PDA

View Full Version : Resistance against fascist moderators



firegoat7
05-04-2004, 01:09 AM
n/a

Gandalf
05-04-2004, 09:21 AM
Very nice, I'll watch this thread with great interest. Or not. Either way.

Rincewind
05-04-2004, 10:09 AM
look at me! i can be a cool revolutionary type and call kev a fascist, now you must all respect me. lets all cool people post here where they cant touch us and make fun of them because if they ban us well complain a lot and theyll get into trouble

Can I hang with the cool kids?

Gandalf
05-04-2004, 10:54 AM
Nah we're board execs, not cool enough. We're not even allowed to wear t-shirts with Che Guevara on them.

Rincewind
05-04-2004, 11:11 AM
Nah we're board execs, not cool enough. We're not even allowed to wear t-shirts with Che Guevara on them.

you say what you like gandi, i've snapped the shift keys off my keyboard in protest. :cool:

I'VE STILL GOT THE CAPS-LOCK KEY AS A BACKUP THOUGH. ;)

Garvinator
05-04-2004, 11:14 AM
you say what you like gandi, i've snapped the shift keys off my keyboard in protest. :cool:

I'VE STILL GOT THE CAPS-LOCK KEY AS A BACKUP THOUGH. ;)
you could always typE likE this :lol:

Gandalf
05-04-2004, 11:19 AM
Hey, that's not bad actually. What about this one: "I'm so far to the left that my laptop doesn't have a number pad! What's that you say? No laptops have a number pad? WHEN THE REVOLUTION COMES YOU'LL BE THE FIRST AGAINST THE WALL!"

Not bad, what?

paulb
05-04-2004, 10:02 PM
Let's resist the will to obey

look at me! i can be a cool revolutionary type and call kev a fascist, now you must all respect me. lets all cool people post here where they cant touch us and make fun of them because if they ban us well complain a lot and theyll get into trouble

yours in conflict

FG7

Apparently these are not firegoat's words - someone has tampered with something. Anyone who knows about this please email or message me.

Cheers - PaulB

Rincewind
05-04-2004, 10:04 PM
Apparently these are not firegoat's words - someone has tampered with something. Anyone who knows about this please email or message me.

The plot thickens. :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2004, 10:20 PM
If it was tampered, must have been an admin job or a hacker. I wouldn't amend firegoat's messages, and I don't see how anything could embarrass him more than what he posts anyway. And if it was another moderator I would be able to see who it was.

Garvinator
05-04-2004, 10:24 PM
are the brazilians back again ;)

Gandalf
05-04-2004, 10:24 PM
In that case I think it's time we closed this thread. If you would like to talk to any of us about the first post, we all check our private messages very frequently. (It's not like anything interesting happened in here anyway)

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2004, 10:35 PM
Much as I have no sympathy for firegoat and wouldn't have been worried in the slightest if he got banned entirely, there is an agreement about duties for admins and moderators here and many posters will become mistrustful if they see it being less than strictly adhered to.

PS I'll send you a PM shortly.

Gandalf
05-04-2004, 10:53 PM
Much as I have no sympathy for firegoat and wouldn't have been worried in the slightest if he got banned entirely, there is an agreement about duties for admins and moderators here and many posters will become mistrustful if they see it being less than strictly adhered to.Interesting you should say that. It would seem that I already have nothing to lose. :p That aside, I'll be looking through the admin logs, and I assume Jeo will as well. If there are security issues, we will certainly have them closed before long.

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2004, 11:26 PM
Interesting you should say that. It would seem that I already have nothing to lose. :p
Not necessarily. I only said if it was altered - and I also included the possibility of a hacker (though I doubt that's likely).

It's logically possible firegoat could have posted it himself then tried to implicate others. I doubt he would do this but he has previous form on hydra-trolling and pretending to be a Victorian chess personality (other than himself), so who knows?

Gandalf
06-04-2004, 12:32 AM
Yes yes, but I was referring to your "members becoming mistrustful" point.

edit: old material removed, thread opened. Jeo and I have decided that discussion isn't all that damaging, and someone may throw up a useful idea. Please, go ahead.

chesslover
06-04-2004, 10:51 PM
so what happened????? has the investigation been concluded?? :confused:

Did firegoat post the message or was his post tampered with???

Firegoat did state when he posted in the past that others in MCC were also using his handle to post in this BB. A couple of the regular posters then said that they would have more credibility if they used their own ids than be associated with firegoat :p

If so could one of them have posted the post using firegoat's handle????

Seems in this BB that there is more than one prolific posting handle with a couple of users having access to that ;)

Gandalf
06-04-2004, 11:19 PM
Is that so? Why didn't anyone mention this to me before?

I'll have to look at the IPs again.

If any other damage (or even just related abnormalities) around please mention them here.

chesslover
06-04-2004, 11:23 PM
Is that so? Why didn't anyone mention this to me before?

I'll have to look at the IPs again.

If any other damage (or even just related abnormalities) around please mention them here.
Gandalf check with Kevin or Bill first

I am not interested in matters outside NSW and remember reading about otyher people having access to firegoat's handle only vaguely

Bill or Kevin may be able to throw more light in this matter

Bill Gletsos
06-04-2004, 11:28 PM
Is that so? Why didn't anyone mention this to me before?

I'll have to look at the IPs again.

If any other damage (or even just related abnormalities) around please mention them here.
Kevin stated in post #15 on this thread:

It's logically possible firegoat could have posted it himself then tried to implicate others. I doubt he would do this but he has previous form on hydra-trolling and pretending to be a Victorian chess personality (other than himself), so who knows?

skip to my lou
06-04-2004, 11:32 PM
The thing is, it doesn't show as ANYONE edited it.

No access to the DB have been made other than me, and it wasn't me, I can assure you.

It could be anything really. If anything like this happens again though, I've set the board to trigger a script that will send me all sorts of information.

Could this be the original message?

Garvinator
06-04-2004, 11:39 PM
dont these concerns about fg7 with hydras come from the old yabb board with fg7's first loving posts ;) ?

chesslover
06-04-2004, 11:45 PM
dont these concerns about fg7 with hydras come from the old yabb board with fg7's first loving posts ;) ?

maybe am not sure

All I know is that when he was arguing with the Vics and the ratings and clowns with Bill and Kevin and others, he did say that others from MCC were also posting under his name

I am not sure who (kevin??????) then said that they would be better off posting independently so that they would have more credibility

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2004, 01:29 AM
Firegoat did state when he posted in the past that others in MCC were also using his handle to post in this BB.

He did say something like that but I think his gist was more that he was using the handle himself to voice the opinions of others. (In any case, if he claimed others were directly using the handle, anyone with any sense would have been skeptical as his posts are very uniform in style.)


A couple of the regular posters then said that they would have more credibility if they used their own ids than be associated with firegoat :p

Naturally, and not just because it's firegoat, also because it is better for anyone to speak through their own identity rather than have their thoughts siphoned by others.


Seems in this BB that there is more than one prolific posting handle with a couple of users having access to that ;)

I doubt that there are any. :hmm:

I have heard from someone who saw firegoat's original post before it was altered, so it is known that firegoat really did make an original post that differed from the edited one. However it is not known whether the post was edited before or after the first reply. If after, firegoat could not have done it himself.

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2004, 01:49 AM
dont these concerns about fg7 with hydras come from the old yabb board with fg7's first loving posts ;) ?

Yes, firegoat had three hydra accounts very briefly on the yabb board in early December. Two of them got banned and around that time he was warned to tone it down, I'm not aware of any hydras that looked like his work since.

eclectic
07-04-2004, 02:12 AM
Yes, firegoat had three hydra accounts very briefly on the yabb board in early December. Two of them got banned and around that time he was warned to tone it down, I'm not aware of any hydras that looked like his work since.
Kevin,

firegoat. n. a capricious (BB) flamer ? :p :p

firegoat7 ... a 7 headed (hydra) version of the above ?

;)

eclectic

Gandalf
07-04-2004, 02:13 AM
This is most intriguing. Jeo and I are becoming ever more busy by the day, so if we haven't figured it out by the weeks end this looks like becoming one of the greater mysteries of ChessKit.

PS: Security all looks solid too. Not an inside job, and not an outside job...enthralling!

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2004, 02:26 AM
firegoat. n. a capricious (BB) flamer ? :p :p

Nice.


firegoat7 ... a 7 headed (hydra) version of the above ?

Well he had four but the two that got cut off haven't resprouted, so he seems to be missing a few. Dunno if the name has any significance, I think he first signed up as "firegoat" and "firegoat2" or somesuch. I'm sure he'll explain it if he can be bothered.

When I put "firegoat7" into Google I only got posts on the old BB, and when I tried "firegoat 7" it asked me if I meant "fireboat". :lol:

Small things, small minds. Or in my case, idle minds.

ursogr8
07-04-2004, 07:59 AM
Nice.



Well he had four but the two that got cut off haven't resprouted, so he seems to be missing a few. Dunno if the name has any significance, I think he first signed up as "firegoat" and "firegoat2" or somesuch. I'm sure he'll explain it if he can be bothered.

When I put "firegoat7" into Google I only got posts on the old BB, and when I tried "firegoat 7" it asked me if I meant "fireboat". :lol:

Small things, small minds. Or in my case, idle minds.
I think fg7 said that others stood around the PC, at the MCC, and suggested words/sentences to be used in posts :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: . I don't recall fg7 actually saying that others used his password/log-in. The PC is in an open area at the MCC.

fg7 (or WBA) made reference to posting from (I think WBA's) residence, once. (That will give one extra IP connection to fg7).


fire...........an element
goat........(chinese...animal) connection, in the year of his birth (for both words)?

PHAT
07-04-2004, 08:09 AM
fir-ego-at-7. ;)

eclectic
07-04-2004, 08:50 AM
firegoat. n. a capricious (BB) flamer ? :p :p
I've thought about the word "capricious" and wonder if it necessarily derives from the latin word for goat or if it derives from the island of Capri itself.

Did not the Roman Emperor Tiberius exile himself to the island in his last years and so matters of state had to be sent over to him for his seal?

Due to his advancing years he became extremely eccentric, irritable and taciturn such that he would consent or not consent to state matters according to his whim at the time ...

... hence the word "capricious".

Now don't we here now have an "emperor in exile" ?

Perhaps the term "capricious" might be better applied to him/them?

In this case though the "whim" refers to which "persona" is to be used when posting.

(I wonder if chesslover is more influenced by the late Roman Empire and is in fact a tetrarchy?)

:hmm:

eclectic

Gandalf
08-04-2004, 02:05 AM
I don't see any exiled emperors. Unless firegoat7 just happens to rule the flamepits, of course. :p

Edit: Oh right, just saw the custom title in question. That wasn't there last time I looked. :)

Kevin Bonham
08-04-2004, 02:28 AM
The PC is in an open area at the MCC.

So an entry by another MCC member is possible, but they'd have to have edited it before Gandalf replied.

Does the goat have any natural enemies at MCC?

chesslover
08-04-2004, 07:29 AM
Does the goat have any natural enemies at MCC?

the Wolf ;)

ursogr8
08-04-2004, 08:07 AM
So an entry by another MCC member is possible, but they'd have to have edited it before Gandalf replied.

Does the goat have any natural enemies at MCC?

Kevin
fg7 is highly respected at MCC and the talk of enemies would be inappropriate for me to speculate on. :hand:

But if you had asked if there any mischievious members at MCC then I would have had to dig out jammo's old post about who hangs around the front door. And that post is in quarantine because of the 'draw the RECONCILIATION line in the sand' status of mexican politics. ;)

starter

firegoat7
11-04-2004, 09:25 PM
Jeo writes:
The thing is, it doesn't show as ANYONE edited it. Convincingly dispelling the myth that Bonham invents, who then states afterwards:
So an entry by another MCC member is possible, but they'd have to have edited it before Gandalf replied.
logic 101 Bonham looks like u have failed again.

By the way I have no known enemies at MCC, unless you count life member Jammo who has not been seen at the club for well over 5 years.

Cheers FG7

P.S Still, I am thinking Gandalf, with the dagger, in the cloakroom, for all you cluedo buffs!

firegoat7
11-04-2004, 09:39 PM
The Tasmanian clownboy then writes:
Yes, firegoat had three hydra accounts very briefly on the yabb board in early December. Two of them got banned and around that time he was warned to tone it down, I'm not aware of any hydras that looked like his work since. Another absolute lie based on superficial evidence.

Why Bonham chooses to appoint himself as judge and executioner is beyond me, but let us investigate his claim.

Bonham thinks because a number of accounts were created from this computer on one particular day, they must therefore logically be mine.

False of course, in actual fact there were 3 people particpating in that session. FG7, never made any of the new accounts, he did not even type in the messages. Instead two other well known Australian chess identities were taking the piss out of Bonham, courtesy of the MCC computer. The accounts D.hack,Hammer and Bonnybumchum were a deliberate attempt to have a laugh, nothing more, nothing less.

I must admit I had tears of laughter streaming down my checks, as my friends took Bonham to task.

Cheers FG7

P.S Tsk Tsk, circumstantial evidence Bonham, you really ought to be more accurate.

firegoat7
11-04-2004, 10:00 PM
Furthermore, Don't pm me again,especially when this thread was dedicated to you.


Greetings mortal foe , deluded clown


Just wondering what was the deal with the post that got tampered with. What did the original say (I won't get offended or hold it against you even though I'm sure it was absolute bullshit as normal, I'm just trying to work out who, if anyone, might have had a motive to tamper with it.) Had you had any arguments with the admins lately - I saw Gandalf threaten you lightly on the thread I started, but apart from that? What are you implying? Why don't you say it publically?


Wasn't me, incidentally. I don't have the technical skill, and if I edited something a note saying I'd done it would be visible to the other admins and mods. I really wouldn't do anything like that anyway, though it won't bother me if you imagine that I would. Did I accuse you of anything? I could share my initial post I sent to PaulB, but maybe thar wouldn't be prudent.


Were you posting from anywhere where another chess player could have used the computer after you? Do you have a password that's easy to guess? Anything like that? Well inspector Cluseau, thank goodness your on the case. The world will be safer now.


Cheers, Kevin. Cheers yourself, you will always be Bonham to me.

kindest regards FG7
__________________
"And for the record: no, 1...e6 is not a forced win for Black...he only has a slight advantage!" - John Watson.

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2004, 10:10 PM
False of course, in actual fact there were 3 people particpating in that session. FG7, never made any of the new accounts, he did not even type in the messages. Instead two other well known Australian chess identities were taking the piss out of Bonham, courtesy of the MCC computer. The accounts D.hack,Hammer and Bonnybumchum were a deliberate attempt to have a laugh, nothing more, nothing less.
Why say "FG7, never made any" instead of saying "I never made any".
What possible excuse can you have for referring to yourself in the third person.
Enquiring minds want to know.

ursogr8
11-04-2004, 10:47 PM
Why say "FG7, never made any" instead of saying "I never made any".
What possible excuse can you have for referring to yourself in the third person.
Enquiring minds want to know.
hi Bill

While it is a curious turn of phrase by fg7 it probably just has the innocent explanation that he was in mid-paragraph describing how others also used the PC on the day with other sign-ons.
I don't really feel sus. about it.

But the original two pieces of the puzzle
> fg7 says his post was changed, and
>> Jeo says it show no sign of EDIT in the logs;
has got me intrigued.
(And I believe both of them).

starter

skip to my lou
12-04-2004, 12:14 AM
>> Jeo says it show no sign of EDIT in the logs;

no sign of mod or admin editing.

He has a few minutes to edit without it showing the edited notice.

ursogr8
12-04-2004, 08:41 AM
no sign of mod or admin editing.

He has a few minutes to edit without it showing the edited notice.

Ah, the missing link.
So, the theory that some-one else in the room could have changed it, has legs.
Now, all we need is for fg7 to comment on whether he walked away from the PC?


starter

Gandalf
12-04-2004, 06:01 PM
FG7, I would appreciate it if you would keep the content of private messages, especially those from CK Moderators or Administrators, OFF THE FORUM PROPER. If one of us sees fit to send a private message then it is expected to remain private. Please don't make things more difficult for us than they have to be.

On a seperate note, if Jeo and I feel that your account has been compromised we may need to suspend it. I for one don't want a repeat of this fiasco. If you have any information that would lead to resolution then I would be very glad to hear from you (as it is you have sent me nothing).

arosar
12-04-2004, 07:36 PM
[size=1]FG7, I would appreciate it if you would keep the content of private messages, especially those from CK Moderators or Administrators, OFF THE FORUM PROPER.

I agree. The tactic was below the belt. That's a red card for you goat.

AR

firegoat7
12-04-2004, 07:48 PM
No mystery this end

Dear Starter,
u wrote:
Now, all we need is for fg7 to comment on whether he walked away from the PC? The theory is bollocks mate! Nobody has access to the internet without permission from the committee. Since I am the only one who knows the passwords they have to ask me if they want to use the internet. Anybody can use the internet here, they just cannot use it without the committee knowing. So the mystery remains.

You were right about Bill's observation, Starter. It is just an awkward phrasing that was attempting to prevent confusion between the identities. So I apologise Bill, I attempted to speak in the third person to clarify not confuse.

Cheers FG7

firegoat7
12-04-2004, 08:08 PM
private space versus public space

Gandalf wrote:
FG7, I would appreciate it if you would keep the content of private messages, especially those from CK Moderators or Administrators, OFF THE FORUM PROPER. If one of us sees fit to send a private message then it is expected to remain private. Please don't make things more difficult for us than they have to be.

Dear Gandalf,

Your opinion has been noted and will be duly ignored. Whilst I can appreciate your concern to keep information private and understand why you may want such a policy to be enforced. I can categorically state without any hesitation that I do not and will not operate under such a restriction.

My position is quite simple. If you do not want information made public that you send to me, then don't send private information to me. Quite simple really isn't it.

Furthermore, when AR writes:
I agree. The tactic was below the belt. That's a red card for you goat. I say,surprise,surprise what do you expect from a bourgois capitalist that believes in privacy but makes their money publically.
Interesting that you defend the right to privacy AR whilst suggesting that morally I have no right to air any information that I did not ask to receive. Strange.

The irony is that I am on a public bulletin board typing from a computer donated to the Melbourne Chess Club.

Cheers FG7

P.S I wonder what KB thinks about this?
P.P.S How will Gandalf display his wraith? ;)

Bill Gletsos
12-04-2004, 09:08 PM
Dear Starter,
u wrote: The theory is bollocks mate! Nobody has access to the internet without permission from the committee. Since I am the only one who knows the passwords they have to ask me if they want to use the internet. Anybody can use the internet here, they just cannot use it without the committee knowing. So the mystery remains.
fg7, that is nieve in the extreme.
Anyone with sufficient knowledge could no doubt circumvent any password requirements etc.

As an example I'll cite the following actual example.

I was in the US at a computer show in San Fran. A number of us had arranged to meet another group at a local internet cafe where there was a prearranged party being sponsored by a particular company.
One of our group, a 15 year old managed to hack thru the security of a number of PC's in the cafe allowing us to surf the net without paying any actual fee. It took him all of about 5 minutes.

skip to my lou
12-04-2004, 09:13 PM
FG7,

If anyone can get a copy of the cookie on your computer or even the encrypted password string stored in the cookie, then they can post/edit/delete as you from any computer they wish.

firegoat7
12-04-2004, 09:32 PM
Jeo and Bill,

Well then this is a possibility if this computer has been hacked into. I only posted once so if you can see an edit it is not from me (can u backtrace Jeo?).

Just in regards to Bill's comments its not naive Bill. You have to ask to use the computer. People just don't turn it on without permission. The point I am making is the internet is not connected without committee responsibility. Otherwise we have the phone on Bill- (get it Phone Bill (sic)) not the internet (unfortunately using dial up here). Your flogging a dead horse mate the security breach did not occur at MCC physically.

However if Jeo is correct it may have occured as an online security breach, which would be both unfortunate and problematic for the present and future.

Cheers FG7

skip to my lou
12-04-2004, 09:44 PM
Jeo and Bill,

Well then this is a possibility if this computer has been hacked into. I only posted once so if you can see an edit it is not from me (can u backtrace Jeo?).

Just in regards to Bill's comments its not naive Bill. You have to ask to use the computer. People just don't turn it on without permission. The point I am making is the internet is not connected without committee responsibility. Otherwise we have the phone on Bill- (get it Phone Bill (sic)) not the internet (unfortunately using dial up here). Your flogging a dead horse mate the security breach did not occur at MCC physically.

However if Jeo is correct it may have occured as an online security breach, which would be both unfortunate and problematic for the present and future.

Cheers FG7


FG7, It can physically occur in MCC without you knowing. Im not saying it has, im saying it is possible.

It is very unlikely that someone hacked you through the internet. If someone has, then thats you're problem, not mine. You are responsible for the firewall/security measures on your computer/internet connection.

No moderator activity is in the log.

It will show the last time you edited it in the message itself, however there are no logs kept of member edit/delete activity.

You have a few minutes to edit before it will give an edit notice.

If moderators or admins edit, it will firstly be in the logs, and secondly show in the message regardless of the time of the edit (i.e the few minutes does not apply).

I'll be back in a few months, probably late in the year, unless there is more trouble.

ursogr8
12-04-2004, 10:11 PM
No mystery this end

Dear Starter,
u wrote: The theory is bollocks mate! Nobody has access to the internet without permission from the committee. Since I am the only one who knows the passwords they have to ask me if they want to use the internet. Anybody can use the internet here, they just cannot use it without the committee knowing. So the mystery remains.

You were right about Bill's observation, Starter. It is just an awkward phrasing that was attempting to prevent confusion between the identities. So I apologise Bill, I attempted to speak in the third person to clarify not confuse.

Cheers FG7

hi fg7

Well a theory can be wrong mate. I deliberately used the word theory to indicate that evidence could either prove it true or false. Didn't appreciate you calling it bollocks; but you are obviously in one your clowning around moods. Anyhow, I accept your statement that you did not leave the room with the session enabled.
That means we are down to the theory that only a user with the permissions to edit the posts of others.....was involved.


hi there , Jeo can you give us a list of these; and don't give me that story that your dog sometimes uses the PC. Full list please.

Bill, see, sometimes you can be a bit suspicious of our Southern loose cannon; it was just a turn of phrase.

starter

Bill Gletsos
12-04-2004, 10:22 PM
hi fg7

Well a theory can be wrong mate. I deliberately used the word theory to indicate that evidence could either prove it true or false. Didn't appreciate you calling it bollocks; but you are obviously in one your clowning around moods. Anyhow, I accept your statement that you did not leave the room with the session enabled.
That means we are down to the theory that only a user with the permissions to edit the posts of others.....was involved.
That is not true at all.
It would be possible for a person who is authorised to use the PC but not necessarily the internet to copy the relevant cookie from the PC to a floppy or even email it to themselves. They could then load that cookie on another PC and login as fg7.


Bill, see, sometimes you can be a bit suspicious of our Southern loose cannon; it was just a turn of phrase.
In this case yes, however fg7's style of debate leaves one suspicious of anomalies.

firegoat7
12-04-2004, 10:31 PM
Starter tightens the screws

Am most impressed by Starters determination to get to the bottom of this detective story.....awaiting the next chapter with anticipation.

Cheers FG7

Gandalf
12-04-2004, 10:34 PM
Firegoat, I remind you again that if you can not operate under the direction of the administrators then it may be decided that you will not operate on this forum at all. You may be well respected, and you may have a wealth of knowledge to share, but this is certainly not enough for you to get away with a breach of forum policy, let alone provocation of moderators or administrators.

Once more, for the record: All private messages are to be assumed confidential unless otherwise indicated. You are NOT to disclose their contents without first obtaining permission from the sender. Failure to comply will result in disciplinary action.

skip to my lou
12-04-2004, 10:48 PM
hi there , Jeo can you give us a list of these; and don't give me that story that your dog sometimes uses the PC. Full list please.

"us", Mr Starter?

chesslover
12-04-2004, 11:42 PM
"us", Mr Starter?


karthik what does your title Mat 7 mean? :confused:

skip to my lou
13-04-2004, 12:22 AM
karthik what does your title Mat 7 mean? :confused:

Try and figure it out??

ursogr8
13-04-2004, 08:17 AM
"us", Mr Starter?

hi Jeo
I meant 'us' in the sense that there are a few on the BB who are interested in this investigation.
But anyhow, the investigation has moved on. I notice your later post where you assure us that there were no ADMIN nor MOD entries in the log for fg7's post. I accept that. That exonerates Gandalf, although I don't recall him posting a denial. :hmm:

We have still three theories
A. fg7 did not leave his PC secure by logging off his session (or his password secure)
B. Someone stole his cookies et al (Bill's possibility)
C. fg7 changed his own post.

starter

skip to my lou
13-04-2004, 08:58 AM
hi Jeo
I meant 'us' in the sense that there are a few on the BB who are interested in this investigation.
But anyhow, the investigation has moved on. I notice your later post where you assure us that there were no ADMIN nor MOD entries in the log for fg7's post. I accept that. That exonerates Gandalf, although I don't recall him posting a denial. :hmm:

We have still three theories
A. fg7 did not leave his PC secure by logging off his session (or his password secure)
B. Someone stole his cookies et al (Bill's possibility)
C. fg7 changed his own post.

starter

The logs are only for admin and mods as they contain information that may need to be kept private such as IP addresses and what not.

I feel this is a problem with FG7's computer and allowing so many people to use it.

Since it wasn't an admin or mod, I cannot take any action.

I will not be reading the forums for months to come. If there is a serious problem, then PM me and ill check it out. PM will automatically send me an email.

arosar
13-04-2004, 12:24 PM
Interesting that you defend the right to privacy AR whilst suggesting that morally I have no right to air any information that I did not ask to receive. Strange.

Strange only to you. I read KB's note to you and there is nothing in the content that was hostile towards you at all. In fact, I say he acted honourably to have been brave enough to send you such a note. You, on the other hand, acted dishonourably. You should play fairly instead of taking el-cheapo shots.

AR

skip to my lou
13-04-2004, 04:11 PM
private space versus public space

Gandalf wrote:

Dear Gandalf,

Your opinion has been noted and will be duly ignored. Whilst I can appreciate your concern to keep information private and understand why you may want such a policy to be enforced. I can categorically state without any hesitation that I do not and will not operate under such a restriction.

My position is quite simple. If you do not want information made public that you send to me, then don't send private information to me. Quite simple really isn't it.

Furthermore, when AR writes: I say,surprise,surprise what do you expect from a bourgois capitalist that believes in privacy but makes their money publically.
Interesting that you defend the right to privacy AR whilst suggesting that morally I have no right to air any information that I did not ask to receive. Strange.

The irony is that I am on a public bulletin board typing from a computer donated to the Melbourne Chess Club.

Cheers FG7

P.S I wonder what KB thinks about this?
P.P.S How will Gandalf display his wraith? ;)

Thats fine, people will just learn not to talk to you, as I have.

Good luck getting a reply from me if you ever have a problem in the future.

Kevin Bonham
13-04-2004, 09:46 PM
Convincingly dispelling the myth that Bonham invents, who then states afterwards:
logic 101 Bonham looks like u have failed again.

Actually if I failed anything on this one it would be information systems - and I'm quite used to failing that. However, as you'll see,


He has a few minutes to edit without it showing the edited notice.

No myth, no invention, I was just drawing everyone's attention to a feature of the board.

Now, as for the rest, I note your request that I not PM you again, so you can rest assured your inbox will be free of anything that might cause you to go so puffy in the face in future. Especially as your understanding of what the P in PM stands for seems rather limited, but also because you are a pitiful far-left frothwit who really isn't worth helping.


P.S I wonder what KB thinks about this?

Couldn't care less in this instance really. You shot yourself in the foot by reposting it, which was pretty much what I hoped you'd do in the unfortunate event that you were really that mindlessly hostile. Do it to anyone else and I'll delete it and recommend you for your long-overdue banning.


Cheers yourself, you will always be Bonham to me.

That's fine. It is true that my formal title might add an appropriate air of gravitas, but better no title than one assigned in error. :p What you are likely to always be to me isn't printable on a family BB, so now that we've swapped light pleasantries, let's get on with the fun ...


Bonham thinks because a number of accounts were created from this computer on one particular day, they must therefore logically be mine.

I'm not claiming to have irrefutable proof of your guilt here, but I do think it's vastly more likely than not you were hydra-trolling. You're failing to mention that the posts made from these accounts (only two of the three were set up on the night in question anyway) were made very late on a Monday night (in fact to about 2 am or 3 am Tuesday). Two other well known chess identities sitting around a computer with fg7 late at night (and that particular night) posting drivel to take the mickey out of me (very ineffectually), then, despite their failure to have any impact at all (messages were deleted before anyone else saw them) never coming back for another bite of the cherry? Not very likely. To believe that I'd have to believe there were another two people in Australian chess who distantly approached your lameness after 15 or 20 stubbies, and my faith in human nature, such as it is, doesn't quite fall that low.

Finally, I have a question for you. It is: What is the postal address for the Secretary of the Melbourne Chess Club? It displeases me to see a venerable Australian chess club permit its club property to be abused for the posting of rubbish such as yours, thereby perhaps giving the appearance of quasi-official approval of your drivel, and I would like to send them a formal letter of complaint.

Cheers, Kevin.

chesslover
14-04-2004, 12:34 AM
Especially as your understanding of what the P in PM stands for seems rather limited, but also because you are a pitiful far-left frothwit who really isn't worth helping.


as far as I am concerned kevin, you are also a left winger :p

but I respect you as you are a good sort and post a lot of very good and sensible stuff

and I also think foregoat has a right to voice his opinion as long as it is not litigatious

Garvinator
14-04-2004, 12:47 AM
Finally, I have a question for you. It is: What is the postal address for the Secretary of the Melbourne Chess Club? It displeases me to see a venerable Australian chess club permit its club property to be abused for the posting of rubbish such as yours, thereby perhaps giving the appearance of quasi-official approval of your drivel, and I would like to send them a formal letter of complaint.

Cheers, Kevin.

Mr Malcolm Pyke
66 Leicester st Fitzroy 3065

dexter@labyrinth@net.au

Kevin Bonham
14-04-2004, 02:04 AM
as far as I am concerned kevin, you are also a left winger :p

So are you, according to the political compass. :eek:

I used to be left on everything a very long time ago. I've never been right-wing across the board, but I have been somewhat more right-wing than now. I guess I average out as left-ish, but there are still issues I'm anti-left, or old-left-against-the-new-left, on.


and I also think foregoat has a right to voice his opinion as long as it is not litigatious

Not sure anyone's arguing with that much at the moment, what's being debated is his right to voice other people's opinions that are clearly marked as "private".

Thanks gg (though you did spoil my fun, I wanted to see if the goat coughed up graciously, ungraciously, or just told me to go look it up.)

Garvinator
14-04-2004, 02:10 AM
Thanks gg (though you did spoil my fun, I wanted to see if the goat coughed up graciously, ungraciously, or just told me to go look it up.)

i could always delete my post if you wish, so you can have your fun :p

But also i took the view that fg7 views everything as public, so i just listed some publicly listed information ;)

Bill Gletsos
14-04-2004, 10:39 AM
but I respect you as you are a good sort and post a lot of very good and sensible stuff
I'm assuming you mean't sport not sort, otherwise this adds a whole new dimension to your persona. :whistle:

Alan Shore
14-04-2004, 12:50 PM
I'm assuming you mean't sport not sort, otherwise this adds a whole new dimension to your persona. :whistle:

I thought they could be pretty interchangeable, maybe Bill needs to get his mind out of the gutter ;)

Bill Gletsos
14-04-2004, 01:13 PM
I thought they could be pretty interchangeable,
In what @$#& dictionary.


maybe Bill needs to get his mind out of the gutter ;)
Maybe you need to put your brain in gear and your typing in neutral. ;)

Alan Shore
14-04-2004, 02:49 PM
In what @$#& dictionary.


ahahahhaaha ;)



Maybe you need to put your brain in gear and your typing in neutral. ;)

listen my friend, I can assure you, my mind has been firmly entrnched in the gutter before so I DO know where you coem from, lol :)

Kevin Bonham
14-04-2004, 04:45 PM
I thought they could be pretty interchangeable, maybe Bill needs to get his mind out of the gutter ;)

I'd normally take "good sort" as innocent. I'm vaguely aware of a non-innocent meaning but I doubt CL intended any such thing. My dictionary gives it simply as equivalent to "a person of good character".

Lucena
14-04-2004, 06:58 PM
I thought they could be pretty interchangeable, maybe Bill needs to get his mind out of the gutter ;)
I'm with Bill on this one, good sort can only mean you think someone's a bit of allright if you know what I mean ;) ;) . good sport could mean a number of things

Lucena
14-04-2004, 07:03 PM
where's goughfather when you need him :)

Rincewind
14-04-2004, 08:12 PM
where's goughfather when you need him :)

He probably uses the ancient Greek meaning of "good sort". ;)

chesslover
14-04-2004, 09:02 PM
I'm assuming you mean't sport not sort, otherwise this adds a whole new dimension to your persona. :whistle:

I just cannot believe that it would be physcially possible for a very tall man like you, to stoop so low :hmm:

chesslover
14-04-2004, 09:05 PM
I'd normally take "good sort" as innocent. I'm vaguely aware of a non-innocent meaning but I doubt CL intended any such thing. My dictionary gives it simply as equivalent to "a person of good character".

exactly

I only meant it in the context that you were a pretty nice person, despite your sometime wrong political and religious views