PDA

View Full Version : Pointless flamewar rubbish II: Bonham vs Sweeney



Kevin Bonham
23-04-2004, 11:18 PM
Like frothgoat, Matthew is another of this BB's sad string of losers who, when the debate is not going according to their liking (as it generally doesn't due to their sheer lack of talent) tries to sidetrack it into a personal flamewar. The plan is to arouse animosity against both sides for mudslinging and thereby obscure the fact that his case has been demolished. Unfortunately, now that I have started shifting such trash to the offtopic section, it's not going to work too well anymore. :boohoo:

There is no point negotiating with Matthew. He's a recidivist, much as he wishes it all did not affect him so. Here is the largely off-topic part of his latest pitiful effort:


You are such a arrogant stuck-up know-it-all, you do not even make the effort to know what the other side is saying.

Actually I make supreme efforts, but with people who can neither express themselves clearly nor maintain a constant position sometimes it is beyond even me to know what drunk leprechauns are dancing in their heads.


For you to say what David "even David would not be, and has not been, clueless enough to recommend" it, shows just how pathetic you are.

My apologies. It is indeed pathetic of me to try to ever pay either you or David R a compliment on those rare instances where you misleadingly appear to deserve it. No good comes from it. In future I shall learn from my mistake, desist from such appreciation, and stick with my gut instinct that whatever you post must be trash even if it fleetingly appears otherwise. :wall:


All you want is to say NEYT to anything that is not your idea, and strut your over sized ego, dressed in an undersized IQ to impress the BB.

I think you meant "nyet", or was that "newt"? One of your close relatives perhaps. :lol: Do I say ney to the Glicko 2 rating system? Did I say ney to the NECG coaching squad? Neither of these, among many dozens of other and often more significant reforms, were my ideas and yet I supported them fully.

And I am not one to make an issue of my IQ on this board. I shall leave such amusements to lesser minds. :hand:


You troll here, and use standard debating tricks to keep on top.

I don't mind admitting that I do a fair bit of counter-trolling to show up the actual trolls for the dills they are. As for using standard debating tricks, why of course. Standard tricks like listening to the evidence instead of ignoring or distorting it, expecting a reasonable level of proof to justify changes, and treating comments on their merits rather than their authors (foolish as this sometimes is, see above). But still, I'm glad you recognise my superiority. :oops: How you, a published flamer, have since fallen. :lol:


Well, mate, I have you pegged. The best sex you have is with your fist

How sad. He thinks I'm just like him. So Matt, is that what marriage is all about? :rolleyes:


and the your worst move was to join this BB.

Seeing the English language getting mangled like that, I am much inclined to agree. :whistle:


You have lost all credability in this thread, so take a hike squire.

Certainly sire, to the moat. Apparently the crocodiles are hungry. True, they will find little nourishment when I throw them your already crow-pecked carcass. But at least the peasants can watch them fight over whatever brand of superstrength rubber was surgically inserted in your stomach to stop it from bursting under the pressure formed by all that bilious wind. :uhoh:

Alan Shore
23-04-2004, 11:53 PM
Kevin mate, I think he only says those things to get a reaction out of you, the more you keep responding to it, the more it will keep on coming. (Of course if you enjoy the banter more than you let on, by all means continue!)

Kevin Bonham
24-04-2004, 12:05 AM
(Of course if you enjoy the banter more than you let on, by all means continue!)

Actually I didn't think I disguised my enjoyment of sinking the boot into Matthew's mistakes anywhere near that well. :eek:

Easy sport though it is.

Lucena
24-04-2004, 09:43 PM
Like frothgoat, Matthew is another of this BB's sad string of losers who, when the debate is not going according to their liking (as it generally doesn't due to their sheer lack of talent) tries to sidetrack it into a personal flamewar. The plan is to arouse animosity against both sides for mudslinging and thereby obscure the fact that his case has been demolished. Unfortunately, now that I have started shifting such trash to the offtopic section, it's not going to work too well anymore. :boohoo:

There is no point negotiating with Matthew. He's a recidivist, much as he wishes it all did not affect him so. Here is the largely off-topic part of his latest pitiful effort:



Actually I make supreme efforts, but with people who can neither express themselves clearly nor maintain a constant position sometimes it is beyond even me to know what drunk leprechauns are dancing in their heads.



My apologies. It is indeed pathetic of me to try to ever pay either you or David R a compliment on those rare instances where you misleadingly appear to deserve it. No good comes from it. In future I shall learn from my mistake, desist from such appreciation, and stick with my gut instinct that whatever you post must be trash even if it fleetingly appears otherwise. :wall:



I think you meant "nyet", or was that "newt"? One of your close relatives perhaps. :lol: Do I say ney to the Glicko 2 rating system? Did I say ney to the NECG coaching squad? Neither of these, among many dozens of other and often more significant reforms, were my ideas and yet I supported them fully.

And I am not one to make an issue of my IQ on this board. I shall leave such amusements to lesser minds. :hand:



I don't mind admitting that I do a fair bit of counter-trolling to show up the actual trolls for the dills they are. As for using standard debating tricks, why of course. Standard tricks like listening to the evidence instead of ignoring or distorting it, expecting a reasonable level of proof to justify changes, and treating comments on their merits rather than their authors (foolish as this sometimes is, see above). But still, I'm glad you recognise my superiority. :oops: How you, a published flamer, have since fallen. :lol:



How sad. He thinks I'm just like him. So Matt, is that what marriage is all about? :rolleyes:



Seeing the English language getting mangled like that, I am much inclined to agree. :whistle:



Certainly sire, to the moat. Apparently the crocodiles are hungry. True, they will find little nourishment when I throw them your already crow-pecked carcass. But at least the peasants can watch them fight over whatever brand of superstrength rubber was surgically inserted in your stomach to stop it from bursting under the pressure formed by all that bilious wind. :uhoh:

someone remind me not to get KB offside in future :eek:

PHAT
25-04-2004, 07:12 AM
someone remind me not to get KB offside in future :eek:

Since he is the centre of the universe, all directions are offside. And like the Eye of Saron, he hasn't looked at you yet.

Kevin Bonham
25-04-2004, 03:15 PM
Since he is the centre of the universe, all directions are offside.

Only the centre of your universe, judging from your obsessive campaigns to expose me as whatever you pretend I am this week.


And like the Eye of Saron, he hasn't looked at you yet.

The Eye of Sauron did look at Gareth and see 40-odd lines of text quoted for a single line of reply, but such things are all too common nowadays, and besides, there are smaller fish to fry. :lol:

chesslover
26-04-2004, 04:29 PM
it was the best of times, and the worst of times...in the BB Universe
two leaders prepare for war...a flame war

One, a PhD inbred mutant from TassieLand,
Lord of all he surveys in that little tiny island
this migrant Grand Poobah..

The other, a prince in this most important Land
although just one of many princes in this fair state of ours
nominally owing allegience to the Supreme Leader, Bill
but independent, autonomous still
a fighter for the comman man

The two leaders amass their forces
as men and women and childred flock to their banners

The urine soaked unwashed brethren to matt do gather
eating their nose pickings as they harken to his battle call

the gooses everywhere to the Grand Poobah they gather
the King of Gooses, Supreme Leader, strangely quiet

In a lonely cave firegoat watches,
his enimity of the Grand Poobah all too clear
revenge and vengence in his soul
as he prepares to eliminate his foe
the one he calls the Grand Clown from TassieLand

In this war, the rebels are for matt, the common man
leader of the unruly BB mob

The establishment are for the Grand Poobah
he of the intellectual Goosemaster Doctorate

Who will win this bloody war
your guess is as good as mine

but peacemakers are amongst us
trying to prevent a BB Civil war
that will make state turn against turn
brothers against brothers, and children against parents

For war is a terrible thibg indeed
unless there is an election to be fought

Paul S
26-04-2004, 04:39 PM
A very witty and amusing poem, Chesslover. Well done. :clap:



Who will win this bloody war
your guess is as good as mine


My guess is that Kevin will win! He is the best debater/arguer on this BB.

P.S. Chesslover, I notice that the latest BB member is "Chesshater"! Is he related/associated to/with you in some way? :lol:

Rhubarb
26-04-2004, 06:27 PM
Chesslover, I notice that the latest BB member is "Chesshater"! Is he related/associated to/with you in some way? :lol:
Yeah, I noticed that too. If CL keeps up with the poetry, it's only a matter of time before someone takes the handle "chessloverhater".

chesslover
26-04-2004, 06:56 PM
A very witty and amusing poem, Chesslover. Well done. :clap:



My guess is that Kevin will win! He is the best debater/arguer on this BB.

P.S. Chesslover, I notice that the latest BB member is "Chesshater"! Is he related/associated to/with you in some way? :lol:


thanks Paul. Good news for the Bulldogs too - it seems rape charges may not be laid according to the Daily Tele

And yes, Kevin is the best debater here, but is that enough to win?

And no idea who chesshater is. But it is better to be a lover than a hater :)

Kevin Bonham
26-04-2004, 07:45 PM
Yeah, I noticed that too. If CL keeps up with the poetry, it's only a matter of time before someone takes the handle "chessloverhater".

Or "chesshaterlover" for that matter.

Rhubarb
26-04-2004, 07:53 PM
Or "chesshaterlover" for that matter.
Yes, all we need now is a flamewar between "chessloverhaterhater" and "chesshaterhaterlover" to see how long it takes them to realise they're on the same side. :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
26-04-2004, 07:58 PM
But it is better to be a lover than a hater :)

Both attitudes have their times and uses I find.

PHAT
26-04-2004, 08:58 PM
My guess is that Kevin will win! He is the best debater/arguer on this BB.


And the best politician wins the election. I ask, is that a good thing?

Kevin Bonham
26-04-2004, 09:27 PM
And the best politician wins the election.

I take that as a compliment from you ... an admission of your failure to be what you pretend I am.

You and your "campaigns". :hmm:

PHAT
26-04-2004, 09:46 PM
I take that as a compliment from you ... an admission of your failure to be what you pretend I am.

You and your "campaigns". :hmm:

My analogy seams to have gone in through your eyes and passed out through your ears. Let me explain: Being good at debating/arguing does not make a person the right person for making decissions. In the same way, being a good politician does not make a person a good leader. You think you area a Fieldmarshal of chess admin., but you are a Sargent who has employed gab to rise to the level of his incompetancy threashold.

Kevin Bonham
26-04-2004, 11:14 PM
My analogy seams to have gone in through your eyes and passed out through your ears.

As with everything else that fails the "worth wasting brainpower" test on, I imagine. :whistle:


Let me explain: Being good at debating/arguing does not make a person the right person for making decissions.

Agreed. I never said it necessarily did.


In the same way, being a good politician does not make a person a good leader.

Agreed, though the latter often requires the former.


You think you area a Fieldmarshal of chess admin.

No I don't. :wall:


, but you are a Sargent who has employed gab

Evidence?


to rise to the level of his incompetancy threashold.

To it or over it? Examples?

(incompetence (n)(Mattspeak) - failure to support every single pile of impractical pseudo-revolutionary Wheel Mk II froth babbled by M. Sweeney on the BB one evening after far too many cleansing ales.)

(Out of interest Barry/Matt, what is the beer of choice in the 'Gong?)

PHAT
26-04-2004, 11:34 PM
(incompetence (n)(Mattspeak) - failure to support every single pile of impractical pseudo-revolutionary Wheel Mk II froth babbled by M. Sweeney on the BB one evening after far too many cleansing ales.)

(Out of interest Barry/Matt, what is the beer of choice in the 'Gong?)

At the University of Wollongong bar, it is Coopers or nothing. Tonight here it is Blacksmith Bitter (cheap@$25 for 24x440ml), and when that slab is gone it will be Pils (Reschers). Around town it is Tooheys.

Rincewind
27-04-2004, 12:04 AM
(Out of interest Barry/Matt, what is the beer of choice in the 'Gong?)

So many beers, so little time. Of the brewers Tooheys is probably the main one. I mostly drink the Red variety at home and will also drink Black when pressed. (Having them colour coded makes thinks so much easier.)

I generally don't touch New but I guess a lot of people do as it finds its way to the taps of most of the pubs hereabouts. VB and Fosters seem also well patronised with Hahn,and a few others. Also Guinness is available on tap in the ever increasing ubiquitous "Irish" drinking holes that seem to have taken over perfectly un-Irish pubs. But a nice drop if you can get it. ;)

Did that answer the question?

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2004, 01:58 PM
From LOTR thread:


I doff m' lid to ya. You have displayed far more sence than I do in dealing with Kevin Bloody Bonham. I usually get sucked into a pissing competition with him and wind up thorourghly exasperated with his topic avoidance or pedanticism - his two main weapons of discussion destruction.

Well fancy that. You are even more predictable than me; just before I logged on I was thinking "I bet that Matthew Sweeney will jump in at precisely this point and slap young Sampson (BD) on the back". All very easy to say in hindsight but I will gladly take a lie detector test on this should anyone care to fund one.

As it happens, this is a blunder, you just couldn't help yourself, since now I have your meta-debate to engage with. That thread was obviously heading in exactly the same direction as so very many of ours, and the only reason it didn't end up there was that I, in a moment of mercy, pulled the plug. Being the bumbling online oaf that you are, you seem to be insisting on putting it back in. Well, be my guest. :clap:

As for "topic avoidance", this is your usual nonsense, you know by now that I engage with the point (where there is a point worth engaging with and I have something I want to say with it), and that if people spout trash I engage with the fact that they are doing so. In that case I left the debate at precisely the point where there were no longer significant topical points being made for me to engage with.

As for pedantry, I think you'll find there was something approaching that on both sides in that one. But if what you consider pedantry was really so irrelevant, how could it "wreck" any discussion at all? An opponent with a grain of sense could simply skip over it, agreeing with it but saying it was only of minor relevance, or ignoring it completely, and get on with discussing whatever they thought the main points were.

Incidentally, and completely off the topic, did you notice how the last time one of these conflagrations was split into a seperate thread (DR/MS simul flamewar thread) you guys immediately lost interest while there was still plenty of play left in the position? Makes you wonder who the real threadwreckers are, does it not? :hmm:

Commentator
09-06-2004, 02:23 PM
From LOTR thread:

Incidentally, and completely off the topic, did you notice how the last time one of these conflagrations was split into a seperate thread (DR/MS simul flamewar thread) you guys immediately lost interest while there was still plenty of play left in the position? Makes you wonder who the real threadwreckers are, does it not? :hmm:


Funny that. Mr firegoat7 also ceased his backburning operations when you quarantined the fire-breaks to a pointless-thread.
C

PHAT
09-06-2004, 04:12 PM
Incidentally, and completely off the topic, did you notice how the last time one of these conflagrations was split into a seperate thread (DR/MS simul flamewar thread) you guys immediately lost interest while there was still plenty of play left in the position? Makes you wonder who the real threadwreckers are, does it not? :hmm:

Not.

You peel off the flaming to this thread as if that makes a difference to the future conduct of the flame-war. But it does not. Like a toffy nosed out-of-towner, you make fun of the biggest bloke in the bar and then ask him to step outside. Then you insist on Queensbry Rules. Tosser. You and your Bourgeois mods red card EVERYTHING that offends your prissy sensabilities. You are all as tough as egg shell. So, there can be no real flame war because you have to suckhole and sanitise it for your masters, you invertabrates.

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2004, 05:55 PM
Hey Matthew,

So I see you completely ignored my post except for the irrelevant aside at the bottom - so who's practicing "topic avoidance" now? :hmm:

However that was much what I was hoping for, I thought that little bit at the bottom might needle you into something suitably rattled.


You peel off the flaming to this thread as if that makes a difference to the future conduct of the flame-war. But it does not.

Ah, but as commentator observed, peeling it off does make an empirical difference to the interest level of yourself and your fellow trash-merchants. (Oh where oh where has my little goat gone, oh where oh where can he be?) And in any case, this leaves us free to pursue this nonsense free of the constraints of caring about the sensibilities of those who would like to keep other discussions purely on track. Surely a good thing, no?


Like a toffy nosed out-of-towner, you make fun of the biggest bloke in the bar and then ask him to step outside. Then you insist on Queensbry Rules.

Well what a gift this is. You are not the "biggest bloke in the bar", merely the loudest and the drunkest. I don't think BD is the biggest bloke in the bar either, just a lad who struggles to hold his drink, although in his case I mean this purely metaphorically. If we must persist with this parallel, I'd venture that the biggest bloke in the bar, in more ways than two, would probably be Bill Gletsos.


You and your Bourgeois mods red card EVERYTHING that offends your prissy sensabilities. You are all as tough as egg shell.

If there was any truth in this we would have banned firegoat about two posts into the initial clowns outburst, and I would also be deleting a lot more of your nonsense. (NB here I am using "offends" in the sense of "contravenes", not neccessarily in the sense of any actual personal animosity).

If I zapped your swearing because it offended me, I would have done so far more often on the old board, but I didn't. The difference concerns the poster mix and the different purposes of the two sites only. I moderate another site, unrelated to chess, on which I take no action against swearing or crudity whatsoever (and even at times engage in them), except for deleting pictures that are not work-safe to protect those posting at work from the risk of reprisals.


So, there can be no real flame war because you have to suckhole and sanitise it for your masters, you invertabrates.

Translation: Matthew thinks that a real flame war consists largely of swearing, grossness and toilet humour. When removed from that environment he is too limited to be all that competitive, and a very sore loser to boot. Let's just hope you take it better than Mmle Sebag, but the record suggests somewhat otherwise. (And beside, she had a winning position.)

As for "invertebrates", I've listed species as threatened that had more environmental resilience than you. :whistle:

weadley
12-06-2004, 02:39 AM
GHEYEST THREAD I'VE READ IN A MONTH! :clap:


EDIT: These two were married at one point? Correct? :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
20-07-2004, 03:58 PM
This drivel excerpted from Matt-vs-Bill round 974 (I think the thread was called Olympiad Selections.)


I don't see a single NSWCA councillor buying into your intransient positions on this BB.

Matt - besides Bill, how many other NSWCA councillors are even on this BB?


In fact, the only person here who comes remotely close is KB and that is only because he is a fellow pedant.

"Pedant" coming from you just means anyone who has their facts right at least ten times more often than you do, whether the issue matters or not.

Genuine pedants can show up on any side of the debate so your explanation above is obviously insufficient anyway.

The reason Bill and I both get stuck into you and your tag-teamers so often is that you play fast and loose with the facts. We both happen to be averse to this behaviour.

In this case the pedant was very clearly you, trying to make a big deal of the fact that a player had an ! after their rating and that the explanative notes say that ! means a reliable rating.

PHAT
20-07-2004, 06:44 PM
This drivel excerpted from Matt-vs-Bill round 974 (I think the thread was called Olympiad Selections.)



Matt - besides Bill, how many other NSWCA councillors are even on this BB?





None, they wouldn't want to rub shoulders with him.


The reason Bill and I both get stuck into you and your tag-teamers so often is that you play fast and loose with the facts. We both happen to be averse to this behaviour.

Your "fast and loose" is code for "scarily novel". I know you think that dying your own hair black will make you cutting edge, but I can see your grey roots.


In this case the pedant was very clearly you, trying to make a big deal of the fact that a player had an ! after their rating and that the explanative notes say that ! means a reliable rating.

This is not pedantry. There are clear and deliniated definitions that apply to !! ! 0 ? ??. Bill stated that in his opinion Wallace had "no form" that could be reliably used to determine Wallace's playing strength. Hense, a clear contradiction between Bill's idea and the Glicko system.

Given Bill's psychopathic defence of all things Glicko, I think that this matter was worth persueing.

Kevin Bonham
20-07-2004, 07:33 PM
None, they wouldn't want to rub shoulders with him.

Then what was the point of your comment?

(Actually you are wrong, Kerry is here.)


Your "fast and loose" is code for "scarily novel".

You are sometimes also that (and I don't consistently mean that as a compliment) but it is possible to be radical without spouting nonsense. Alas, we don't have any examples of that approach here.


I know you think that dying your own hair black will make you cutting edge, but I can see your grey roots.

It can hardly be cutting-edge if I've been doing it for ten years. :hmm:

Not the slightest sign of grey yet. (I'm rather looking forward to it, actually.)


This is not pedantry.

Oh yes it is. Splitting hairs (black, grey or otherwise) won't get you out of this one. :lol:


There are clear and deliniated definitions that apply to !! ! 0 ? ??.

There are. But whether a rating that is "reliable" for most purposes is "reliable" for something as exact as Olympiad selections is surely open to interpretation.


Bill stated that in his opinion Wallace had "no form" that could be reliably used to determine Wallace's playing strength. Hense, a clear contradiction between Bill's idea and the Glicko system.

I don't want to get in to discussing the merits of candidates for selections but "form" is normally recent results in this context.


Given Bill's psychopathic defence of all things Glicko, I think that this matter was worth persueing.

Well it is nice to see you have to defend yourself against being called a pedant for a change. :P

(Is there any trolling in my comments above? Who knows, who cares ...)

Bill Gletsos
20-07-2004, 08:02 PM
None, they wouldn't want to rub shoulders with him.
Well they were all pretty willing to remove you from Council, when the vote was put. BTW I did not raise the subject(another did) and I did not vote.

None of them have suggested I should not be on council.
In fact it was a number of them last year who suggested to me that I should stand as President.


This is not pedantry. There are clear and deliniated definitions that apply to !! ! 0 ? ??. Bill stated that in his opinion Wallace had "no form" that could be reliably used to determine Wallace's playing strength. Hense, a clear contradiction between Bill's idea and the Glicko system.

Given Bill's psychopathic defence of all things Glicko, I think that this matter was worth persueing.
As I keep saying all my comemnts regarding the players Wallace, Wohl and Speck referred to their overseas results and their FIDE ratings. At no time did I mention ACF ratings.
You were the cretin who tried relate my comments to Wallaces ACF rating. I never referred to it or his ACF results.

PHAT
21-07-2004, 12:11 AM
Well they were all pretty willing to remove you from Council, when the vote was put. BTW I did not raise the subject(another did) and I did not vote.

Yes, it is a matter of procedure, miss meets and you loose yos seat. (more about this later.)


None of them have suggested I should not be on council.
In fact it was a number of them last year who suggested to me that I should stand as President.

You have most of them cornered. The way you speak to some of them is not what I am used to hearing. You hold the floor AND are the chair. The NSWCA are conducted in an atmosphere of intimidation.

If the NSWCA is to ever get numbers up, it will not be by promoting the same tired old formulas for events. The NSWCA needs a transfusion. Ralph Sebery (RIP) was going to be part of it, but that is now unfortunately lost.



I think I might be leaving the BB. I have slowly become tired of the negativity, and its glacial ways. Suffice to say, I might write a "tell all" resignation post and be done with it. George Howard has done a great thing, I hope his sacrifice is rewarded by an increase in dynamism in the rest of the ACF.

Bill Gletsos
21-07-2004, 12:41 AM
Yes, it is a matter of procedure, miss meets and you loose yos seat. (more about this later.)
Well actually its more to do with miss meetings, never apologise for missing meetings and do absolutely nothing.



You have most of them cornered. The way you speak to some of them is not what I am used to hearing. You hold the floor AND are the chair.
Actually everyone gets a chance to speak. I rarely cut anyone off.
The reason why PC and I are the ones often speaking is because it is because we are the ones who have been liasing with others and know whats happening.
Of course you would never have a clue whats happening because you didnt attend meetings nor apparently read you emails.



The NSWCA are conducted in an atmosphere of intimidation.
That is the biggest load of crap you have sprouted yet and has no basis in fact.
Everyone on council knows they can say what they like without fear or favour.


If the NSWCA is to ever get numbers up, it will not be by promoting the same tired old formulas for events. The NSWCA needs a transfusion.
Well it certainly does not need do nothing Council members like you.



Ralph Sebery (RIP) was going to be part of it, but that is now unfortunately lost.
A number of Ralph's initatives will continue next year, like the NSW teams comp.



I think I might be leaving the BB. I have slowly become tired of the negativity,
You have been one of the most negative influences here.



and its glacial ways. Suffice to say, I might write a "tell all" resignation post and be done with it.
Lets hope it is then based on fact and not as is your usual style pf beatups, mindless speculation and falsehoods.


George Howard has done a great thing, I hope his sacrifice is rewarded by an increase in dynamism in the rest of the ACF.
Yes, George is a good guy.

Kevin Bonham
21-07-2004, 01:49 AM
The way you speak to some of them is not what I am used to hearing.

Ooooooh. Sounds like the whining of a Christian fundie who's just heard they're planning to cut the prayers out of Parliament. Doesn't sound like you.


I think I might be leaving the BB. I have slowly become tired of the negativity, and its glacial ways.

Matt, you have been as negative as anyone as here if not more so. You have frequently trashed systems and processes that were working quite well, using spurious and sensationalist claims to attempt to do so.


Suffice to say, I might write a "tell all" resignation post and be done with it.

Not much of a threat. You've "told" it all before and if you go too far into nonsense it'll just get cut for defo.


George Howard has done a great thing, I hope his sacrifice is rewarded by an increase in dynamism in the rest of the ACF.

George gets stuff done, he's good at that. You talk the same talk, in a way, but without walking any more than a fraction of the walk. Most of the time here you are simply an obstacle masquerading as a stirrer.

Trent Parker
21-07-2004, 02:13 AM
Matt - besides Bill, how many other NSWCA councillors are even on this BB?




(Actually you are wrong, Kerry is here.)


Last time i checked i was on the NSWCA council.


You have most of them cornered. The way you speak to some of them is not what I am used to hearing. You hold the floor AND are the chair. The NSWCA are conducted in an atmosphere of intimidation.


well.... I don't think so. I get my say in. Although I do not have much to say. I mean I am relatively new to organised chess. I have only been playing in tournaments for 3 years so therefore I am considerably inexperienced compared to the majority of the council. I see it as a learning experience so that i can gradually increase my involvement in NSW chess.



I think I might be leaving the BB. I have slowly become tired of the negativity, and its glacial ways. Suffice to say, I might write a "tell all" resignation post and be done with it. George Howard has done a great thing, I hope his sacrifice is rewarded by an increase in dynamism in the rest of the ACF.

Well Sweeney, you might want to fortify it with referenced material or otherwise you might have to come back and defend your statements :lol:

Going to try to resurrect the Illawarra BB?
I only discovered it the other day.


Well they were all pretty willing to remove you from Council, when the vote was put. BTW I did not raise the subject(another did) and I did not vote.


I thought this bb would have tought people not to talk in absolutes. :)
I wasn't there! ;) (just for the record i notified council of my absence at the previous meeting)

So shouldn't that be something like.... all that were there were pretty willing..
:cool:


This is not pedantry. There are clear and deliniated definitions that apply to !! ! 0 ? ??. Bill stated that in his opinion Wallace had "no form" that could be reliably used to determine Wallace's playing strength. Hense, a clear contradiction between Bill's idea and the Glicko system.




There are. But whether a rating that is "reliable" for most purposes is "reliable" for something as exact as Olympiad selections is surely open to interpretation.


I don't want to get in to discussing the merits of candidates for selections but "form" is normally recent results in this context.


Hang on a sec.... Let me get this straight....
This section of flamewar has been started because of an argument about the symbols after a persons rating and what they mean???
JC strike me down.
Why does it have to get to the point that people are flamewarring over petty things like peoples opinion on what should be considered as the persons form? Agree to disagree. Or have I missed the point??

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

Now I would like to make another comment about some of the crap on the bulletin boards.

Is there the necessity to call people morons cretins [deleted], or tell people to FO etc? I mean Really is there the need.
If posters on this bb cannot take criticism with a grain of salt then really .... they shouldn't be on the bb. Even if it is Unconstructive criticism, disprove it, move along. Don't be drawn into flamewar bs because it is just that. BS.

Bill Gletsos
21-07-2004, 02:32 AM
I thought this bb would have tought people not to talk in absolutes. :)
I wasn't there! ;) (just for the record i notified council of my absence at the previous meeting)

So shouldn't that be something like.... all that were there were pretty willing..
Yes, I should have been more accurate.
If I recall correctly you, Kerry and of course Matt were not there. I believe everyone else was.



Hang on a sec.... Let me get this straight....
This section of flamewar has been started because of an argument about the symbols after a persons rating and what they mean???
Not from my perspective. I never mentioned ACF ratings in my reponse to fg7, only FIDE and overseas results. Therefore Matt's comments re ACF ratings were just him trying to start a beatup as usual.


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

Now I would like to make another comment about some of the crap on the bulletin boards.

Is there the necessity to call people morons cretins [deleted] or tell people to FO etc? I mean Really is there the need.
Probably not but what do you call someone who continues to make false statements, mindless speculation and beatups or refuses to acknowledge simple facts.



If posters on this bb cannot take criticism with a grain of salt then really .... they shouldn't be on the bb. Even if it is Unconstructive criticism, disprove it, move along.However after you have explained something numerous times and they keep saying the same thing without any evidence to backup them up, trying to move on isnt so simple, because they take a break of a week or a month, then start the same crap again. By the 3rd or 4 th time, you lose patience.

Kevin Bonham
22-07-2004, 05:10 PM
Hang on a sec.... Let me get this straight....
This section of flamewar has been started because of an argument about the symbols after a persons rating and what they mean???
JC strike me down.
Why does it have to get to the point that people are flamewarring over petty things like peoples opinion on what should be considered as the persons form? Agree to disagree. Or have I missed the point??

I got stuck into Matt over here because he had said:


In fact, the only person here who comes remotely close is KB and that is only because he is a fellow pedant.

and I preferred to respond to this drivel on the offtopic section rather than on the on-topic threads. My point being that it was rather amusing that Matt was accusing Bill and I of pedantry while himself getting steamed up about "the symbols after a person's rating and what they mean".


Is there the necessity to call people morons cretins [deleted], or tell people to FO etc? I mean Really is there the need.

No, there is no need for such language here, a five-letter word beginning with g is perfectly sufficient. :owned:

(Sorry about that one.)


If posters on this bb cannot take criticism with a grain of salt then really .... they shouldn't be on the bb. Even if it is Unconstructive criticism, disprove it, move along. Don't be drawn into flamewar bs because it is just that. BS.

I agree with Bill here - when a poster is persistently being abusive and making the same factual errors over and over then something a bit more than just repeated counter-statement of the facts is inevitable and probably called for as well. However, it's best conducted over here rather than in the chess sections.

Garvinator
22-07-2004, 05:19 PM
No, there is no need for such language here, a five-letter word beginning with g is perfectly sufficient. :owned:
sometimes calling someone a goose is not giving the goose enough credit.

Kevin Bonham
22-07-2004, 05:23 PM
sometimes calling someone a goose is not giving the goose enough credit.

This is true.

I am trying to use "goose" very sparingly these days.

ursogr8
22-07-2004, 05:30 PM
This is true.

I am trying to use "goose" very sparingly these days.

From where I sit, it appears on everyone of your posts.

Garvinator
22-07-2004, 05:33 PM
From where I sit, it appears on everyone of your posts.
and so does post counts in yours :P

arosar
22-07-2004, 05:38 PM
and so does post counts in yours :P

But who can beat you? You appear everywhere!

AR

ursogr8
22-07-2004, 05:38 PM
From where I sit, it appears on everyone of your posts.
Ah, but I am a confirmed addict, & who is not trying to use the word 'sparingly'.
My policy is consistent with my practice.

PHAT
22-07-2004, 07:41 PM
Ooooooh. Sounds like the whining of a Christian fundie who's just heard they're planning to cut the prayers out of Parliament. Doesn't sound like you.

Ahh. I show one skerrick of softness and the scavenge decides to take a nip. Is it any wonder there is a mucho competition here with a troll like sniffing the air for blood.



You've "told" it all before and if you go too far into nonsense it'll just get cut for defo.

No risk of defo. Just me venting a whole lot of home truths spoken without any sence of the usual jousting, just a icy cold bath for some.

Kevin Bonham
22-07-2004, 10:17 PM
Ahh. I show one skerrick of softness and the scavenge decides to take a nip. Is it any wonder there is a mucho competition here with a troll like sniffing the air for blood.

It's a harsh game, isn't it? :boohoo:

Shouldn't you have thought of that some time ago? I am sure it is not too late to repent ... :P

I don't know quite what it is but you seem rather down here lately, Matt, as if the place is getting under your skin. Has big bad Bill really got the better of you for good?


No risk of defo. Just me venting a whole lot of home truths spoken without any sence of the usual jousting, just a icy cold bath for some.

Coming from you they would more likely be home opinions.

Trent Parker
23-07-2004, 02:33 AM
I agree with Bill here - when a poster is persistently being abusive and making the same factual errors over and over then something a bit more than just repeated counter-statement of the facts is inevitable and probably called for as well. However, it's best conducted over here rather than in the chess sections.

I guess it takes two to tango! :rolleyes: :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
23-07-2004, 04:19 AM
I guess it takes two to tango! :rolleyes: :whistle:

It does, but only Matt does such a bad macarena. :wall:

(Is there any such thing as a good macarena?)