PDA

View Full Version : firegoat vs KB - perpetual flamewar rubbish (bumped)



Kevin Bonham
04-04-2004, 11:23 PM
I've created this thread so flamewars between firegoat and I - which seem to be rather common - don't disrupt (vaguely) useful threads on the main BB.

When a discussion between us reaches the stage where my response is entirely irrelevant to the thread topic, I will move my portion over here.

This thread can also be used for negotiation between us with a view to ending these flamewars - assuming firegoat has any interest in this concept.

It can also be used for outsiders to offer pithy comments about the progress of relations between us, draw rubbishy analogies with Israel and Palestine, gutlessly fence-sit and blame us both equally, and so on. (Comments of actual merit welcome as well, of course!) Comments about the wisdom of Solomon not accompanied by annotated games may be referred to my little friends :hand: and :wall: - although I doubt I'm entirely blameless.

We start with something of no great interest at all from the Olympiad thread:


Except of course you have been observed doing this sort of thing before, it is a practice that enables you to cover your arguemental mistakes, you know the ones you make when you talk your usual emotional rubbish.

Got any examples there? Generally my edits are to add things to avoid making an unnecessary post, or to fix typos. Sometimes I have edited things even days later to remove something I discover to be false, in these cases I put "[edit]". Sometimes I discover that I've expressed something badly and polish it up - a practice you would benefit from adopting. :p Whatever I post, you're always within your rights to quote it while it's there.

Indeed, if you were any good at this, you could have lots of fun capturing and posting alternate versions - like I did once to a character who rewrote a one-line insult four times.

firegoat7
04-04-2004, 11:34 PM
Nice try, but I have no desire to bore everyone stupid with your insecurity.

Cheers FG7

Kevin Bonham
04-04-2004, 11:39 PM
Nice try, but I have no desire to bore everyone stupid with your insecurity.

As usual, you're an evidence-free zone. And even if I had any insecurity, I think that I would be the one doing the boring. :doh:

You will have no choice. You will no longer be able to keep wrecking threads on the main part of the BB by starting personal fights with me because as they go off-topic I will drag the off-topic sections over here. If necessary I will do it paragraph by paragraph and even word by word. So then you will only be able to debate the issues with me over there.

Welcome to your new spiritual home. Cozy enough for you? :clap:

firegoat7
05-04-2004, 12:07 AM
It proves nothing Bonham you fascist. It just shows how egotistical and self-orientated you are. Nobody is interested in your tiffs with me, including me.

Cheers FG7

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2004, 12:19 AM
It proves nothing Bonham you fascist.

Only four posts in and the normative sense of Godwin's Law is being roughly treated already. How pathetic. :rolleyes:


It just shows how egotistical and self-orientated you are.

Watch out or I'll find out when your birthday is and buy you some bad old Skyhooks records. So, I have a healthy ego. Now, precisely what is your problem with that?


Nobody is interested in your tiffs with me, including me.

Then why do you continue? :wall: :wall: :wall: Addiction? A deluded sense of morality? Don't kid yourself that you're actually acheiving anything here.

Garvinator
05-04-2004, 12:35 AM
Nobody is interested in your tiffs with me
Cheers FG7
exactly, that is why you guys are over here, instead of distracting posters from the thread title on chess topics.

Garvinator
05-04-2004, 12:37 AM
It can also be used for outsiders to offer pithy comments about the progress of relations between us, draw rubbishy analogies with Israel and Palestine, gutlessly fence-sit and blame us both equally, and so on. (Comments of actual merit welcome as well, of course!)
ill admit that i was thinking isreal palestine conflict when i was reading some of the squabbling between u too :whistle:

Gandalf
05-04-2004, 01:08 AM
Naughty goat! If you do not behave I shall have you roasted and fed to Kevin.

Garvinator
05-04-2004, 01:23 AM
Naughty goat! If you do not behave I shall have you roasted and fed to Kevin.
y do you type in size 1 font? :hmm:

Gandalf
05-04-2004, 07:33 AM
y do you type in size 1 font? :hmm:
Why do you use "y" instead of "why"?

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2004, 01:53 PM
(moved from Olympiad selections)


Bonham loses it again and again and....
Both David Richards, Matt Sweeney and myself have alluded to the fact that Mr Bonham stifles debate with his annoying behaviour . I ask that since this is about the sixth thread in a row where any engagement with Bonham ends up in a torrid of anxiety produced by Bonham, that he at least be warned about his behaviour by other administrators.

I also ask that the readers of this bulletin board take some time out to look at the degeneration of this thread in regards to debating by Mr Bonham and ask you to judge whether his last post was any of the following a) a response to criticism b) productive c) warranted d) accurate e) emotional claptrap f)none of the above of g) all of the above.

Take a look at about the last ten exchanges between Bonham and myself and try and figure out if any communication is actually achievable. Furthermore, feel free to criticise me if you think my behaviour was over the top.

Cheers FG7


Quote:
Originally Posted by firegoat7
Bonham loses it again and again and....


Stop making stuff up (especially when you have never had "it".)

Quote:
Both David Richards, Matt Sweeney and myself have alluded to the fact that Mr[sic] Bonham stifles debate with his annoying behaviour .


Translation: Dr Bonham makes it difficult for poor firegoat to dribble on unhindered with his usual act involving some or all of misinformation, meritless personal criticism and poor debating skill. Even though firegoat often then fills the BB with pages and pages of witless beat-up based on these comments (which seems to be the best idea he has of how you "debate" something), and wilfully fails to address my actual points, he then claims that I am stifling debate.

firegoat, the one who is stifling debate here is you. You stifle it by having no clue how to do it.

Quote:
I ask that since this is about the sixth thread in a row where any engagement with Bonham ends up in a torrid of anxiety produced by Bonham, that he at least be warned about his behaviour by other administrators.


"Anxiety" involves fear and concern, silly. I certainly have nothing to fear from a debater as incompetent and laughable as you.

Quote:
I also ask that the readers of this bulletin board take some time out to look at the degeneration of this thread in regards to debating by Mr Bonham and ask you to judge whether his last post was any of the following a) a response to criticism b) productive c) warranted d) accurate e) emotional claptrap f)none of the above of g) all of the above.


If looking at your last post they need only consider (e).

You were the one who got personal here, again. We were debating calmly and impersonally for several posts, although you were being only slightly less inept than normal, then out of nowhere you started wilfully dodging the issue and making up trash about me posting "emotionally".

Quote:
Take a look at about the last ten exchanges between Bonham and myself and try and figure out if any communication is actually achievable.


There has been plenty of communication between us on these issues. Your ideal of communication with me seems to be one in which you talk and I agree.
Any other response sooner or later results in you getting personal and making up nonsense.

Now, it's very simple really. If, as your whingeing suggests, you have a problem with encountering me on the low road, don't go there. Or of you do, just hang a quick reverse.

Quote:
Furthermore, feel free to criticise me if you think my behaviour was over the top.


I think you will find it has all been said before by very many regulars here, and most of them have given you up as a lost cause.

(*bounces firegoat out of the ring and waits to see if he has any tag team willing to step in and take his place today*)


yeah yeah Bonham all talk no action

Like I said before Bonham, rather then engage with an egotistical thread wrecker like yourself, I have made a plea to the jury.

I think I will wait for their opinions rather then your self appointed righteous bullshit.

Cheers FG7


Quote:
Originally Posted by firegoat7
yeah yeah Bonham all talk no action


Precisely what kind of action were you expecting?

Quote:
Like I said before Bonham, rather then engage with an egotistical thread wrecker like yourself


Most threads or subthreads you start are the argumentative equivalent of the Granville train disaster before the end of post one. Call me the salvage crew, although in your case this means cutting through the twisted useless metal between your ears in a futile search for a half-alive morsel of credibility.

Quote:
, I have made a plea to the jury.


Too late buster, you were tried and convicted ages ago, and only barely escaped the BB equivalent of capital punishment. What you should be looking for is an appeals judge, except that to get anywhere there you would need to be(come) innocent.

Quote:
I think I will wait for their opinions rather then your self appointed righteous bullshit.


I will wait for you to learn to write and argue coherently. I expect to have read and digested the entire published output of Mark Dvoretsky before you get there.

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2004, 02:08 PM
(more moved from Olympiad selections)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
I expect to have read and digested the entire published output of Mark Dvoretsky before you get there.

and have learnt more in the process


While I'm here pecking over your carcass firegoat, can you explain why you've started giving pretentious, stupid, almost tabloid media-style titles to your otherwise indistinguishable posts - and not even putting them in the "Title" bar like any half-bright member of the subfamily Anserinae? It makes you look far more pompous and antisocial than you accuse me of being, and brings back fond memories of the clueless newsgroup bumblings of the one and only Larry Parr (no relation I assume).


Quote:
Originally Posted by ggrayggray
and have learnt more in the process


I hope your not having a backhanded go at Mark Dvoretsky. One of the better chess thinkers of the modern era IMHO. At least as good as John Watson who Kevin seems to like (as do I too, btw).


oh dear oh dear :eek: my comment was meant to be a tongue in cheek backhander at fg7 :p


Look I do not think any of my suggestions on this particular thread were radical in any sense. They were actually quite simple.

That a moderator like Bonham is able to completely abuse posters at will,continually, simply because he may not agree with any suggestion is simply childish.

If posters like BC or GG just simply want to clap Bonhams achievements without reading any of the posts, then what can I say. Some constructive criticism would be useful.

I find Bonham's threadwrecking immature and derogatory.

I am sure if chesslover had initiated these posts, most of you would be calling him a goose. It seems however that whenever Bonham behaves like an immature brat nobody says a thing.

Frankly I am disappointed so far in my request for other people to adjudicate this dispute based on the evidence. I want to know who moderates the moderator?

Cheers FG7


Quote:
Originally Posted by firegoat7
If posters like BC or GG just simply want to clap Bonhams achievements without reading any of the posts, then what can I say. Some constructive criticism would be useful.
Cheers FG7


since im in the line of fire here, i will respond seriously for a change.

this thread is called olympiad selections. I have started to take the fg7/kb debates as a rather large personality conflict with both people at fault. I would seriously debate points raised, if they were not raised in a thread called OLYMPIAD SELECTIONS. if i remember this debate between you two did start about olympiad selections and how to achieve said selections, now the original debates have been pushed into the background by personality conflicts.

As for the olympiad selections, i am currently in favour of the current system, cause it can take into factors that any objective qualification system cannot. Yes, the selectors decision can and probably will be critisised, but so will any qualification system that does not produce the players that most ppl expect to qualify.

I do have an idea for a qualification system that might actually work, but im still working on the details before posting here. Also i am not sure that proposing any other format for olympiad selections would actually be worth the effort as I dont see the acf council going away from selector decided selections.


Dear GG,

Thank you for your response. I am sorry to say I find it lazy. Please could you re-read about the last 20 posts between KB and myself and draw a conclusion about how the post went of thread.

Cheers FG7


Quote:
Originally Posted by firegoat7
That a moderator like Bonham is able to completely abuse posters at will,continually, simply because he may not agree with any suggestion is simply childish.


No, the only thing childish here is you making a claim like the above that has no basis in fact and actually applies more to you than me. There are many posters whose comments I disagree with but who I'll debate with civilly, even warmly, because they do the same to me. I "abuse" some people by and large because they are uncivil and insulting to those they disagree with, for no reason other than that. Cases of you expressing a disagreement with anyone on this board without being hostile in the process, however, would be few and far between.

As for my moderation status, I have drawn this line in the sand enough times before, but just once more with feeling for the terminally slow. The conditions under which I act as a moderator are as follows:

(i) I do not moderate my own posts, and in general I don't moderate debates involving myself either (though I have made one or two exceptions for cases of extreme and obvious idiocy). The other mods have the authority to moderate my posts.

(ii) If anyone objects to one of my posts, they should complain to another moderator. Therefore anyone who wants to discuss me setting an example can tell it to this smiley: Especially if they themselves are the least civil and worst behaved poster on the board.

If you object to these conditions, complain to Paul.

Quote:
I find Bonham's threadwrecking immature and derogatory.


This is rather like being accused of unethical business practices by Alan Bond, or dishonesty in political life by John Howard. Although you are quite right that my reaction to your antics is derogatory, since they so often deserve nothing better.

Quote:
It seems however that whenever Bonham behaves like an immature brat nobody says a thing.


Ditto to above.

Quote:
I want to know who moderates the moderator?


Paul and Barry moderate me as they see fit. Happy now?

Thunk
05-04-2004, 02:12 PM
(more moved from Olympiad selections)

ExcusE mE.

i am looking for thE thrEad that is thE quarantinE arEa for foot-in-mouth disEasE.

is this thE right thrEad?

;) :) thE HUNK :) ;)

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2004, 02:25 PM
(more of the same)



Quote:
Originally Posted by ggrayggray
this thread is called olympiad selections. I have started to take the fg7/kb debates as a rather large personality conflict with both people at fault. I would seriously debate points raised, if they were not raised in a thread called OLYMPIAD SELECTIONS. if i remember this debate between you two did start about olympiad selections and how to achieve said selections, now the original debates have been pushed into the background by personality conflicts.


If you have anything you want to say about it, feel free to start a thread in the non-chess section instead, or to make suggestions via PM.

It is a "personality conflict", but firegoat has got to stop getting personal with me if he wants me to stop responding in kind or nearly so. I'm happy to agree not to start the personal abuse on any given issue if he is happy to agree to the same. Admittedly this is not that much of an offer since he is nearly always the one who starts it anyway. However I won't agree to anything that curtails my right to fully debate the facts of whatever firegoat is talking about. Nor will I agree to anything that allows him to dish out abuse but muzzles me from responding.

Now firegoat, what is your proposal for how these constant arguments with me can be brought to an end, assuming that that is really what you want? If you wish this to occur, perhaps you should start naming some terms we can consider, in the offtopic section or by PM? I'm keen to see what responsibility (if any) you would accept for this situation and what (if anything) you would be willing to give up.

If anyone wants to reply to this, feel free to start a new thread on the off-topic section.


Bonham,Bonham,Bonham you really are a nauseating ham!


and your editing traits had previously been well noted.


Adding, in this case. Saves space - why make two posts where one will suffice?


Except of course you have been observed doing this sort of thing before, it is a practice that enables you to cover your arguemental mistakes, you know the ones you make when you talk your usual emotional rubbish.

(response see above at top of thread -KB)

Gandalf
05-04-2004, 04:17 PM
Who moderates the moderators? Or even the moderators of the moderators? Why the administrators of course.

Then again, since you all asked so nicely, Jeo and I tend to take a back seat. It's so much more amusing from where we sit anyway.

Just be warned though: If you make me angry I'll edit your posts to make you look stupid. So behave. :p

Rincewind
05-04-2004, 04:25 PM
Who moderates the moderators? Or even the moderators of the moderators? Why the administrators of course.
Who administers the administrators? Or in the words of Pinky Beecroft, "Who is guarding the alpacas?" :lol:

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2004, 05:30 PM
Who administers the administrators? Or in the words of Pinky Beecroft, "Who is guarding the alpacas?" :lol:

When did Mr Beecroft say that? Is that one of the new MGF songs I haven't got around to getting yet, one of the older more obscure ones, or some other medium?

PS Check out Gandalf's post count. Bloody Istari, can't trust them with anything. :eek:

Rincewind
05-04-2004, 05:37 PM
When did Mr Beecroft say that? Is that one of the new MGF songs I haven't got around to getting yet, one of the older more obscure ones, or some other medium?

It was during one of his memorable (to everyone else except PB) guest appearances on The Glasshouse. ;)

Garvinator
05-04-2004, 07:01 PM
Who moderates the moderators? Or even the moderators of the moderators? Why the administrators of course.

Then again, since you all asked so nicely, Jeo and I tend to take a back seat. It's so much more amusing from where we sit anyway.

Just be warned though: If you make me angry I'll edit your posts to make you look stupid. So behave. :p

after reading matts comments and reading this, do you make inflammatory comments for the hell of it or cause you really believe what you are saying? If you change any posts for the above stated reason, just wait for the response that will come for posters :evil:

Bill Gletsos
05-04-2004, 07:06 PM
PS Check out Gandalf's post count. Bloody Istari, can't trust them with anything. :eek:
I think you will just find that using ones powers to manipulate the facts is a sign of immaturity as is his threat to edit peoples posts.

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2004, 07:17 PM
Edit this reply [expletive removed].
Gandalf walked right into that one, but will he spot the obvious counter-comeback? :lol:

Gandalf Edit: Expletive Removed

Gandalf
05-04-2004, 09:34 PM
a) I said if you make me angry. I don't get angry at stupid people, I just ignore them.
b) Yes, I did change my postcount, and I did it for a reason. I must say, however, that I am disappointed in you. Took much longer for you to notice than I'd expected.
c) Kevin, you know I don't like to waste my wit. Sweeney will be dealt with otherwise, if I ever feel he's worth the effort.

It's a shame really. I was beginning to like some of what he said. Bill, a half-hearted warning is not a threat. Don't take everything I say so seriously, you never know when I'll do the same for you.

chesslover
06-04-2004, 10:17 PM
a) I said if you make me angry. I don't get angry at stupid people, I just ignore them.
b) Yes, I did change my postcount, and I did it for a reason. I must say, however, that I am disappointed in you. Took much longer for you to notice than I'd expected.
c) Kevin, you know I don't like to waste my wit. Sweeney will be dealt with otherwise, if I ever feel he's worth the effort.

It's a shame really. I was beginning to like some of what he said. Bill, a half-hearted warning is not a threat. Don't take everything I say so seriously, you never know when I'll do the same for you.

I actually like Gandalf.

he has never insulted me or made fun of me or atatcked me

I think of him as a wise all knowing wizard that sits and observes us laughing sometimes how silly we all can be. :eek:

Bill Gletsos
06-04-2004, 10:26 PM
a) I said if you make me angry. I don't get angry at stupid people, I just ignore them.
b) Yes, I did change my postcount, and I did it for a reason. I must say, however, that I am disappointed in you. Took much longer for you to notice than I'd expected.
c) Kevin, you know I don't like to waste my wit. Sweeney will be dealt with otherwise, if I ever feel he's worth the effort.

It's a shame really. I was beginning to like some of what he said. Bill, a half-hearted warning is not a threat. Don't take everything I say so seriously, you never know when I'll do the same for you.
The problem is as an admin I dont think you should make even half hearted threats.

Sure buy into an argument by all means. :lol:
Insult the denizens, but dont threaten to use your status as an admin. :hand:
It just makes you look like a goose and we have enough geese here already. ;)

Gandalf
06-04-2004, 10:56 PM
Yes, well, as a regular I'd expect you to be able to discern. That said, I'll bend to you this time. It is usually a very effective method of controlling timewasters and dolts, but I underestimated the readership of this forum.

Rest assured, I will probably not be tampering with your posts. Bill made the goose point for me. :)

(Bill, please understand that though I am an administrator, where impartiality is implied and required, I still assert the right to be fed up with any of the members as much as anyone else. Whether I do anything about that or not depends upon my discretion)

antichrist
15-07-2011, 01:10 AM
I've created this thread so flamewars between firegoat and I - which seem to be rather common - don't disrupt (vaguely) useful threads on the main BB.

When a discussion between us reaches the stage where my response is entirely irrelevant to the thread topic, I will move my portion over here.

This thread can also be used for negotiation between us with a view to ending these flamewars - assuming firegoat has any interest in this concept.

It can also be used for outsiders to offer pithy comments about the progress of relations between us, draw rubbishy analogies with Israel and Palestine, gutlessly fence-sit and blame us both equally, and so on. (Comments of actual merit welcome as well, of course!) Comments about the wisdom of Solomon not accompanied by annotated games may be referred to my little friends :hand: and :wall: - although I doubt I'm entirely blameless.

We start with something of no great interest at all from the Olympiad thread:



Got any examples there? Generally my edits are to add things to avoid making an unnecessary post, or to fix typos. Sometimes I have edited things even days later to remove something I discover to be false, in these cases I put "[edit]". Sometimes I discover that I've expressed something badly and polish it up - a practice you would benefit from adopting. :p Whatever I post, you're always within your rights to quote it while it's there.

Indeed, if you were any good at this, you could have lots of fun capturing and posting alternate versions - like I did once to a character who rewrote a one-line insult four times.

It is not indeed rubbish to draw analogies between the fighting between these bods (still ongoing) and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Indeed when I queried one of the contestants a few months back (maybe Fg) the reply was that these bb contestants will never stop fighting and will last forever just as the P/I issue looks likely to also go on for.

And since the last post here even three years later a new site was set up specificially to keep the fight going as many of the main contestants had been barred here. Not going down easy those guys.

Seven years and three months the break was by the way - eat my shorts Hobbes

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2011, 02:09 AM
I think one difference is that in the I/P case a two-state solution might work someday.


And since the last post here even three years later a new site was set up specificially to keep the fight going as many of the main contestants had been barred here.

Not all that many actually. Even now only five posters who ever had any significant postcount here are perm-banned, and some of those have easy ways to get unbanned if they want to.

antichrist
21-12-2011, 04:26 PM
now I know what is behind it , KB got to play in Aust Champs due to him being Tassie Champ whilst FG had to eat humble pie and only play in reserves that he almost won - talking about keeping a grudge.

And now years later what makes it more explosive is that KB is on ACF selection committee for Aust Champs and he joined in decision to deny FG a place in Aust Champs (justly based on ratings etc) - and so FG has more gripe than his tummy can handle

antichrist
01-01-2012, 07:25 PM
If FG becomes mod over on dark side, and bars you as per his electoral speech, with me having my carrier pigeon wings clipped this thread will become redundant - unless you communicate around other side of moon by mirrors or something

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2012, 07:30 PM
If FG becomes mod over on dark side, and bars you as per his electoral speech, with me having my carrier pigeon wings clipped this thread will become redundant - unless you communicate around other side of moon by mirrors or something

His electoral speech wasn't an electoral speech. He was asking the other mods to stand down temporarily, not offering himself as a candidate.

And this thread was redundant anyway, with no posts for 7 years until you bumped it.

But yes, if he becomes mod then the following as stated on 2/1/2010 applies:


It is my hope that he will learn from this experience and never seek, accept (including tacitly) or execute any position of power anywhere on the internet ever again.

If he does and our active members are again unfairly affected, even once, he will most likely be permanently and irrevocably banned from here.

Maybe you should ask that your vote be changed from him to pablito? :lol:

antichrist
01-01-2012, 10:35 PM
Maybe you should ask that your vote be changed from him to pablito?

__________________

ac
I think you have been taught a bit of lesson (whether deserved or not) by being barred over there occasionally

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2012, 10:41 PM
I think you have been taught a bit of lesson (whether deserved or not) by being barred over there occasionally

Load of twaddle AC. It's clearly had no effect on my willingness to ban people who step out of line over here. Any time they banned me it may have amused them for a few hours but it always backfired. It will do so again if it happens again. If a lesson was intended I haven't swallowed it and don't intend to.

antichrist
01-01-2012, 10:54 PM
Load of twaddle AC. It's clearly had no effect on my willingness to ban people who step out of line over here. Any time they banned me it may have amused them for a few hours but it always backfired. It will do so again if it happens again. If a lesson was intended I haven't swallowed it and don't intend to.

well your attitude in above post is what justified all the flamewars and this thread - I can well remember them, where I would attempt to break the violence with : ""you pulled my bra" kind of stuff

but you were too wrapped up in arguing to appreciate my method of help

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2012, 10:57 PM
but you were too wrapped up in arguing to appreciate my method of help

Because you were being simultaneously a silly forum-hippy and an even sillier troll and were too clueless to bother digging into the debates and determining their original causes.

Violence? Melodramatic piffle. Only whiff of violence is firegoat's braindead violence threats.

Going to call me "rude" now and be as hypocritical as you're being towards CU on the other thread?

antichrist
01-01-2012, 11:02 PM
Because you were being simultaneously a silly forum-hippy and an even sillier troll and were too clueless to bother digging into the debates and determining their original causes.

Violence? Melodramatic piffle. Only whiff of violence is firegoat's braindead violence threats.

Going to call me "rude" now and be as hypocritical as you're being towards CU on the other thread?

CU, I consider, too often to be too abrasive which is why he has many antagonists.

About those flamewars what was achieved by them? They only turned whole board off. I know whole weekends were lost coz I would count about how many terrific waves I caught in those precious few days, it was probably about equal to number of flaming shouts here

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2012, 11:09 PM
About those flamewars what was achieved by them?

The goat was being silly and the goat was Told. And contrary to your cliched forum-hippy drivel, some people actually enjoy reading a well-constructed putdown of such cases. Some people even miss that there isn't more of it here and you are actually the prime one among them because you are always looking for aggro stuff to drag from forum to forum and start fights.

Your forum-hippy act is also insincere; you're actually just saying all that rubbish to troll because you know it will cause me to flame you. Glad to oblige. :lol:

antichrist
01-01-2012, 11:16 PM
The goat was being silly and the goat was Told. And contrary to your cliched forum-hippy drivel, some people actually enjoy reading a well-constructed putdown of such cases. Some people even miss that there isn't more of it here and you are actually the prime one among them because you are always looking for aggro stuff to drag from forum to forum and start fights.

Your forum-hippy act is also insincere; you're actually just saying all that rubbish to troll because you know it will cause me to flame you. Glad to oblige. :lol:

I agreed I started fights knowing that you buggers were so silly that you could not resist fighting, but then it would go on for ages. Actually I did not read a lot of the posts, not important enuf to waste time on. Truly I could not imagine adults carrying on like that over who said what, what melodrama there was and continue to be.

Frankly speaking I think you and FG etc should be kept apart, FG at least has maturity in this manner, he keeps over there

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2012, 11:20 PM
AC, any attempt at a maturity flame that comes from you is just embarrassing. It basically disintegrates in its own hypocrisy and cluelessness before you've even finished it. If you can't lift your game above the same sad old lazy cliches I might get bored enough to split the thread and retitle your recent drivel more appropriately. :lol:

antichrist
02-01-2012, 08:51 AM
For the record.
That flame war between yourself and FG on Dark side re racism of Jono sig file, was the clearest win by FG over yourself.

Because it did not go for days and subject had some substance it was worth following, as contra to your other flame wars

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2012, 12:49 PM
For the record.
That flame war between yourself and FG on Dark side re racism of Jono sig file, was the clearest win by FG over yourself.

Gee if that's the best he did then that doesn't say much for all his other attempts. And of course you only think he won that one because it covered an issue on which you are utterly biased.

Metro
07-01-2012, 10:42 PM
FG Hey Kevin I need a favor
FG Kevin I need you to do something for me
FG I am only asking because we are such good friends
KB ah firegoat i wonder if this will be an even remotely serious request
FG it is serious
FG I need you to send me a photo of yourself, some fingernails and
some of your hair to MCC in a sealed envelope please
FG I also would appreciate it if you could arrange for your girlfriend to do the same

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2012, 11:29 PM
I originally deleted the above post then quickly realised it actually wasn't technically against the rules since the wannabe-creepy drivel in question was written before firegoat was most recently banned from here and therefore quoting it without critical comment is technically not forbidden.

Anyway it shows you that firegoat doesn't have the material resources he used to since now he is trying to bludge this stuff for free, whereas back in 2005 his so-called band was offering beer to anyone who would put a voodoo curse on me or Bill. I fully intended to turn up to their gigs and claim the beer, provided it wasn't just cheap Victorian muck but it seems they were not gigging actively enough at the time.

antichrist
08-01-2012, 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
But if D Hamilton had been in champ he could have got wins against higher-rated opponents and achieved better thatn 2031 PR - only for sake of argument

DJ
"But if..." statements like this are worthless and only indulged in by people with nothing constructive to do with their time.

AC
whereas a damn good flame war is priceless

Metro
08-01-2012, 10:50 PM
I originally deleted the above post then quickly realised it actually wasn't technically against the rules Is Lekko's signature technically against the rules?
wannabe-creepy drivel Some,like me, find it amusing.


Anyway it shows you that firegoat doesn't have the material resources he used towhat material resources?
since now he is trying to bludge this stuff for free, what stuff?

I really think a grudge match OTB will deal with some of the issues.It's doubtful it will come to fruition.
Perhaps an (supervised) online match is more like it. Both Clubs meet on Monday nights.

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2012, 10:58 PM
Is Lekko's signature technically against the rules?

No, for the same reason. The text he quoted was posted before firegoat was banned. But if someone now puts fresh goat droppings in their sigfile, their sigfile gets deleted.


Some,like me, find it amusing.

Sure. I don't have trouble laughing at his wannabe-creepy side even while also noting its wannabe-creepiness. Probably when it gets to actual violence threats (which it has) there might be some argument for taking it more seriously and bringing in the feds instead of laughing; I'm just not quite there yet.


what material resources? what stuff?

The material resources to purchase the requirements for a voodoo curse and the stuff required to deliver it.


I really think a grudge match OTB will deal with some of the issues.It's doubtful it will come to fruition.

Indeed, especially given the violence threats. I think the required straightjacket might unfairly disadvantage my dear opponent in the contest. :lol:

Not interested in the online match; it would inconvenience other locals having to supervise my side. And I would be at a disadvantage anyway since I hardly play online.

Kevin Bonham
09-01-2012, 03:15 PM
No, for the same reason. The text he quoted was posted before firegoat was banned.

Indeed note that this also applies to my sigfile! I will probably change it soon just to reduce the chance of someone being misled into breaking the rules.

antichrist
10-01-2012, 07:37 PM
There has been major new developments in this flame war - it has really hotted up. FG has become a moderator on Darkside of Moon and is barring KB at the drop of a hat, at this stage KB has absolutely no comeback, he has used up all his ammo

Kevin Bonham
10-01-2012, 07:53 PM
he has used up all his ammo

Not at all. :lol: