was a report of a converstion heard between Mrs Song and a DOP. At the time several others were also of the opinion that "retirement" ment "retirement". It was hot gossip that was later dispelled as incorrect.



Also Peter Parr told me that he never said to you what you claimed he said last year.
You deliberately misinterpreted the phrase "rent free" to include "free hall hire". There is no need to believe either Parr or me. Both of our recallections are in close agreement.



In fact given how you have behaved on the BB over the years makes you sound more like the nutcase.
That may well be true - but only to concrete thinkers.



The problem is you shouldnt do it in the first place and generate work for the moderators having to moderate your posts.

Mods work is volutary. No amount of work can be imposed upon them because they always have the option to quit.



Bill, I am fed up to the back teeth with all this BS. There is obviously no way for anyone to "win." As I see it, you are a useless conservative hair splitter. You see me as, I think, as an offensive lunatic pest.

What now? I propose: I [b]will cut it out and you will cut it out too.

And to show evidence that I am serious, I will let you have the LAST word.



Yours in chess,
Matthew Sweeney

Thunderspirit
09-06-2005, 12:42 PM
Skip's been banned from his own site?? What the??

antichrist
09-06-2005, 12:48 PM
Skip's been banned from his own site?? What the??

Only the same as JC letting himself be crucified. He knew he would be out in three days. Think of poor Hickie instead, the silly bugger.

Lucena
09-06-2005, 01:11 PM
Bill, I am fed up to the back teeth with all this BS. There is obviously no way for anyone to "win." As I see it, you are a useless conservative hair splitter. You see me as, I think, as an offensive lunatic pest.

What now? I propose: I [b]will cut it out and you will cut it out too.

And to show evidence that I am serious, I will let you have the LAST word.



Yours in chess,
Matthew Sweeney

Wow. :clap: That's quite a generous offer coming from Matt. And by far Matt at his most diplomatic.

skip to my lou
09-06-2005, 01:33 PM
Skip's been banned from his own site?? What the??

What the??

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 01:40 PM
If someone is brown-nosing and you say so, it is coloquial and can be viewed as a sexual act. No reasonable person takes it that way. When one group or individual is said to be doing lude and crudes for another group or individual, it must also be taken in context. ie Coloquial banter in a flame post.There was nothing colloquial about it. It was simply defamatory. However if you wont take my word for it, I suggest you check with a lawyer.

If you could just stop taking yourself and everything so seriously you will relax and live longer.I take defamatory statements very seriously.

If he was troubled by something he should have come straight out and said "get it off right now" We might have been able to fix it up. He is not a timid little thing and had he been genuinely unhappy about something, I am sure he would have got stuck into me. He didn't, so go figure.I'm more interested in his side of the story as I am sure it will differ from yours.

The same opertunity was/is also always open to you. You never PM me, you never phoned me last year re the SCC. You have not been communicative in a manner that befits your postion.You demonstrated you total lack of interest in doing anything whilst you were on the NSWCA Council. As such I had better things to do with my time working with people who were making a contribution than waste it on do nothings like you.

You choose to air all your dirty linen and grevences in a public manner.No that is your modus operandi. I simply respond to you misinformation and beatups.

No, my head is up- getting kicked - and I am still waiting for a real figure. I think the range quoted was between $1k and $10 for a dozen or so Juniors. The range is so wide as to bew meaningless.Same old excuse. instead of approaching the NSWJCL treasurer personally and trying to find out, you just keep making accusations.

Now you are just picking fights to be silly - may be to goad?No, you are one the doing that.
You claimed you wouldnt bother turning up to argue your case for the NSWJCL to support a Chess center at the NSWJCL AGM because of stacked meetings.
I just asking you to justify this statement.

It was a report of a converstion heard between Mrs Song and a DOP.You could have spoken directly to Sonia to clarify exactly what was being said, not make announce based on overheard comments or heresay.

At the time several others were also of the opinion that "retirement" ment "retirement".Yes, but none of them went announced it, like you did.

It was hot gossip that was later dispelled as incorrect.Even after they were shown to be incorrect you never retracted them on UCJ.

You deliberately misinterpreted the phrase "rent free" to include "hall hire free".No I didnt.

There is no need to believe either Parr or me. Both of our recallections are in close agreement.No they are not.

Mods work is volutary. No amount of work can be imposed upon them because they always have the option to quit. The solution is simpel. The mods should just ban recidivist offenders.

Bill, I am fed up to the back teeth with all this BS. There is obviously no way for anyone to "win." As I see it, you are a useless conservative hair splitter.You wouldnt have a clue as to what issues I support or dont.

You see me as, I think, as an offensive lunatic pest.And I'm certainly not alone in that view.

What now? I propose: I [b]will cut it out and you will cut it out too.You have made such claims in the past and never stuck to them.
You simply go into a hiatus before returning sprouting more beatups, misinformation and abuse.
As such I'll believe it when I see it.

Yours in chess,
Matthew SweeneyThis "yours in chess" is getting tiresome.
You need a new line.

Spiny Norman
09-06-2005, 02:45 PM
There was a reason for this. Because Frosty or someone said that they avoided having to type the dreadful word "Antichrist" by just abbreviating to "A/C". Well being A/C I wanted to make them wear it.

Antichrist, Antichrist, Antichrist ... there, I've said it.

But AC is more succinct and friendlier.

PHAT
09-06-2005, 02:45 PM
I am assuming the quote below is an acceptence of my proposal.
As such I'll believe it when I see it.

I have "cut it out" and you have had the LAST say.
Fair enough?

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 02:52 PM
I am assuming the quote below is an acceptence of my proposal.
I have "cut it out" and you have had the LAST say.
Fair enough?All that shows is that you have cut it out for one post.
As for whether this turns out to be an ongoing thing on your part, well as I said "I'll believe it when I see it."

Spiny Norman
09-06-2005, 02:53 PM
Will this usher in a new era of detente? We wait with baited breath ... :shhh: ... its an awkward moment for all concerned.

firegoat7
09-06-2005, 03:09 PM
Hello,

Why dosen't Bill get warned for his behaviour? Clearly he is baiting Matt...in fact he has gone into an absolute frenzy since Matt returned. :hmm:

Warn Bill, STML, you damn fence sitter.

Cheers Fg7

skip to my lou
09-06-2005, 03:32 PM
Warn Bill, STML, you damn fence sitter.

Warn him for what? For firegoat having double standards?

Lucena
09-06-2005, 03:46 PM
I am assuming the quote below is an acceptence of my proposal.
I have "cut it out" and you have had the LAST say.
Fair enough?

Hooray! :clap: :owned: :banana:

ElevatorEscapee
09-06-2005, 08:02 PM
Being banned seems to be quite fashionable here...

I wonder who will be next to jump on the "banned wagon". :P

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2005, 08:13 PM
If someone is brown-nosing and you say so, it is coloquial and can be viewed as a sexual act. No reasonable person takes it that way. When one group or individual is said to be doing lude and crudes for another group or individual, it must also be taken in context. ie Coloquial banter in a flame post.

Yes but towards a person who doesn't even post on the BB? I'm not actually sure whether any of that stuff would be ruled as defamatory - you could probably successfully argue that you were being idiotic and that no sane person would take anything you said about anything seriously and hence have it relegated to "mere abuse". However, the law tends to take the view that if a reasonable person could read something a certain way then it carries that meaning, even if that meaning wasn't intended.

That aside there was certainly plenty of material attacking Bill's competence as an administrator and commenting adversely on his impact on Australian chess that was defamatory on UCJ. You would not succeed in a fair comment defence because your comments were obviously biased and malicious throughout with evidence to back them up rarely explicitly stated.

There was also some material that defamed me - quite lightly in comparison to Bill. I sent you a PM asking that you go through a particular thread and remove all the defamatory material about me and you did nothing. Admittedly I did not specify what the material was (just the thread) because I also wanted to see if you were competent to work it out for yourself. I thought this would be a useful test of your competence as a moderator.

Of course, I acknowledge the possibility that you may have not received that PM, for instance for a technical reason - after receiving no response I did not pursue the matter because life is too short to worry overmuch about being defamed by a bunch of renegade hotheads talking to themselves. If this is so perhaps you would like to make some amends for your defamatory comments now?

arosar
09-06-2005, 08:17 PM
Being banned seems to be quite fashionable here...

I wonder who will be next to jump on the "banned wagon". :P

Prolly me. I still got them 2 warning points against me name.

AR

firegoat7
09-06-2005, 09:34 PM
Warn him for what? For firegoat having double standards?

Moi?
Take a look in the mirror sunshine.
You warn Matt to be nice for saying shut up, yet say nothing to Bill about cooling the flaming? Personally I have little problem with Bill flaming, but it does take two to tango, so why just warn Matt?

But then again we all have our favorites don't we. Some like conservatives and some like radicals. It appears you like rad-cons.

Cheers Fg7

antichrist
09-06-2005, 09:38 PM
Prolly me. I still got them 2 warning points against me name.

AR

They can't bar you AR because you're everyone's favourite gay substitute -- according to Jenni (or Libby).

Don't worry about those points, I have none but I go straight to jail and don't collect anything but may lose a bundle the way I am going. I am going to ask to be transferred to Bali prison women's section.

antichrist
09-06-2005, 09:47 PM
[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]Yes but towards a person who doesn't even post on the BB? I'm not actually sure whether any of that stuff would be ruled as defamatory - you could probably successfully argue that you were being idiotic and that no sane person would take anything you said about anything seriously and hence have it relegated to "mere abuse". However, the law tends to take the view that if a reasonable person could read something a certain way then it carries that meaning, even if that meaning wasn't intended. .....................


Never under estimate people's ability to be thick, we have it on this board even with decent rated players. Remember that saying: you will never go broke underestimating people's intelligence or gullibility or something?

skip to my lou
09-06-2005, 10:00 PM
Talk a look in the mirror sunshine.

Not sure about talking to mirrors, but I never officially warned Matt.

PHAT
09-06-2005, 10:22 PM
That aside there was certainly plenty of material attacking Bill's competence as an administrator and commenting adversely on his impact on Australian chess that was defamatory on UCJ.

Bill and I are cutting it out. So I should not engage in this convo.


You would not succeed in a fair comment defence because your comments were obviously biased and malicious throughout with evidence to back them up rarely explicitly stated.
Bill and I are cutting it out. So I should not engage in this convo.



There was also some material that defamed me - quite lightly in comparison to Bill. I sent you a PM asking that you go through a particular thread and remove all the defamatory material about me and you did nothing. Admittedly I did not specify what the material was (just the thread) because I also wanted to see if you were competent to work it out for yourself. I thought this would be a useful test of your competence as a moderator.

Competence at removing or competence in agreeing with you on what was over the line.


... life is too short to worry overmuch about being defamed by a bunch of renegade hotheads talking to themselves. If this is so perhaps you would like to make some amends for your defamatory comments now?

Since what ever it was that ruffled feathers is neither retained in my head or ever again available to srcutinise, it is hard for me to be specific. Nevertheless, what ever it was, if it was rougher than it should have been, then I suppose that it would have been better had it not been there at all.

ElevatorEscapee
09-06-2005, 10:41 PM
Hmmm... is it just me, or does that poor badger look like it's really trying to go to the "lou"... or is that just his tail... ? ;)

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

Now Matt and Firegoat, you are both experienced posters on this site, you should know the secret of reading Bill's posts, (a secret that I discovered for myself a few weeks after joining up). I need Mary Poppins to help me communicate it to you.

You see, the majority of Bill's posts are filled with quotes from previous people's posts (that you have likely already read), and what remains is invariably not worth reading anyway. So by simply repeating these two words whenever you see Bill's name on a post, you can save yourself a lot of time, effort and energy!

Hit it Mary Poppins!

"When it comes to Bill's posts:"

"Scroll Down, Scroll Down, a spoonful of Antichrist makes the Bill post Scroll Down... "

Come on Matt! Come on Firegoat! Singalong!

"Whenever Bill posts a long post that gets you down, you need only remember two words: Scroll Down! Scroll Down! Scroll Down!"

Now Bill will probably quote this in a subsequent post and respond to it, calling me a fool, a cretin, a moron, a clown, and going to a lot of trouble to say that he doesn't care what I think... however, I will simply respond to his post by singing:

"Scroll Down! Scroll Down! Scroll Down!" :lol:

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2005, 10:43 PM
Competence at removing or competence in agreeing with you on what was over the line.

Primarily the latter since I assume that the former is trivial.


Since what ever it was that ruffled feathers is neither retained in my head or ever again available to srcutinise, it is hard for me to be specific.

Actually it may still be restored but given the shambolic impressions I've got from EZB's comments about the restoration process it would surprise me to see it again.


Nevertheless, what ever it was, if it was rougher than it should have been, then I suppose that it would have been better had it not been there at all.

Hmmm. A tautology that sounds like an apology. I suppose I should go with the maxim about perceptions being more important than facts and accept it. :D

PHAT
09-06-2005, 10:43 PM
Bill is charging KB a percentage of any takings for copies of UCJ.

Copies are worthless - not legal evidence on their own.

antichrist
09-06-2005, 10:46 PM
Primarily the latter since I assume that the former is trivial.



Actually it may still be restored but given the shambolic impressions I've got from EZB's comments about the restoration process it would surprise me to see it again.



Hmmm. A tautology that sounds like an apology. I suppose I should go with the maxim about perceptions being more important than facts and accept it. :D

KB, was Bill charging you too much for a copy of UCJ?

antichrist
09-06-2005, 10:50 PM
Matt, try for the Russel Crowe defense, or for the Mike Jackson one, or scheppel Corby one, anyone except the Matt Sweeney one.

PHAT
09-06-2005, 10:51 PM
"Scroll Down! Scroll Down! Scroll Down!" :lol:

The "Ignore button" you have when you're not having an "Ignore button."

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 10:53 PM
Bill and I are cutting it out. So I should not engage in this convo.


Bill and I are cutting it out. So I should not engage in this convo.Feel free to respond to KB as I'm interested in your answer.

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 10:55 PM
Bill is charging KB a percentage of any takings for copies of UCJ.Anyone telling you copies dont matter doesnt know what they are talking about (especially where the veracity of them can be confirmed by third party testimony who have witnessed the original) and should get advice from a lawyer, otherwise they might have a rude awakening.

PHAT
09-06-2005, 11:03 PM
Feel free to respond to KB as I'm interested in your answer.

Nope, I said I was "cutting it out". You appeared to intermate that you would too. So, I am doing the right thing.

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 11:07 PM
Nope, I said I was "cutting it out". You appeared to intermate that you would too. So, I am doing the right thing.As far as I am concerned you broke that with your response to Elevator Escapee in post #101.
On top oif that I dont see why your claim to be "cutting it out" should be used as an excuse to evade a legitimate question of Kevin's.

PHAT
09-06-2005, 11:32 PM
As far as I am concerned you broke that with your response to Elevator Escapee in post #101.

It is a pity that you see it that way. I don't know how you can see it that way. My post was not about you, it was about how people shorten their reading load.



On top of that I dont see why your claim to be "cutting it out" should be used as an excuse to evade a legitimate question of Kevin's.

Bill I reread KB's post and I cannot find a question in it that I did not answer. The last sentence asked what I thought of his treatment at UCJ. I have, I believe, answered it. :hmm:

Is there something KB should have asked?

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2005, 11:43 PM
It is a pity that you see it that way. I don't know how you can see it that way. My post was not about you, it was about how people shorten their reading load.Dont try playing smart, it isnt your style.
EE was clearly having a go at me.
Instead of refraining and shutting up you just had to comment.

Bill I reread KB's post and I cannot find a question in it that I did not answer.Of course there waere questions that you didnt give answers to. If there had been no questions you would not have replied to them both with "Bill and I are cutting it out. So I should not engage in this convo."

Is there something KB should have asked?No, he asked them, you just chose to evade answering them.

PHAT
09-06-2005, 11:56 PM
Dont try playing smart, it isnt your style.
EE was clearly having a go at me.
Instead of refraining and shutting up you just had to comment.

While it is true that EE was having a go at you, I was not. I am sorry if you think I was , but I was not.

Of course there waere questions that you didnt give answers to. If there had been no questions you would not have replied to them both with "Bill and I are cutting it out. So I should not engage in this convo."

KB actually was making comments. I stated that I ought not go down that path of responding to his comments. I chose the no convo path because it might have lead me to start up again about issues that I believe were burried.

No, he asked them, you just chose to evade answering them.
I actually chose to keep to what I said I would do - for my part in our flame war, I will "cut it out".

Bill Gletsos
10-06-2005, 12:12 AM
While it is true that EE was having a go at you, I was not. I am sorry if you think I was , but I was not.I dont believe you.

KB actually was making comments. I stated that I ought not go down that path of responding to his comments. I chose the no convo path because it might have lead me to start up again about issues that I believe were burried.Believe me, they arent buried. I dont take being defamed lightly.

I actually chose to keep to what I said I would do - for my part in our flame war, I will "cut it out".As I said "I'll believe it when I see it".

Kevin Bonham
10-06-2005, 04:44 AM
Indeed they were not questions.

They were statements of fact and no response from Matthew is required.

PHAT
10-06-2005, 08:05 AM
I dont believe you.
As I said "I'll believe it when I see it".

No body can make you beleive it. All I can say is that you are seeing it (cutting it out).



Believe me, they arent buried.I dont take being defamed lightly.


The direction I beleave was taken yestreday was to bury the hatchet. I have burried the head but now you appear to be baulking at burying the handle. I hope you are not trying the keep a grudge alive for no reason that I know of.

Bill Gletsos
10-06-2005, 09:24 AM
The direction I beleave was taken yestreday was to bury the hatchet. I have burried the head but now you appear to be baulking at burying the handle. I hope you are not trying the keep a grudge alive for no reason that I know of.I never agreed to bury the hatchet. I agreed not to argue with you on the BB unless provoked.

However I dont forget nor forgive you for the defamatory statements you posted on UCJ about me.

Lucena
10-06-2005, 09:32 AM
Being banned seems to be quite fashionable here...

I wonder who will be next to jump on the "banned wagon". :P

nice one :D

Spiny Norman
10-06-2005, 09:55 AM
Prolly me. I still got them 2 warning points against me name.

Should be like driving offence points ... should expire after 3 years, or 12 months, or whatever.

Question for mods/admins: Do warning points expire on this board?

If so, over what timeframe, or is it at the discretion/pleasure of the mods/admins for expiry?

firegoat7
10-06-2005, 09:56 AM
I never agreed to bury the hatchet. I agreed not to argue with you on the BB unless provoked.

However I dont forget nor forgive you for the defamatory statements you posted on UCJ about me.

For goodness sake Bill,

give it a rest!, let the guy post in peace without without jumping down his throat.

Cheers FG7

arosar
10-06-2005, 11:13 AM
I am going to ask to be transferred to Bali prison women's section.

FMD! They should put you straight in Guantanamo mate.

AR

antichrist
10-06-2005, 11:26 AM
FMD! They should put you straight in Guantanamo mate.

AR

Well you know to upset the Muslim prisoners they are desercrating the Koran.

If they did that to the Bible to make me talk (or rather shut up) I would burst out laughing and give them a hand. But save Relevations!

Bill Gletsos
10-06-2005, 11:36 AM
For goodness sake Bill,

give it a rest!, let the guy post in peace without without jumping down his throat.That is easy for you to say, he didnt defame you.

antichrist
10-06-2005, 11:58 AM
Bill, look at the big picture as I have mentioned before.

To an extent you and a few others are all puppets being manipulated by admin.

Look at the strategy, the mods, due to public demand, bar you from carrier pigeoning Matt's posted from there to here, so the BB goes quiet and admin is NOT HAPPY.

So in order to liven it up again, admin let him loose over here and the resultant posts are outdoing the stock exchange.

Liken the situation to a beaten housewife who just can't leave the husband she is addicted to! That is you and Matt. You are going to hate me now.

Don't you think I am intelligent sometimes?

Bill Gletsos
10-06-2005, 12:30 PM
Bill, look at the big picture as I have mentioned before.

To an extent you and a few others are all puppets being manipulated by admin.

Look at the strategy, the mods, due to public demand, bar you from carrier pigeoning Matt's posted from there to here, so the BB goes quiet and admin is NOT HAPPY.

So in order to liven it up again, admin let him loose over here and the resultant posts are outdoing the stock exchange.

Liken the situation to a beaten housewife who just can't leave the husband she is addicted to! That is you and Matt. You are going to hate me now.

Don't you think I am intelligent sometimes?You have your moments. This isnt one of them. ;)

PHAT
10-06-2005, 05:37 PM
I never agreed to bury the hatchet. I agreed not to argue with you on the BB unless provoked.

That is good news - looks like there will be peace.


However I dont forget nor forgive you for the defamatory statements you posted on UCJ about me.

To be honest I do not recall every scap of text I type. Therefore, if there was something I have crossed the line on, I do not recall it in specific terms. It is clear to me that you are not at all happy about it. Clearly, you believe the flaming that has been the cornerstone of our dealings on the BBs has gone too far. I agree. That is why I proposed a mutual course of cutting it out. However, you appear to be still agrieved by flaming on UCJ. In fact you feel that it was defamatory. It is not and was not my intention to defame you. Notwithstanding frank and robust discussion on BBs like this, defamation should not be part of the culture. In conclussion, I say that I am sorry for making comments you view as being strong to point of defamatory. I also hope that you can see that I was the party who intiated a peace and that this is evidence of my feeling on these matters.

Matthew Sweeney

Bill Gletsos
10-06-2005, 06:44 PM
To be honest I do not recall every scap of text I type.Given the amount of rubbish you type that is understandable.

Therefore, if there was something I have crossed the line on, I do not recall it in specific terms.Dont be stupid, virtually all your posts concerning me on UCJ crossed the line. The language was disgraceful.

It is clear to me that you are not at all happy about it. Clearly, you believe the flaming that has been the cornerstone of our dealings on the BBs has gone too far. I agree.No only you went to far. Your language was foul in the extreme. You made scurrilous and malicious allegations and comments based on nothing.

That is why I proposed a mutual course of cutting it out.No I believe you wanted to cut it out because your position was indefensible.

However, you appear to be still agrieved by flaming on UCJ. In fact you feel that it was defamatory.It isnt a matter that I feel it was defmatory, it was clearly defamtary

It is not and was not my intention to defame you. Notwithstanding frank and robust discussion on BBs like this, defamation should not be part of the culture. In conclussion, I say that I am sorry for making comments you view as being strong to point of defamatory.They werent strong to the point of defamatory, they were based on correspondence I have received clearly defamatory.

I also hope that you can see that I was the party who intiated a peace and that this is evidence of my feeling on these matters.I dont see it that way at all. I see you position as indefensible.
Also what I see is that it has suddenly dawned on you that I could sue you and now you are scared s..tless about the consequences.

antichrist
10-06-2005, 07:04 PM
I know that I am the oldie around here well it does have it's advantages, because on Friday nights we used to sing


Goin' to have fun in the city
Be with my girl she's so pretty
She looks fine tonight
She is outter sight to me
Tonight I spend my bread
Tonight I lose my head
Tonight cause I GOT FRIDAY ON MY MIND

so lets it drop and go out and enjoy ourselves with the the beautiful chicks and be outta here
bye bye

Lucena
10-06-2005, 09:22 PM
I know that I am the oldie around here well it does have it's advantages, because on Friday nights we used to sing


Goin' to have fun in the city
Be with my girl she's so pretty
She looks fine tonight
She is outter sight to me
Tonight I spend my bread
Tonight I lose my head
Tonight cause I GOT FRIDAY ON MY MIND

so lets it drop and go out and enjoy ourselves with the the beautiful chicks and be outta here
bye bye

But you're going to miss...

antichrist
10-06-2005, 09:39 PM
But you're going to miss...

The music was terrible so I went to my mates pizza shop and ate chess.

The music was good at No 2 place but too crowded for me and no 3 is usually good but couldn't bother getting off my bike.

Gareth, you did not get my message. You had better have a damn good reason for a good looking young man like yourself staying home on Friday night. Only excuse is extreme exam pressure. Or you have a lady beside your side.

Lucena
10-06-2005, 09:45 PM
I just did a paper on Revelation.. there are some whacked out interpretations. Did you know for instance that a number of people believe antichrists referred to some previous Popes in history (eg. Innocent III)?

What uni subject was it for?

antichrist
10-06-2005, 09:52 PM
What uni subject was it for?

Superstition Throughout the Ages
by Jean Meisler about 3 hundred years ago, a Catholic mons who was an atheist but had to hide it due to the Inquisition.

Lucena
10-06-2005, 10:01 PM
The music was terrible so I went to my mates pizza shop and ate chess.

The music was good at No 2 place but too crowded for me and no 3 is usually good but couldn't bother getting off my bike.

Gareth, you did not get my message. You had better have a damn good reason for a good looking young man like yourself staying home on Friday night. Only excuse is extreme exam pressure. Or you have a lady beside your side. Yeah... that's the one. Watching me continually post messages on a chess bulletin board-that's her ideal Friday night. :)

Lucena
10-06-2005, 10:07 PM
Hmmm... is it just me, or does that poor badger look like it's really trying to go to the "lou"... or is that just his tail... ? ;)


While I think of it, here's a link:
http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/

I got tired of that one, thought this one was more amusing: http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/kenya/

Alan Shore
11-06-2005, 01:05 AM
What uni subject was it for?

Dreams, Visions and Revelations. Currently writing another paper on 'The functions of Ascent Literature in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha'.

After that it'll be a paper on this topic:

'David Miller has argued that the main guiding principle for the distribution of income for work in large, pluralistic societies should be the principle of desert where the desert basis is contribution to the social product. Critically assess his claim.'

Then two exams on Evolutionary Psychology and Counselling Psychology.

Then next month, graduation!

Lucena
11-06-2005, 01:08 AM
Dreams, Visions and Revelations. Currently writing another paper on 'The functions of Ascent Literature in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha'.

After that it'll be a paper on this topic:

'David Miller has argued that the main guiding principle for the distribution of income for work in large, pluralistic societies should be the principle of desert where the desert basis is contribution to the social product. Critically assess his claim.'

Then two exams on Evolutionary Psychology and Counselling Psychology.

Then next month, graduation!

B Arts?

Alan Shore
11-06-2005, 01:09 AM
B Arts?

B. Science and B. Arts

Lucena
11-06-2005, 01:12 AM
B. Science and B. Arts

what was your science major?

by the way have you voted in my new poll?

antichrist
11-06-2005, 01:13 AM
Great stuff that you are doing Evolutionary Psychology - you lucky devil

Alan Shore
11-06-2005, 01:15 AM
what was your science major?

by the way have you voted in my new poll?

Psychology is my Science major. (wow I did lots of different things in that though... maths, IT, physics, geology..)

And the Arts major is in Philosophy and Religion.

P.S. No I haven't voted in your poll. I did see it there. Am considering saying no to all of them though ;)

Lucena
11-06-2005, 01:16 AM
Psychology is my Science major. (wow I did lots of different things in that though... maths, IT, physics, geology..)

And the Arts major is in Philosophy and Religion.

P.S. No I haven't voted in your poll. I did see it there. Am considering saying no to all of them though ;)

seriously? By the way, just click other and specify no to all

Alan Shore
11-06-2005, 01:18 AM
seriously? By the way, just click other and specify no to all

Some of them I probably would agree to a long ban but it all depends on the circumstances, and I can think of circumstance in which none of them warrant a long ban if there's some misunderstood factor.

antichrist
11-06-2005, 01:18 AM
A couple of people have done psychology to differing degrees, they are pretty excellent at analysing other people but shocking at analysing themselves. No one can put up with them

Lucena
11-06-2005, 01:20 AM
Some of them I probably would agree to a long ban but it all depends on the circumstances, and I can think of circumstance in which none of them warrant a long ban if there's some misunderstood factor.

Assume there are no misunderstood factors. I have edited the thread to include that proviso.

Alan Shore
11-06-2005, 01:22 AM
A couple of people have done psychology to differing degrees, they are pretty excellent at analysing other people but shocking at analysing themselves. No one can put up with them

That's because introspection is pretty much an impossibility.. philosophically (since you can't observe one's own conscious state - as soon as you do you have created a new conscious state as an observer that will change the very thought/emotion/behaviour you're trying to observe) and psychologically (methodological bias and confounds).

I try to attune myself though to re-examining my behaviour.. the best way is to continually think about other perspectives of yourself and how you may react in another's situation.

Lucena
11-06-2005, 01:23 AM
That's because introspection is pretty much an impossibility.. philosophically (since you can't observe one's own conscious state - as soon as you do you have created a new conscious state as an observer that will change the very thought/emotion/behaviour you're trying to observe) and psychologically (methodological bias and confounds).


Good old William Wundt, wasn't it?

Alan Shore
11-06-2005, 01:25 AM
Good old William Wundt, wasn't it?

Not bad... him and William James were the real 'fathers of psychology' that employed methods of introspection. Edmund Husserl was probably the most famous philosopher to expand upon those philosophical theories of metarepresentation.

Lucena
11-06-2005, 01:30 AM
Not bad... him and William James were the real 'fathers of psychology' that employed methods of introspection. Edmund Husserl was probably the most famous philosopher to expand upon those philosophical theories of metarepresentation.

That's some pretty impressive thread drift we got going there!

Good morning,

Gareth

Rhubarb
16-06-2005, 01:48 AM
"Other."

For being stupid, boring or illiterate.

P.S. This is overkill for many posters.

antichrist
16-06-2005, 07:59 AM
That's some pretty impressive thread drift we got going there!

Good morning,

Gareth
Gareth, What this thread shows, from my post top of page onwards, is that one does not have to have formal training to be able to observe nature.

My mother had very limited education but, I consider, was the sharpest person for summing someone up in a flash. and often in a hilarious even embarrassing manner.

Once someone gave her one chocolate only, immediately she came out with "that wouldn't fill the hole in my tooth". No wonder I was whinging on about no bickes and coffee.

Alan Shore
16-07-2005, 12:21 AM
Hey: antichrist, bergil, the chess nut (those that votes)

I'm pposting here drunk. You'd better banme. :cool:

skip to my lou
16-07-2005, 03:07 AM
Hey: antichrist, bergil, the chess nut (those that votes)

I'm pposting here drunk. You'd better banme. :cool:

/me looks for ban button...

Oh well, away till end of July atleast. I'll try get vB upgraded after that.

Alan Shore
16-07-2005, 03:37 AM
/me looks for ban button...

Oh well, away till end of July atleast. I'll try get vB upgraded after that.

Haha!

Hey good, then we can work out that DB query, right skip? ;)

Hey, so you almost done with uni?

skip to my lou
16-07-2005, 06:33 PM
Still 2.5 years to go. If you mean this semester, yeah, it was over long time ago.

arosar
16-07-2005, 08:00 PM
STML -

You're little brother is a trouble maker.

AR

Thunderspirit
18-07-2005, 12:57 PM
"Other."

For being stupid, boring or illiterate.

P.S. This is overkill for many posters.

Agreed.