PDA

View Full Version : firegoats clowns



Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 05:54 PM
I thought I would bring over this topic from the old board.



Re: Time for the clowns to leave the circus
« Reply #210 on: Dec 30th, 2003, 9:15pm » Quote Modify

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Starter asked a question so I suppose I had better reply, I will point out that his civilised response did not really address the questions presented. Instead we get a movement around the issues typical of a politician.

Response number 1:

CV manages both competitions. MCC usually enters a team in one or the other.
The host Clubs were BHCC and HBCC.
Playoff occurred at Elwood.
Competition format decided by host Club and Rules as per CV by-laws.


I know what interclub is. I presume you misinterpreted what my question meant? How does a host club bid for interclub? How does it present a workable agenda to CV? How does CV decide the structure of interclub? Is their any consultation with clubs about the process? I am interested in the decision making process of your organisation CV. Is it untainted with conflicting interests?

Question 2:

Chessguru is an active member of the VIC chess community. He works on the CV Executive, runs two premises, has a coaching organisation, runs the Aus. Grand Prix, and the recent large SWISS.
The point I made is that he has no problems working with CV.

Chessguru is an individual, one singular person. I do not understand why an institutional organisation like CV pays heed to the coercive power of an individual. Now if you were talking about ChessWorld that is a different story.

Response to question 3:

This one is even easier.
Clubs/bodies/commercial-enterprises bid for various events. For example WHJC is bidding for the VIC Junior. Bid proposal goes to the CV Executive (who are democratically elected by those who attend the CV AGM), and the decision is voted on.
Fair.
Not rocket science, and probably reflected of other State practices

There is a problem here which is typical of Australian chess as a whole. It would be useful to consider this issue in response to question 5.

The response to question 5 was:

Well he has my vote firegoat.
He stands for executive positions at Club, State and National level.
He gets involved in some difficult tasks; like Olympiad selection meetings.
He coaches.

Look this is not a Jammo fan club day. The guy has contributed an incredible amount to chess and deserves his kudos.

My arguement is not based on personal likes or dislikes, instead we ought to engage in the power structures of chess administration and how we can make them better.

For instance, all serious institutions turn over personal to develop talent. People are trained and they eventually replace people who train them.

For example the President of the USA is only limited to 8 year terms. This is not the case with CV.

When people enter into politics they also MUST display openly any potential conflict of interest. Let us consider some people who have served CV.

Did you know that GW and Jammo are life members of MCC. Does this equate to fair decision making for other clubs? Is it wise to have somebody so heavily involved in a private business like Chessguru deciding policy for CV? Is this fair to Chessideas or Chessed? Do the people concerned with democratic decision making of CV openly refuse to vote on such issues, where any potential conflict arises?

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 05:57 PM
My response was:


Re: Time for the clowns to leave the circus
« Reply #211 on: Dec 30th, 2003, 10:09pm » Quote Modify

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
firegoat just so you have a means of comparison, I'll tell you how things are done in NSW.
Remember in NSW players are the members of the NSWCA not clubs as in Victoria.


on Dec 30th, 2003, 9:15pm, firegoat7 wrote:I know what interclub is. I presume you misinterpreted what my question meant? How does a host club bid for interclub? How does it present a workable agenda to CV? How does CV decide the structure of interclub? Is their any consultation with clubs about the process? I am interested in the decision making process of your organisation CV. Is it untainted with conflicting interests?


The NSWCA runs its Grade Matches (Interclub) directly.
Teams consist of 4 players and teams are entered by clubs into various rating divisions e.g Open, U2000, U1800, U1600, U1400. The players on board 1 is allowed to exceeed the division limit by no more than 50 points.


on Dec 30th, 2003, 9:15pm, firegoat7 wrote:Chessguru is an individual, one singular person. I do not understand why an institutional organisation like CV pays heed to the coercive power of an individual. Now if you were talking about ChessWorld that is a different story.

I'm not sure we have any similar situation in NSW at this time. In the past Peter parr had been a NSWCA Council member and past NSW President. However whenever an issue that affected him directly was voted on he abstained from voting.



on Dec 30th, 2003, 9:15pm, firegoat7 wrote:Response to question 3:
There is a problem here which is typical of Australian chess as a whole. It would be useful to consider this issue in response to question 5.


The NSWCA Council runs all its tournaments directly. It determines the structure, prize fund, entry fees and who the arbiter will be. Some NSW torurnaments are run at Leagues Clubs which are the homes of thier respective Chess Club, however there is no monetary inducement or benfit to these chess clubs or their parent Leagues clubs.



on Dec 30th, 2003, 9:15pm, firegoat7 wrote:The response to question 5 was: Look this is not a Jammo fan club day. The guy has contributed an incredible amount to chess and deserves his kudos.

My arguement is not based on personal likes or dislikes, instead we ought to engage in the power structures of chess administration and how we can make them better.

For instance, all serious institutions turn over personal to develop talent. People are trained and they eventually replace people who train them.

For example the President of the USA is only limited to 8 year terms. This is not the case with CV.

When people enter into politics they also MUST display openly any potential conflict of interest. Let us consider some people who have served CV.

Did you know that GW and Jammo are life members of MCC. Does this equate to fair decision making for other clubs? Is it wise to have somebody so heavily involved in a private business like Chessguru deciding policy for CV? Is this fair to Chessideas or Chessed? Do the people concerned with democratic decision making of CV openly refuse to vote on such issues, where any potential conflict arises?


There was a time when the US President was ot retsricted to 2 terms. Also in many other democracies around the world their is no restriction of the term of office bearers, so I dont think this is relevant to your argument.

As for the NSWCA Council there would be a number of Council members over the years who have been life members of their respective Chess Clubs, however this has not been nor been seen to be a problem.

I can recall in the past various times when a member of the NSW Council may have abstained from a vote because of a possible conflict of interest.

Hope the above answers are beneficial.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 06:12 PM
starter replied:


Re: Time for the clowns to leave the circus
« Reply #212 on: Dec 31st, 2003, 7:32am »

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

on Dec 30th, 2003, 9:15pm, firegoat7 wrote:Well Starter asked a question so I suppose I had better reply, I will point out that his civilised response did not really address the questions presented. Instead we get a movement around the issues typical of a politician.

Firegoat, the only reason there is ‘movement around the issues’ is that the starting point of the discussion was 4 lines of derisive laughter from you. We could only guess at what you were laughing at. Now that it is narrowing down to something to do with ‘conflicting interests’ or ‘conflicts of interest’ we are beginning to be able to assist you. Thanks to Bill’s post you now know how NSW manages administrative agendas, as do probably 1000 chess organisations around the world. It is mundane not scary, boring not conspiratorial, necessary not avoidable.


on Dec 30th, 2003, 9:15pm, firegoat7 wrote:


Response number 1:

CV manages both competitions. MCC usually enters a team in one or the other.
The host Clubs were BHCC and HBCC.
Playoff occurred at Elwood.
Competition format decided by host Club and Rules as per CV by-laws.

I know what interclub is. I presume you misinterpreted what my question meant? How does a host club bid for interclub? How does it present a workable agenda to CV?


Bids are called for at the AGM. And periodically in Gary Lycett’s weekly CV e-mailed newsletter.
Write your bid on Gazza’s form.
Bid format is what you like or believe in. For example, BHCC bids for a weekly competition held on Fridays. On the other hand, CV prefers a fortnightly competition.


on Dec 30th, 2003, 9:15pm, firegoat7 wrote:

How does CV decide the structure of interclub?

There is a shortage of bidders. So, usually a single host club bid wins. CV has nothing to decide.


on Dec 30th, 2003, 9:15pm, firegoat7 wrote:
Is their any consultation with clubs about the process? I am interested in the decision making process of your organisation CV.

Again, there is not much need for CV decision-making…they get limited bids; one or two.


on Dec 30th, 2003, 9:15pm, firegoat7 wrote:
Is it untainted with conflicting interests?

Impossible. And as I argued in yesterday’s post, not even desirable


on Dec 30th, 2003, 9:15pm, firegoat7 wrote:

Question 2:

Chessguru is an active member of the VIC chess community. He works on the CV Executive, runs two premises, has a coaching organisation, runs the Aus. Grand Prix, and the recent large SWISS.
The point I made is that he has no problems working with CV.

Chessguru is an individual, one singular person. I do not understand why an institutional organisation like CV pays heed to the coercive power of an individual. Now if you were talking about ChessWorld that is a different story.

Individuals are great contributors to our chess community. I suggest you re-read Bill’s excellent comments on Peter Parr to become convinced .


on Dec 30th, 2003, 9:15pm, firegoat7 wrote:


Response to question 3:

This one is even easier.
Clubs/bodies/commercial-enterprises bid for various events. For example WHJC is bidding for the VIC Junior. Bid proposal goes to the CV Executive (who are democratically elected by those who attend the CV AGM), and the decision is voted on.
Fair.
Not rocket science, and probably reflected of other State practices


There is a problem here which is typical of Australian chess as a whole. It would be useful to consider this issue in response to question 5.

The response to question 5 was:

Well he has my vote firegoat.
He stands for executive positions at Club, State and National level.
He gets involved in some difficult tasks; like Olympiad selection meetings.
He coaches.

Look this is not a Jammo fan club day. The guy has contributed an incredible amount to chess and deserves his kudos.

My argument is not based on personal likes or dislikes, instead we ought to engage in the power structures of chess administration and how we can make them better.

For instance, all serious institutions turn over personal to develop talent. People are trained and they eventually replace people who train them.

For example the President of the USA is only limited to 8 year terms. This is not the case with CV.



Of course CV is going to be short of new talent when we have the richest most stable Club (MCC) not sending delegates to the AGM nor standing for election. We need either RMcC, EM, MP, DB, MR, Ju BB, or one of at least 6 other competent MCC administrators to pitch and stand for election.


on Dec 30th, 2003, 9:15pm, firegoat7 wrote:


When people enter into politics they also MUST display openly any potential conflict of interest. Let us consider some people who have served CV.

Did you know that GW and Jammo are life members of MCC. Does this equate to fair decision making for other clubs?

Both have my full confidence. Yes, other clubs think this fair.


on Dec 30th, 2003, 9:15pm, firegoat7 wrote:
Is it wise to have somebody so heavily involved in a private business like Chessguru deciding policy for CV?

Yes. See Bill’s comments on PP; as to how it works successfully.


on Dec 30th, 2003, 9:15pm, firegoat7 wrote:
Is this fair to Chessideas or Chessed?

Chess Ideas and Chess Ed need to have their agenda points represented, yes. But if they don’t make the effort then you can hardly expect the rest of us to reject the energetic efforts put in by ChessGuru. We are not flush with volunteering talent.

ursogr8
02-01-2004, 09:19 AM
I thought I would bring over this topic from the old board.




Bill

Thanks for doing this.
BTW will firegoat have access to a CODE button on this new BB?

starter

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 09:24 AM
Yes, why do you ask?[code:1]cascadasdtweawrhaewrg[/code:1]

Garvinator
02-01-2004, 10:33 AM
because instead of using the quote button that everyone on here uses, he would use the code function, i think just to annoy us;)

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2004, 10:35 AM
I thought I would bring over this topic from the old board.




Bill

Thanks for doing this.
No problem.
I figured I might as well do something useful in amongst the arguments. :D

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 10:36 AM
because instead of using the quote button that everyone on here uses, he would use the code function, i think just to annoy us;)

What ever happened to free speech :confused:

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2004, 10:40 AM
We weren't stopping him from doing it, we just said it was annoying.

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 10:43 AM
Ok whatever.

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 01:10 PM
With quote pyramids enabled, there is no reason to use code in quoting. However it is not a major issue if someone does.

jammo
07-01-2004, 02:34 PM
"Do we really want Jammo to return to the fold? or does he represent a conflicting interest?" - Firegoat


Dear Mr.Firegoat,

Whilst I haven’t posted to the bulletin board for some time I often read the latest posts to see what the average chess player is thinking about, particularly in relation to the ACF or CV.

If someone posts a comment about the ACF or CV it may be interesting, but if the comment is posted under a penname than it is hard to give the remarks any credibility.

If however we know who they are posted by then we must decide what weight to give their comments based on our knowledge of the person. If, for instance, Jenni Oliver says something about junior chess then it’s certainly worth considering.

Now, when you first started posting under then penname “firegoat” I just presumed that your remarks were just the ill-informed ravings of one of the one of those characters who hangs around the outside of the Melbourne Chess Club Inc. smoking, drinking and waiting for their next dole cheque to arrive.

Subsequently it became apparent that “firegoat” was in fact D.Beaumont, a former President of the MCC so I had to decide what weight I would give your remarks.

Unfortunately I have had few dealings with D.Beaumont on which to base my opinion. They are as follows:

1. I think we have played chess but once, and (from memory) you lasted about 14 moves ……….. so regrettably I do not have a very high opinion of your chess abilities.

2. I was fortunate to be at the Doeberl Cup one year to witness first hand the implementation of your dispute resolution procedures which most people are probably now familiar with.

3. I had the misfortune to be at the prize-giving ceremony of a recent Australian Championships held at the Melbourne Town Hall which turned out to be the most embarrassing chess event I have ever attended. One of the low lights was the speech by the President of The Melbourne Chess Club (in front of the sponsors and Melbourne City Council officials) who unfortunately seemed to have partaken too freely of the free refreshments available at the back of the room.

Based on the above, regrettably I am not able to give your views any credibility whatever.

Finally, I’m reminded of a phrase from the bible along the lines of “by their deeds shall ye know them.”

I can remember when the Melbourne Chess Club Inc. was a highly respected club with a judge as President and around 250 – 300 members. Nowadays I understand that the MCC has around 70 members; recently the ACF had to suspend all services from the MCC until it paid its bills to the ACF, and now Chess Victoria Inc. has had to suspend all services from the MCC until it pays its bills to CV. Further the MCC cannot be bothered to even send a delegate to the CV AGM. Unfortunately in recent years there haven’t been many people involved in running the MCC who actually know how to run things properly. Even little things like knowing that you have to have your ABN on official notices get overlooked. These days people can play at nice, clean, modern venues like Chess Kids or Box Hill Chess Club Inc so why would they bother going to the MCC? Perhaps you should spend more time getting your own act together rather than criticising the ACF or CV.

Maybe you don’t want Jammo to return to the fold but at least Jammo knows what he is doing and has a successful track record behind him. When you have done something in chess successfully yourself people will take more notice of your views.

-Jammo

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2004, 03:30 PM
Looks like we've just got ourselves another firegoat extinguisher. :mrgreen:

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2004, 03:56 PM
Looks like we've just got ourselves another firegoat extinguisher. :mrgreen:

It certainly looks that way. ;)

It was good to get Roberts's perspective. =D>

PHAT
07-01-2004, 04:01 PM
It was good to get Roberts's perspective. =D>

Ahh, but would it still have been as good had he not been antiFG7? ;)

A case of my enemy's enemy is my friend - for now.

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2004, 04:39 PM
It was good to get Roberts's perspective. =D>

Ahh, but would it still have been as good had he not been antiFG7? ;)

A case of my enemy's enemy is my friend - for now.
I wondered if you would make a comment.

When your losing a debate you are prone to tell your opponent to FO.

I dont recall ever having told jammo to shut up.

Just because I disagree with Robert regarding the ACF Commission does not mean I dont like hearing his perspective on things, especially Victorian things.

Thunk
07-01-2004, 06:39 PM
Looks like we've just got ourselves another firegoat extinguisher. :mrgreen:

to firegoat#

you seem to have suffered a demolition job from jammo <and he was the one you claimed as a life member>

you have suffered a free kick from kevin

you have been given a huge serve from bill.

is there a way out from ground zero?

here is a deal ... recognise the downhill trend of the MCC, sell up the premises, look around for a small club with a decent committee, move there and start MCC afresh.
and where would this be? why not try mentone. at least the beach would be close handy for the lay-abouts that jammo remarked on.
it is time for your club to suburbanise my friend. join us.

the HUNK

PHAT
07-01-2004, 06:58 PM
... why not try mentone. at least the beach would be close handy for the lay-abouts that jammo remarked on.

the HUNK

FIBBER! You don't have beaches, you have narrow sandy shores around a saltwater lake.

WBA
07-01-2004, 10:01 PM
Here is my little analysis of what I think is a waste of a post



If someone posts a comment about the ACF or CV it may be interesting, but if the comment is posted under a penname than it is hard to give the remarks any credibility.

Why?? I think the opposite can also be true, have you ever considered judging the comment and not the author?


Now, when you first started posting under then penname “firegoat” I just presumed that your remarks were just the ill-informed ravings of one of the one of those characters who hangs around the outside of the Melbourne Chess Club Inc. smoking, drinking and waiting for their next dole cheque to arrive.

How many of these “ill-informed characters” have you spoke with? How many members of the Melbourne Chess Club are actually on the dole Jammo? Have you any idea of the % or do you like the sound of your own raving? This to me sounds like the ravings and ranting of a chess admin who has an interest in a rival club, and is taking there opportunity to use there infamy in the chess world to ensure that people stay clear of MCC where the “crazies” are. In actual fact I would suggest that of people at the MCC the percent of unemployed would be the same as in the general public. You also seem to be making a general assumption that people out of work are therefore no-hopers, bums etc. This seems a little harsh. I would have thought that as a state and national admin your words might be better utilized enticing chess everywhere, rather than attempting to alienate a club.



1. I think we have played chess but once, and (from memory) you lasted about 14 moves ……….. so regrettably I do not have a very high opinion of your chess abilities.

Didn’t G.West once smash you very early in a tournament game? Are you judged on a single game,? I would hope not yet it is hardly relevant, because no one worth a pinch of salt would judge a person character by there chess ability. Albert Cymons is a very ordinary player, yet was a key figure in getting the Melbourne City Council’s very generous sponsorship for the last Australian Championships. Robert Brooking never set the world on fire over the board, yet you go on to praise him further down. This comes across as a personal attack, and a feeble one at that.



2. I was fortunate to be at the Doeberl Cup one year to witness first hand the implementation of your dispute resolution procedures which most people are probably now familiar with.

Is this not done with, I believe Beaumont has done his time, and his crime. The ACT chess fed handed David a ban, he served it, and it is over. I happen to agree it was negative for all of Australian Chess, this included Beaumont, Gatt(?), and the Admin of Doeberl who really should have controlled the situation before it got out of hand.


3. I had the misfortune to be at the prize-giving ceremony of a recent Australian Championships held at the Melbourne Town Hall which turned out to be the most embarrassing chess event I have ever attended. One of the low lights was the speech by the President of The Melbourne Chess Club (in front of the sponsors and Melbourne City Council officials) who unfortunately seemed to have partaken too freely of the free refreshments available at the back of the room.

True a blue day, hardly compares with Alekhine leaking in the corner, Nimzowich standing on table berated his opponent, Paul Dosza tipping his beer over the table whilst playing his opponent etc.
I ask that every person here who has ever done or said something they have regretted because alcohol has gone to their heads, hang your heads in shame, cause Jammo is embarrassed!!




Based on the above, regrettably I am not able to give your views any credibility whatever.

I could probably say ditto to that about yourself, but that would be taking the same judgmental stance that I am trying to point out is stupid. I disagree with this whole attack of yours but have seen the legacy’s of what you left at MCC, and am open eyed enough to realize that you have given a lot to Australian Chess, I am just hardly likely to blindly hang off the type of garbage I am responding to.



Finally, I’m reminded of a phrase from the bible along the lines of “by their deeds shall ye know them.”


Okay so in that case somewhere I must have missed the comments you wrote praising David’s efforts to come in and clean the MCC whilst working 7 days a week because the Kon Raipalis was ill in St.Vincents? Or that David at one stage ran a successful junior club for the MCC, which had a number of handy players such as Sam Chow, Bourmistrov, the Lindbergs etc come through. I do nto mind the negative sides being raised, but if you are making a character judgment to sprout to everyone willing to listen, it might be worth considering making an informed one.



I can remember when the Melbourne Chess Club Inc. was a highly respected club with a judge as President and around 250 – 300 members. Nowadays I understand that the MCC has around 70 members;

Is the club better because Mr Brooking was a judge? I would go as far as to say that if a reson such a Robert was a garbage collector his character traits would have been just the same, and he could have been just as good an admin, because he was there for the right reason….. He loved the MCC, and he loved chess. This reminds me of the elitist crap you find in a private boys school. For the record could you tell us what year the MCC had all those members? Or is it an airy comment, much like the understated number of members you mention MCC had last year



recently the ACF had to suspend all services from the MCC until it paid its bills to the ACF, and now Chess Victoria Inc. has had to suspend all services from the MCC until it pays its bills to CV.

Actually that is once again a half truth, it is okay to point out faults but it shows something is lacking if you need to use half truths in my humble opinion. The TRUTH is that the ACF choise to suspend services to the MCC until the Bill it had constructed, was paid in full. And it is true that the MCC owed the ACF outstanding amounts, ….yet a large % of the bill that MCC was being asked to pay, was in fact the a Chess Victoria bill. When this problem was finally sorted out (Both GW & GG have acknowledged that the bill was not all Melbourne’s and they had been incorrectly billed. Melbourne for its part was unprepared to just “pay up & shut up, which in the long term turned out to be a good idea, and they were proven justified. In regards to the Chess Victoria suspending MCCC, if this is the case why has official notification been mailed to the club informing them of such?? Seems strange that you are choosing to break the news to everyone on a BB?


Further the MCC cannot be bothered to even send a delegate to the CV AGM. Unfortunately in recent years there haven’t been many people involved in running the MCC who actually know how to run things properly.

The MCC believed when I was last there that the AGM is a farce, and do not feel they do nto feel the need to contribute to a legacy of Wastell



Even little things like knowing that you have to have your ABN on official notices get overlooked.


You are 100% correct the MCC has forgotten the little things like the letter heads, yet did manage to strip carpet, and replace it, tpainted the walls of the MCC, cleaned the toilets, pulled down the roof panels and painted them, pulled down the roof lights and cleaned, and all on the sniff of an oily rag, just through passion, David happened to be one of thee people, but hey throw them all to the lions they corgot the ABN!!



These days people can play at nice, clean, modern venues like Chess Kids or Box Hill Chess Club Inc so why would they bother going to the MCC?

History maybe? Look at the list of CC’s nowhere in Aus is close to that impressive. Though I am sure the irony of you throwing in a plug for chess kids is lost on no one.



Perhaps you should spend more time getting your own act together rather than criticising the ACF or CV.

Maybe you could take little bit of this advise turn it bacl towards yourself and take a big bite.
Again strangely ironic that you have just lambasted the MCC and David then talk about how people should worry about themselves and not others. …. Would you like a ladder down from that pedastool?



Maybe you don’t want Jammo to return to the fold but at least Jammo knows what he is doing and has a successful track record behind him. When you have done something in chess successfully yourself people will take more notice of your views.

Cannot deny it you have a great track record…whoopee for you



Have a nice evening :)

firegoat7
07-01-2004, 10:23 PM
Well it was a quick retirement but I simply am obliged to defend this unwarranted attack by Jammo. As Mark Twain says ""The reports of my death have been greatly exagerated."

Firstly I will begin by admitting guilt. Feel free to criticise me about any personal feelings of like or dislike about my character. It is obviously important to you that you vent these feelings. I will advise you however, that it is water off a ducks back. All human beings are flawed and, I, like you are imperfect. In other words I do not care what you think of me as a person Jammo, understand that. Furthermore, it deflects from some very real issues concerning chess administration.

Nevertheless, let us ask if Jammo is a good judge of character? Afterall we could ask some key questions here. Let us begin with a defense of his assumption



Now, when you first started posting under then penname “firegoat” I just presumed that your remarks were just the ill-informed ravings of one of the one of those characters who hangs around the outside of the Melbourne Chess Club Inc. smoking, drinking and waiting for their next dole cheque to arrive.

Where is this coming from Jammo? Are you attacking me personally (if so read the initial disclaimer) or are you casting aspersions on the MCC? Because if the case is the latter it is important to clarify. See I want people to openly hear the contempt you hold MCC in.

Could you please clarify your objection.
Do you have a problem with chessplayers smoking, drinking or being unemployed? Is that all unemployed,drinking,smoking people or just the ones who frequent MCC? Do you honestly believe that the majority of MCC members meet your inept classification system?
Try and understand this Jammo because it is very important. How is it that with complete confidence you even suggest such a claim?


Now I am not religous, to quote Marx "Religion is the opiate of the masses". Nevertheless, like most people I know bits and pieces of the bible, and, since your so fond of religous quotes maybe you might like to consider the teachings of Jesus Christ "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." ;)

[deleted]

As for the rest of your post
I can remember when the Melbourne Chess Club Inc. was a highly respected club with a judge as President and around 250 – 300 members. Nowadays I understand that the MCC has around 70 members; recently the ACF had to suspend all services from the MCC until it paid its bills to the ACF, and now Chess Victoria Inc. has had to suspend all services from the MCC until it pays its bills to CV. Further the MCC cannot be bothered to even send a delegate to the CV AGM. Unfortunately in recent years there haven’t been many people involved in running the MCC who actually know how to run things properly. Even little things like knowing that you have to have your ABN on official notices get overlooked. These days people can play at nice, clean, modern venues like Chess Kids or Box Hill Chess Club Inc so why would they bother going to the MCC? Perhaps you should spend more time getting your own act together rather than criticising the ACF or CV.

This is a completely ill informed pack of nonsense. Not only are a majority of these claims false, they are downright defamatory. Furthermore, I am surprised the ACF BB moderators even let you print this. If you are allowed to get away with it, then is it any surprise that MCC wants CONSCIOUSLY nothing to do with CV or potentially the ACF.

P.S I have never played a standard game of chess against you 8)

skip to my lou
07-01-2004, 10:47 PM
I am surprised the ACF BB moderators even let you print this.

Actually, no suprise at all. :D

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2004, 11:13 PM
I will advise you however, that it is water off a ducks back.

Nonsense, we've seen how far over the top you go when people give back to you what you dish out.


Now I am not religous, to quote Marx "Religion is the opiate of the masses".

True, but so is Marxism.


This is a completely ill informed pack of nonsense. Not only are a majority of these claims false, they are downright defamatory.

A club cannnot be defamed - except in the sense of trade libel if it is a profit making business. Individuals can though - I removed some very defamatory unspecified insinuations about someone from your post. I'll get Paul to have a look at this one lest my serious dislike of your behaviour on these BBs cloud my judgement on any borderline legal calls.

firegoat7
07-01-2004, 11:34 PM
Mr Bonham, I suspect even Jammo would inform you that Maurice Needleman had serious shortcomings as ACF president. Please don't defend the indefensible............(Let me guess you will respond with a witty retort attacking the messenger not the message).

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2004, 11:47 PM
Only in as much as your guess was silly and shows just what a ... ooops! :-# . And what "indefensibles" am I defending in this particular discussion - I haven't noticed myself defending anything. Further, what does this Mr Needleman have to do with Chess Victoria, the Melbourne Chess Club, the current ACF or indeed, anything?

ursogr8
08-01-2004, 07:39 AM
The MCC believed when I was last there that the AGM is a farce, and do not feel they do not feel the need to contribute to a legacy of Wastell



hi WBA

Welcome to the BB; I presume you have not posted before. It can only be good to get another Victorian into the dialogue of what is good for Australian chess. So your appearance is very encouraging.
And I notice that you don’t suffer from the fault that most of us have when we post for the first time; i.e. formatting errors. My guess is that you have been watching over someone’s shoulder to learn the protocols and have hit the ground running with an excellent post. Well done.

While the MCC is fractured away from the CV and ACF administrations we are all weaker. Eventually this is the schism that should be resolved. But I am damned if I ever understood what the root-cause of the problem was.

Now I would agree that the CV AGM is as booring as b**sh**.
But then nearly all AGMs for all CCs are a bit that way.
So what is it about the CV AGM that gets up your nose, and the collective senior establishment of MCC’s nose? I mean, there are 20+ sensible adults at MCC and it is hard to believe that not one of them believes that the MCC should at least be represented at the CV AGM.
What is the issue that keeps MCC away. Is it just the boredom of the meeting?

I can remember the tenancy disputes between the VCA and the MCC at Elizabeth St, when as a consequence there was a need to appoint an independent chair of VCA AGM meetings just to make progress. I can remember one AGM when the entire VCA was voted out of office (now that was a ‘fun’ evening).
But they are decades back.

Just what is that it that keeps the MCC away? We need you involved.
The rest of us can work with Jammo; and anyhow he is obviously not the root-cause of the fracture.
The rest of us can work with Wastell. And now I come to the sentence in your quote. You need to tell us what you mean by they do not feel the need to contribute to a legacy of Wastell . What the heck does this mean? It is obviously important to 20+ seniors at the MCC; but the rest of us are perplexed. We cannot work on resolving a problem unless we better understand it.

starter

paulb
08-01-2004, 10:14 AM
I note there is mention of the word "defamation" in this thread. please note that anyone who thinks they are being defamed by a post and wants it removed should contact the admins post-haste with their *specific* request. please also note the recent announcement: posters on this board agree to indemnify third parties (including me!) for any legal actions associated with their posts - in other words, if you say it, you pay for it. With that in mind, people might consider whether this debate is better pursued privately.[/b]

PHAT
08-01-2004, 10:26 AM
Now I am not religous, to quote Marx "Religion is the opiate of the masses".

True, but so is Marxism.



BZZZZZZ Wrong. Marxism is the dexamphetamine of the masses. :rolleyes:

ursogr8
08-01-2004, 10:45 AM
I note there is mention of the word "defamation" in this thread. please note that anyone who thinks they are being defamed by a post


PaulB
Not me so far. Although fg7 did call me a few names that raised my eye-brows; but I can live with what he said.



please also note the recent announcement: posters on this board agree to indemnify third parties (including me!) for any legal actions associated with their posts


Yes you have made this quite clear. And thanks for the negotiation of ‘amended moderation etc’ that produced a workable solution.



With that in mind, people might consider whether this debate is better pursued privately.


To my observation there has been some ‘unknown’ debating point going on for 10-15 years and private conversations have clearly failed to resolve. The new tool, the BB, allows us to pursue a new mechanism for solution. It would be beneficial to clear the air between MCC and CV.

starter

Ian Rout
08-01-2004, 11:09 AM
I note there is mention of the word "defamation" in this thread. please note that anyone who thinks they are being defamed by a post and wants it removed should contact the admins post-haste with their *specific* request. please also note the recent announcement: posters on this board agree to indemnify third parties (including me!) for any legal actions associated with their posts - in other words, if you say it, you pay for it. With that in mind, people might consider whether this debate is better pursued privately.

Just a thought that one of the bush lawyers might be able to answer. Can you defame someone who is anonymous? If so does this require the plaintiff to demonstrate that people know who they are? Or if not can a statement subsequently become defamatory if the identity of the target is revealed?

Thunk
08-01-2004, 11:41 AM
... why not try mentone. at least the beach would be close handy for the lay-abouts that jammo remarked on.

the HUNK

FIBBER! You don't have beaches, you have narrow sandy shores around a saltwater lake.


Matthew
somEhow if I wrotE

< at lEast thE narrow sandy shorEs around a saltwatEr lakE would bE closE handy for thE lay-abouts that jammo rEmarkEd on.>

it doEs not sEEm so EvocativE.






and why havE you bEcomE concErnEd about whErE to liE down?

8) :D thE HUNK :D 8)

firegoat7
08-01-2004, 11:43 AM
Ok, Firstly I owe Mr Bonham an apology. I confused the censorship issue with a previous post. Hence my Needleman comments refer to those initial posts(discussed on the old BB). This hopefully has clarified my position. :oops:

While I am apologising may I extend a handshake to gg and starter. Unfortunately I have confused the identities of these people. Therefore I have tended to read into their posts agendas that are simply not there. :oops:

But let us talk now about the subject of censorship. Why has my post in reply to Jammo been edited? I have not said anything that is not public knowledge. Furthermore, I asked 2 specific question to Jammo which I would like answered. Importantly I have not specified why X is (persona non grata), I would like Jammo's answer himself. Secondly, It is very important for chess administration to understand whether Jammo has a financial relationship with X, so that people can judge for themselves whether this is a conflict of interest.

I hope that in the interest of free speech you re-instate my post or at the very minimum qualify the reasoning why one set of rules is good for the goose but not for the gander!

ursogr8
08-01-2004, 12:11 PM
While I am apologising may I extend a handshake to gg and starter. Unfortunately I have confused the identities of these people. Therefore I have tended to read into their posts agendas that are simply not there. :oops:



firegoat
No offence was taken by me by whatever you thought.
The questions I have posed to you, and now WBA, interest me to resolve.
I have not liked your answers to date, but at least we have remained in solution-mode.
starter

peanbrain
08-01-2004, 01:54 PM
firegoat
No offence was taken by me by whatever you thought.
The questions I have posed to you, and now WBA, interest me to resolve.
I have not liked your answers to date, but at least we have remained in solution-mode.
starter

What answers?! so far the goat has only dished out abuse and more abuse. I don't know much about the politics down VIC but can say this silly goat has really made MCC look like bunch of di.ckheads.

PHAT
08-01-2004, 03:18 PM
and why havE you bEcomE concErnEd about whErE to liE down?

8) :D thE HUNK :D 8)

It's what you find lieing down that matters. Real beaches are where you find real peaches ;)

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2004, 04:46 PM
Just a thought that one of the bush lawyers might be able to answer. Can you defame someone who is anonymous?

Yes if it is reasonably possible for the readers to identify who the person defamed is. If no-one knew anything about who firegoat was, nothing said about him would be defamatory. But because many people now know who he is, he can be defamed.

I endorse Paul's suggestion - if anyone wants me to moderate something for defo, please send me a PM, I'd suggest send one to both of us. Name the thread, the poster and what of their post (unless it's most/all of it) you think is defamatory. We accept no responsibility if we don't get around to reading every single post on the board and therefore miss a complaint - though I will usually read every single post.


If so does this require the plaintiff to demonstrate that people know who they are? Or if not can a statement subsequently become defamatory if the identity of the target is revealed?

Yes in the first case I think the plaintiff would need to prove that they were capable of being defamed by the claim - which means showing that people could reasonably think it was aimed at them. I don't know the answer to the second.

firegoat - thanks for your clarification.

Your post that I edited two paras out of contained allegations against a particular individual. They were of a vague nature such that all kinds of insinuations, including of very serious criminal conduct, could easily be read into them whether you intended that or not. In defo law this is called "special meaning". This was partly because you did not specify why person X was (according to you) "persona non grata" in certain circles - by failing to specify, you (perhaps unwittingly) left it to the reader to conclude the worst. Also while you say that X (according to you) being "persona non grata" in certain circles is "public knowledge", I would be surprised if it was really on the public record, rather than just being a widely circulated claim.

In any case, I rather fail to see the relevance of all this to the issue of whether Jammo has any financial conflicts of interest.

firegoat7
08-01-2004, 05:22 PM
Feel free to delete this post. This is a question? If X is persona non grata from a place called Y - Is that not a fact that is actually true? Is their seriously anything defamatory about stating the truth? If I can prove beyond doubt that Y has a policy in place concerning X, is the claim still defamatory then?

[deleted]

Furthermore, it also adds weight to arguements that suggest that CV is a biased organisation towards "perceived" positiveness, since, the main decision makers only appear to be helping themselves. This point is of course debatable but depends on some honest answers from Jammo and hopefully Mr X.

Is this BB a place for open discussion that investigates the truth or is it just an amusing passing of time with no real benefit to chess?

jammo
08-01-2004, 05:53 PM
Dear WBA,

May I respond to some of the points you have raised.

1. I thought I made it clear that my comments on Firegoat were based on the information I have about him (which is limited). If you have other information that I don't, such as his good deeds for filling in for Raipalis or being great at laying carpet, then that's fine. I don't think that such deeds give him any better qualifications to criticise the ACF or CV.

2. It seems you don't like the approximate membership figues I quoted. I'm the CV Treasurer so I know exactly how many financial members the MCC declared to CV. If you think they are cheating and understating their membership then please let me know the true figures and I will send them a bill.

3. It is my view that having a club with a number of people hanging around the entrance smoking and drinking will result in a club membership consisting largely of people who like doing that sort of thing. I don't think it is the sort of image that encourages new junior members for example (as several parents have commented to me) or perhaps even judges?

4. If you think my views are elitist then that's fine, but I'd like to share with you a recent comment made to me by E.Malitis, namely that the biggest mistake the MCC ever made was to locate its premises in Fitzroy. I wonder what he meant by that?

5. I for one, would love to see an MCC that was well run, paid its bills on time and attended CV AGMs and had amicable relations with CV. I wonder why that doesn't seem to happen. Perhaps you can give us your answers.

-Jammo

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2004, 06:00 PM
I'm trying to keep this discussion going by avoiding names and even hints at incidents but still don't be surprised if I have to lock this thread pretty soon - even this is on dodgy ground.

firegoat7- You used a certain nine-letter word in your post which, in contexts like this, is very difficult to prove and very often defamatory.

Truth isn't enough alone in some states - in some states what you say also has to be "in the public interest", so that, for instance, an irrelevant hostile claim about a player's private life on this BB might be defamatory even if it was provably true. The sort of thing you were aiming at would probably be OK if it really was true, if you could prove it with hard documentation, and if you presented it in a balanced manner - just the bare provable facts with no wording that would cause any more to be read into it. Anything short of that is extremely risky.

Check your PM inbox if you haven't already, I think Paul was going to contact you about the jammo post.

jammo
08-01-2004, 06:11 PM
Could you please clarify your objection.
Do you have a problem with chessplayers smoking, drinking or being unemployed? Is that all unemployed,drinking,smoking people or just the ones who frequent MCC? Do you honestly believe that the majority of MCC members meet your inept classification system?
Try and understand this Jammo because it is very important. How is it that with complete confidence you even suggest such a claim?


See my reply to WBA



As for the rest of your post
I can remember when the Melbourne Chess Club Inc. was a highly respected club with a judge as President and around 250 – 300 members. Nowadays I understand that the MCC has around 70 members; recently the ACF had to suspend all services from the MCC until it paid its bills to the ACF, and now Chess Victoria Inc. has had to suspend all services from the MCC until it pays its bills to CV. Further the MCC cannot be bothered to even send a delegate to the CV AGM. Unfortunately in recent years there haven’t been many people involved in running the MCC who actually know how to run things properly. Even little things like knowing that you have to have your ABN on official notices get overlooked. These days people can play at nice, clean, modern venues like Chess Kids or Box Hill Chess Club Inc so why would they bother going to the MCC? Perhaps you should spend more time getting your own act together rather than criticising the ACF or CV.

This is a completely ill informed pack of nonsense. Not only are a majority of these claims false, they are downright defamatory. Furthermore, I am surprised the ACF BB moderators even let you print this. If you are allowed to get away with it, then is it any surprise that MCC wants CONSCIOUSLY nothing to do with CV or potentially the ACF.


I give up, tell me which of the above claims are false.



P.S I have never played a standard game of chess against you 8)

Well I can understand how you may have forgotten our game ... it being so short and all. My recollection is that I was black in a Pelikan and I think it was at Ballarat, but I'd have to check my scoresheets to be sure. Anyway it's not relevant to our debate.

You appear to be a keen supporter of the MCC not having anything to do with CV or the ACF. Do you think that is good for chess? The only problems that the ACF and CV have with the MCC (that I can see) are that you don't pay your bills, you often don't respond to correspondence and you can't even be bothered coming to the CV AGM.

WHY? What is the problem? Is the MCC bankrupt. Don't you have anyone who can write a letter ..... or do you just hate the ACF, CV, Wastell, Jammo, Chess Kids, etc. etc.?

-Jammo

jammo
08-01-2004, 06:33 PM
Secondly, It is very important for chess administration to understand whether Jammo has a financial relationship with X, so that people can judge for themselves whether this is a conflict of interest.


Not quite sure what you are on about here Mr.Goat.
What issue do you think I have a conflict of interest over?
Do you think I am a partner/shareholder/employee of some organisation that is relevant to chess administration?
What makes you think this is "very important?"
What makes you think you can speak for "Chess Administration".
Come to think of it, if MCC does not come to CV meetings and is currently suspended, then this "issue" you are trying to beat up can't be very relevant to you at all.
Finally, did Charles arrange for Di to be killed?

-Jammo

paulb
08-01-2004, 08:23 PM
Can you defame someone who is anonymous? If so does this require the plaintiff to demonstrate that people know who they are? Or if not can a statement subsequently become defamatory if the identity of the target is revealed?

I **think** the answers are:
1. Generally, no;
2. Yes, but that sort of contradicts the first bit;
3. Yes it can be, but a lot depends on WHO reveals it, I would imagine. (this situation crops up with "name-supressed witnesses" in court cases.

The general rule is that to defame is to lower someone in the estimation of others; to expose them to ridicule and contempt; to cause others to shun them. If that is the case, then various defences and partial defences apply.

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2004, 08:45 PM
3. Yes it can be, but a lot depends on WHO reveals it, I would imagine. (this situation crops up with "name-supressed witnesses" in court cases.

Certainly if someone makes a lot of anonymous nasty claims about a mystery person, and then later drops that the mystery person is <insert name here>, the person making the claims would be up for it.

Both Paul and I have media experience which gives us practical knowledge of this stuff, but you really have to be a specialist defo lawyer to know all the answers for sure (or know for sure which questions don't have definitive answers).

ursogr8
08-01-2004, 09:19 PM
.Furthermore, it also adds weight to arguements that suggest that CV is a biased organisation towards "perceived" positiveness, since, the main decision makers only appear to be helping themselves. This point is of course debatable but depends on some honest answers from Jammo and hopefully Mr X.


firgegoat7

I commented before on your concern about conflicts of interest, Bill also made some useful comments back on page 1 of this new thread. Can I repeat; conflicts of interest are inevitable when administrators participate in various levels of chess organisation. I encourage you to read Bill's words.
When the President of Whitehorse junior is also the VP of CV and hears a proposal from Whitehorse for a CV grant he has a conflict of interest. It is bound to happen. The issue is whether he excuses himself from the debate; and in this example he should, and he did.
When the Treasurer of Box Hill audits the books of CV he has a conflict of interest because he can see the transactions of competitors. It is bound to happen. The issue is how he deals with the conflict.
Each and every member of CV finds himself in some conflict of interest on some occasion, because he serves on two committees somewhere along the line. It is bound to happen. One solution is to declare ones interest. Another solution is to leave the room for that agenda item. Another solution is to have bid processes. The conflicts don't go away; they are just managed to a fair solution.
Chess Ideas, Chess Ed, Whitehorse, et al, are all encouraged to stand for positions on CV. Conflict of interest should not be the bar. It can be managed.


Conflicts of interest and fairness to all would be improved if the MCC participated in CV affairs. It is time to reconsider and rejoin.
starter

Ian Rout
08-01-2004, 09:26 PM
Thanks to Kevin and paulb for those answers. I think Kevin's observation about the case where someone is using a pseudonym but many readers know who they are sounds right. I was thinking more of a hypothetical scenario like this:

A new anonymous poster appears - let us say he uses the name firegoat8 - and makes abusive remarks, stating among other things that anyone who is not a member of MCC is a clown and should be banned from chess.

Soon after another user - let us call him majjo, though it is irrelevant whether he is anonymous - observes "I cannot take you seriously because of your history of having unnnatural relations with alpacas".

Now firegoat8 is in a quandary. Everyone assumes that majjo knows firegoat8's identity and so assumes that the statement is true. They therefore indeed do not take his comments seriously, which is a minor matter compared to what would happen to his reputation if his identity were to ever be revealed.

Suppose majjo's statement is false (remember I said this is hypothetical). What does firegoat8 do? Does he "out" himself and sue ACF, paulb and majjo, running the risk of being forever branded as an alpaca-botherer if the suit fails, and in any case defeating the purpose of posting anonymously? Or does he remain silent, also defeating his purpose since nobody is taking him seriously, and living in constant fear of exposure.

And if he takes the first course, does he need to prove that majjo knows who he is and is not just bluffing, since you can only defame a person and not a disembodied name?

Garvinator
08-01-2004, 09:26 PM
When the Treasurer of Box Hill audits the books of CV he has a conflict of interest because he can see the transactions of competitors. It is bound to happen. The issue is how he deals with the conflict.

umm starter sir,

about this comment, shouldnt CV be using an outside auditor for this process of auditing CV's books?

ursogr8
08-01-2004, 09:32 PM
I'm trying to keep this discussion going by avoiding names and even hints at incidents but still don't be surprised if I have to lock this thread pretty soon - even this is on dodgy ground.


Kevin
I appreciate this thread may be giving you difficulty. And some of it we cannot see.
It would be good for us if we could gain an understanding of the handling of various 'conflicts of interest' and if we could lay some old ghosts between CV and MCC to rest.
Locking the thread will miss an opportunity to clear the air in VIC.
We (well I) trust your judgement.

starter

chesslover
08-01-2004, 09:49 PM
When the Treasurer of Box Hill audits the books of CV he has a conflict of interest because he can see the transactions of competitors. It is bound to happen. The issue is how he deals with the conflict.

umm starter sir,

about this comment, shouldnt CV be using an outside auditor for this process of auditing CV's books?

I was about to state the same thing :idea:

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2004, 10:10 PM
Suppose majjo's statement is false (remember I said this is hypothetical). What does firegoat8 do? Does he "out" himself and sue ACF, paulb and majjo, running the risk of being forever branded as an alpaca-botherer if the suit fails, and in any case defeating the purpose of posting anonymously?

I do not think that that would work. He was posting anonymously and no-one had a clue who he was, so there would have been no damage to his (firegoat8's) real-life reputation before he unmasked who he was. It is a complete defence to defo claims to prove that the plaintiff consented to being defamed - identifying yourself as a previously defamed anonymous figure sounds a lot like that to me. However if majjo dropped any hint about who fg8 was, then defamation could come into it, even something as nonspecific as "fg8 is a prominent member of the MCC" might be enough to do it. If the number of people in a group that is defamed is low enough, then each member of that group can sue. There have not been many cases of this type so there is no specific number limit.


Or does he remain silent, also defeating his purpose since nobody is taking him seriously, and living in constant fear of exposure.

Just a pitfall of anonymity I would guess. His best move in those circumstances is to gradually retire fg8 and start again with a new ID and a significantly different writing style. :D


And if he takes the first course, does he need to prove that majjo knows who he is and is not just bluffing, since you can only defame a person and not a disembodied name?

Irrelevant because having taken the first course it's very unlikely he could sue. Whether majjo knows that fg8 is who he is would probably be legally irrelevant and fg8 would certainly not be required to prove it. The question is whether loss of reputation has been suffered, not whether the person causing it knew they were doing so. For instance, newspapers that get names wrong and thus accidentally implicate the wrong person through a typo have sometimes been sued for defaming the innocent party, even though the newspaper was actually aiming at someone else.

ursogr8
09-01-2004, 07:08 AM
When the Treasurer of Box Hill audits the books of CV he has a conflict of interest because he can see the transactions of competitors. It is bound to happen. The issue is how he deals with the conflict.

umm starter sir,

about this comment, shouldnt CV be using an outside auditor for this process of auditing CV's books?

I was about to state the same thing :idea:

CL and G'y
Probably you are correct.
Do you know where to check if you are correct?

The position was vacant for a number of years, due to lack of any volunteer. Before you shock-horror react to that news, be aware that we are so short of volunteers that in some years CV has not had a Secretary, and in other years it has not had a Treasurer. (I hestitate to ask why there apparently was no Pres of NSW last year).

CL and G'y, could you please tell us what executive positions you hold at State level.


starter


PS FIREGOAT7........the MCC can improve the CV Executive by putting forward a nominee; CV is usually short-handed.

jammo
09-01-2004, 07:45 PM
Dear WBA,

I’d be interested in your views of the following two imaginary events:

1. Leyton Hewitt has just lost the final of the Aust. Open and is walking off the court.
He is approached by spectator Jammo who exclaims “Leyton, mate! I think I know your problem. You’re not taking a big enough swing on the back-hand.”

2. Ian Rogers is just leaving the “pig pen” after having won his final game and retained his Australian Champion title. He is approached by spectator Firegoat who exclaims “Ian, mate! You are lucky those bastards on the ACF didn’t let Pecori play in the Championship!”

I wonder what credibility Hewitt and Rogers would give to the remarks of Jammo and Firegoat?

You have pointed out that Firegoat has done wonderful things for the MCC such as laying carpet and filling in for Raipalis, etc. My point is that he has little or no experience in running the ACF (or CV for that matter) and is not a strong enough player to know who should or should not play in an Australian Championship (for example). If he wants to speak out on issues about upgrading chess club facilities I’m sure we will all be most interested and respect his views. If however he wants to speak out on ACF matters then he can’t expect people to give his views much weight at all.

On other points you raise; you may think putting your ABN on notices is trivial and it is more important that you renovate the premises, but they are not mutually exclusive. You can do both! It probably takes about 10 seconds to add the ABN to your notice. My point is that it appears that the MCC administrators may not know enough about administration to even successfully do this trivial task. If you are going to criticise the ACF for being badly administered it helps if you know something about administration yourself.

You do not seem to share my concern and embarrassment if an ACF chess prize-giving ceremony is not up to expectations. The point is not whether or not Jammo is embarrassed, but rather whether we are happy to present chess in that manner to our sponsors (who are present). Does the Minister really want to chat to a drunken Dosza? I’ve seen enough of chess players to know that they are a very cosmopolitan bunch but I think we should try to present a good image to our sponsors.

You seem to have some bee in your bonnet about Chess Kids. Call me old fashioned but I prefer to play in premises that are clean, modern, well lit, air-conditioned, etc such as Chess Kids in North Road. (Free Plug). You may prefer to play at the MCC so that you can socialise with your mates out the front of the club. Why do you think Box Hill has done so well? Is it because everyone wants to come to play John Kable and Gerrit Hartland or is it because they have an excellent venue and are a well-run club?

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
I am a life member of the MCC. I am not a member of Chess Kids or Box Hill, so if my comments about MCC above have been overly favourable please bear in mind my possible conflict of interest.

-Jammo

chesslover
09-01-2004, 10:51 PM
CL and G'y
Probably you are correct.
Do you know where to check if you are correct?

The position was vacant for a number of years, due to lack of any volunteer. Before you shock-horror react to that news, be aware that we are so short of volunteers that in some years CV has not had a Secretary, and in other years it has not had a Treasurer. (I hestitate to ask why there apparently was no Pres of NSW last year).

CL and G'y, could you please tell us what executive positions you hold at State level.


starter



1. Maybe Bill can answer that question about teh external audit of the C books. I had thought that you wpould have needed some third party independent audit, but I may be wrong

2. I do not hold any executive position in NSWCA. And yes, we had no president last year, although Bill is now is our President, holding the highest elected office we can bestow upon him - even though last year he did the same in a defacto capacity

3. Yes, your point about volunteer shortage is very valid and very apt. In the old BB, paul Sikes started a thread about this problem that confronts australian chess

4. I did not mean to critise, and apologise if it was taken as such.

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2004, 10:59 PM
I am unaware of any legal requirement that would stop the Box Hill treasurer auditing the CV books.

Or in general terms why any treasurer of a particular chess club could not be the auditor for another chess club or chess association.

You could possibly even have a person being the treasurer for two distinct clubs.

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2004, 11:01 PM
What sort of information would you guys think is so sensitive that the auditor knowing it could be a conflict of interest.

PHAT
09-01-2004, 11:07 PM
3. Yes, your point about volunteer shortage is very valid and very apt. In the old BB, paul Sikes started a thread about this problem that confronts australian chess

Wherndo you thnk we'll see you piut some effortin , ya [deleted].

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2004, 11:08 PM
Let me guess, you are drunk.
Or heading that way.

skip to my lou
09-01-2004, 11:12 PM
Let me guess, your drunk.
Or heading that way.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

:D The word is "you're" :D

\:D/ Oh Bill, 1337 one =P~ NOT. :D

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2004, 11:14 PM
Yes, well its late. :D

Typing/spelling does not indicate 31337 ness or otherwise.

Only a fool would suggest it does. :rolleyes:

chesslover
09-01-2004, 11:14 PM
Let me guess, your drunk.
Or heading that way.

Gandalf is never around when you need him!! :D

At least the existence of gandalf, may have made Matt moderate his behaviour

skip to my lou
09-01-2004, 11:15 PM
Yes, well its late. :D

No excuses. :D =;

skip to my lou
09-01-2004, 11:17 PM
Yes, well its late. :D

Typing/spelling does not indicate 31337 ness or otherwise.

To be 1337, you must have atleast completed 4 units of english and 4 units of maths and 5 billion units of programming.

skip to my lou
09-01-2004, 11:19 PM
Yes, well its late. :D

Typing/spelling does not indicate 31337 ness or otherwise.

Only a fool would suggest it does. :rolleyes:

Have you completed a minimum of 5 billion units of programming? Fool.

And what about 4 units of english? DING DING.

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2004, 11:22 PM
Ha ha grasshopper.
Firstly its not the doing or 4 unit English and maths thats important, it is passing them that matters. ;)

As for 5 billion units of programming, I have done far more programming than you could ever imagine. :-''

When someone is prepared to pay you regularly $100-200/hr get back to me. =;

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2004, 11:24 PM
Well given you havent even done 1 million units your 1 billion statement just makes you look foolish. Maybe your one of firegoats missing clowns.

When your well paid you can be arrogant, until then your just a wannabe.

skip to my lou
09-01-2004, 11:25 PM
Doing, means not passing, but scoring 100%, Cockroach.

How often is regularly.

skip to my lou
09-01-2004, 11:26 PM
When your well paid you can be arrogant, until then your just a wannabe.

Dipstick, its "you're". And I get paid more than you ever would have imagined when you were 18.

skip to my lou
09-01-2004, 11:27 PM
Well given you havent even done 1 million units your 1 billion statement just makes you look foolish. Maybe your one of firegoats missing clowns.

I wouldn't comment on Jeo's programming skills if I were you. :D :D :D :D :D :D

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2004, 11:27 PM
So dipstick did you score 100% in English and maths, or do you just wish you did.

skip to my lou
09-01-2004, 11:28 PM
So dipstick did you score 100% in English and maths, or do you just wish you did.

Yes

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2004, 11:28 PM
Oh regularly is 3-4 mths at a time.

PHAT
09-01-2004, 11:29 PM
When your well paid you can be arrogant, until then your just a wannabe.

Yep, Gandi wasa wanna be, So was Jesus, so are all the people who coose to do lower paidf jobs becaus etheylike the them. Rot, you money grubbing hollow psudo man.

skip to my lou
09-01-2004, 11:30 PM
Yes, Rot.

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2004, 11:31 PM
Ah another great piece of insight from moron Matt.

skip to my lou
09-01-2004, 11:32 PM
Ah another great piece of insight from moron Matt.

Why is he a moron? Because he told you to rot?

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2004, 11:32 PM
So dipstick did you score 100% in English and maths, or do you just wish you did.

Yes
Guess we will just have to take your word on that. :rolleyes:

Garvinator
09-01-2004, 11:33 PM
can drunk posts be deleted plzzzzz :D

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2004, 11:34 PM
Ah another great piece of insight from moron Matt.

Why is he a moron? Because he told you to rot?
No little boy because he called me money grubbing.

You of course are a moron for just repeating his word "rot".
I would have thought with your 100% in English you could have done better.

skip to my lou
09-01-2004, 11:34 PM
can drunk posts be deleted plzzzzz :D

I had 7 red bull drinks. 8)

skip to my lou
09-01-2004, 11:35 PM
Ah another great piece of insight from moron Matt.

Why is he a moron? Because he told you to rot?
No little boy because he called me money grubbing.

You of course are a moron for just repeating his word "rot".
I would have thought with your 100% in English you could have done better.

Thats good, now shut up fool! :D :D :D :D :D :D

you're wasting my time. Good night everyone! :D

skip to my lou
09-01-2004, 11:38 PM
Ah another great piece of insight from moron Matt.

What is a quarter of a milloinn dollar car like in a high speed heeadonner? with any luck the kinetic engergy should do us all a favour.
Probably much safer than yours.

As for your implication your a disgarce ya piece of scum.

That would be "you're", "disgrace" and "you".

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2004, 11:38 PM
Ah another great piece of insight from moron Matt.

Why is he a moron? Because he told you to rot?
No little boy because he called me money grubbing.

You of course are a moron for just repeating his word "rot".
I would have thought with your 100% in English you could have done better.

Thats good, now shut up fool! :D :D :D :D :D :D

Ha what a loser. :-''

100% in English and all you can come up with is "shut up fool". =;

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2004, 11:40 PM
That would be "you're", "disgrace" and "you".

If all your going to do is pick up on typing errors you need a new hobby. :rolleyes:

chesslover
09-01-2004, 11:40 PM
When your well paid you can be arrogant, until then your just a wannabe.

Yep, Gandi wasa wanna be, So was Jesus, so are all the people who coose to do lower paidf jobs becaus etheylike the them. Rot, you money grubbing hollow psudo man.

You are an alchohol fueled moron.

Why don't you go to bed and sleep it off, rather than posting here and showing us how wrong we were to protest against gandalf for kicking you out

chesslover
09-01-2004, 11:43 PM
So dipstick did you score 100% in English and maths, or do you just wish you did.

Yes

any proof Jeo that you scored 100% in both maths and english?

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2004, 11:44 PM
You would never guess it by his witty replies.

skip to my lou
09-01-2004, 11:46 PM
So dipstick did you score 100% in English and maths, or do you just wish you did.

Yes

any proof Jeo that you scored 100% in both maths and english?

Hahaha, dont make me flush your head down a toilet.

I didn't get 100% WAM, I got one 100%, two 90% and one 87%.

PHAT
09-01-2004, 11:47 PM
As for your implication your a disgarce ya piece of scum.


Money is pretty over rated. You can't take it with you and the paople you might leave it to don't apraeciate it . I could chase $$, but what for? It is bettter to visit or entertain good friends than try to be a wanna be. Caus e at thhe the end people think they are a somebody ifthay have money, but no it isnot tru e. You are somebody if you ar eloved and love too. ANything else is ..... just sad blollox.

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2004, 11:48 PM
Its a damn shame those exams are easier than they used to be. :D

skip to my lou
09-01-2004, 11:50 PM
Its a damn shame those exams are easier than they used to be. :D

Actually, they got about 20 fold harder since 1800's when you used to go to school.

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2004, 11:51 PM
You moron.
Given Matt is 5 years younger than me that would be difficult.

Garvinator
09-01-2004, 11:54 PM
takes this opportunity to remind fellow posters that this thread was about firegoat and mcc so go have your fun on another thread ](*,)

chesslover
09-01-2004, 11:54 PM
Money is pretty over rated. You can't take it with you and the paople you might leave it to don't apraeciate it . I could chase $$, but what for? .

Err...to be paid good money, ypou have to provide a service that others will want to pay good money for.

What service or expertise can you provide, that will justify an empoyer to pay you good money?

skip to my lou
09-01-2004, 11:56 PM
Money is pretty over rated. You can't take it with you and the paople you might leave it to don't apraeciate it . I could chase $$, but what for? .

Err...to be paid good money, ypou have to provide a service that others will want to pay good money for.

What service or expertise can you provide, that will justify an empoyer to pay you good money?

Sweeney's Bill Exterminating Service

Kevin Bonham
09-01-2004, 11:58 PM
can drunk posts be deleted plzzzzz :D

Some of them can and have. It would certainly improve the quality of the forum but I think some people would think it obstructed their freedom of (slurry) speech.

chesslover
09-01-2004, 11:59 PM
you used the 8 letter s word

You are in so much trouble, for the grand poobah now deletes posts with that word.

Serves you right you drunk idiot

PHAT
09-01-2004, 11:59 PM
Money is pretty over rated. You can't take it with you and the paople you might leave it to don't apraeciate it . I could chase $$, but what for? .

Err...to be paid good money, ypou have to provide a service that others will want to pay good money for.



I still don't know. what do you nead ""good money for??

Kevin Bonham
10-01-2004, 12:20 AM
Sweeney's Bill Exterminating Service

The only thing Sweeney could exterminate tonight would be an insect, if he breathed on one it would be preserved for science for perpetuity, the stuff I use to bottle snails must be weaker than the stuff round at his place.

Anyway, thread temporarily locked due to persistent crude and otherwise unacceptable abuse, mostly by a drunken Sweeney but some milder stuff from other posters as well. As it is I had to delete about 30 posts of this and I didn't appreciate the exercise.

Thread will be unlocked when those involved have all gone to bed, or failing that, tomorrow sometime. All complaints to =; or M. Sweeney, Esq.

Kevin Bonham
10-01-2004, 04:17 AM
Unlocking thread now. Gladiators, please play nice (and sober in some cases) or it may get locked again for good.

firegoat7
10-01-2004, 01:20 PM
Jammo has informed us that he claims that his statements are the truth about MCC. In an effort to expose the subjective nature of these claims, I will deal with them one at a time. In the meantime I will ignore Jammo's extra postings until the initial claims have been dispelled.

Initially Jammo wrote:
I can remember when the Melbourne Chess Club Inc. was a highly respected club with a judge as President and around 250 – 300 members.

Memory is unfortunately an unreliable source to base facts upon. Memory does have merits but is definately stronger when backed up by statistical information. Now anybody who know anything about MCC understands that the Hon Justice Robert Brooking (OAM) was president for an outstanding period of time. Thanks to Roberts excellent leadership the club remains a successful institution.

Now according to club archives in 1992 Depasquale became president of the MCC, replacing Brooking. Having gone through some of the archives I can state with some authority this claim- In 1989 the MCC membership list was 120 people. A considerable shortage from what Jammo claims based on memory. So unless you can provide some concrete evidence Jammo that is a little bit more reliable then your memory, you stand refuted on the first point.

ursogr8
10-01-2004, 04:08 PM
All

First the bad news. The bad news is that for some reason this thread, and only this thread, occupies 140% of my screen. In other words, if I want to read an entire post I have to keep scrolling left and right. And I don't know how to fix it.

The good news is that the past three pages have been drivel (not you jammo or fg7), and I have missed nothing.

starter

BTW I have worked out that
WBA = West Bromwich Albion.

PHAT
10-01-2004, 04:12 PM
All

BTW I have worked out that
WBA = West Bromwich Albion.

Nope, World Boxing Association.

Bill Gletsos
10-01-2004, 04:13 PM
Is the problem on every page of this thread or just this page.

ursogr8
10-01-2004, 04:23 PM
Is the problem on every page of this thread or just this page.

Good theory Bill.
I tested pages 1 and 3 and they do not have the problem that later 3 or 4 pages had. So what does that mean for me?

BTW, I have had the problem before on limited threads and lived with it.
This time the drivel got to me.


starter
WBA = West Bromwich Albion and initials are ...(whats the word for the same in a mirror?)

arosar
10-01-2004, 04:25 PM
hey listen . . . let's give 'em Victorians a go OK. It's always Matt and Bill fighting. And now this Jeo fella arguing over spelling. Have you got a $250K car Jeo?

AR

Kevin Bonham
10-01-2004, 04:25 PM
This problem can happen in a number of ways - you should be able to identify a specific post where one sentence runs extremely wide across the screen somewhere.

Bit of an occupational hazard on BBs of any kind, I get this now and then on virtually all of them.

skip to my lou
10-01-2004, 04:38 PM
Well whatever it is, I dont really care.

arosar
10-01-2004, 04:40 PM
OK fine. Just take it easy for cryin' out loud. Now let's get this thread back to Vic matters.

AR

skip to my lou
10-01-2004, 04:40 PM
You tell me to take it easy? Yet you started name calling? :-s

Kevin Bonham
10-01-2004, 04:44 PM
Come on guys. Don't make me lock this thread again.

PHAT
10-01-2004, 05:05 PM
Come on guys. Don't make me lock this thread again.
Nasi

chesslover
10-01-2004, 06:02 PM
The only thing Sweeney could exterminate tonight would be an insect, if he breathed on one it would be preserved for science for perpetuity, the stuff I use to bottle snails must be weaker than the stuff round at his place.

Anyway, thread temporarily locked due to persistent crude and otherwise unacceptable abuse, mostly by a drunken Sweeney but some milder stuff from other posters as well. As it is I had to delete about 30 posts of this and I didn't appreciate the exercise.

Thread will be unlocked when those involved have all gone to bed, or failing that, tomorrow sometime. All complaints to =; or M. Sweeney, Esq.

Why must allsuffer due to Sweeney' s drunken ravings? :(

If he posts whilst drunks again, suspend him for 24 hours

Kevin Bonham
10-01-2004, 06:19 PM
It would help if those who feel they must reply to a poster who is obviously drunk do so by hitting reply rather than quote, so they don't quote an insult that might be deemed delete-worthy and hence give me extra work to edit/delete their post too. If you are hitting reply, just name the poster you're responding to to avoid confusion if stuff gets deleted. Last night's exchanges with inebriates wasted quite a lot of my time - although most people posting on the thread were sober.

As for banning drunk posters, some people manage to post while drunk without doing anything else wrong. But if anyone has any compelling objections to a brief dry spell for drunk posters who are making unacceptable insults (I'll look into whether you can block people for just a few hrs rather than 24) I'd be interested to hear them.

PHAT
10-01-2004, 07:08 PM
whattats allall this blooody bollox abou tkcikinb perfe ctlly ressonable popople off for being 7unsober????????? taht is jst WRONG WROGGB WRONGH and you barsards sould get this thruog you middle clas upyoursel f hypercvritical heads.

Sometimes, a person may adopt a attitude that is more thespian than true, so as to draw critisism from the wholey intolerant wing on this BB.

Actually, Kevin, suspending a person for "apparently" posting while drunk, could be actionable as defaming the person. You would have to proove that the person was drunk, and that the person was drunk on all previous occations.

In short, you can only take action for what the person posts, not for their presumed state of mind.

chesslover
10-01-2004, 07:17 PM
Matt,

keep posting like this when drunk sunshine, and the Grand Poobah will ban you for a few hours. It is about time, that someone stopped your drunken ravings on this BB. Next time you are drunk go lie down,not post on this BB

Consider this some not so friendly advice to you

Kevin Bonham
10-01-2004, 07:52 PM
Sometimes, a person may adopt a attitude that is more thespian than true, so as to draw critisism from the wholey intolerant wing on this BB.

Your reference to a "wholey intolerant wing" certainly falls in the more thespian than true category.


Actually, Kevin, suspending a person for "apparently" posting while drunk, could be actionable as defaming the person. You would have to proove that the person was drunk, and that the person was drunk on all previous occations.

Well, no, the latter wouldn't be relevant, only the posts in question.

Apart from that you have a point - not in your particular case but in general. There is "fair comment" to consider, but to get around that best we would have to, at the least, tone it down to "posting in an apparently drunken manner". We do have to be careful about asserting that posters who aren't known for this sort of behaviour are in fact drunk at the time. I doubt a person who pretended to be drunk and was then accused of being drunk could sue effectively, but I'm thinking of a person with a typing impediment or something. (Or a keyboard problem. :P )


In short, you can only take action for what the person posts, not for their presumed state of mind.

Fine, how about apply a similar policy whether a person is drunk or sober - 3 unacceptable insults within an hour = banned for 3 hrs (assuming we could ban for so short a time).

Kevin Bonham
10-01-2004, 07:57 PM
keep posting like this when drunk sunshine, and the Grand Poobah will ban you for a few hours. It is about time, that someone stopped your drunken ravings on this BB. Next time you are drunk go lie down,not post on this BB


But Matt's reply to my post was completely sober - it just started out by pretending to be drunk. Please don't bait him when it isn't necessary, it makes more work for me.

PHAT
10-01-2004, 10:37 PM
There is "fair comment" to consider, but to get around that best we would have to, at the least, tone it down to "posting in an apparently drunken manner".



"... apparently drunken manner ... " ???? Shock, horror.

While you are talking like a public servant circa 1950, perhaps you could add:
"... somewhat provocative tone ..."
"... uncomfortable wording ..."
"... ideas concerning a persons character ..."
"... conducive to the interests of civility ..."

You claim to be a libertarian, and you might be one in your own mind, but you are not. You are behaving like a petty middle manager with a red pencil and a need to pander to his ego by excersizing his tiny bit of power.

Rincewind
10-01-2004, 11:14 PM
whats the word for the same in a mirror?)

Do you mean a palindrome?

Kevin Bonham
10-01-2004, 11:47 PM
"... apparently drunken manner ... " ???? Shock, horror.

You missed the point, but it probably ran away screaming when it saw your context-what-context posting style. The point is not that people are posting while drunk - some of the people who post while drunk manage to do it without making unfair attacks on other individuals.


You claim to be a libertarian, and you might be one in your own mind, but you are not.

Not on everything, just more so than most. And in any case, you once again display no understanding of political philosophy. This board is managed through an agreement between two private entities. In an absolutely libertarian society (one maximally libertarian in both economic and social senses), the right of private entities to exercise absolute control over the use of their own property is utterly inviolable - if you don't like the newspaper, use your own money to start your own. In such a society there is no public media.


You are behaving like a petty middle manager with a red pencil and a need to pander to his ego by excersizing his tiny bit of power.

Whatever. Stop wasting both our time, if I lived up to your stereotypes I would be putting that red pencil through 80% of your posts instead of 10.

ursogr8
11-01-2004, 07:54 AM
All

BTW I have worked out that
WBA = West Bromwich Albion.

Nope, World Boxing Association.

Actually, I do mean West Bromich Albion.
It is the team supported by the guy who gave Jammo a serve for giving firegoat a serve.

ursogr8
11-01-2004, 07:55 AM
whats the word for the same in a mirror?)

Do you mean a palindrome?

Barry
I mean if your initials are MW, for example.


But so far he has only posted once. He is probably distracted watching WBA.



starter

Rincewind
11-01-2004, 09:38 AM
whats the word for the same in a mirror?)

Do you mean a palindrome?

I mean if your initials are MW, for example.


Symmetric on both diagonal axes?

firegoat7
12-01-2004, 07:51 PM
2 days without a sighting from Jammo, What has happend has the cat got your tongue? By the way I heard a rumor you were forced out by the ACF, Is that true?

peanbrain
12-01-2004, 08:15 PM
2 days without a sighting from Jammo, What has happend has the cat got your tongue? By the way I heard a rumor you were forced out by the ACF, Is that true?

FG7 - give it up. You are an idiot! Jammo has much too much to do than hang around debate with nutters like you! :-''

Bill Gletsos
12-01-2004, 08:15 PM
2 days without a sighting from Jammo, What has happend has the cat got your tongue? By the way I heard a rumor you were forced out by the ACF, Is that true?
I don't know where you heard that rumour but their is no truth in it.

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2004, 09:43 PM
By the way I heard a rumor you were forced out by the ACF, Is that true?

Naaah, not even close - if you want to know why he resigned, why not ask him?

firegoat7
12-01-2004, 10:14 PM
I would but it seems like he has disappeared.

firegoat7
12-01-2004, 10:16 PM
By the way Starter, I don't think you really figured out who WBA was... I think our little spy MR told you. :shock:

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2004, 10:20 PM
I would but it seems like he has disappeared.

Drop him a PM or an email then. He hasn't said anything about it on here so I don't know whether he would.

WBA
13-01-2004, 05:45 PM
Firstly I want to apologise for the length of this post, I was not actually going to respond for four reasons

1-I have been too busy to respond, and need to re-format my pc
2- Jammo's posts have nothing that interesting to say in them
3- Jeo and Bill completely ruined what could have been a reasonable debate (why were the posts not deleted???)
4- Starter seems to have a preoccupation with my identity

But here goes...


From Starter

The rest of us can work with Wastell. And now I come to the sentence in your quote. You need to tell us what you mean by they do not feel the need to contribute to a legacy of Wastell . What the heck does this mean? It is obviously important to 20+ seniors at the MCC; but the rest of us are perplexed. We cannot work on resolving a problem unless we better understand it.

I mean that Wastell appears hell bent on keeping his postilion, I am not sure this is always in a reasonable matter. I believe if the MCC votes, and it falls short, then it adds to the appearance of everything being completed in a reasonable fashion. I also do not believe that having an association with an organisation should compel you to vote. It is reasonable to expect a service from an organisation, without having further direct involvement.



From Jammo

1. I thought I made it clear that my comments on Firegoat were based on the information I have about him (which is limited). If you have other information that I don't, such as his good deeds for filling in for Raipalis or being great at laying carpet, then that's fine. I don't think that such deeds give him any better qualifications to criticise the ACF or CV.

What you have made clear is that you are passing a moral judgement on someone, and therefore disregard their thoughts as having any value. My little piece of advice for you is to judge the comment, and forget about enlightening the rest of us with your little anecdotes on the poster.


2. It seems you don't like the approximate membership figures I quoted. I'm the CV Treasurer so I know exactly how many financial members the MCC declared to CV. If you think they are cheating and understating their membership then please let me know the true figures and I will send them a bill.

You are right I do not like the figures quoted... I also do not like the fact you are insinuating that anything other than the figures in your hands mean the club is cheating. On more than one occasion I have had a discussion with GW about this very matter. GW made very clear that any club has the right no nominate how many members they want to declare to the VCA/CV. As a member of CV I would have assumed you knew the constitution, if I am mistaken I apologise. Maybe I can offer the advise that you read up on the constitution however before making such inflaming statements.



3. It is my view that having a club with a number of people hanging around the entrance smoking and drinking will result in a club membership consisting largely of people who like doing that sort of thing. I don't think it is the sort of image that encourages new junior members for example (as several parents have commented to me) or perhaps even judges?

Apparently Box Hill does not have smokers out the front....



4. If you think my views are elitist then that's fine, but I'd like to share with you a recent comment made to me by E.Malitis, namely that the biggest mistake the MCC ever made was to locate its premises in Fitzroy. I wonder what he meant by that?

I have had many similar conversations with EM, though this does not make EM correct. In fact I am not convinced it is in the prime location either. Though I do know the club is freshly painted, has new carpet, has had a large general cleanout, and has a thriving junior membership.
Sure parking is a problem, though parking can be located within 100 m of the club. It is true it is an older high roof building, but constant improvement to the club are being undertaken and the club will survive and thrive. There is already an incredible difference over the last 14 months, as a life member why not drop in and take a look??? Maybe you can then make a judgement based on recent information.



5. I for one, would love to see an MCC that was well run, paid its bills on time and attended CV AGMs and had amicable relations with CV. I wonder why that doesn't seem to happen. Perhaps you can give us your answers.


As is largely obvious with your posts to date. How could anyone doubt your sincerity considering you are have been a recent member of both the state and national organisations, yet publicly criticise the club to the hilts on the BB linked to the ACF??
If this is true, prove it by your actions. Stop posting negative and often incorrect postings about the MCC on this board.


Dear WBA,

I’d be interested in your views of the following two imaginary events:

1. Leyton Hewitt has just lost the final of the Aust. Open and is walking off the court.
He is approached by spectator Jammo who exclaims “Leyton, mate! I think I know your problem. You’re not taking a big enough swing on the back-hand.”

2. Ian Rogers is just leaving the “pig pen” after having won his final game and retained his Australian Champion title. He is approached by spectator Firegoat who exclaims “Ian, mate! You are lucky those bastards on the ACF didn’t let Pecori play in the Championship!”

I wonder what credibility Hewitt and Rogers would give to the remarks of Jammo and Firegoat?

You have pointed out that Firegoat has done wonderful things for the MCC such as laying carpet and filling in for Raipalis, etc. My point is that he has little or no experience in running the ACF (or CV for that matter) and is not a strong enough player to know who should or should not play in an Australian Championship (for example). If he wants to speak out on issues about upgrading chess club facilities I’m sure we will all be most interested and respect his views. If however he wants to speak out on ACF matters then he can’t expect people to give his views much weight at all

You actually want me to respond to such a ludicrous post? Well my much awaited response is that it is childish and nonsensical. For an obviously intelligent human this is far to emotional. How many members of the ACF and state organisations have never reached 2000 ACF rating? This hardly devalues there input. You do not need strong chess playing strength to discuss whether or not an organisation is run well and honestly. Secondly one can analyse playing results and come to a reasonable conclusion as to whether or not people have adequate strength. I think regardless of who plays there are always going to be debates, and that is good, it shows the tournament is attracting interest, why try and stifle this sort of conversation???


On other points you raise; you may think putting your ABN on notices is trivial and it is more important that you renovate the premises, but they are not mutually exclusive. You can do both! It probably takes about 10 seconds to add the ABN to your notice. My point is that it appears that the MCC administrators may not know enough about administration to even successfully do this trivial task. If you are going to criticise the ACF for being badly administered it helps if you know something about administration yourself.

You are correct, I am stating that the club is sorting through a list of jobs that require attention, things were not in a wonderful state, they are however on the improve, and if this was one of the worst faults that would be pleasing. As for your last sentence you are right to a degree, though some people are better at analysing processes requiring improvement, than actual implementation.


You do not seem to share my concern and embarrassment if an ACF chess prize-giving ceremony is not up to expectations. The point is not whether or not Jammo is embarrassed, but rather whether we are happy to present chess in that manner to our sponsors (who are present). Does the Minister really want to chat to a drunken Dosza? I’ve seen enough of chess players to know that they are a very cosmopolitan bunch but I think we should try to present a good image to our sponsors.

Actually I am saying it was a mistake made 6 years ago, and that there is no need to go into this again unless it left such strong emotional scars with you, that you feel the need to discuss this with our close-knit bunch of friends in here. I however believe there were more sinister reasons for your comments, which revolved around your attempted character assassination of FG. So I do not think your posting of this was necessary.


You seem to have some bee in your bonnet about Chess Kids. Call me old fashioned but I prefer to play in premises that are clean, modern, well lit, air-conditioned, etc such as Chess Kids in North Road. (Free Plug). You may prefer to play at the MCC so that you can socialise with your mates out the front of the club. Why do you think Box Hill has done so well? Is it because everyone wants to come to play John Kable and Gerrit Hartland or is it because they have an excellent venue and are a well-run club?

Actually I have no beef with CK or its admin. I do have opinions on the tournaments they run etc, but I have no real desire to posts these, as it would be pettiness. For what it is worth DC opening a successful club in Melbourne is good for chess. It is true I would prefer to play at MCC, I love its history, it has a sense of romanticism about it, I love that it is open 7 days a week etc, however this does not drive me to point out why I have no real desire to play at Box Hill, on the contrary I hope they remain very successful. There venue is very good I agree, and they are well run, though there is more, they are closer to the demographic centre of Melbourne and there is more parking. This hardly means MCC should grab it's B & B and pack it in.



Back to starter

BTW I have worked out that
WBA = West Bromwich Albion.
Actually, I do mean West Bromwich Albion.
It is the team supported by the guy who gave Jammo a serve for giving firegoat a serve.
I mean if your initials are MW, for example.
But so far he has only posted once. He is probably distracted watching WBA.
starter

Hi Starter,

Ask yourself if the above posts add anything of value to this board? I think respecting the individuals right anonymity is a valuable concept. It is fairly obvious as to the person who decided it was necessary to reveal my identity to you. I can understand his reasoning as we do not get along. But as I have never met with yourself I cannot understand why you would think I want my identity revealed. As such this is my last post.

Enjoy

ursogr8
13-01-2004, 07:16 PM
Firstly I want to apologise for the length of this post, I was not actually going to respond for four reasons



Welcome back WBA.
No need to apologise for the length of the post. If you have got a lot to say, then go for it.




I mean that Wastell appears hell bent on keeping his position, I am not sure this is always in a reasonable matter.


If you mean he works hard to make up for a shortage of volunteers from the general chess community; then I agree with you. But calling it ‘hell-bent’ is a bit over the top.
If you mean Gazza stands for election and can be voted in or out each year, then I agree with you.




I believe if the MCC votes, and it falls short, then it adds to the appearance of everything being completed in a reasonable fashion. I also do not believe that having an association with an organisation should compel you to vote.



Pass on this one for me; fg7 and Barry and others seem to be having fun re-wording just what it could mean.



It is reasonable to expect a service from an organisation, without having further direct involvement.



Ouch. I hope the rest of the MCC community don’t feel as you do. It will starve us of quality resources that could volunteer for State and National services.





Back to starter

BTW I have worked out that
WBA = West Bromwich Albion.
Actually, I do mean West Bromwich Albion.
It is the team supported by the guy who gave Jammo a serve for giving firegoat a serve.
I mean if your initials are MW, for example.
But so far he has only posted once. He is probably distracted watching WBA.
starter

Hi Starter,

Ask yourself if the above posts add anything of value to this board?


It is difficult to get Jammo on the board regularly. If he knows who he is responding to it increases the likelihood.



I think respecting the individuals right anonymity is a valuable concept.


Are you claiming you would like to remain anon?

starter

chesslover
13-01-2004, 08:28 PM
2 days without a sighting from Jammo, What has happend has the cat got your tongue? By the way I heard a rumor you were forced out by the ACF, Is that true?

interesting point - I do not think that a person once elected to the ACF Council, cannot be forced out by other members of the council?

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2004, 08:40 PM
interesting point - I do not think that a person once elected to the ACF Council, cannot be forced out by other members of the council?

Exec members and other officebearers may be dismissed by Council via special motion at any time. State reps cannot be removed by Council except by their state or if their state is disaffiliated.

This is all irrelevant as Jammo was not sacked, pushed or nudged but simply decided to quit.

chesslover
13-01-2004, 08:46 PM
Exec members and other officebearers may be dismissed by Council via special motion at any time. State reps cannot be removed by Council except by their state or if their state is disaffiliated.

This is all irrelevant as Jammo was not sacked, pushed or nudged but simply decided to quit.

I never suggested that Jammo was sacked,pushed, nudged or kicked. I just thought that firgoats'spost raised an interesting point about whether someone in the Council could be sacked by other members of the council.

Thanks for answering teh question :) My curiosity is satisfied

jammo
15-01-2004, 07:28 PM
Now according to club archives in 1992 Depasquale became president of the MCC, replacing Brooking. Having gone through some of the archives I can state with some authority this claim- In 1989 the MCC membership list was 120 people. A considerable shortage from what Jammo claims based on memory. So unless you can provide some concrete evidence Jammo that is a little bit more reliable then your memory, you stand refuted on the first point.

Hello Mr.Goat,

Now here is a little test in logic fo you. Jammo claims that the MCC used to have around 250-300 members. Firgoat claims to have refuted this because in 1989 he claims the MCC had 120 members. Can you spot the itsy-bitsy flaw in firegoat's logic? If you need help I'm sure Kevin could give you some hints.

-Jammo

Bill Gletsos
15-01-2004, 07:57 PM
One of the big points fg7 was making is that the MCC has been around since 1886 and has a long history.

It would therefore seem possible that at some stage they had 250-300 members.

As for fg7's post all he did was say they didnt have that number in 1989.

chesslover
15-01-2004, 08:02 PM
One of the big points fg7 was making is that the MCC has been around since 1886 and has a long history.



If MCC was created in 1886 it predated Federation in 1901.

Is the MCC the oldest chess club in Australia?

chesslover
15-01-2004, 08:04 PM
while we are talking about MCC being created in 1886, does anyone know what is the oldest chess club in NSW? I would have thought that North Sydney was? :?

It was established in 1908

Kevin Bonham
15-01-2004, 08:45 PM
As for fg7's post all he did was say they didnt have that number in 1989.

He also said: "So unless you can provide some concrete evidence Jammo that is a little bit more reliable then your memory, you stand refuted on the first point."

I don't see any evidence that that is the case at all. Jammo has been around a lot longer than 1989.

Bill Gletsos
15-01-2004, 09:12 PM
As for fg7's post all he did was say they didnt have that number in 1989.

He also said: "So unless you can provide some concrete evidence Jammo that is a little bit more reliable then your memory, you stand refuted on the first point."

I don't see any evidence that that is the case at all. Jammo has been around a lot longer than 1989.
Oh, don't get me wrong I wasnt supporting fg7's post at all.

What I was implying was that there is over 100 years of the MCC and clearly fg7 did not refute jammo's claim by simply citing a single year.

firegoat7
16-01-2004, 03:01 AM
Well, thank you for your prompt reply Mr Jamieson.

We have reached an interesting point in position number 1, one that I am sure you will agree was quite interesting. I see your seconds Mr Bonham and Mr Gletsos have offered you advice on the position. Unfortunately, they haven't helped you much in your effort to complicate. Mr Bonham obviously calculates like a snail, which is understandable given his recent work, whilst Mr Gletsos is using theory that is a hundred years old. No wonder your position is completely lost despite you having the white pieces. You have walked into a forced line prepared at home ;) when you resign we can move on to the next position.

To reach this position Jammo claimed:
I can remember when the Melbourne Chess Club Inc. was a highly respected club with a judge as President and around 250 – 300 members.

I originally suggested this claim was false and sought to prove the fact with evidence, hence we had this post by myself:

Memory is unfortunately an unreliable source to base facts upon. Memory does have merits but is definately stronger when backed up by statistical information. Now anybody who know anything about MCC understands that the Hon Justice Robert Brooking (OAM) was president for an outstanding period of time. Thanks to Roberts excellent leadership the club remains a successful institution.

Now according to club archives in 1992 Depasquale became president of the MCC, replacing Brooking. Having gone through some of the archives I can state with some authority this claim- In 1989 the MCC membership list was 120 people. A considerable shortage from what Jammo claims based on memory. So unless you can provide some concrete evidence Jammo that is a little bit more reliable then your memory, you stand refuted on the first point.

I thought of course the points were fairly straight forward but you insisted on playing a queen down. Thankfully I had already visualised your counter-play and prepared the refutation in advance.

Here is the source of your counter-play:
Now here is a little test in logic fo (!) you. Jammo claims that the MCC used to have around 250-300 members. Firgoat (!) claims to have refuted this because in 1989 he claims the MCC had 120 members. Can you spot the itsy-bitsy flaw in firegoat's logic? If you need help I'm sure Kevin could give you some hints.

Let us calculate the variation again Jammo.

“I can remember when” = Jammos memory= A ;

“the Melbourne Chess Club Inc. was a highly respected club” = the inference, “MCC inc is not now a highly respected chess club” =B: (Notice the past tense in your claim infers MCC’s present standing.)

For those who can see there is an intermezzo here, but the line is lost, for instance ( Am I correct to infer? (of course Jammo used past tense)....

(now I am suggesting that this is what you mean by the inference otherwise B would = “the Melbourne Chess Club Inc, is still, a highly respected club as it was when ….”- I will call this B claim B1)
Now if you go in for the intermezzo that finishes here you are lost Jammo. Line B1 is a forced lost because it fails to correspond with other facts that are derogatory to MCC *N.B ref Jammo thread 1 on this post*


Judging from the context of your post you consider B true

Now “with a judge as a president and around 250-300 members.”= “with X and Y”= C.
X is obviously “ judge as president” Y is “around 250-300 members”

A claims B+C. True or False? A claims B+C is true.

Now FG7 claims:
A2 = “documented historical document of 1989” N.B* Not memory like Jammo.

B is not true in fact FG7 agrees with claim B1 but the logic of the claim as a past tense allows us to accept B for arguments sake.

C becomes C2 the former X statement= “with a judge as a president.” since N.B* Y is false according to FG7

In other words A2=B1 +C2 for FG7 but for arguments sake I am prepared to accept the logic of A2=B +C2

So the key point surrounds the value of Y as a true or false claim. A claim we can test for….

The claims of A and A2 have one thing in common X, this is true. Since X is only available to A this person has to be Robert Brooking because A would be invalid otherwise. ( I must point out that there is no other possible candidate for X to correlate with A, if A is to be relied upon. Thus Bills claim is invalid:


What I was implying was that there is over 100 years of the MCC

Irrelevent, since we are relying on A and we all know that Jammo’s A is nowhere near 100 years of age. Furthermore his claim is a living claim not historical.

Mr Bonham slammed down this move twisting it into the board announcing a refutation….
I don't see any evidence that that is the case at all. Jammo has been around a lot longer than 1989. A really bad move that is easily refuted. Let us analyise….

We all agree that Jammos claim stated A=B+C. Now I showed that C was refuted in 1989 allowing the potential argument A=B+C2 or A2=B+C2. Alternatively you might say B could also be false giving us in 1989 A=B1+C2 or A2=B1+C2.

Now B is obviously contestable which allows us to value Jammo’s claim. For B to be true in 1989 X would have to be true. For B1 to be true X would still have to be true. But the claim A=B+C is not true in 1989. Therefore, while X is still true in 1989 any claims before 1989 become irrelevant since A=B+C presupposes that X is true as does A=B+C2. In other words you would have to accept this statement Jammo for your values to be true.


YOU Jammo would have to say :oops: “I can remember when the Melbourne Chess Club Inc. was a highly respected club with Justice Robert Brooking as president, But by 1989, under his presidency the club membership had reduced to 120. Since the club previously had 250-300 members under his leadership.”

Now I know your not a fool Jammo, even you would admit this as false, since if you say it is true you cast aspersions on Roberts ability to lead the club since you say A=B+C. Much better to accept A=B1+C. Now if you are truly foolish enough to accept Bonham’s advice and attempt counter play in the A=B+C position despite C2, then I will say to you.

1.Show me the historical records that verify your claim, a=a1, since the onus is now on you to prove the fact, not me. 2. Show me how a reduced membership has a relation to poor leadership ie when did B become historically true 3. “We will see you in court because of defamation of our highly esteemed former leader, who is beyond reproach. Not even you could go in for that variation, much better just to accept the falseness of your claim aswell as you poor logic skill. Be a man Jammo admit you were refuted.

P.S forget about the cheapies of 1990-91. I have them covered as well. ;)

P.P.S the club has existed continuosly since 1866!- it was formed even earlier!

Kevin Bonham
16-01-2004, 04:26 AM
Firegoat, I don't know what convinced you to log on way past your bedtime but I can still post even later than you without devoting such an incredible volume of obfuscatory babble to failing to make a case. You ought to change your name to Filibustergoat after this post, except that even in the home of the filibuster, the USA, you would surely be ruled unparliamentary within fifteen seconds of opening your mouth.

Jammo wrote:

I can remember when the Melbourne Chess Club Inc. was a highly respected club with a judge as President and around 250 – 300 members.

Your post provides no evidence that no such time occurred. Note that I am only discussing whether Jammo's claim is true in isolation - whether the MCC Inc is still a highly respected club is a different matter, completely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of Jammo's claim above.

For what it's worth you say that Brooking's presidency concluded in 1992. From another online source I understand he was President for 13 years, which takes us back to a whole decade before your 1989. It would be surprising if a well-run club declined in membership by somewhat over 50% within a decade, but such things are not impossible - in any case, you have not proven that what Jammo says is false. Nor has he proven that what he says is true. All you have done is raise a question.

Your post provides no actual evidence that my comments or Jammo's above were therefore in any way incorrect. Whether Jammo's claim is correct or not I have no idea - I was simply disputing your claim to have disproven it by citing figures from one single year.

Is this really so difficult to grasp?

firegoat7
16-01-2004, 05:29 AM
Thanks Kevin, no doubt you are correct.

Nevertheless I suggest even when you are correct Jammo is wrong. If you look carefully you might realise why. If you cannot understand why, then that is not my problem it is yours.

ursogr8
16-01-2004, 08:46 AM
Well, thank you for your prompt reply Mr Jamieson.



hi firegoat

Can I help on your post that began with the above sentence. (I haven't included the rest because I want to first point out that I think the word 'members' is being used in two different ways.)
Can you remember when you raised the following point with me previously?


If only things were that simple consider these cases.

a) MCC has a number of members who do not play tournament chess. Since they are not interested in having a rating, why should these members be affiliated with CV.


And then I replied >>



MCC has this in common with other big clubs. In our case we simply don’t declare them to the CV Affiliation return that is filled in once per year. It is a clear subset of your total list. It is simple; $3 x the number you think should be declared for Affiliation because they are actively playing in rated events.


I suspect Jammo is talking about the totality of members at the MCC. That is, the members that don't play rated games plus the number declared to the CV for Affliation purposes. Whereas your 120 figure would be only the declared affliliation membership figure. This could be why his number is much bigger than your view of the 'membership'.

Hope this helps.

starter

firegoat7
16-01-2004, 10:56 AM
Hello Starter,

You wrote:
Can I help on your post that began with the above sentence. (I haven't included the rest because I want to first point out that I think the word 'members' is being used in two different ways.)
You are throwing in a red herring. The word members is not in doubt here.

Furthermore you tried to waterdown the effect of Jammo's statement by suggesting that:
I suspect Jammo is talking about the totality of members at the MCC. That is, the members that don't play rated games plus the number declared to the CV for Affliation purposes. Whereas your 120 figure would be only the declared affliliation membership figure. This could be why his number is much bigger than your view of the 'membership'.

A completely ridiculous statement based on nothing. Firstly, I am privy to the MCC archives, DO NOT TELL ME that I have quoted you the wrong figures. I mean ask yourself honestly, who would have better knowledge here, A CV official or a MCC official. There is NO confusion over the word members

Importantly, why do you find it that hard to believe that Jammo was wrong? It seems everytime he says anything debatable you keep defending him. Instad,why don't you ask him to apology for running down MCC with false statements?

ursogr8
16-01-2004, 11:15 AM
A completely ridiculous statement based on nothing.

Fair go firegoat.
My statement about 'declared' and 'non-declared' members was made because you asked me for advice on how to handle this in the Affiliation return. I presumed from your question that you were struggling to see that 'members' was used in two contexts.

OK, as you request; I will bow out of helping you on this issue and wait and see if Jammo can put names to the 200+ he quoted.



starter

george
16-01-2004, 11:25 AM
Hi All,

The Adelaide Chess Club was formed in 1849 or 1847 I believe and the Norwood Chess Club was formed in 1880. Both these chess clubs have existed continuously since those dates and are operating quite well as we speak.

George Howard

ursogr8
16-01-2004, 11:29 AM
Firstly, I am privy to the MCC archives, DO NOT TELL ME that I have quoted you the wrong figures. I mean ask yourself honestly, who would have better knowledge here, A CV official or a MCC official.



firegoat

Just to prove your point about superior access to the records can you have a look and tell us the 1989 figures for
A) members declared to the VCA
B) members declared to the VCA, plus members not playing in rated events (and therefore not declared to the VCA, so that the Affiliation per-capita levy is avoided for this class of MCC member).

Is your 120 quoted figure A or B?

starter

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2004, 12:09 PM
While fg7 is checking the archives can he positively confirm or deny that at no stage in its over 100 year history that it had 250-300 members.

In fact what was its highest membership and in what year.

firegoat7
16-01-2004, 12:46 PM
Hello,


Starter wrote:
Just to prove your point about superior access to the records can you have a look and tell us the 1989 figures for
A) members declared to the VCA
B) members declared to the VCA, plus members not playing in rated events (and therefore not declared to the VCA, so that the Affiliation per-capita levy is avoided for this class of MCC member).

Is your 120 quoted figure A or B?



Thank you Starter, the record is B

Bill wrote:
While fg7 is checking the archives can he positively confirm or deny that at no stage in its over 100 year history that it had 250-300 members.

In fact what was its highest membership and in what year.

Bill why do I have to prove such claims? Consider the logic. Is Jammo right or wrong? If he is right he has to admit the statement:

YOU Jammo would have to say “I can remember when the Melbourne Chess Club Inc. was a highly respected club with Justice Robert Brooking as president, But by 1989, under his presidency the club membership had reduced to 120. Since the club previously had 250-300 members under his leadership.”


If jammo is wrong he has to admit that his initial claim is false.

peanbrain
16-01-2004, 01:01 PM
A completely ridiculous statement based on nothing. Firstly, I am privy to the MCC archives, DO NOT TELL ME that I have quoted you the wrong figures. I mean ask yourself honestly, who would have better knowledge here, A CV official or a MCC official.

listen goat - based on your statements above I think Bill has asked you a very fair question. Since Jammo has no access to MCC's records and you are the MCC official with such access than you the one need to come up with the facts to dismiss Jammo's statement. :-s

Why can't you just answer Bill's simple question and if Jammo was wrong then we can all make that judgement for ourselves .... why keep going in circles and changing the subject?! :-k

arosar
16-01-2004, 01:26 PM
I agree with peanbrain. I mean, no offense goat but you keep carryin' on about something then you just stop dead. No point showin' off, like you did, that you have access to records then you don't walk the walk. It's just like how you boast how powerful MCC is but do nothing but whinge and whine about how you've been victimised.

AR

Ian Rout
16-01-2004, 01:30 PM
Is it my imagination or has the Nazis discussion leaked onto the Clowns thread? Apart from a common instigator they are quite different matters.

ursogr8
16-01-2004, 02:38 PM
Is it my imagination or has the Nazis discussion leaked onto the Clowns thread? Apart from a common instigator they are quite different matters.

Ian
It is not your imagination. There is a lack of discipline in thread maintenance, causing overlap/leakage/transposition.
From memory;
CLOWNS was Australian Championship structure and selection criteria.
And NAZIs started from the ban as a result of a $200 debt.

But what can we VICTORIANS do but admit that with Sweeney missing for two weeks we just don't have his capability to start an appropriate new thread each time a new one is required.
So, come back Matt, and bring your discipline. :rolleyes:
Or perhaps someone can step into his role?

starter

arosar
16-01-2004, 03:03 PM
Nah . . . the goat's so good is playing a simul.

AR

Garvinator
16-01-2004, 03:38 PM
Is it my imagination or has the Nazis discussion leaked onto the Clowns thread? Apart from a common instigator they are quite different matters.

Ian
It is not your imagination. There is a lack of discipline in thread maintenance, causing overlap/leakage/transposition.
From memory;
CLOWNS was Australian Championship structure and selection criteria.
And NAZIs started from the ban as a result of a $200 debt.

But what can we VICTORIANS do but admit that with Sweeney missing for two weeks we just don't have his capability to start an appropriate new thread each time a new one is required.
So, come back Matt, and bring your discipline. :rolleyes:
Or perhaps someone can step into his role?

starter
tell me which ones to move where and ill do it lol

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2004, 04:37 PM
Bill wrote:
While fg7 is checking the archives can he positively confirm or deny that at no stage in its over 100 year history that it had 250-300 members.

In fact what was its highest membership and in what year.

Bill why do I have to prove such claims? Consider the logic. Is Jammo right or wrong? If he is right he has to admit the statement:

YOU Jammo would have to say “I can remember when the Melbourne Chess Club Inc. was a highly respected club with Justice Robert Brooking as president, But by 1989, under his presidency the club membership had reduced to 120. Since the club previously had 250-300 members under his leadership.”
All I see is you avoiding what is a quite simple and straightforward question.

Kevin Bonham
16-01-2004, 05:36 PM
Thanks Kevin, no doubt you are correct.

Nevertheless I suggest even when you are correct Jammo is wrong. If you look carefully you might realise why. If you cannot understand why, then that is not my problem it is yours.

This depends on if by "wrong" you mean the specific part of Jammo's post that you claimed to have refuted, or Jammo's case as a whole. You certainly have not refuted the historical claim in question, I make no judgement at this stage on the latter.

Where you say:


Is Jammo right or wrong? If he is right he has to admit the statement: Quote:

YOU Jammo would have to say “I can remember when the Melbourne Chess Club Inc. was a highly respected club with Justice Robert Brooking as president, But by 1989, under his presidency the club membership had reduced to 120. Since the club previously had 250-300 members under his leadership.”

If jammo is wrong he has to admit that his initial claim is false.

, that all seems fair enough to me.

chesslover
16-01-2004, 09:54 PM
Firegoat, I don't know what convinced you to log on way past your bedtime but I can still post even later than you without devoting such an incredible volume of obfuscatory babble to failing to make a case. You ought to change your name to Filibustergoat after this post, except that even in the home of the filibuster, the USA, you would surely be ruled unparliamentary within fifteen seconds of opening your mouth.


That is not fair Grand Poobah. Play nice :(

Firegoat is entitled to voice his opinion like everyone else

chesslover
16-01-2004, 10:01 PM
Hi All,

The Adelaide Chess Club was formed in 1849 or 1847 I believe and the Norwood Chess Club was formed in 1880. Both these chess clubs have existed continuously since those dates and are operating quite well as we speak.

George Howard

thanks George - so Adelaide Chess Club in 1847/49 is the oldest chess club in Australia? so far it beats MCC and North Sydney

peanbrain
16-01-2004, 10:01 PM
That is not fair Grand Poobah. Play nice :(

Firegoat is entitled to voice his opinion like everyone else

Problem is the goat doesn't have a opinion. He only answer questions with more questions, and when someone ask him to prove what he just said he just write more dribble and not making any sense. =P~

CL - how about you translate what goat is on about with his A+B#c*D@E rubbish theory so the rest of us can understand?! :-k

chesslover
16-01-2004, 10:09 PM
I agree with peanbrain. I mean, no offense goat but you keep carryin' on about something then you just stop dead. No point showin' off, like you did, that you have access to records then you don't walk the walk. It's just like how you boast how powerful MCC is but do nothing but whinge and whine about how you've been victimised.

AR

I think you all are giving poor firegoat a hard time. :x

He is standing up for his club, against what he and the MCC sees are heavy handed unfair tactics by CV.

Firegoat is entitled to this opinion and I admire the way he has valiently fought on to articulate his/ MCC concerns against very critical opponents.

Do fight on for you club firegoat - do not be intimidated by the others who do not like what you have to say in this issue. The last time I looked out it was still a democracy

chesslover
16-01-2004, 10:11 PM
Sweeney missing for two weeks
starter

why? what happened to Matt? I must have missed his post about being away for 2 weeks - when is he coming back?

peanbrain
16-01-2004, 10:12 PM
Do fight on for you club firegoat - do not be intimidated by the others who do not like what you have to say in this issue. The last time I looked out it was still a democracy

So the mighty MCC has only one person fighting on this BB to have their say?? :(

CL - How do you know what goat has to say is representative of the views of MCC members? :-''

chesslover
16-01-2004, 10:13 PM
CL - how about you translate what goat is on about with his A+B#c*D@E rubbish theory so the rest of us can understand?! :-k

why don't you ask firegoat yourself?

I am not the firegoat's keeper

peanbrain
16-01-2004, 10:18 PM
I am not the firegoat's keeper

CL you sounded a lot like goat's dad.

chesslover
16-01-2004, 10:19 PM
So the mighty MCC has only one person fighting on this BB to have their say?? :(

CL - How do you know what goat has to say is representative of the views of MCC members? :-''

Just a cotton picking second Mr Pea brain

Firegoat is a member of the MCC Executive, and has been elected by their members to represent their views. When he sees MCC being unfairly treated, then he is entitled to vigerously defend the interest of the MCC

If the rest of the MCC do not agree with him, they can always vote him out at their next AGM. Like Bill, states in an earlier thread, it does not take rocket science to figure this out

chesslover
16-01-2004, 10:20 PM
I am not the firegoat's keeper

CL you sounded a lot like goat's dad.

is that the best that you can do? :P

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2004, 10:25 PM
So the mighty MCC has only one person fighting on this BB to have their say?? :(

CL - How do you know what goat has to say is representative of the views of MCC members? :-''

Just a cotton picking second Mr Pea brain

Firegoat is a member of the MCC Executive, and has been elected by their members to represent their views. When he sees MCC being unfairly treated, then he is entitled to vigerously defend the interest of the MCC

If the rest of the MCC do not agree with him, they can always vote him out at their next AGM. Like Bill, states in an earlier thread, it does not take rocket science to figure this out
Yes, but how many MCC members read this BB.
They therefore may not know if fg7 is representing their views or not.
Also even if there are some MCC members who read this BB who may support fg7's views how would we know if they atre the majority of MCC members.

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2004, 10:26 PM
Sweeney missing for two weeks
starter

why? what happened to Matt? I must have missed his post about being away for 2 weeks - when is he coming back?
One could conclude that if he is away for 2 weeks he will therefore be back in 2 weeks. ;)

peanbrain
16-01-2004, 10:27 PM
Firegoat is a member of the MCC Executive, and has been elected by their members to represent their views. When he sees MCC being unfairly treated, then he is entitled to vigerously defend the interest of the MCC

If the rest of the MCC do not agree with him, they can always vote him out at their next AGM. Like Bill, states in an earlier thread, it does not take rocket science to figure this out

CL - I didn't know you were at MCC's AGM to see with your own eyes how the members VOTED the goat in office. How do you know he was not undemocratically voted in using his fists?? :mrgreen:

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2004, 10:30 PM
I agree with peanbrain. I mean, no offense goat but you keep carryin' on about something then you just stop dead. No point showin' off, like you did, that you have access to records then you don't walk the walk. It's just like how you boast how powerful MCC is but do nothing but whinge and whine about how you've been victimised.

AR

I think you all are giving poor firegoat a hard time. :x

He is standing up for his club, against what he and the MCC sees are heavy handed unfair tactics by CV.
How do you know this for a fact. Perhaps he is only articulating his views and not the MCC's.


Firegoat is entitled to this opinion and I admire the way he has valiently fought on to articulate his/ MCC concerns against very critical opponents.
What proof do you have that this is the case.


Do fight on for you club firegoat - do not be intimidated by the others who do not like what you have to say in this issue. The last time I looked out it was still a democracy
Again you assume he is fighting for the MCC and not his own vested interests.

chesslover
16-01-2004, 10:33 PM
Yes, but how many MCC members read this BB.
They therefore may not know if fg7 is representing their views or not.
Also even if there are some MCC members who read this BB who may support fg7's views how would we know if they atre the majority of MCC members.

and I can ask you the same question...

when as our Supreme Leader, you make views in your official capacity (as opposed to personal views you make in this BB), how many NSWCA members read this BB?

They therefore may not know if our Supreme Leader is representing ourr views or not.

Also even if there are some NSWCA members who read this BB who may support our Supreme Leader's views how would we know if they atre the majority of NSWCA members?

chesslover
16-01-2004, 10:34 PM
Sweeney missing for two weeks
starter

why? what happened to Matt? I must have missed his post about being away for 2 weeks - when is he coming back?
One could conclude that if he is away for 2 weeks he will therefore be back in 2 weeks. ;)

very droll Supreme Leader :D

peanbrain
16-01-2004, 10:38 PM
and I can ask you the same question...

when as our Supreme Leader, you make views in your official capacity (as opposed to personal views you make in this BB), how many NSWCA members read this BB?

They therefore may not know if our Supreme Leader is representing ourr views or not.

Also even if there are some NSWCA members who read this BB who may support our Supreme Leader's views how would we know if they atre the majority of NSWCA members?

CL - how dare you argue with our ... oops I mean YOUR supreme leader?? :shock:

Based on your theory does that mean since matt is an executive of NSWCA therefore everything he said on this BB is representative of YOUR views?! \:D/

chesslover
16-01-2004, 10:41 PM
CL - I didn't know you were at MCC's AGM to see with your own eyes how the members VOTED the goat in office. How do you know he was not undemocratically voted in using his fists?? :mrgreen:

I think it is time that we put that unfortunate episode of firegoat aside. I too had in earlier threads and posts made fun of firegoat for that incident, but we only know one side of that incident. It always takes two to tango, and firegoat has not given us his version of the incident, so it is difficult to attribute blame

Also even if firegoat was 100% responsible for the action, (which we do not know is the case at all), he has paid the penalty and we should be prepared to not hold this against him.

Firegoat's defence of the MCC against a centralised organisation like the CV, is a fine example of grass roots democracy and accountability at work - akin to the NSWCA fighting against the centralised unaccountable ACF (if the commission proposal had passed).

I say good luck to firegoat in his spirited response to the CV centralised body. Firegoat is being responsive to the MCC members, and is reflecting their views, and his passion and spirited defence of his club is to be admired. In this thread, I am most certainly on firegoat's side

chesslover
16-01-2004, 10:45 PM
How do you know this for a fact. Perhaps he is only articulating his views and not the MCC's.


Firegoat is entitled to this opinion and I admire the way he has valiently fought on to articulate his/ MCC concerns against very critical opponents.
What proof do you have that this is the case.

Again you assume he is fighting for the MCC and not his own vested interests.

and let me ask you this

1. How do we know that our Supreme Leader articulates his personal views and not the NSWCA's?

2. You do not call the comments and attacks on firegoat by Jammo, peanbrain etc critical?

3. How do we know that our Supreme Leader is fighting for NSWCA and not his vested interests?

chesslover
16-01-2004, 10:48 PM
Based on your theory does that mean since matt is an executive of NSWCA therefore everything he said on this BB is representative of YOUR views?! \:D/

No it does not, for the Supreme Leader is more "senior" than Matt, and occupied the highest elected position that the NSWCA can give.

Firegoat is the most "senior" elected MCC Executive posting in this BB

peanbrain
16-01-2004, 10:54 PM
3. How do we know that our Supreme Leader is fighting for NSWCA and not his vested interests?

I didn't know goat is the supreme leader of MCC??? Shame he can't give any straight answer when you ask him a simple question!

CL is right about "grass root" democracy. I like the way how these big words get banded around, although I can understand the link between goat and grass. :D

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2004, 10:54 PM
Yes, but how many MCC members read this BB.
They therefore may not know if fg7 is representing their views or not.
Also even if there are some MCC members who read this BB who may support fg7's views how would we know if they atre the majority of MCC members.

and I can ask you the same question...

when as our Supreme Leader, you make views in your official capacity (as opposed to personal views you make in this BB), how many NSWCA members read this BB?

They therefore may not know if our Supreme Leader is representing ourr views or not.

Also even if there are some NSWCA members who read this BB who may support our Supreme Leader's views how would we know if they atre the majority of NSWCA members?
Thats simple.
The NSWCA Councilors are elected to run chess in NSW.
The NSWCA Council tries to make responsible decisions.
Like any ruling body that does not always mean making popular decisions.

When I express a view in my offical capacity as the NSWCA VP last year or Pres this year I am expressing the view of the majority of the NSWCA Council, not my personal view)which may or may not be the same).

If you pay attention you will often see me say things such as " I believe the majority of members support" not "The majority of members support".

This is different to fg7's post where he implied the whole of the MCC felt as he articulated.

peanbrain
16-01-2004, 10:57 PM
Firegoat is the most "senior" elected MCC Executive posting in this BB

Is THAT the best you can do?? :P

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2004, 11:02 PM
How do you know this for a fact. Perhaps he is only articulating his views and not the MCC's.


Firegoat is entitled to this opinion and I admire the way he has valiently fought on to articulate his/ MCC concerns against very critical opponents.
What proof do you have that this is the case.

Again you assume he is fighting for the MCC and not his own vested interests.

and let me ask you this

1. How do we know that our Supreme Leader articulates his personal views and not the NSWCA's?
Easy because unless I say I'm stating something as the NSW Pres then you can assume its a personal view.


[2. You do not call the comments and attacks on firegoat by Jammo, peanbrain etc critical?
I see no harm in them criticising him.
But thats not the issue anyway.
You argued he was representing the view of the MCC.
I simply suggested you have no way to determine this.


[3. How do we know that our Supreme Leader is fighting for NSWCA and not his vested interests?
You don't anymore than you can know if anyone is fighting for anything or just their vested interests.
All you can do is judge them by their actions, words, past history/behaviour and accomplishments/commitment.

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2004, 11:03 PM
Based on your theory does that mean since matt is an executive of NSWCA therefore everything he said on this BB is representative of YOUR views?! \:D/

No it does not, for the Supreme Leader is more "senior" than Matt, and occupied the highest elected position that the NSWCA can give.

Firegoat is the most "senior" elected MCC Executive posting in this BB
Seniority should have nothing to do with it.
It should be based on the arguments put forward.

chesslover
16-01-2004, 11:11 PM
When I express a view in my offical capacity as the NSWCA VP last year or Pres this year I am expressing the view of the majority of the NSWCA Council, not my personal view)which may or may not be the same).

If you pay attention you will often see me say things such as " I believe the majority of members support" not "The majority of members support".

This is different to fg7's post where he implied the whole of the MCC felt as he articulated.

1. I agree with you in that everytime you have expressed a view in your capacity as the Supreme Leader, or Supreme Leader in waiting, I have agreed with your decision

2. But how do you know that this is not the similar case with firegoat and MCC? The views that he articulates, may well have teh support of a majority of MCC members, as he is the most senior MCC person posting. As firegoat is in MCC, he is far more in tune with what the MCC members want, need, and support than you (or for that matter CV) are.

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2004, 11:17 PM
When I express a view in my offical capacity as the NSWCA VP last year or Pres this year I am expressing the view of the majority of the NSWCA Council, not my personal view)which may or may not be the same).

If you pay attention you will often see me say things such as " I believe the majority of members support" not "The majority of members support".

This is different to fg7's post where he implied the whole of the MCC felt as he articulated.

1. I agree with you in that everytime you have expressed a view in your capacity as the Supreme Leader, or Supreme Leader in waiting, I have agreed with your decision
That is irrelavant to this discussion.
You could have disagreed with everything I have said.


[2. But how do you know that this is not the similar case with firegoat and MCC? The views that he articulates, may well have teh support of a majority of MCC members, as he is the most senior MCC person posting. As firegoat is in MCC, he is far more in tune with what the MCC members want, need, and support than you (or for that matter CV) are.
Again you are making an insupported assumption.

I said:

If you pay attention you will often see me say things such as " I believe the majority of members support" not "The majority of members support".

This is different to fg7's post where he implied the whole of the MCC felt as he articulated.

Also I said "All you can do is judge them by their actions, words, past history/behaviour and accomplishments/commitment."

Look at how fg7 first appeared on the BB calling everyone clowns.

Instead of just typing for a second just :-k for a second.

WBA
17-01-2004, 11:05 AM
I am actually unsure as to why I feel compelled to respond, but some of these posts are plain stupid. Let me set the record straight.

FG7 has spent more than 10 years on the MCC committee, including a term as president. He has a fair understanding of the general feel of the club towards the former VCA. The clubs longest serving office bearer in recent years has been at the crux of many of the arguments with the VCA as well.

FG& is also more than justified in defending the honour of Australia's most prestigious chess club, for anyone in doubt have a quick glance down the honour board for MCC club champion, and compare it to the state championship. An article was wrote by depas on this very topic about 1997/8.

The MCC has gone through a recent torrid time, but has stood up, and will flourish, this is not there lowest ebb, ask the current CV president, he relayed this very fact to me. MCC has an asset to be proud of, it was payed for through the passion of it's members, and through the generous bequeathment of a passed member (though it already owned a proprty before that).

Why would Victorians get behind MCC ? Simply this club has the potential to push forward the strength of chess in this state considerably more than any other club/organisation. It is already stronger than the VCA/CV, it simply is happy to co-exist, without the need to have anymore than the minimum dealings with the state body, which certain sectors of the club happen to believe is a badly run organisation (whether it is or not is irrelevant).

For those who doubt that the rest of the committee are not thinking (though to different extremes) along the same line..... The MCC commitee chose not to be represented at the CVF AGM.


The club will hopefully now move towards more structured competition this year (my hope, not the thoughts of the MCC committee), now that the building is coming back into shape, when this occurs MCC will be a very strong club once again.

To the ludicrous post about the election of FG7, the whole MCC commttee was relected unoppossed, and received acknowldgement from the members, including some of their biggest doubters, for the incredible job they had done.

For those doubting whether this place has had a massive transformation, take a look for yourselves

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~chessmel/gallery.html

peanbrain
17-01-2004, 12:44 PM
FG7 has spent more than 10 years on the MCC committee, including a term as president. He has a fair understanding of the general feel of the club towards the former VCA. The clubs longest serving office bearer in recent years has been at the crux of many of the arguments with the VCA as well.

To the ludicrous post about the election of FG7, the whole MCC commttee was relected unoppossed, and received acknowldgement from the members, including some of their biggest doubters, for the incredible job they had done.


WBA - I have no problem with what you are saying, and think your post will help other non-victorian chess players understand the situation between VC and MCC better.

I will point out though that while you suggest MCC members may agree with the issues raised by goat, I wonder how many would actually agree with his approach on this BB so far?? I mean calling others clowns doesn't sound too professional, not to mention is he was representing the official views of your club.

While the goat may have put in some hard labor and painted the walls and changed the carpets for the club, I suspect he has done far more demage to the reputation and goodwill of your club by his actions on this BB. :oops:

WBA
17-01-2004, 01:03 PM
peanbrain, you overestimate the power of this board. The club had gone into a spiral, and has now started the climb back up. Nothing mentioned on this board will undermine that.

I am not saying FG7 always takes the same approach I would, but as my representative from the club, until the next AGM I will support him, as although his tone is different to mine, we essentially have the same believes on many cehss politcs topics, and as is easy to tell I happen to be one of the members not overly approving of the state body in its current state.

I do not approve of every decision of the MCC committee, but that is my concern. Generally they have been a productive committee.

arosar
17-01-2004, 03:16 PM
I think you all are giving poor firegoat a hard time. :x

He is standing up for his club, against what he and the MCC sees are heavy handed unfair tactics by CV.

You're trigger happy you know that. Wou just fire off without actually bothering to understand. We're not questioning his 'right' to post or to defend and argue for MCC; we're saying simply, he argue better. All this crap about A+B+C this, and C+B+A squared that is all just rubbish. What's all that about? Hocus-pocus that's what it is.

Look, last night I went out for drinks with a coupla mates and one of whom is one of NSW's top players (2000+). This bloke is a top bloke in my book and he reckons that fg7 is a top bloke. I believe him, though I never met fg7 meself. But mate, this fg7 is just plain bloody annoying. No one can understand what he's ramblin' on about.

AR

chesslover
17-01-2004, 05:53 PM
No it does not, for the Supreme Leader is more "senior" than Matt, and occupied the highest elected position that the NSWCA can give.

Firegoat is the most "senior" elected MCC Executive posting in this BB
Seniority should have nothing to do with it.
It should be based on the arguments put forward.

No. I meant seniority in the context that teh President is more senior than a ordianry member of teh Council or teh Treasurer.

It is just like John Howard for example being more "senior" than Costello

chesslover
17-01-2004, 05:57 PM
All this crap about A+B+C this, and C+B+A squared that is all just rubbish. What's all that about? Hocus-pocus that's what it is.

Look, last night I went out for drinks with a coupla mates and one of whom is one of NSW's top players (2000+). This bloke is a top bloke in my book and he reckons that fg7 is a top bloke. I believe him, though I never met fg7 meself. But mate, this fg7 is just plain bloody annoying. No one can understand what he's ramblin' on about.

AR

then ASK foregoat what that means? Instead of complaining about not understanding his math formulae, ASK firegoat to explain so that you can understand better

Firegoat is defending his club against as it's elected member, and I think that he is 100% entitled to do that. He knows what the MCC memebers think, what their views are and he is representing them in this BB

Like WBA states what firegoat speaks is what the MCC members want raised

Bill Gletsos
17-01-2004, 06:06 PM
Firegoat is defending his club against as it's elected member, and I think that he is 100% entitled to do that. He knows what the MCC memebers think, what their views are and he is representing them in this BB

Like WBA states what firegoat speaks is what the MCC members want raised
Why do you pay more attention to fg7 than to jammo.
Jammo said the MCC treasuer said that fg7 did not speak for the MCC

Kevin Bonham
17-01-2004, 06:50 PM
That is not fair Grand Poobah. Play nice :(

Tit-for-tat remember. I've lost count of the number of apologies firegoat owes to all kinds of people from previous threads, therefore unnecessary mercy cannot be expected. Mind you, if any poster here chose to express their point in the way firegoat did in that particular post, I'd be giving them at least a light-hearted serve.


Firegoat is entitled to voice his opinion like everyone else

Did I miss something? Did someone say he wasn't? :shock:

WBA
17-01-2004, 11:17 PM
chesslover wrote:
Firegoat is defending his club against as it's elected member, and I think that he is 100% entitled to do that. He knows what the MCC memebers think, what their views are and he is representing them in this BB

Like WBA states what firegoat speaks is what the MCC members want raised

Why do you pay more attention to fg7 than to jammo.
Jammo said the MCC treasuer said that fg7 did not speak for the MCC

Just because Jammo says this does not make it right. I ask you Bill why you assume Jammo is spot on. The situation is actually greyer rather than B&W, but FG7 when supporting the MCC has the support of a reasonable % of people.

How can I state that with any authority? THe topic has come up for considerable conversation within the confines of the MCC, it is easy to judge the members reactions.

Also fo rthe record for those who consider (without any knowledge) the treasurer is probably more on the poulse than FG7, consider this the Treasurer comes ion usually at most once a week, FG7 has been known to be their daily. maybe he averages 4-5 times every week. On that basis, and the fact he has spent 10 years plus on recent MCC committees it is a fair assumption to say David knows the thoughts a a fair % of the members.

Bill, until you come and spend time at the MCC your comments on this topic are inflamatory at best. Do not take this worng, I do not want to end up in a spit with you, just take the critisicsm as it is, you are worng in this topic.

Bill Gletsos
17-01-2004, 11:59 PM
Bill, until you come and spend time at the MCC your comments on this topic are inflamatory at best. Do not take this worng, I do not want to end up in a spit with you, just take the critisicsm as it is, you are worng in this topic.
Hi WBA.
I dont want to get into an argument with you.
In fact instead of even arguing with fg7 I have been mainly arguing with CL.

CL seems more intent on arguing that fg7 is just supporting the MCC members views and not his own views.

Maybe I'm just being pedantic but CL should be saying he THINKS fg7 is representing the views of the MCC members rather than continually repeating himself and saying that fg7 IS representing the views of the MCC members.

I am just trying to suggest to CL that he doesnt really know one way or the other.

Also he seems to want to take fg7 at his word.
I simply asked why he was prepared to take fg7's word and not jammo's.
After all he appears to knwo neither of them personally.

I dont know fg7.
I do know jammo.

However anyone who saw me argue with jammo about the ACF Commission on the old ACF BB would hardly suggest I would automatically jump in to support or defend him just because he is jammo.
There are many issues we would agree on and a few we disagree on.

jammo's comments on this issue seemed reasonable to me.

fg7 on the otherhand has just come across as a individual with a bee in his bonnet regarding CV and the ACF and whose first appearance on the old ACF BB was to label everyone clowns.
That certainly wasnt going to gain him many supporters.

Anyway I think that sums it up.

I'll shut up now unless good ol' CL gives me reason to give him a serve. ;)

chesslover
18-01-2004, 11:02 AM
Just because Jammo says this does not make it right. I ask you Bill why you assume Jammo is spot on. The situation is actually greyer rather than B&W, but FG7 when supporting the MCC has the support of a reasonable % of people.

How can I state that with any authority? THe topic has come up for considerable conversation within the confines of the MCC, it is easy to judge the members reactions.

Also fo rthe record for those who consider (without any knowledge) the treasurer is probably more on the poulse than FG7, consider this the Treasurer comes ion usually at most once a week, FG7 has been known to be their daily. maybe he averages 4-5 times every week. On that basis, and the fact he has spent 10 years plus on recent MCC committees it is a fair assumption to say David knows the thoughts a a fair % of the members.


Exactly...This is like you Bill, as our Supreme Leader, and with immense experience in the NSWCA scene has more of an idea of what we are thinking, than someone like Matt - even though you both are in the NSWCA COuncil.

Hence when you express an "official view", and Matt expresses a contrary view which he also claims is "official" - who do you believe?

chesslover
18-01-2004, 11:09 AM
CL seems more intent on arguing that fg7 is just supporting the MCC members views and not his own views.

Maybe I'm just being pedantic but CL should be saying he THINKS fg7 is representing the views of the MCC members rather than continually repeating himself and saying that fg7 IS representing the views of the MCC members.

I am just trying to suggest to CL that he doesnt really know one way or the other.



OK, I supreme leader - I think firegaot is representing the views of the MCC members...happy now?

I do think that based on what WBA has been saying, that this is right analysis.

Most certainly someone who is an elected member of the MCC executive, and who goes to MCC 5 times a week for 10 years, is far more likely to know what is going on in MCC, and how the MCC members think on issues than a CV executive.

This is grass roots democracy in action, and once again shows why a decentralised administration promotes accountability, responsivness and efficency in comparision to a central organisation.

peanbrain
18-01-2004, 11:30 AM
OK, I supreme leader - I think firegaot is representing the views of the MCC members...happy now?


CL - get it in your head that no one suggested the goat is not entitled to his opinions, but keep repeating his stupid accusations and name calling of others without evidence is not going to get anyone on his side.

As for you CL - I'm certainly sick of your antics of repeating yourself time and time again. You are worse than a broken record - like your thread about the bloody appeals process for the NECG sponsorship. :-({|=

Besides, why are you even on this BB on a Sunday - shouldn't you be at church and have your appointment with god?! [-o<

chesslover
18-01-2004, 12:02 PM
Besides, why are you even on this BB on a Sunday - shouldn't you be at church and have your appointment with god?! [-o<

Stop being a complete moron, and make fun of me...

I am sick today - have a flu. I am about to log off and go to bed, have a sleep and watch cricket from my bed.

I however dropped off my partner and daughter at church, and went to the service - I just will not be there for the bible study or the community activities that I do in the afternoon, I do not like some of the community social activities, so no great loss :twisted:

Happy now? :rolleyes:

Bill Gletsos
18-01-2004, 05:22 PM
Exactly...This is like you Bill, as our Supreme Leader, and with immense experience in the NSWCA scene has more of an idea of what we are thinking, than someone like Matt - even though you both are in the NSWCA COuncil.

Hence when you express an "official view", and Matt expresses a contrary view which he also claims is "official" - who do you believe?
I do not believe that Matt has ever expressed a view on the BB that he has claimed was an "official" view.

chesslover
18-01-2004, 10:06 PM
Exactly...This is like you Bill, as our Supreme Leader, and with immense experience in the NSWCA scene has more of an idea of what we are thinking, than someone like Matt - even though you both are in the NSWCA COuncil.

Hence when you express an "official view", and Matt expresses a contrary view which he also claims is "official" - who do you believe?
I do not believe that Matt has ever expressed a view on the BB that he has claimed was an "official" view.

But that is not the point

The point is if two people in the NSWCA Council, state positions "officially" in the BB, that contradict each other, who do you think is more likely to be the more "official"view?

The one who holds the "higher" rank I would think :idea:

Bill Gletsos
18-01-2004, 10:20 PM
Exactly...This is like you Bill, as our Supreme Leader, and with immense experience in the NSWCA scene has more of an idea of what we are thinking, than someone like Matt - even though you both are in the NSWCA COuncil.

Hence when you express an "official view", and Matt expresses a contrary view which he also claims is "official" - who do you believe?
I do not believe that Matt has ever expressed a view on the BB that he has claimed was an "official" view.

But that is not the point

The point is if two people in the NSWCA Council, state positions "officially" in the BB, that contradict each other, who do you think is more likely to be the more "official"view?

The one who holds the "higher" rank I would think :idea:
Actually it would be the one with the greatest credability. 8)

chesslover
18-01-2004, 10:47 PM
The point is if two people in the NSWCA Council, state positions "officially" in the BB, that contradict each other, who do you think is more likely to be the more "official"view?

The one who holds the "higher" rank I would think :idea:
Actually it would be the one with the greatest credability. 8)

Are you serious?

If the NSWCA Council positions were reversed, and Matt was our Supreme Leader, and the "offical" views of you and Matt contradicted, as the President it would be matt's views that would carry more weight - even though you undoubtedly have the more credibility. That is because matt occupies the more "higher"position, in this hypothetical example

It is just like John Howard would carry more weight in stating the "offical" position of the Government, even when his "official" views contradicted any "offical views" of a cabinet member

Bill Gletsos
19-01-2004, 12:07 AM
The point is if two people in the NSWCA Council, state positions "officially" in the BB, that contradict each other, who do you think is more likely to be the more "official"view?

The one who holds the "higher" rank I would think :idea:
Actually it would be the one with the greatest credability. 8)

Are you serious?
Absolutely.


If the NSWCA Council positions were reversed, and Matt was our Supreme Leader, and the "offical" views of you and Matt contradicted, as the President it would be matt's views that would carry more weight - even though you undoubtedly have the more credibility. That is because matt occupies the more "higher"position, in this hypothetical example

You obviously fail to understand the meaning of credability.
You were discussing the hypothetical situation where two council members contradict each other.
In that case hopefully people would listen to the person who has the most credability in the situation. That may or may not be the Pres.


It is just like John Howard would carry more weight in stating the "offical" position of the Government, even when his "official" views contradicted any "offical views" of a cabinet member
Again not a good analogy.
Howard has the credabilty but there is a more important factor at work there.
It is politics and you can be virtually certain that the cabinet/party room will support Howard.

Kevin Bonham
19-01-2004, 12:17 AM
You obviously fail to understand the meaning of credability.
You were discussing the hypothetical situation where two council members contradict each other.
In that case hopefully people would listen to the person who has the most credability in the situation. That may or may not be the Pres.

I'm not sure he was (at least initially) talking about which person's view would be most listened to or credible, he seemed more to be talking about which view could be taken as "official".

I would take neither as "official" unless explicitly stated to be so in such a case.

Bill Gletsos
19-01-2004, 12:23 AM
You obviously fail to understand the meaning of credability.
You were discussing the hypothetical situation where two council members contradict each other.
In that case hopefully people would listen to the person who has the most credability in the situation. That may or may not be the Pres.

I'm not sure he was (at least initially) talking about which person's view would be most listened to or credible, he seemed more to be talking about which view could be taken as "official".

I would take neither as "official" unless explicitly stated to be so in such a case.
I disagree with you. ;)

CL originally raised the issue of what if Matt and I both claimed to be giving an "offical" view.
CL argued that my view should be considered the "official" view because I was the Pres.
I argued that the person with the greater credabilty should be listened too, not necessarily the one with the higher position.

Kevin Bonham
19-01-2004, 12:31 AM
OK, I get it now. #-o

firegoat7
27-01-2004, 07:15 PM
Hello,

Please see VCA nazi threads for a refutation of Jammo- sorry for cross thread in advance.