PDA

View Full Version : The never-ending Sydney Easter Cup debate (split from OT thread)



antichrist
18-08-2004, 05:00 PM
Originally Posted by Paul S
A couple of years ago on the BB Jason Lyons summed it up when he said something like:
"When it comes to conversation, Peter is only able to do the talking part of it and he is totally incapable of listening and totally incapable of considering other points of view. Whenever I made a point he would disregard it completely and just keep saying the same things over and over again like a tape recorder that keeps playing the same tape over and over again! It is impossible to have a sensible/rational debate/discussion with Peter as regardless of what you say to him he just keeps saying the same thing over and over again like a talking parrot!"

ACs reply:

It is imporant to know the context behind Jason's posting. It was shortly after the "big" SEC and I met him at the State championship of which he was organiser. Well the state championship had about 15-20 players less than SEC and about only half the number of players rated over 2000 inspite of:

a) been officially sanctioned.
b) Grand Prix rated whatever
c) $1500 from NSWCA to pump up prizes
d) not clashing with Doberl

I gently pointed these points out to him considering that years earlier he had abused me about running the SEC at all and that anyone and everyone was telling me that I would not get more than ten players. He could not attack me over content so he did so over style. I can cop that - I have a thick skin. Content is more important over style like I proved. But that was years ago and I have forgotten it and moved on.

[irrelevant and personally sensitive material deleted - mod.]

Over and out.

Bill Gletsos
18-08-2004, 06:32 PM
Originally Posted by Paul S
A couple of years ago on the BB Jason Lyons summed it up when he said something like:
"When it comes to conversation, Peter is only able to do the talking part of it and he is totally incapable of listening and totally incapable of considering other points of view. Whenever I made a point he would disregard it completely and just keep saying the same things over and over again like a tape recorder that keeps playing the same tape over and over again! It is impossible to have a sensible/rational debate/discussion with Peter as regardless of what you say to him he just keeps saying the same thing over and over again like a talking parrot!"

ACs reply:

It is imporant to know the context behind Jason's posting. It was shortly after the "big" SEC and I met him at the State championship of which he was organiser. Well the state championship had about 15-20 players less than SEC and about only half the number of players rated over 2000 inspite of:

a) been officially sanctioned.
b) Grand Prix rated whatever
c) $1500 from NSWCA to pump up prizes
d) not clashing with Doberl
That is some of the biggest load of crap I've seen recently.
The SEC has only ever had 57 max.
In 2000 it had 46.
In 2001 it had 24.
In 2002 it had 57.
In 2003 it had 30.
In 2004 it had 32.

By comparison the NSW State Championship had 68 in 2000.
In 2001 it had 58.
In 2002 it had 82.
In 2003 it had 73.

So its clear your "big" SEC had 57. The following state championship had 82.
Thats 25 more not 15-20 less. Your big sec had 3 over 2100 and 9 rated over 2000. The state championship had 5 over 2100 and 10 over 2000. No matter how you count it that isnt half the number over 2000 that the SEC had.

Oh and another thing, the State Championship has never been part of the GP.

Paul S
19-08-2004, 12:43 AM
ACs reply:

It is imporant to know the context behind Jason's posting. It was shortly after the "big" SEC and I met him at the State championship of which he was organiser. Well the state championship had about 15-20 players less than SEC and about only half the number of players rated over 2000 inspite of:

a) been officially sanctioned.
b) Grand Prix rated whatever
c) $1500 from NSWCA to pump up prizes
d) not clashing with Doberl

I gently pointed these points out to him considering that years earlier he had abused me about running the SEC at all and that anyone and everyone was telling me that I would not get more than ten players. He could not attack me over content so he did so over style. I can cop that - I have a thick skin. Content is more important over style like I proved. But that was years ago and I have forgotten it and moved on.

[irrelevant and personally sensitive material deleted - mod.]

Over and out.

I have encountered many times this sort of "truth bending" from Peter over the years. These sorts of distortions are typical of Peter, who "bends" the truth for his own purposes, and this is quite an instructive example of it.

Have just had a look at the NSWCA website in the archive section and looked up my records on the 2002 SEC. As Bill says, 82 players played in the 2002 State Championships (14 in Open, 29 in U2000 and 39 in U1600), although there appeared to be about 6 withdrawals during the tournament (lets say for argument 76 players at worst estimate). The SEC had 57 players in total, but 56 on first day (rounds 1 to 4) and 52 on second day (rounds 5 to 7). Now, do the maths, Peter, and explain how the State Championship had 15-20 players less than the SEC!

As Bill has also pointed out, the GP is only for weekenders, not for tournaments like the State Championships which run over 9 weeks.

Although I did not play in the 2002 State Championships, I would be very surprised if the NSWCA put in an extra $1500 to pump up the prizemoney. I know that during the reign of the then NSWCA President Bob Keast that the NSWCA tournaments always tried to make a profit (of up to 10%) with the budgeting. Anyway, I'm sure that Jason Lyons or Bill (or someone with access to information on the 2002 State Championship budget) can easily debunk Peter's "$1500 from NSWCA to pump up prizes" claim. I am all but certain that the expenses for the 2002 State Championship (prizemoney, rating fees, arbiters fees etc) would be less than the income received from entry fees (in other words rather than being "pumped up" with prize money the 2002 State Campionships made a profit - and even if it did not make a profit the prizemoney would have been less than the money collected from entry fees). By contrast the 2002 SEC had a modest amount of "pump up" prizemoney [money from entry fees was $1125.00, while expenses totalled $1316.00, consisting of $1160.00 in prizemoney plus $50.00 in DOP fees (Bob Keast) plus $30.00 in advertising (printing/photocoying costs incurred by Peter) plus $76.00 in Rating Fees]. BTW Peter, why didn't you bother to get this year's SEC rated?

Like Bill says, the 2002 SEC had 9 players over 2000 while the state championship had 10 players over 2000. So, Peter, please explain how the 2002 State Championships had "about only half the number of players rated over 2000" as the 2002 SEC?

Logic and reason have never been Peter Hanna's strong point. No wonder that Jason Lyons reacted the way he did after being told over and over again (even after being corrected by Jason) by Peter the same distorted information )?!?! (Refer my post #101 in this thread).

Thankyou to Bill for pointing out some of these distortions, which based on my experience are typical of what Peter does on a wide variety of issues/topics. :clap: :clap: :clap:

:hmm: Would have been interesting to have read the bits that the moderator (probably Kevin) deleted. Can you put it back up, Kevin? ;) :P I suspect it would be worth a good laugh, whatever it was! :lol: Go on, Kevin, be a sport! Even though I've already had a good laugh at Antichrist's posts, I wouldn't mind laughing some more! :P

Bill Gletsos
19-08-2004, 02:23 AM
BTW Peter, why didn't you bother to get this year's SEC rated?
It is being rated in this period. Why it wasnt submitted for inclusion in the last period I have no idea.
I guess antichrist was just slack.

antichrist
19-08-2004, 01:24 PM
That is some of the biggest load of crap I've seen recently.
The SEC has only ever had 57 max.
In 2000 it had 46.
In 2001 it had 24.
In 2002 it had 57.
In 2003 it had 30.
In 2004 it had 32.

By comparison the NSW State Championship had 68 in 2000.
In 2001 it had 58.
In 2002 it had 82.
In 2003 it had 73.

So its clear your "big" SEC had 57. The following state championship had 82.
Thats 25 more not 15-20 less. Your big sec had 3 over 2100 and 9 rated over 2000. The state championship had 5 over 2100 and 10 over 2000. No matter how you count it that isnt half the number over 2000 that the SEC had.

Oh and another thing, the State Championship has never been part of the GP.

I may have got my comps mixed up but obviously would have been from mid 2002 onwards. Did a comp at that time get a $1500 sponsership? Maybe my memory is out??

Bill Gletsos
19-08-2004, 01:33 PM
I may have got my comps mixed up but obviously would have been from mid 2002 onwards. Did a comp at that time get a $1500 sponsership? Maybe my memory is out??
We did not sponsor any tournaments that I am aware of during 2002 and certianly none to $1500.
As far as I can recall all prize funds were paid from entry fees.
I know we donated to the prize fund of the first Austrlain Young Masters event that Kerry ran but that was in 2003.

Therefore I would suggest you memory is out.

Bill Gletsos
19-08-2004, 02:48 PM
That court case was the excuse I was late putting in the SEC results for rating. I had to do months of preparation.
Sounds like a lanme excuse to me.
If you didnt use Swiss Perfect for the tournamnet it would still only take you 30 mins max to enter the results into Swiss Perfect.
If you did not want to do that you could have always just sent in the round by round results on paper.

antichrist
19-08-2004, 07:44 PM
Sounds like a lanme excuse to me.
If you didnt use Swiss Perfect for the tournamnet it would still only take you 30 mins max to enter the results into Swiss Perfect.
If you did not want to do that you could have always just sent in the round by round results on paper.

I like to double check the results before submitting to avoid any problems. This takes a while, I half completed then delayed. I did not expect the rating deadline to come so quickly. Another thing is that it is not so easy to find the mailing address of NSWCA. In the phone book it has Peter Parrs' address, if memory right. I represesnted myself in that case and were many documents and some experts involved, I was really proud of how I represented the case.

By the way, where is my third "moron" norm. I think all the BB posters get together one day for a shindig. Boxing gloves a necessity.

Garvinator
20-08-2004, 12:53 AM
Another thing is that it is not so easy to find the mailing address of NSWCA.

Correspondence Please address any correspondence to :-

NSW Chess Association
GPO Box 2418
Sydney 2001

or you can email the association at the following address
webmaster@nswca

took me less than two minutes.


By the way, where is my third "moron" norm. I think all the BB posters get together one day for a shindig. Boxing gloves a necessity. There is no moron norm, there is a goosemaster norm though
:whistle:

antichrist
21-08-2004, 12:36 PM
Quote:
There is no moron norm, there is a goosemaster norm though

Reply:
BIll is not playing Santa with the gongs anymore. He finally realises that I enjoyed him blowing his lid. I would like to get into a S & M session with him.

antichrist
21-08-2004, 12:39 PM
Frankly speaking this thread should not have been set up. The issue is dead.

Paul S:
Would have been interesting to have read the bits that the moderator (probably Kevin) deleted. Can you put it back up, Kevin? I suspect it would be worth a good laugh, whatever it was! Go on, Kevin, be a sport! Even though I've already had a good laugh at Antichrist's posts, I wouldn't mind laughing some more!

Reply: with Jason's permission he could post it. As far as I know I did not receive any warning about it.

Bill Gletsos
21-08-2004, 07:20 PM
BIll is not playing Santa with the gongs anymore. He finally realises that I enjoyed him blowing his lid. I would like to get into a S & M session with him.
You really are a complete moron if you believe that.
It was just that you were acting the fool on the off topic thread, so I refrained from point out the obvious. In the on topic threads I'll give you no such leeway.

Kevin Bonham
21-08-2004, 09:54 PM
Frankly speaking this thread should not have been set up. The issue is dead.

People started debating it in the middle of an off-topic thread - if it is really dead I am sure the thread will die soon.


Reply: with Jason's permission he could post it. As far as I know I did not receive any warning about it.

Once a post is edited the deleted material is gone. If you want to post that sort of personal material you must get the other poster's permission first. Preferably get them to send me a PM authorising it.

peanbrain
27-08-2004, 09:09 PM
Frankly speaking this thread should not have been set up. The issue is dead.


Peter H is an idiot - good at making things up and talk crap. I once lost a game from a winning end game position because Hanna was loudly talking less than two feet from my board. I almost did a firegoat7 on him. :evil:

antichrist
28-08-2004, 06:50 PM
Peter H is an idiot - good at making things up and talk crap. I once lost a game from a winning end game position because Hanna was loudly talking less than two feet from my board. I almost did a firegoat7 on him. :evil:

Tell me who you are and I will do it again.

peanbrain
29-08-2004, 09:38 AM
Tell me who you are and I will do it again.

See I told you all this Peter H is a major dick.head!! :hand: