[Kevin Bonham]

Painstakingly preserved and restored for antichrist's reading pleasure, we present not one but four posts by lotlizard that were deleted by the philistine firegoat7 last night on the pretext "flaming members" in a crude and shoddy attempt to destroy great art (especially the third post which is a vivisectory masterpiece at the expense of the completely hapless phild707). The other two posts deleted were cordial discussions with MOZ about his role on the site, containing nothing even approaching flaming, which raises the question of why those two were deleted at all.

Of course, I disrespectfully submit that the flaming in my posts is no harsher than that to which I replied, and firegoat is an incomplete donkey for banning me over them.

It is, however, very much better flaming than theirs, and obviously he couldn't handle that.

First post deleted by firegoose:

Originally Posted by lotlizard

actually the problem is entirely yours
unless you don't care about being seen to be extremely inconsistent
the "we" was just a figure of speech
but i wouldn't recommend inspecting its meaning too closely
phild doesnt like it when people inspect the meanings of everyday words

if it was, you should support it wholeheartedly
idealism before practicality has so often been your leaning in the past
but you dont need to be an academic to perceive the merit of "merit"

any "context" you can demonstrate i can then counter
and "relationships" is just a euphemism for one rule for the favoured and another for the others
although there are in fact no rules at all
all equal, some more equal, yet again
so much for being an alternative!

i'm not a Utilitarian at all
indeed i'm probably further from that doctrine than are you
i see peter singer as the dead end of a certain way of thinking
by a process of logical extrapolation to absurdity
i agree with utes on one thing only
that kant is rubbish

this site is dominated by posters who burnt their bridges and failed to fit in on chesschat
so if i am a bridge-burner and outsider then, again, you should welcome me
but actually, my bridge is quite intact
even if it is one way for some of you
all you can burn for me is the island at the end of it

there is not a "large number of members on this site*" full stop
let alone a large number hostile to chesschat
try counting the number of active members here who are making anti-chesschat statements in any volume
you might need two hands, but not three

[* "this site" meaning the Toolbox - KB]

indeed it is
we can't call the site "*******" because we had to make "*******" a banned word to stop its use in spamming/flooding attacks
we have to call it something!

the term "toolbox" did not start being openly used until this site had been up over a month
in which time a lot of the usual nonsense had already been posted here
the same sort that was posted on accf
no wonder the term caught on

if that policy was even remotely serious then many of the attacks already up would be deleted
and the backpatting of attacks would cease
some of you may be trying to bite your tounges sometimes
you need to get a lot better at it before it is taken seriously

i have no intention of "adapting" if it means being nice to those who defame and incorrectly bait chesschat regulars on a regular basis
not until they mend their ways and their more extreme nonsense is removed from public view

unsubstantiated, disregarded

well moz keeps saying he is not a moderator
so fairness has hardly come into it there
as for alex, he did quickly reverse your incorrect initial bans
but i remain restricted to one account while others are not thus restricted
while we wait to see if his plan is endorsed
and as a poster, he has been out of line many times

more than willing to defend my record in as much detail as you can stand
provided i can do so without getting banned when the wind blows a way that you don't like it to

no idea what you are going on about re karthick
but i doubt it has any substance
try finding the thread about karthick's use of the netlogistics name now
i wonder where that went and why
i wonder who eventually convinced ao that the thread was defamatory nonsense
do you know?

and gratuitous abuse has some restrictions
apart from that, we are not interested in whether chesschat is seen as "laid back" or not
we are more interested in a relatively free and open debating environment
so what might be the "best way" to acheive a laid-back atmosphere does not concern us
but i am happy to offer advice
since you seem to be struggling at the moment!

did i say that I thought you did?
indeed, i suspect you don't
you seem to prefer argumentative ex-Chesschat posters
so long as they dont argue with each other, but only at us with us not responding

so i was giving you advice on the best way to get rid of us
just clean up the defamatory and nonsensical rubbish about us
and clean up any more that makes an appearance

indeed this is the only way without banning us
which would make a mockery of all your attempts to be seen as offering something better or different
to say the least

coming here and reading, or coming here and posting?

if the former, there are many reasons
happy to elaborate if that is what you meant

if the latter, there really is a lot of unfactual stuff here that should be corrected
but i was only doing that at a very low volume, mixed in with fluff for disguise, until ao decided he would "out" my hydras
i decided to engage with the absurdity of punishing hydras on a site staffed by people known to use them heavily
that has set in motion a train of further absurdities that i have also attempted to engage

and i have been a most excellent roman already
over several dozen posts now there has scarcely been an accusation made against me that i have not been able to throw back
showing how what you accuse me of is actually normal practice here
as i've done a few more times in this reply

have you ever wondered why the saying is "when in rome, do as the romans do"
and not "...do as they say they do"?
cant say i have
but it might be relevant to something