Why a moderator should be allowed to abuse one of the "patrons"

[Kevin Bonham]

Confusing isn't it Kaitlin.
See what has happenend is that Mr Bonham in his infinite wisdom has now split the thread three times (see the tournament refund thread for the beginning of the saga).

Actually it was only split twice - tournament refund thread was split to Godwin's Law and then that was split to this. The second split was a joke at your expense ... a concept you're clearly not familiar with ... just get over it.

I invite starter to now initiate a 100-post thread on the exact sequence of events involved in splitting the thread and my justifications for it. In this case, irrelevant posts will count.

[Kevin Bonham]

I think we have clearly established that you enjoy abusing/insulting people.

Yes. But only the ones who I reckon deserve it - a rather small minority. There are many posters here I have never abused or insulted and probably never will. (And no, this isn't a power thing, most of these people have no power in the chess community to speak of - nor is it a question of agreeing/disagreeing since some of them have disagreed with me without me being abusive at all).

[Kevin Bonham]

Notice how easy it is to asume that I created this thread even though I did nothing of the sort.

Rubbish, it says "thread split at firegoat's request" - how can you create a thread when it was split. However, I have added an explanation, I would hate people to be needlessly confused!

This sort of behaviour is just disgraceful Bonham, it amazes me that you would be so immature as to do such a thing.

The company I am keeping on this thread must doubtless have rubbed off on me if so.

Maturity would be wasted on you; clearly you can't cope with being the butt of a joke.

[ursogr8]

I invite starter to now initiate a 100-post thread on the exact sequence of events involved in splitting the thread and my justifications for it.

hi KB

The other 100-post-escapade had a purpose so it was easy to maintain the momentum.

I decline your invitation.

In this case, irrelevant posts will count.

Now this is a meatier proposition.
Personally I don't think there is any such thing as an irrelevant post. To suggest such is an insult to the intent of the poster; although it may look irrelevant in the eyes of the reader.
But, I would need someone on the other side...prepared to put forward examples of irrelevant posts. And of course Bill is no value any more on this score because he has declared himself an evidence free poster.
So, even this (more interesting challenge) will have to lapse for want of finding someone who can produce irrelevant posts.
(Of course 99 'evidence posts' would convince me. )




starter

[Kevin Bonham]

And of course Bill is no value any more on this score because he has declared himself an evidence free poster.

Out of curiosity, where was that, assuming it was at all?

[Bill Gletsos]

And of course Bill is no value any more on this score because he has declared himself an evidence free poster.

Back to posting rubbish I see.

[Bill Gletsos]

Out of curiosity, where was that, assuming it was at all?

I didnt.
I have suggested that starter should be able to use the search function without me having to hold his hand.

[Kevin Bonham]

I didnt.
I have suggested that starter should be able to use the search function without me having to hold his hand.

starter, can we interest you in a 100-post thread on whether this is the case or not?

[ursogr8]

starter, can we interest you in a 100-post thread on whether this is the case or not?

KB

No, you can't. For the same reason that I gave in post #34. You need Bill to sit on the other side of the argument to maintain momentum.

For this issue he can't. Just two samples will do >
1 Bill >
"As such you wont be getting any retraction from me for calling you an apologist.
I may possibly reconsider if you can show me a post where you have ever criticised Matt for his language/behaviour on the board."

2 Bill >
"Without searching thru all the posts on this board, I know for a fact that I have seen KB, jenni, Paul S, peanbrain and eric (including CL on the old ACF BB) all criticise Matt for his language/behaviour. I'm sure if I searched all posts I would find others."

In 1), Bill makes the assertion...but invites the 'target' to do the post-searching'.
In 2), Bill makes the assertion...but requires the 'target' to do the post-searching'.

That was easy to find (and I didn't even have to get to the peanbrain one that Bill quoted himself).

Three data points....on a straight line...that is a trend...and the conclusion is obvious. <Bill is an evidence-free zone>. <<Or, as the say in Bill's classics...I assert, therefore I am right>>

As the poster's friend (Barry) is prone to say.....QED.


starter

ps Oops, forgot to say at the start of the post....good morning to you both btw.

pps You can't think of anyone who would like to defend the concept of 'irelevant posts', can you? Or has that one gone through to the keeper?

[Bill Gletsos]

KB

No, you can't. For the same reason that I gave in post #34. You need Bill to sit on the other side of the argument to maintain momentum.

For this issue he can't. Just two samples will do >
1 Bill >
"As such you wont be getting any retraction from me for calling you an apologist.
I may possibly reconsider if you can show me a post where you have ever criticised Matt for his language/behaviour on the board."

2 Bill >
"Without searching thru all the posts on this board, I know for a fact that I have seen KB, jenni, Paul S, peanbrain and eric (including CL on the old ACF BB) all criticise Matt for his language/behaviour. I'm sure if I searched all posts I would find others."

In 1), Bill makes the assertion...but invites the 'target' to do the post-searching'.
In 2), Bill makes the assertion...but requires the 'target' to do the post-searching'.

That was easy to find (and I didn't even have to get to the peanbrain one that Bill quoted himself).

Three data points....on a straight line...that is a trend...and the conclusion is obvious. <Bill is an evidence-free zone>. <<Or, as the say in Bill's classics...I assert, therefore I am right>>

What a load of rubbish.
I'm just pointing you to where the evidence is rather than giving it to you on a plate.
After all it is fairly simple to use the search function.

As the poster's friend (Barry) is prone to say.....QED.

I doubt he would say so in this circumstance.

[Alan Shore]

I think you are frequently slightly more pompous than me..

Hahaha.. how about we have a poll? I bet you'd win hands down.

..and the most pompous person here apart from Goughfather, who has the fortune of getting away with it because when he is pompous he generally argues his case well and is frequently right. (In fact I was surprised to learn how young he was - I had expected a middle-aged academic from the way he posted).

Goughfather posts well, it seems he takes care every time he does. I've had some very interesting discussions with him in person too.

"Since we've all but stopped addressing the original issue itself, I don't think I'll waste any more time." I bet your resolve won't last very much longer here.

And indeed I won't waste time with any tripe/insults you have to offer, FYI I'll only comment on the 'useful' aspects of your posts (if they exist), or if I find amusement value.

Impatience with wantonly poor arguments and boringly bad trolling, you mean? That one? Terrible, simply terrible. Do you think that joining a hippy commune for a decade or so would be sufficient to get rid of this telling flaw?

Hippy.. haha! Aren't you the one with the ponytail?

firegoat is not a stranger to me - I have met him, although I do not know him well. He was perfectly amiable when I met him, which made it surprising that when he first showed up on the bulletin boards he mounted ridiculous attacks on people who had done nothing to deserve them, refused to accept that these actions were unreasonable, and has since carried out an on-and-off and rather deranged online vendetta against the person who had the temerity to repeatedly call him on it. You're the psychology graduate - how about you explain it.

It doesn't take a psychology grad to tell you that people have different personas on the net... I'm sure we'd get along quite well in person! Personally I think you're a champ KB, you just get stirred up in the world of cyberspace when you treat discussion like a theoretical game instead of a leisure activity. I'm sure you treat chess as the former too, while I always treat it as the latter.

That doesn't put you above trolling - if you want your credentials to carry any special weight I'll be expecting you to back your statements with evidene or references. (Modern scientificaly rigorous sources too please, theoretical babble recycled from Freud, Jung et al may simply be laughed at.) Vacuous arguments from the rather limited authority of a single degree will be not merely ignored but also viewed with contempt.

Well fortunately it's not a single degree.. but I do find your typical knee-jerk reaction to Freud and Jung quite amusing (and expected). While my area of psych is social/cognitive and has a very scientific methodology I think it unfair to simply dismiss those two as 'babble'.

You were the one who wanted to get trashy on the original "byes" thread which this came out of (pointless Nazi references, nerd/geek calls, other mindless drivel) so I cordially invite you to contemplate both your navel and your inconsistency.

Well Kevin, it was a geeky comeback, there's no denying the facts. DR and FG7 have already pointed out why you're wrong too re:Gestapo. You just seem to have a really tough time admitting it.

Don't dish trash, or defend it, if you can't take it.

I can admit when I'm wrong - it's a quality you should try at least once. I just see no merit in ridiculous mudslinging that wastes time. Debate the issue - attacking the person simply makes you a poorer debater.

[ursogr8]

I'm just pointing you to where the evidence is rather than giving it to you on a plate.

Bill

Is it fair to paraphrase your sentence >

It is the responsibility of the asserter to table the evidence, not the responsibility of the reader?

If yes, then the discussion can move to the next step.


The responsibility for searching can only lie in one place. It is either with the asserter. Or with the person who is challenging the assertion (or perhaps, at a lower level, just asking for confirming evidence).
Could you please declare yourself on this issue.

(I don't think the ease of search changes one iota where the logical responsibility of the search belongs. However, I will wait on your advice as an interested party).


starter

[Kevin Bonham]

Hahaha.. how about we have a poll? I bet you'd win hands down.

Now show me how perceptive you are and tell me at least two reasons why that wouldn't be a fair test.

Goughfather posts well, it seems he takes care every time he does.

Agree.

And indeed I won't waste time with any tripe/insults you have to offer, FYI I'll only comment on the 'useful' aspects of your posts (if they exist), or if I find amusement value.

This is what I mean about you being pompous. You start dishing the trash in an exchange but then you are the one who transparently attempts to retreat to this sort of moral highground. Your last post is a classic example of playing civil while still trying to maintain a slight superiority - a common resort when people are losing a flamewar and want to get out of it intact or blame the opponent for its continuation.

It doesn't take a psychology grad to tell you that people have different personas on the net... I'm sure we'd get along quite well in person!

This is frequently my experience - what is said online stays online and so on, eg I met Sweeney at Mt B and we had some good chats. However, it would be most unwise of you to take it for granted as that is exactly the sort of thing I might feel inclined to make an example of.

Personally I think you're a champ KB, you just get stirred up in the world of cyberspace when you treat discussion like a theoretical game instead of a leisure activity.

Since when are the two incompatible? (Ditto for chess.)

Well fortunately it's not a single degree.. but I do find your typical knee-jerk reaction to Freud and Jung quite amusing (and expected). While my area of psych is social/cognitive and has a very scientific methodology I think it unfair to simply dismiss those two as 'babble'.

That's why I only said "may simply be laughed at" instead of "will simply be laughed at". I've never studied psych formally but I've read enough to know that there is a lot in its early history that was very scientifically primitive.

DR and FG7 have already pointed out why you're wrong too re:Gestapo. You just seem to have a really tough time admitting it.

Indeed, believing false statements is something that doesn't come easy to me. I demolished their facetious tryhard-pedantic attempt to split hairs between Nazi and Gestapo by pointing out that Godwin's Law does not refer to specific words but rather to the act of comparison generally. They have had no reply to this, and neither have you. I don't know why you bother with trash like this, it's a failure on every possible level.

I can admit when I'm wrong - it's a quality you should try at least once.

Then I look forward to your admissions that:

(i) your claim that DR and FG were right in their comments re Nazi/Gestapo is wrong

(ii) your trashy insinuation (I don't know why you give me gifts like this) that I cannot admit I am wrong, is itself wrong. For example some time ago when Ian Rout and I were debating the ideal number of rounds in a Swiss (odd vs even) he convinced me and I completely conceded the point and abandoned his previous position. You will almost never see me admit I am wrong in a debate with a trash-dishing hothead or troll, however, because these people hardly ever make a valid point.

I just see no merit in ridiculous mudslinging that wastes time.

PKB.

Debate the issue - attacking the person simply makes you a poorer debater.

ditto to previous.

Sorry to scupper your youthful idealism, but if a person is asserting cheap trash instead of actually debating the issue with argument and evidence, then (refutation + insult) makes just as much contribution to what remains of the "debate" as (refutation alone) and might hopefully encourage others to swim between the flags.

If I only ever insulted and never debated the issue as well your claim would be correct.

[ursogr8]

Bump

Bill

Is it fair to paraphrase your sentence >

It is the responsibility of the asserter to table the evidence, not the responsibility of the reader?

If yes, then the discussion can move to the next step.


The responsibility for searching can only lie in one place. It is either with the asserter. Or with the person who is challenging the assertion (or perhaps, at a lower level, just asking for confirming evidence).
Could you please declare yourself on this issue.

(I don't think the ease of search changes one iota where the logical responsibility of the search belongs. However, I will wait on your advice as an interested party).


starter

[Bill Gletsos]

Bill

Is it fair to paraphrase your sentence >

It is the responsibility of the asserter to table the evidence, not the responsibility of the reader?

If yes, then the discussion can move to the next step.


The responsibility for searching can only lie in one place. It is either with the asserter. Or with the person who is challenging the assertion (or perhaps, at a lower level, just asking for confirming evidence).
Could you please declare yourself on this issue.

(I don't think the ease of search changes one iota where the logical responsibility of the search belongs. However, I will wait on your advice as an interested party).

I thought it would be obvious to you starter.
If some dope makes an assertion then its is up to them to provide the evidence to support it.

If I make the assertion then its up to the other person to provide evidence to disprove it.