PDA

View Full Version : Best posts of 2003



Pages : [1] 2

paulb
29-01-2004, 10:17 AM
People can nominate posts here - actually place the post here so people can see it. Then after two weeks I'll take votes. Decision at end of February. Prize: not sure, but not much.

please don't post the useful waffle in here - just candidate posts.

Only candidates fior best post here please - no small talk. I want people to be able to *quickly and easily* see what they're voting for without having to wade through small talk.

Paul S
02-02-2004, 02:19 PM
Right, here goes. I have found 6 posts that IMHO are worthy candidates for 2003 BB Post of the Year. they are in no particular order.

Bill Gletsos has made a lot of good posts about the ratings. This one caught my eye, as I thought at the time that Bill would have had a hard time answering the issues that Ian Rogers' raised, but in the end Bill answered them very well.

Here is the first of my 6 selections.

Bill Gletsos 4.25pm 1/4/03
Thread: Rogers versus Glicko


Bill Gletsos 4.25pm 1/4/03
Rogers Vs Glicko

Rather than wait for next week's bulletin I thought I should respond immediately to Ian Rogers letter in Bulletin 210. If anyone is making shockingly misleading statements its Ian. The first one being that Graham Saint had no part in the letter. Around 50% of the letter was drafted by Graham.

Firstly with regards the results of his interclub games the facts are as follows:

As Ian well knows games won or lost on forfeit have never been counted in the ACF rating system. Therefore for him to suggest that his score that was incorrectly rated was 2/4 rather than 2/3 is to distortion the facts.

So there can be no further misunderstanding I will explain it in complete detail. The results of the interclub tournament that Ian refers to showed he had played 3 rated games winning 2 (against Agulto and Dauvergne) and losing 1 (to Charles Ghenzer) and a 4th game was recorded as a double forfeit between him and Jean_Paul Wallace. Almost immediately after the player result reports were sent to the Olympiad selectors Ian emailed me and pointed out that he had won the game against Charles Ghenzer and that no double forfeit ever occurred between him and Jean_Paul Wallace. I corrected the Ghenzer result and removed the double forfeit game from the rating records. This was done within 48 hrs of Ian informing me of the error.

Ian can say what he likes about Markus Wettstein, the simply fact is that Markus Wettstein since his return to playing in Australia has failed to win a game against a player rated over 2000 and only has one draw against a player rated 2026. Clearly Markus Wettstein's rating should not exceed 2000 based on his results in Australia.

Ian claims to fully understand the Glicko system. If this is correct then he should clearly understand that it doesnt matter if Wohl has a low or higher RD provided Alex plays to his out of date Australian rating. If Alex performs at his 2493 ACF rating then his rating will be validated. If Wohl performs closer to his FIDE rating of 2417 then his rating will drop towards 2417.

As for Ian's recollection of his supposed conversation he had with me regarding Speck's rating it is a complete and utter falsehood. For him to now suggest that it was I who told him I had fiddled Speck's rating (as per his accusation in Bulletin 208 ) is an absolute lie. I will be demanding he retracts his defamatory statements in the next Bulletin.

There was no pressure brought to bear by people in the ACT with regards to ACT Junior ratings. Depending on who you spoke to I had received conflicting reports on the issue of under rated ACT juniors on a number of occasions. This was both before and after the Glicko system was introduced. Graham and I had hoped the Glicko system would rectify it, but this was not the case. When we tested prior to the implementation of the Glicko2 system we determined that it also could not rectify the problem in any sort of acceptable time frame. Based on this I informed the ACT that Graham and I intended to take steps to remedy the problem with the ACT juniors once and for all and would be asking the ACF Council to authorize this at there next meeting (Sept 2002). The ACF Council approved this action.

Ian's continuing push for the 336 rule simply shows just how little he understands when and why a 336 rule is required. Professor Elo makes it quite clear that the correct way for calculating ratings is to calculate the expected score on a game by game basis without any cutoff. This leads to the most accurate rating calculation.

If the expected score is calculated based the use of the opponents average rating this will produce a usable but less accurate rating. In fact the rating is only usable when the Rating difference of the player and each of his opponents is less than 350 points. In this case a cutoff should be used. Although using average ratings with a cutoff will result in a more accurate rating than using an average rating without cutoff it is still less accurate than using expected scores on a game by game basis with no average rating involved. Elo notes that use of a cutoff will lead to a bias in the ratings.

In fact Stewart Reuben makes the same observation about averaging and the FIDE 350 rule on page 115 of "The Chess Organiser's Handbook Second Edition".

"Perhaps the ratings officers should keep their ears to the ground a bit more and they would hear a large numbers of complaints regarding the current rating system."

As was said previously Box Hill and Gold Coast Chess Clubs should have raised their concerns with their respective State Associations.

If having ones ear to the ground was a criteria for determining the accuracy or otherwise of a particular view then one would have to say that the view that Ian Rogers vote that the Kasparov V Radjabov game at the recent Linares tournament deserved to win the 'beauty' prize was a complete and absolute joke. No doubt Ian would argue that having ones ear to the ground has no validity in this case.

Bill

Paul S
02-02-2004, 02:21 PM
OK, here is my second selection.

I thought at least one of my six choices should be one of mine, so here goes!


Paul S 11.08pm 7/5/03
Thread: The Biggest Problem in Chess

I have been a regular reader of the ACF Bulletin Board since I was first made aware that it existed April 2002 (due to people informing me that there were some postings there on the 2002 Sydney Easter Cup!). Yet in all this time I am surprised that there has been no debate at all about what is by far the biggest problem in chess (perhaps it is in the "too hard" basket?). Issues such as how the ACF should be structured and the Glicko2 Ratings system are relatively minor problems compared with the biggest problem in chess. I don't know what the solutions to the biggest problem in chess are myself, but I am sure that with a combined effort of some of the highly intelligent members of this BB we could come up with some solution(s).

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IN CHESS IS THIS: THERE ARE TOO FEW PEOPLE DOING THE ORGANISING (WORK)! This is true at all levels of chess.

Most chess clubs seem to have only one or two people doing all the work. When one of them leaves (sometimes due to burnout / lack of support) the chess clubs in question either fold up or come close to doing so.

Due to the relatively small numbers of chess organisers, the few people who do the work (be it as a DOP, Treasurer, President, Secretary or whatever) usually end up with more and more work dumped on them. In fact there are many Organisers who not only do most of the work at their club, but also have major roles in their State Association and/or the ACF! As such these administrators usually only have time to attend to the important things and neglect the finer details (ie things that should be attended to but don't get done). Over the years I have seen some of these (usually very capable) people either burn out or get demotivated due to lack of support and leave chess administration (and sometimes chess as well) for good.

Think of the benefits for chess! A lot of the problems would disappear! If there were more people doing the work there would be more chess clubs, more chess players, bigger tournaments, better sponsorship etc. Imagine if at club/state/ACF AGM there were enough willing applicants that there were a choice of people to choose, instead of the present situation where people are elected unopposed (so much for voting to choose who you want to represent you as expressed in some BB postings!). Imagine if every committee position at club/state/ACF level was filled! At present there is the very real risk (in fact I know of cases where it has happened!) where someone unsuitable/undesirable gets a position in chess administration because there is no other applicant. Imagine if all chess officials only had one role (instead of wearing several hats at once - at present some people are involved in club, state and ACF level!). Imagine no more burnout of chess organisers!

What can be done to get more people involved in chess administration/organisation?

Paul S
02-02-2004, 02:27 PM
Matthew was probably the biggest initiator of topics on the 2003 BB. Some of Matt's intiated topics were bad, but some of his ideas were good and well worth investigating. While the post itself is a bit rambling, I have selected this one because of its influence. That is, as a result of this post a motion was passed for the NSWCA to look into buying a Chess Centre in Sydney. So, if Sydney ends up with a Chess Centre, this is where it all started!

So, here is my third candidate post.

Matthew Sweeney 12.24pm 20/10/03
Thread: NSWCA AGM Motion for Sydney chess centre


The major Australian cities of Brisbane and Melbourne and Adelaide each have their large &quot;chess centre&quot;. That these three cities, all smaller than Sydney, can sustain such centres is proof that Sydney could also sustain a chess centre. Being twice the size of Brisbane and four times Adelaide?s, Sydney may in fact be able to sustain two such centres. There is however, the question of how the existence of a chess centre would contribute to growth rate in participation. In isolation, it probably could not. It could merely offer a consistent quality venue around which the sense of a &quot;community home&quot; may develop. <br><br>It must be noted that the NSW Junior Chess League has made extraordinary progress in growing junior participation. Furthermore, it has done so without a dedicated chess centre. A few dedicated NSWJCL officials have harnessed the working capacity of hundreds of individuals who all do something in the promotion or administration of NSWJCL events and competitions. <br> <br>The AGM is asked to simultaneously consider the Brisbane Melbourne and Adelaide chess centres and the growth in junior participation rates in NSW. The AGM is asked what might be the achieved by combining the concept of a &quot;Home of Chess&quot; - a Sydney chess centre - with the concept of &quot;giving time for our sport - the expected and delivered effort from the membership. <br><br>I propose that the NSWCA use its funds - nearly $80k - to seek to start a Sydney chess centre that will be fully owned by its chess-playing shareholders and others. I have sent the following motion to the NSWCA for inclusion at the 2003 AGM.<br><br>Motion: <br>1. The NSWCA should convene a Sydney Chess Centre Committee with the responsibility to:<br> &nbsp; &nbsp;a. Initiate legal and executive processes toward the establishment of a chess centre in Sydney.<br> &nbsp; &nbsp;b. Actively encourage individuals in the NSW chess community to become financially connected to a Sydney chess centre though the purchase of shares.<br> &nbsp; &nbsp;c. Seek expressions of interest for commercial enterprises to operate on the premises of a Sydney chess centre.<br> &nbsp; &nbsp;d. Seek corporate sponsorship for the chess centre, to begin upon its opening.<br> &nbsp; &nbsp;e. Investigate the purchase or long-term lease of appropriate premises near Sydney?s population centre of gravity. <br> &nbsp; &nbsp;f. Report its progress quarterly to the NSWCA membership.<br>2. The NSWCA should be given an option to purchase shares and hold a voting block at the AGM equivalent to the proportion of ownership.<br> &nbsp; &nbsp;a. Individual NSWCA members would automatically be proxy owners of the centre through the NSWCA. <br>3. Upon purchase of a single or multiple shares in the centre, at $1,000 per share individuals would become owners with pro rata voting rights, exercisable by proxy.<br>4. A total of one thousand shares should be offered with a potential resultant capitalisation of one million dollars<br>5. Funds raised would be used to purchase premises valued at 90% of the raised capital.<br> &nbsp; &nbsp;a. During the time between the initial share purchase and the purchase of a chess centre premises, all funds must be held in trust. <br> &nbsp; &nbsp;b. An incumbent responsibility of private individual shareowners will be to contribute work time to the running of the centre - perhaps 8 hours per year - thus encouraging community involvement <br> &nbsp; &nbsp;c. Failure to contribute that time could attract a covering fee. <br> &nbsp; &nbsp;d. Share ownership would not confer any preferential treatment for the individual shareholder over ordinary NSWCA members, other than having voting rights at the AGM.<br> &nbsp; &nbsp;e. Following the initial share offer, shareowners could sell their shares at a market price. The shareholders would be unlikely to lose their investment since the chess centre would hold 100% of funds in trust or 90% of assets as real estate - the premises. <br>6. The chess centre would operate as a non-profit organisation thus avoiding taxation issues. <br>7. Consideration should be given to widening the number of potentially interested parties.<br> &nbsp; &nbsp;a. For leasing arrangements with commercial chess interests, for trading floor space in the chess centre.<br> &nbsp; &nbsp;b. The commitment shown by the NSWCA, NSWJCA ? if it was to participate with the establishment of a Sydney chess centre, individual share owners, and commercial chess interests, may in sum, be used to attract a corporate sponsor who could purchase naming rights for the centre and all events it may host. <br> &nbsp; &nbsp;c. The premises could also be used in part to operate activities other than chess ? such as bridge, specific community club and group meetings, internet café, or academic tuition enterprises. <br><br>End of Motion.<br><br>I am personally committed to the idea of a NSW chess centre. Should the proposal become a reality, I undertake to purchase the first 10 shares ($10k) in such a centre. <br> <br>Yours in Chess <br>Matthew Sweeney <br>||

Paul S
02-02-2004, 02:31 PM
Here is my 4th selection. This post by Rob Maris captures well the frustration that chess organisers feel at times!


Rob 26/9/03 3.28pm
Organisers versus whingers


Organisers v Whingers|rob|rob.maris@health.wa.gov.au|09/26/03 at 15:28:45|rob|xx|0|165.118.9.17|Some of the early points made on the 'Biggest problem in chess' refer to the lack of organisers and the workload of organisers.<br><br>One of the reasons that there is a lack of organisers if the amount of whinging they have to put up with. This also leads to the unpaid organisers losing their enthusiastic helpful attitude (trying to assist ppl in enjoying chess as much as they do). <br><br>Yep the selfless unpaid organisers become the complaints department and the debt collector - turning their pleasurable pass-time into a chore/hassle. :(<br><br>To remedy these situations organisers should try to get rid of (by subtle means is less hassle) the unfixable whingers, and turn-around the fixable ones. <br><br>I managed to lose two unfixable whingers at the local club about a year ago, plus I fixed another whinger into becoming an enthusiastic player and the pleasure factor increased big time! :D<br><br>Some whinges: <br><br>Why do the top half have to play the bottom half in round 1?<br>Why is my rating so low?<br>There is a pawn missing from this set?<br>Why am I black again - I was black last week?<br>I've got a woggly table?<br>I want to enter the tourney but I can't make it to the club for half the rounds?<br><br>The above are just some of the more common ones - maybe we should produce a comprehensive list.<br><br>Personally I am happy to do a lot of the setting-up, organising of tourneys and putting away each week plus I don't mind watching rather than playing, but when you get the same crap from the same ppl week-after-week... :-[<br><br><br>||

Paul S
02-02-2004, 02:34 PM
Starter often makes some good well thought out posts. This is the one of his that I liked the best and which makes my 5th selection as a candidate for 2003 BB Post of the Year.

Starter 27/8/03 11.09pm
Thread: The Biggest Problem in Chess

This thread is full of interesting ideas about THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IN CHESS IS THIS: THERE ARE TOO FEW PEOPLE DOING THE ORGANISING WORK.
I guess because (or if) it is the biggest problem then we must expect that the solution is a complex mix of initiatives, not just a single silver bullet. In no particular order let me comment on the ideas raised.


on May 7th, 2003, 11:08pm, Paul_S wrote:
What can be done to get more people involved in chess administration/organisation?



1 'Perhaps WE NEED A CHESS WORKER SUPPORT GROUP.'
Mr Paul S....you have it, it is here, the ACF Bulletin Board.

2 There are few people who do all the work.
Yes, this is always true in volunteer organisations. Every single individual who does contribute does so for a personal reason. It would be great if we knew those reasons, but we probably will not. However, what we can do is create a culture in our chess club that is based on recognition and reward.
· One or two members help you pack up at the end of the evening >> recognise this by mentioning their names in the weekly bulletin, in the monthly newsletter, at the prize-giving. Buy them a bottle of wine for Christmas.
· A member consistently does something useful >> present them with the annual Best Clubman award inscribed on some shield (whatever), and publicly awarded (at the AGM)
· A member shows an inclination to start a web-site for the Club. >> Give them access to $500 so that they can buy space on a server. >> Get them a Club-based computer so that they can maintain tournament files in addition to the web-site.
· A member shows up 15 minutes early and assists in the set-up of equipment >> buy him a coffee each week and recognise him by using his first name as soon as he walks in the door. (Norm!....as in CHEERS)
· Recognise every single attendee by greeting them every single night that they attend. (GG's Meet and Greet policy).
· Some-one shows an inclination to arrange the engraving of the trophies>> recognise him by having a badge made up...Trophy Officer. Publicize his name. Give him a bottle of wine for Christmas.
· A treasured individual is a hard-working Secretary for 5+ YEARS>> propose him/her to the AGM to be a Life member, and inscribe the name on an honour board.
· A junior has/her expenses sponsored to a local (eventually International) tournament >> make sure the junior writes a report for publication in the Club newsletter to recognise the contributions.
· A few parents (of juniors) and members respond to a request to donate $100 so that a digital clock can be purchased for Club use >> recognise this by having (imitation) brass plates inscribed and attached to the clocks.
· A member donates some second-hand chess books to the Club library >> recognise him by naming the next local tournament after him.
· Mr Paul S,,,,,once you are convinced that you want a club culture that is recognise-and-reward then the ideas of how to achieve this are endless. And, if perchance you run out of ideas then your support group just needs to be challenged to suggest more; we could even have a thread dedicated to ideas.

3 Where is the money coming from? You probably ask. A consistent theme in the list of recognise-and-reward ideas above is access to some Club funds so that the reward can be purchased. Yes, this is true. In fact we explored this money-theme on the thread "Ian Rogers-The evening chess club". On that thread I was analysing Ian's suggestion that correct LOCATION is a pre-requisite for GROWTH.
My position is that club members who participate in all club events should expect to pay up to $200 annually through a mixture of subs, tourney entries, joining fees etc. I appreciate you cannot move directly from the very low figures you quoted to $200/year, but I believe it is achievable over 4 years.



4 Repeatable process and delegation.
Any time you embark on the journey of GROWTH the task list of things to be done can appear daunting. Who does all this recognising and rewarding? Could it be you Mr Paul S.? From what you have written to start this thread (and apparently on Matthew's survey) you feel your chess-administration-time is fully committed already. So, if you going to initiate cultural change at your Club then you need to shed some routine workload. And what is the secret to delegating tasks to others. In my view this rests on creating kits, checklists, task-lists, and templates that can be picked up by others so that they can repeat what you have done personally, previously. An example is the list I posted on the FREE INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL thread.

5 What you should do.
· Adopt the culture of recognise-and-reward.
· Prioritise your intended new initiatives.


6 Outsource some major activities.
Our Club has outsourced the BOOKSTALL to a single individual who retains all the profits. The recognition and reward are easily identifiable in this circumstance.
Our Club has outsourced the TEA-and-CAKE stall to a junior organisation who direct the profits to our juniors attending the World Junior Championships. (We regularly bank $50+ per Friday playing session, from this source).
Our Club has outsourced to the junior coaching to a commercial organisation, and to mature juniors looking for pocket-money.


7 Discipline
Discipline issues have appeared on this thread and are interesting topic. One of my club's Life members made an observation that he looked forward to the day when chess-players would be required to queue to join a Club. I have some sympathy with this ideal as my local golf club has a 5 year waiting list for new members, and the golf club has no problems with discipline and dress-codes. But if you really wanted the thread to drift into discipline, leverage, negotiation and power, then you would have raised this. So I will stop.



starter

Paul S
02-02-2004, 02:37 PM
Here is the last (but by no means least!) of my "six of the best". As we all know, Jenni Oliver usually makes some very good posts about the Junior Chess scene (and to a lesser extent Canberra chess and female/girl chess). Here is the post that I thought was her best in 2003.


Jenni Oliver 17/6/03 9.54pm
Thread: Female Chess Players


I think we are a fairly unique little town, because we have the advantage of being small, so our tournaments are accessible to everyone. The junior one we ran on Sunday had kids from quite literally every part of Canberra. At the same time we have a large number of tertiary educated people in Canberra. I run a Computer Services business and the number of children I know who play chess, whose parents are IT contractors is amazing. Also the number of kids whose parents work a the ANU. However it does't seem to be limited to this one segment. I have one school that is pretty poor and started out drawing their chess boards and making pieces out of bottle tops, but they continue to play chess and are quite passionate about it (and generate good players as well).

A lot of the growth in chess in Canberra has been driven by the Junior Chess League and particularly the schools comp. We market the schools comp very actively to all the schools and teachers have embraced it with enthusiasm. I have just finished running the zones for the Open Primary schools and more than half the schools in Canberra took part and around 800 children. The Government schools have been very keen and many of them have chess coaching at the schools, so it certainly isn't a private school thing, but across the board. Large numbers in the schools comps, generate decent numbers in the clubs.

We are also very active in providing a path from the junior environment to the adult one. We run ACF rated games at one of our junior clubs and encourage the kids to play at an adult club as soon as they are ready. We also have very tolerant adults who put up with the mayhem the kids cause. We run a large number of junior weekenders that are ACF rated as well. I suppose we have been fortunate enough to keep on finding dedicated parents who are prepared to take on the enormous work load this generates.

I think in many cases this path between the junior and senior environment is missing. Of course it has had its own problems - ie the chronic under rated ACT Juniors problem, has to a large extent been caused by our policies. We are trying to move them into the adult environment much more quickly these days. We used to keep them quarantined for too long and then when they finally started playing adults they caused havoc with their ratings.

We have some fantastic adults like Ian Rout, Paul Dunn, Roger McCart, Shaun Press, Peter Simpson etc who put a gigantic amount of effort into both the Junior and Senior environment.

As far as girls go, I am convinced that our policy of running girls only training days and events results in the kind of attendance we had on Sunday, although I still think the % is too low, I would like to get it to closer to 35 or 40%.

We also pursue publicity. I have a fantastic publicity person, who does weekly press releases. We often have newspaper and TV coverage of our schools comps. The Canberra Times have just contacted us to say they want to do a full page spread of the Development Day we are holding in the holidays. I suppose because it is a local paper, they are looking for cutesy things. It does give chess a pretty high profile in Canberra though. We often invite pollies to do our schools prize givings to help raise our profile.

I guess the two things that I think are the most important are the girls only development that we do and also playing rated games amongst juniors.

Incidentally the selections for overseas have been announced. Of the 10 official selections, 3 went to the ACT i.e 30% for a place that has perhaps 2% of the population. I think a vibrant junior environment creates an active senior environment.

Rincewind
02-02-2004, 03:35 PM
Here's one of my favourites, I think it speaks for itself.


Matthew Sweeney, May 19th, 2003, 6:26pm
Thread: Hygene And Dress Regulations.


At the Rose Bay Weekender there were about ten players who really stank. I s'pose that the full week of 100% humidity was part of the problem. Nevertheless, it was foul. Some of us were coughing and gagging, eyes watering, and some where close to passing out.

Washing your hands is not needed in a first world country. Unless there is a cholera or typhoid outbreak in town, forget it. S.hit won't hurt you, it just stinks. You have more to worry about from the zoo under the person's fingernails! Hygiene is required in a medical clinical environment to help reduce transmission to other patients who are often immuno-suppressed.

I reckon that minimum dress regs should be a tie and non-sports shoes. How many people *would not* go to next year's Doeberl if the dress regs were tie and non-sports shoes. I reckon it would put off 1%. .... and it would add 100% to the class.

ursogr8
02-02-2004, 04:04 PM
One of my favourites was also a Matt Sweeney post.
It might be lucky to survive the new moderator policy.
It also might be lucky to be declared within the time-frame. But those are questions for the judges.

Matthew Sweeney wrote on on Dec 31st, 2003, 12:08am, in response to a KB question
Kevin Bonham wrote:
Didn't answer my question, Matt. Ashamed of your family connections? Out with it, before we start guessing.


I don't talk about my father - or rather, I didn't until a few years ago. After mum died, my older sister and younger brother finally started to see eachother more than only at weddings and funerals. But rather than have you two BB heads speculate stupidly when life is not as rosey for some of us, I will give you the drum, once only.

My first memories were of Da belting mum with a belt and shouting. Lots of shouting. Some people recall the TV as being the background noise of the home. For us it was shouting. Da belted me and Luke (littlebrother) a lot too. My siter got much worse. She is a leading member of now in the "Incest Survivors" group in NSW.

Because we lived in a mobile home park - we had the biggest annex in the row - we three kids had to share a double bed. It is truly strange to me, even now, that we never spoke of Da's infrequent night time visits with Sisso while Luke and I were there pretending to be asleep.. In any case, I used to dread that he might ever include me, but it never happened.

When we were 16, 10 and 9, Da started getting skinnier and skinnier. He didn't tell mum that he had cancer until he was so absolutely sick and vomitting blood. We were all devistated. - kind of half heartedly. He got a collosomy and toward the end a catheta. He wanted to die at home so we had the fabulous job of changing his bag and catheta - we shared this job between us. But I took over Sisso's shift after I saw that he was still making her do stuff.

He died over about three days. In and out of consciousness just long enough to accuse mum of seeing other blokes and trying kill him. The most vivid image was of him lieing on the bed with just enough strength to hold mum by wrench at her hair with one hand and punching her in the face with the other.

After Da died, we found that he had left enough debts - mostly of the shady gambling type - that we had to sell the van and site and move on. Unfortunately we could not hold it all together and went in different directions. Luke and I kept going to foster homes because mum lost the plot completely, and Sisso went to Sydney because mum blamed her for everything , and got into trouble. I have two niece/nephew who I know were adpoted out. Sisso and Luke both got HIV about 10 years ago and Luke died last year.

Mum Sisso and I now see that Da was the problem, not us. I am better now and Sisso is trying to make it up to mum by being a good mother and activist. So that's it.

chesslover
02-02-2004, 04:09 PM
i nominate this post by myself about teh chess grand slam concept....
================================================== =======
Thread name - the best weekenders in Australia by chesslover
Posted - Mar 17th, 2003, 10:26pm


Yes, I too hope that the renamed NSW Open is a success. It is about time NSW has a major weekender in status and numbers, that rivals the Doberal and ballarat weekenders.

What about a new grandprix category of Category 4 tournaments, restricted to just 4 tournaments - with the NSW Open, Doberal, Ballarat and 1 other (Gold Coast weekender/ Australian Open/ Australian masters?) in this category?

Tennis and Golf have their grandslams, so what about the ACF also having a grandslam of Australian chess? By having the 4 most prestigeous and traditional weekenders included we may be able to market ourselves better. This will also encourage more players to attend these tournaments as well, therby benefiting all.

The ACF grandprix will thus be the equivalent of the Tennis ATP tour, with the proposed category 4 events (limited to just 4) the equivalent of the Grandslam, and obviously carrying more points in the grandprix circuit

The one with the most grandprix points will be the Australian no 1 chess player, just as Tiger is the no 1 player in golf by winning their professional tour. Because the ACF grandslam will carry a lot of points, it will mean that more titled players will also play in these

chesslover
02-02-2004, 05:17 PM
a typical post from Peter, on how he spends his christmas day. The disturbing insight into his mind this post gives, makes this an unique and "special" post from aust chess member

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

Thread name - Christmas Carols
posted on: Dec 23rd, 2003, 6:11pm

I fit both catogories. My usual stint is to have a huge anti-religious banner and demo outside St Mary's Cathedral (Catholic) in Sydney. Do I cop it and do I dish it out. No joking, then I go home to share Christmas dinner with the relos and watch myself on TV and get a laugh.

Garvinator
02-02-2004, 05:26 PM
ok time to nominate my own post-


It is my understanding that under the present constitution that nswca has enough delegates to stop any changes to the constitution. Even if every delegate of every other state or territory votes for the changes. So with this situation, the mission would be to convince nswca of the advantages of your idea.

But i ask why would nswca want to change anything when they are the strongest and largest state as it stands at the moment.

I think it is reprehensible that any one state can have enough delegates to sink a constitution change. That was the first thing I remember about the acf commission when i went back and re read almost all of the posts ;) .

I think that would be the first area of the constitution that should be changed. But to change that you have to convince the current nswca state delegates to vote to reduce their ability to vote as a block to sink a constitution change

chesslover
02-02-2004, 05:32 PM
i think that this post should be a candiate post, where peter describes how he spends his sundays. It was a post that sent shudders around all christian chess players, and was a most talked about BB post
================================================== =======

thread - Hallelujah, webmaster converted
posted - anti-christ on: Dec 5th, 2003, 4:12pm

The last time I went to church was to pick up a communion host, took it to Domain (public speaking park) on Sunday morning and stabbed it like Jews were accused of doing. But to my disappointment blood did not come spurting out and it did not cry. I was only disappointed because I like excitement, not because I believed and also I had a large audience watching.

I was actually punched at by a Catholic so I put up my fists in defence with host in hand, he hit the host breaking poor Jesus up into about 50 parts. I told him he had just killed Jesus and he went a bit further around the bend and had to be hauled off me.

Thats why I play chess, I like the excitement and will go into no-man's land even if can't I foresee umpteen moves ahead.

chesslover
02-02-2004, 05:34 PM
ok time to nominate my own post-

ahem.....this is best post of 2003 , not 2004

mind you I thought it was a good post, and will nominate it for 2004, even though I think you were wrong :p

ursogr8
02-02-2004, 08:59 PM
I really enjoyed a pair of posts by Barry Cox in October. These were on the non-chess thread and were a joy then, as they are now. Well written Barry. They need to be read as a pair. Enjoy anew....from starter

Re: Examination of Post Resurrection Records

Barry Cox
10/20/03 at 11:42:40

And when the three weeks was past, Barry, and Kevin, and Aaron, had bought internet access, that they might come and post messages in the Non-Chess Board. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the Non-Chess Board at the rising of the sun. And they said among themselves, Who post the first message in the Non-Chess Board? And when they looked, they saw that the first message was posted: for it was very great. And entering into the Board, they saw a posting from a young man sitting at his computer, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he posted unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Scott Colliver, which has posted here previously: he is not here: behold the place where he posted messages previously. But go your way, tell all board members and Pauly that he goeth before you into the Chess Boards: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. And they went out quickly, and fled from the Non-Chess Board; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.


Re: Examination of Post Resurrection Records

Barry Cox
10/22/03 at 10:43:00

But Barry stood without at the Board weeping: and as he wept, he stooped down, and looked into the Non-Chess Board, And seeth two active users in white sitting, the one at the original posting, and the other at the last reply, where Scott had posted. And they sent a private message unto him, Barry, why weepest thou? He messaged unto them, Because Scott has stopped posting in the Non-Chess Board, and I know not where he now posts. And when he had thus messaged, he turned himself back, and saw Scott logged in, and knew not that it was Scott.
Scott saith unto him, Barry, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? He, supposing him to be a guest login, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast taken him. Scott saith unto him, Barry. He turned himself, and saith unto him, Scotty!!!; which is to say, Mate!. Scott saith unto him, Hassle me not; for I am busy and need more time to reply to your posts: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I will reply to this thread when I am good an ready. Barry came and told the other posters that he had seen Scott, and that he had spoken these things unto him.

chesslover
02-02-2004, 09:58 PM
i nominate this post by George, in relation to some initiatives to bringing the Olympiad to Australia - the chess equivalalent of us winning the hosting rights to 2000 Olympics and the 2003 Rugby World Cup

================================================== =======

Thread name - Olympiad 2008
posted on: Dec 11th, 2003, 7:01am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi ALL,
Yes there have been many hurdles in trying to get the Olympiad to Australia . Basically governments are not interested in even being minor partners in the wole deal because Chess in Australia has such a low profile.
I tried many different arguments with politicians and public servants about the positive benefits to Australia's image , inflow of money re tourism etc etc.

Politicians and Public Servants are not risk takers and they dont wish to be the first to try a new thing - politicians hate being "brave."

What we have is a detailed budget which has been tested by Australian Major Events and found to be fairly accurate ie just under $9,000,000 AUS.

What I believe was my mistake was in assumimg facts and figures proving the success of the venture ( as much as possible ) would be enough to convince sceptical politicians - obviously the figures were not enough.

A few months ago when the decision from Adelaide came down negative I approached Sydney Events people who had expressed interest but again when it came down to it they were not willing to try something that had not been done before.

Melbourne AME were not interested in even seriously looking at the proposal.

Therefore we need politicians / public servants whom are already aware of chess its benefits etc etc and we need channels of communication and understanding already developed.

To this effect I am proposing at the January ACF Conference that ACF makes some finances available for a Lobbyist/Marketer to facilitate these important connections.

This type of function is where I believe a national peak body could spend some resouces. I dont know too many other Organisations who represent such a large body of persons who dont have a lobbyist / promoter.

I have found that either I dont have the time or the individual ability or contacts to carry out this lobbyist function correctly. I believe this function should be carried out not by the President ACF but through a totally separate dedicated position.

I am not getting down on myself but realising that to get the Olympiad to Australia to better promote and facilitate chess generally in Australia we need to employ professionals rather than allbeit highly motivated part time officials.

I seem to remember Graeme talked of a professional Manager for the ACF - I dont know whether we need a manager or a lobbyist?

Anyway I hope this thread generates some positive discussion and feedback because that is what I am after.

Regards ALL

George Howard
ACF President

chesslover
02-02-2004, 10:22 PM
this post by matt, was in the true tradition of the BB, where matt stood up for the little aussie battler. and for free speach and democracy. One of the few times I was proud of matt :clap: :clap:

================================================== ========
Thread - Evil admin censors topic!!
Posted - Matt sweeney on: Jul 28th, 2003, 6:24pm


on Jul 28th, 2003, 10:42am, Forum Admin wrote:
There is heat coming from **multiple** directions on this topic with **a range** of people making dodgy remarks and a *a range* of people getting shirty about them

The decision to ban the topic is mine alone.


Matt then wrote;

Name names. Who are these monsters who are threatening our Forum Admin? What right have they got to hassle you and where do they get off.

This is so bloody wrong it makes my skin creep. Paul, you must want help in howling down these facists. Just name them and we will get right behind you. If they are so gutless that they harrass you with the knowledge that they will not be outed as facists, they will do anything to hide stuff.

The topic may not be monumentally important in and of itself, but it is vitally important in that it *illuminmates* the way the ACF works. How can the chess comunity know what the ACF is up to unless it is exposed to the full glare of daylight? It cannot.

This intimidation of a Forum Admin is is so wrong. Paul might *say* that it was his decission alone to pull the thread, but this is absolutely not true! He has pulled it *because* he is being harrased, leaned on and probably threatened.

DO NOT ACCEPT THIS HYJACKING OF YOUR BULLETIN BOARD.

chesslover
02-02-2004, 10:33 PM
a great rational, logical, factual post by Bill, pointing out why NSW voted against the ACF restructure proposal. A very good unemotional post, when everyone else was going emotional - made you proud and glad that NSWCA had someone so articulate and rational and smart as our leader. All parties in the discussion was left in no doubt wht NSWCA voted the way it is, and helpded moved the debate forward
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thread - ACF restructure
posted by Bill on: Mar 28th, 2003, 3:26pm

NSWCA felt that there was no evidence provided by those pushing the Commission proposal that a) progress had actually been obstructed by the current structure and b) that the current structure didnt work.

NSWCA makes many decisions between its monthly Council meetings via email discussion and voting by the NSWCA councillors.

If as argued by some of those proposing the Commission that too much pressure was placed on the President and ACF Executive to make decisions betwen the quarterly ACF Council meetings, then NSWCA saw no reason why decisions could not be taken by the ACF council via email vote where decisions needed to be made. After all to name just one instance, the ACF Council voted on the selection of Olympiad captains via email vote in a limited time frame without any problems.

NSWCA saw no reason why the ACF Constitution could not be changed where needed to allow this to occur on a more regualr basis.

The Commission structure effectively removed representation by various states on the ACF Council. Although some smaller states may have felt this was acceptable, NSWCA believed this was not in the long term interest of Australian Chess.

The suggestion by some that if after 12 mths people were not happy with the Commission it could be removed and revert back to the previous system, this was clearly misleading.

It only took 25% of the votes to defeat the motion to setup the Commission. Once it was in place it would take 75% of the votes to remove it. If it transpired that people were not happy with the Commission scheme NSWCA did not feel that those who voted for the Commission would be willing to admit they were wrong and therefore allow it to be removed and they could easily block it with only 25% of the vote.

NSWCA believes that if it is desired to have more people on the ACF Council with voting rights then two additional Executive members should be added to the Council.

chesslover
02-02-2004, 11:02 PM
another fine and funny post of 2003 by matt.

I had written that "Jesus is who I worship not Satan", in one of the non chess threads to Kevin, and unfortunately did not put a comma in that sentence. matt responded thus, and even though I was the butt of his joke it was nonetheless funny
================================================== ========

Originally Posted by chesslover
Jesus is who I worship not Satan.
------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Matthew Sweeney

Bill Jesus Gletsos ?

Now lets have some "comma fun"

To KB:

Jesus is who I worship not Satan. [Ambiguous]

Jesus is who I worship not, Satan. [CL rejects JC and calls KB Satan.]

Jesus is who I worship, not Satan. [This might be the correct commaing.]

Jesus is who I, worship not Satan. [CL asks himself who JC is and commends us to reject Satan.]

Jesus is who, I worship not Satan. [CL does not know who JC is and declares his own rejection of Satan.]

Jesus is, who I worship not Satan. [Proclaims the living God and does not genuflect to Satan.]

Jesus, is who I worship not Satan. [Now this is more like it! CL makes a profane exclamation and rhetorical question indicating that he walks with Beezelbub.]

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2004, 02:02 AM
Looks like the best post concept has enough support from enough regulars to justify its existence.

I'll have a look through sometime and see if there's any serious ones I liked that haven't been nominated already, but this was easily my favourite humorous post of 2003.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Ian Rout

The argument that transfer has elements in common with chess has some superficial attractiveness. However I would argue that are significant variations, and indeed that chess should not want to control transfer. While I must admit that I have never seen the rules written down I have been able to piece them together by observing the game being played. Consider these extracts from the laws of transfer:


Article 12: The conduct of the players

12.5 It is compulsory to distract or annoy the opponent and everybody else in the building in any manner whatsoever. Players should on no account consider that their partner is sitting next to them or that announcing their strategy to their opponent is probably not to their advantage, and should instead shout loud enough to be heard in the car park or, better still, the next suburb. It is important to remember that your transfer game is the most important event currently happening on the planet and as many people as possible, especially those still playing tournament chess games, should be left in no doubt as to what piece you need, your evaluation of the position, what you think of other players or any other material that fills in any brief intervening periods of silence.


Article 6: The chess clock

6.1 'Chess clock' means a device of no monetary value of which clubs have an endless supply. They should be thumped with sufficient force to break the mechanism and if possible to send them flying to the floor.


Article 5: The completion of the game

5.1 Players must on no account set the pieces back up or put them away at the conclusion of the game. They should be left in maximum disarray, strewn across tables, lying around the floor, and if possible in obscure places behind or underneath curtains, chairs and other fittings. Bonus points are scored for pieces permanently lost, or significant amounts of time wasted by other people trying to find them.


Article 1: The nature and objectives of the game of transfer

1.2 The objective of each player is to mix the club's sets in such a way that each set contains the maximum variety of colours and shades. A transfer grandmaster norm is attained by achieving an arrangement with exactly one coral pink piece in each set.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alan Shore
03-02-2004, 09:04 AM
Hehe, I love the transfer post.. transfer is the best game and should be played far more often! :owned:

I'm guessing no one's going to nominate the David Caldon post, 'Where has Dmitri Gedevani gone?' :eek:

arosar
03-02-2004, 09:11 AM
I'm guessing no one's going to nominate the David Caldon post, 'Where has Dmitri Gedevani gone?' :eek:

Wasn't that, like, 2 years ago man?

AR

Alan Shore
03-02-2004, 09:15 AM
Oh yeah, perhaps it was.. guess I've been away from here longer than I realised.

antichrist
03-02-2004, 04:47 PM
[QUOTE=chesslover]a typical post from Peter, on how he spends his christmas day. The disturbing insight into his mind this post gives, makes this an unique and "special" post from aust chess member

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CL
Thanks for the funny memories (sorry I was nasty in other posts). But you have missed the one I thought was the classic -- the old Worm's Gambit. All my stories are true by the way.

Worms Gambit.
It went something like this. The Lebanese have a custom of eating raw meat (highly seasoned etc.) which I am told came about from when they occupied by the cruel Turkish Ottomans. The Lebs hiding in caves knew that if they cooked their meat the smoke would escape, the Turks would know where they are hiding and come and kill them. So as necessity is the mother of invention blah blah.

Of course raw meat has tape worms so we had to invent a way to get rid of them (before the day of antibiotics).

1. We starve the patient for a few days so that there is no food in the stomach.
2. We lay the patient down on the bed (backdown) with their back hanging off the side of the bed and head touching the floor.
3. We get raw steak and put in the mouth of patient. The worm - starving --can smell the blood and comes downhill towards it.
4. When it is hooked on the meat we slowly pull the meat out with worm attached.

Isn't that all you wanted to know for breakfast.

___________________________________

One of memorable letters to the newspapers was in the bad old Joh Bjelke days and Joh at election time was breathing fire and brimstone about cleaning up sex lewedness . We know the reputation of Joh's government, also some working girls had come out with the kinkiness of some of Joh's ministers. I came out with something like

"I never thought I would see the day when Bjelke-Petersen government,
some of whom are not straight, would cling to power, gayly riding on the backs of homosexuals".

In those tense days when demonstrators were being jailed my letter came out in the big Brisbane paper and broke up the atmosphere. Then I was living in a small community in a National Party stronghold and was well-known there, ever second person driving past would put their fist up at me and the next would urge me on.

firegoat7
05-02-2004, 03:35 AM
Hello,

I am against voting for a self indulgent BB prize but nevertheless thought this was a great post by Antichrist.


Does it have to be chess related?how you can compare Israel to Nazism is beyond my comphrehension
________________________-

Reply: I consider Israel about half way along the way to the Final Solution. If Fundalmentalists stayed dominant it would be much closer. Similarly to the Nazis for one life lost they take 20 or 100 in return. Just as the commos learnt their filthy tactics from the Catholic Church, the Zionist Jews (as distinct from...) have learnt them from the Nazis.

_____________________________________

Also how far back to you want to go for the "native title"? 20 years? 50 years? 200 years? 1000 years?



___________________________________

Well then are you conceding the point and its up for debate? If we are to go back to 2000 years to allow the Jews a homeland as we have, and I am not completely against, it would affect all the colonial exploits since.

What I am getting at is that we can't have the hypocracy of what is happening at present.

The greatest usurpers of native lands, the US and UK etc. are enforcing Jewish land rights going back 2000 years when they will not allow native Indian land rights in America going back only 500 years. These native land rights are completely in their power to put into law and enforce.

The Palestinian is a relatively easy one to fix. It was only performed in the lifetime of many living people. They know exactly where their lands were, they still possess certificates of title (repeating), and more land is being stolen every day.

It is extremely racist to allow Jewish land rights of 2000 years ago but disallow Palestinian rights ranging from 56 years ago to yesterday.



antichrist


------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------
I have seen some of these quotes elsewhere but of course don't know of their reliability, off a website: sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1553620_comment.php
___________________________



Israeli Quotes

quotations by leading Israelis

“I don't know something called International
Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian
child (that) will be born in this area. The
Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the
man, because the Palestinian childs existence infers
that generations will go on, but the man causes
limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli
civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and
I would make him suffer before killing him. With one
hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I
wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls
as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we
do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we
shall do but we tell others what they shall do.

[Ariel Sharon, current Prime Minister, In an interview
with General Ouze Merham, 1956]


1. "There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our
enemies -not just in ability but in morality, culture,
sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our
neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a
few hundred meters away, there are people who do not
belong to our continent, to our world, but actually
belong to a different galaxy." Israeli president Moshe
Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001


2. "The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you
give them meat, they want more".... Ehud Barak, Prime
Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000.
Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000


3. " [The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two
legs." Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in
Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts". New
Statesman, 25 June 1982.


4. "The Palestinians would be crushed like
grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders
and walls." Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) in
a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1,
1988


5. "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will
be able to do about it will be to scurry around like
drugged poor choice of languageroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief
of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York
Times, 14 April 1983.


6. "How can we return the occupied territories? There
is nobody to return them to." Golda Meir, March 8,
1969.


7. "There was no such thing as Palestinians, they
never existed." Golda Meir Israeli Prime Minister
June 15, 1969


8. "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging
over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for
its physical existence is only bluff, which was born
and developed after the war." Israeli General
Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972.


9. David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime
Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never
sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have
taken their country. It is true God promised it to us,
but how could that interest them? Our God is not
theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis,
Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see
but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their
country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum
Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox),
pp121.


9a. Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 : "We must do
everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do
return." Assuring his fellow Zionists that
Palestinians will never come back to their homes. "The
old will die and the young will forget."

10. "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they
are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman
Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of
General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October
1983.


11. "Every time we do something you tell me America
will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you
something very clear: Don't worry about American
pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control
America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime
Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon
Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.


12. "We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to
settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force
is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use
the ultimate force until the Palestinians come
crawling to us on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of
Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker,
Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April
1983.


13. "We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return" David
Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in
Michael Bar Zohar's Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet,
Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.


15. "We should prepare to go over to the offensive.
Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria.
The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is
artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall
establish a Christian state there, and then we will
smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria
will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take
Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai." David Ben-Gurion,
May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A
Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York
1978.


16. "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation,
land confiscation, and the cutting of all social
services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."
Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum"


17. "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab
villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab
villages, and I do not blame you because geography
books no longer exist. Not only do the books not
exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal
arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the
place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of
Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal
al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this
country that did not have a former Arab population."
Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported
in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.

18. "We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us.
Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with
the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand
in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!'" Yitzhak
Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs,
published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.


19. Rabin's description of the conquest of Lydda,
after the completion of Plan Dalet. "We shall reduce
the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and
waiters" Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser
on Arab Affairs, 1960. From "The Arabs in Israel" by
Sabri Jiryas.


20. "There are some who believe that the non-Jewish
population, even in a high percentage, within our
borders will be more effectively under our
surveillance; and there are some who believe the
contrary, i.e., that it is easier to carry out
surveillance over the activities of a neighbor than
over those of a tenant. [I] tend to support the latter
view and have an additional argument:...the need to
sustain the character of the state which will
henceforth be Jewish...with a non-Jewish minority
limited to 15 percent. I had already reached this
fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is
entered in my diary." Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish
Agency's Colonization Department. From Israel: an
Apartheid State by Uri Davis, p.5.


21. "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many
hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements
because everything we take now will stay ours...
Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel
Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting
of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party,
Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.


22. "It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to
public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain
number of facts that are forgotten with time. The
first of these is that there is no
Zionism,colonialization or Jewish State without the
eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their
lands." Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July
1972.


23. "Spirit the penniless population across the
frontier by denying it employment... Both the process
of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be
carried out discreetly and circumspectly." Theodore
Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization,
speaking of the Arabs of Palestine,Complete Diaries,
June 12, 1895 entry.

_________________________________
It is obvious that the missus has kicked me out of bed.






Logged



antichrist
YaBB Rookie

firegoat7
09-02-2004, 05:27 AM
Hello chessplayers,

I am nominating this post but I am not sure if it is the one chesslover nominated himself. I thought I would nominate it because it obviously means a lot to him. Is this the right post Chesslover? I actually like your sentiment.


on Dec 11th, 2003, 6:10pm, Kerry Stead wrote:On the issue of appeals, are players who are not selected for things such as the Australian Cricket team allowed to appeal the selection? NO
Why is this the case? If selectors decisions are consistently challenged (as they may or may not be), then it puts the competency of the selectors to question, which serves only to undermine the entire system.
As far as the squad itself is concerned, there was some discussion about possibly announcing the squad at the conclusion of the 2004 Australian Juniors, with a representative from NECG being there to congratulate the selected kids who were in Perth. If this eventuated, how do you think it would look to have a decision appealed and overturned, with a kid who has been introduced to the sponsor? Think about the image it would present as well as any issue of 'fairness' you feel that appeals entail.



Before I respond, I want to say Kerry that I have a ver high regard for you, and all the hard work that you have done for NSWCA and the chess scene.

However in this point about the appeal, I do not agree with you. The fact is that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING can be appealed.

Just because the ACF or the NECG says there is no appeals, does not mean that there cannot be any appeals. It is open to any person who is not selected to take the ACF to the courts - a fact that we in the ACF discovered during the entire Chris Depasquale saga soem years ago.

In your case, about a NECG rep congratulating the squad, and then memebers of the squad being overthrown on appeal - remember Bathurst some years ago when Brock won his last race. He was third, the trophy went to other cars, but Holden appealed and Brock won. This happens in F1 as well.

In your example about a Cricket player, there is also nothing stopping a player who is dropped from the ACB selection squad, or who is not chosen to take the ACB to court. He will probbaly lose,and any injunction he takes against the others from playing will be probably dismissed, but that right is there.

We are all accountable and should take responsibility for our actions. A selection board that chooses juniors, should not be exepmt, and should have their actions reviewed under an appeal process if others seek to challenge the decision that is made. Otherwise only rich parents can afford to take the ACF to courts as there is no appeal right, whilst poor parents cannot and have to accept the original decision even if they feel their child was unfairly not selected

Kevin Bonham
09-02-2004, 10:37 PM
I removed some debate following firegoat's post as it was getting into off-topic arguments, but just for clarification, that is not the post chesslover previously posted, and if anyone reposts that post it will be deleted.

PS There are other threads where you can discuss whether chesslover's post should have been deleted, please do it there not here.

Cat
12-02-2004, 08:30 AM
I nominate this post as best post for 2003;

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

Thread Topic: electronic democracy by using the BB
psoted by chesslover on: Jul 3rd, 2003, 6:59pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the BB, there are some good ideas and suggestions that have been posted by people. However one main problem that I have is that these idesas are not considered by the "powers that be" in the ACF and the state chess bodies.

A couple of the good ideas (I think) were the composistion of the selectors, the Doberal Grand Slam concept,increasing the number of juniors and female representation etc. Yet whilst a lot of people agree that these are good ideas, and should be further explored nothing happens.

I think that what should happen is that the ACF and state chess federations, should every 3 month or so have a standing agenda item where they consider the ideas that have been put on the BB.

It may be that every single idea that is thought of is considered stupiud or worthless, but at least they have been considered by the peak bodies of the ACF and the state chess federations. This will be true electronic democracy, and encourage the participation and involvement of ordinary chess players into the chess decision making process.

If need be, and assuming of course that Paul is agreeable, maybe a board called ideas for consideration could be started in this BB, with seperate threads for the ACF, NSWCA, VCA etc. As long as threads do not drift off topic, a very common problem ,it should be relevant and give some indication to Council members of what their memberships think.

Even if a couple of ideas are adopted, it will be very worthwhile, and mean that the BB has been used to enable very positive outcomes for chess in Australia
__________________

It's a simple message, but a message of hope. Its a belief that as chess players with a mutual interest we can come together in a spirit of respect to work together to solve our problems. It supports a principle that anyone who has an opinion that they seek to further in the interests of chess has a right to be heard, indeed that we should be embracing anyone who wants to contribute to the cause.

Perhaps the fact it was overlooked is because the message is so alien to the present ACF practice. I know it has been the ACF's unofficial policy that all dissention should be treated with ridicule, profanities and derision, but one wonders whether an experiment in collective consideration and tolerance (and I can use this word any way I like) may be worth the risk.

This message is so out of left field for the ACF it deserves nomination for it's originality and boldness. If decency doesn't work then the ACF can always return to brutality. CL may not be the smartest guy around, but he is able to see over the bridge of his nose.

paulb
12-02-2004, 03:25 PM
I know it has been the ACF's unofficial policy that all dissention should be treated with ridicule, profanities and derision, - David Richards.

I'm genuinely puzzled by this. I would have thought the behaviour of recent ACF leaders like Graeme Gardiner or George Howard was quite the opposite. Can you give me some examples of what you mean?

arosar
12-02-2004, 03:29 PM
I reckon he's talkin' about me mate Rev. Bill.

AR

paulb
12-02-2004, 04:15 PM
I reckon he's talkin' about me mate Rev. Bill.

AR

If so, with respect, it would be better to substitute "Bill Gletsos" for "ACF" in the thread, since he is mostly posting in a private capacity. But I'm not sure that's what David is referring to.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 04:40 PM
If so, with respect, it would be better to substitute "Bill Gletsos" for "ACF" in the thread, since he is mostly posting in a private capacity. But I'm not sure that's what David is referring to.
Of course David could be referring to my respones to him in some rating threads, in which case that would have been in my capacity as the ACF Ratings Officer. Of course I wasn't the only one giving him a hard time , so was Kevin.

paulb
16-02-2004, 03:47 PM
just a post to bring this thread to the top of the list :)

chesslover
16-02-2004, 05:48 PM
just a post to bring this thread to the top of the list :)

expect Grand Poobah to delete this post of yours and mine soon :p

Or is it one rule for the moderators and another for the common posters :p

whichever way the Grand Poobah responds he is caught in a devious grand masterky trap ;)

If he deletes my post and not Paul B's, then he states that the same rules do not apply to the moderators

If he deletes my post and Paul b's, this may be the catylst for a moderator vs Moderator civil war (esp if Paul B is in a shirty mood)

If he leaves both my post and Paul's intact, then he admits that he is impotent to enforce his own rules, even though he has the power to do so

What a dilemma for the Grand Poobah!! My bet is that he will take the easy way out ;) :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
16-02-2004, 06:10 PM
expect Grand Poobah to delete this post of yours and mine soon :p

Or is it one rule for the moderators and another for the common posters :p

whichever way the Grand Poobah responds he is caught in a devious grand masterky trap ;)

If he deletes my post and not Paul B's, then he states that the same rules do not apply to the moderators

If he deletes my post and Paul b's, this may be the catylst for a moderator vs Moderator civil war (esp if Paul B is in a shirty mood)

If he leaves both my post and Paul's intact, then he admits that he is impotent to enforce his own rules, even though he has the power to do so

What a dilemma for the Grand Poobah!! My bet is that he will take the easy way out ;) :hmm:
Well I think Pauls post served a purpose.
Yours didnt.
Therefore on that basis the Grand Poohbah could delete yours and leave Paul's.

arosar
16-02-2004, 07:34 PM
Actually, jenni also had a post that I think deserved nomination. It was the one that Sweeney told her to give a bit of the old spit and polish and post in the email bulletins as well. I can't bloody remember what thread it was or what it was talking about. Does anyone?

AR

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2004, 09:09 PM
expect Grand Poobah to delete this post of yours and mine soon :p

Or is it one rule for the moderators and another for the common posters :p

As the nomination process is now closed and anyone reading the thread to see the nominations will do so from the top so as to read them all (hopefully) I see no reason to delete any inane drivel that anyone wishes to add from this point on.

Though if one of the other mods wants to delete new extraneous posts including this one that's up to them.

Paul S
16-02-2004, 09:58 PM
Actually, jenni also had a post that I think deserved nomination. It was the one that Sweeney told her to give a bit of the old spit and polish and post in the email bulletins as well. I can't bloody remember what thread it was or what it was talking about. Does anyone?

AR

Yes, I do! It has already been nominated! It is one of the "six of the best" that I nominated (see Nomination 6).
:) :) :)

chesslover
16-02-2004, 10:08 PM
As the nomination process is now closed and anyone reading the thread to see the nominations will do so from the top so as to read them all (hopefully) I see no reason to delete any inane drivel that anyone wishes to add from this point on.

Though if one of the other mods wants to delete new extraneous posts including this one that's up to them.

good move - just when I thought you were to be checkmated!!!

and your justification even sounds plausable too!! :clap:

paulb
07-03-2004, 01:21 PM
Here are the results of voting for the best post of 2003:

Nomination 5 by Starter: 3 votes
Nomination 3 by Matthew Sweeney: 2 votes
Nominations 1, 18, 20, 22: 1 vote each

Congratulations to Starter (Trevor Stanning) and also to the other contestants, and thanks to people for voting.

I shall recommend a prize of $50 but the amount will depend on ACF agreement.

The various nominated posts can be seen in this thread.

Kind regards - Paul Broekhuyse

chesslover
07-03-2004, 04:01 PM
Here are the results of voting for the best post of 2003:

Nomination 5 by Starter: 3 votes
Nomination 3 by Matthew Sweeney: 2 votes
Nominations 1, 18, 20, 22: 1 vote each

Congratulations to Starter (Trevor Stanning) and also to the other contestants, and thanks to people for voting.

I shall recommend a prize of $50 but the amount will depend on ACF agreement.

The various nominated posts can be seen in this thread.

Kind regards - Paul Broekhuyse

congrats to Stater - well done

Are you going to have a run off vote between the top 2, or the 6 that got votes

Also my post was voted equal third best post in the BB for 2003. I am happy with that result

Rincewind
07-03-2004, 04:11 PM
Here are the results of voting for the best post of 2003:

Nomination 5 by Starter: 3 votes
Nomination 3 by Matthew Sweeney: 2 votes
Nominations 1, 18, 20, 22: 1 vote each

Congratulations to Starter (Trevor Stanning) and also to the other contestants, and thanks to people for voting.

I shall recommend a prize of $50 but the amount will depend on ACF agreement.

The various nominated posts can be seen in this thread.

9 votes and a $50 prize! Each vote was worth ~$5.56 :eek:

At least it is over now. :D

Trev' how about a donation to a national cause like the Olympiad fund? :cool:

chesslover
07-03-2004, 04:28 PM
9 votes and a $50 prize! Each vote was worth ~$5.56 :eek:

At least it is over now. :D

Trev' how about a donation to a national cause like the Olympiad fund? :cool:

But ..is it over?

The prize has been determined, and we know the top 6 posts as voted by the BB posters for 2003.

However I thought paul was looking at a run-off vote for the top posts, with like the Grand Poobah suggesting a strict one week period for voting?

And Starter won with 3 votes - so each vote was worth $16.66 :p

If Starter wins the run-off vote (assuming there is one), he may be better off hiring a psychologist to mediate between the CV and MCC :p

PHAT
07-03-2004, 04:36 PM
At least it is over now. :D


No it is not. I am appealling the whole selection process. I expect that I will take this all the way to court. I believe that I should be the one to donate $50 to the Olympiad Appeal. Everyone involved in this farce should be killed - and I am in the mood to do it. :evil:

chesslover
07-03-2004, 04:53 PM
a bit too early to start drinking hey Matt? It is not even 6pm on a Sunday :eek:

Cat
07-03-2004, 05:42 PM
Yes, I demand a recount! I voted for CL and I believe Amiel did also, so where's CL's missing vote? It sounds like rigging to me, where were the independant observers?

Garvinator
07-03-2004, 05:46 PM
Yes, I demand a recount! I voted for CL and I believe Amiel did also, so where's CL's missing vote? It sounds like rigging to me, where were the independant observers?
perhaps you and amiel voted for two different posts, but both posts were by chesslover :hmm:

chesslover
07-03-2004, 05:58 PM
Yes, I demand a recount! I voted for CL and I believe Amiel did also, so where's CL's missing vote? It sounds like rigging to me, where were the independant observers?

WHAT? WHAT WHAT WHAT

This is SHOCKING.I wanted for my own post too, so that means that if david voted for it, then I should have 2 votes - 2 votes at least

I AM BEING ROBBED, ROBBED, ROBBED :mad: :mad:

This is so unfair. They are ROBBING me

SHAME, SHAME, SHAME

Corruption and vote rigging in the ACF, Just what is going on?

chesslover
07-03-2004, 06:02 PM
perhaps you and amiel voted for two different posts, but both posts were by chesslover :hmm:
NO, NO ,NO ,NO

Only one post of mine got votes - that about electronic democracy. That was teh vote that david Richards, one of the most intelligent and articulate man here, thought fit to nominate

I voted for that, as I though that the post that David nominated was very good. If he voted - then there is at leats 2 votes for that post

This is blatent vote tampering. This is very very shocking and serious matter,that demands a full and impartial investigation

WHY is Paul B not counting the votes for me, and declaring Starter as teh winner?

Garvinator
07-03-2004, 07:08 PM
I would advise you cl to be very careful with what you claim without knowing the facts. Why dont you drop your vote rigging allegations until you know what Paul B has responded with.

chesslover
07-03-2004, 08:14 PM
I would advise you cl to be very careful with what you claim without knowing the facts. Why dont you drop your vote rigging allegations until you know what Paul B has responded with.

but I voted for my own post, as I thought that in all fairness that was the best post of 2003. So too did that great man, David Richards

now 1+1 = 2

so my post should have had 2 (TWO) votes at the very least

yet Paul B, says I have one...

I have been robbed of a vote - at the very least

The election has been hijacked, and a robbery of votes has taken place. I am very upset, and now know how Al Gore must have felt

This is so unfair, and cruel

chesslover
07-03-2004, 08:32 PM
to those who think that this disfranchising of the democratic vote does not affect them, i say do not be silent and speak out against this blatant disregard for democracy. Do not let the establishment hijack your voice and votes - stand up for your democratic vote. Remeber Milosevic and marcos tried to disregard the votes of the people, and people power toppled them...

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up

Bill Gletsos
07-03-2004, 08:56 PM
but I voted for my own post, as I thought that in all fairness that was the best post of 2003. So too did that great man, David Richards

now 1+1 = 2

so my post should have had 2 (TWO) votes at the very least

yet Paul B, says I have one...

I have been robbed of a vote - at the very least

The election has been hijacked, and a robbery of votes has taken place. I am very upset, and now know how Al Gore must have felt

This is so unfair, and cruel
Ha ha ha, this is so beautiful coming from you especially given your enthusiastic praise of paulb when you were arguing with me about self nomination and multiple posts.
You described paulb as :

the wise, thoughtful, respected, beloved, admired and knowlegable Paul B
and

Paul B as one of the most loved, admired, respected, knwoledgable and wisest persons in the BB has a lot of credibility
and

our much loved, respected and wise moderator
and

Like a noble latter day Moses, paul B steps in and posts in a very authoritative manner

Hung by your own petard. :whistle:

chesslover
07-03-2004, 09:39 PM
Ha ha ha, this is so beautiful coming from you especially given your enthusiastic praise of paulb when you were arguing with me about self nomination and multiple posts.

Hung by your own petard. :whistle:laugh, laugh, laugh all you like

in front of your own eyes, PaulB has robbed me of my votes

he has ignored the democratic votes of the people

and all you can do is laugh and laugh. It is not funny. As Supreme leader, it should concern you as well.This how powermad meglomaniacs are born

We MUST stand up against this robbery of votes. A grave injustice has been done. Dr Richards has also been robbed of his vote - and he is a Doctor, and saves lifes, and yet he is robbed

Just what is going on here? This is power mad dictatorship to the extreme, and the BB voters have had their votes stolen by PaulB. He has had a sham election, that would even do Stalin and Saddam proud..

where are my votes?

Garvinator
07-03-2004, 09:42 PM
ok now each of us, david, bill, cl and myself have all given our opinion on this matter. Lets now wait until Paul B gives his opinion and maybe some facts.

Please do not turn this into another slanging match. :evil:

Bill Gletsos
07-03-2004, 09:46 PM
to those who think that this disfranchising of the democratic vote does not affect them, i say do not be silent and speak out against this blatant disregard for democracy. Do not let the establishment hijack your voice and votes - stand up for your democratic vote. Remeber Milosevic and marcos tried to disregard the votes of the people, and people power toppled them...

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up
Your continual posting of this is a total waste.

Bill Gletsos
07-03-2004, 09:50 PM
laugh, laugh, laugh all you like

in front of your own eyes, PaulB has robbed me of my votes

he has ignored the democratic votes of the people

and all you can do is laugh and laugh. It is not funny. As Supreme leader, it should concern you as well.This how powermad meglomaniacs are born

We MUST stand up against this robbery of votes. A grave injustice has been done. Dr Richards has also been robbed of his vote - and he is a Doctor, and saves lifes, and yet he is robbed

Just what is going on here? This is power mad dictatorship to the extreme, and the BB voters have had their votes stolen by PaulB. He has had a sham election, that would even do Stalin and Saddam proud..
You would have been better served to just email paulb and ask him, instead of going off at the deep end like a total goose.
Then again i guess its a hard for the a goose to be anything else.

Alan Shore
07-03-2004, 09:54 PM
Your continual posting of this is a total waste.

But Bill don't you see? He is only trying to catch up to you in total number of posts - you are his hero :uhoh:

Also CL, sure you can raise questions but settle down please, this isn't a playground, or a house of representatives :p Even if you did get 2 votes (including the vote for yourself, yay) you still didn't win...

Bill Gletsos
07-03-2004, 09:56 PM
ok now each of us, david, bill, cl and myself have all given our opinion on this matter. Lets now wait until Paul B gives his opinion and maybe some facts.

Please do not turn this into another slanging match. :evil:
Unfortunately for you gg, I posted before I read this post.
However CL as usual went off the deep end like a goose. He deserves to be criticised for it.

CL is lucky his outburst is aimed at paulb and not some others or he might find himself sued.

chesslover
07-03-2004, 09:58 PM
But Bill don't you see? He is only trying to catch up to you in total number of posts - you are his hero :uhoh:

Also CL, sure you can raise questions but settle down please, this isn't a playground, or a house of representatives :p Even if you did get 2 votes (including the vote for yourself, yay) you still didn't win...

I assure you that Bill is not my hero now. I am tottally disillusioned that he makes fun of very serious issues, that go to the fundamental principle of democracy

And if I got two votes - then the electronic democracy post will be second and should be in the run off. Every vote is precious, every vote is sacred, every vote counts

Garvinator
07-03-2004, 09:59 PM
Unfortunately for you gg, I posted before I read this post.
However CL as usual went off the deep end like a goose. He deserves to be criticised for it.

CL is lucky his outburst is aimed at paulb and not some others or he might find himself sued.
My suspicion is that paul b will delete all posts after the announcement of the counts and then give his 'official' response regarding the votes. that should quieten some ppl down :whistle:

chesslover
07-03-2004, 10:03 PM
Unfortunately for you gg, I posted before I read this post.
However CL as usual went off the deep end like a goose. He deserves to be criticised for it.

CL is lucky his outburst is aimed at paulb and not some others or he might find himself sued.

WHY?

what have I done that is wrong?

PaulB gave the "results" of the best post 2003.

Originally I accepted that my post was third, as I thought that I was the only person who voted for that, and congratulated Starter. See, I accept the verdict of the people.

Then when Dr david said that he voyted for me too, and also queried the results, I sensed that something was rotten. Even Matt said he wanted to appeal, as he too was outraged and angry.

I have done nothing wrong. I have queried how come paul B ignored the votes cast for my post. That is perfectly correct and proper

I am very upset by all this, and feel traumatised and angry

Garvinator
07-03-2004, 10:06 PM
WHY?

what have I done that is wrong?

PaulB gave the "results" of the best post 2003.

Originally I accepted that my post was third, as I thought that I was the only person who voted for that, and congratulated Starter. See, I accept the verdict of the people.

Then when Dr david said that he voyted for me too, and also queried the results, I sensed that something was rotten. Even Matt said he wanted to appeal, as he too was outraged and angry.

I have done nothing wrong. I have queried how come paul B ignored the votes cast for my post. That is perfectly correct and proper

I am very upset by all this, and feel traumatised and angry

cl, you have now given your opinion. Now just wait for paul b's response and say nothing more.

Alan Shore
07-03-2004, 10:14 PM
Bill - Sued? Are you nuts? You're going off the deep end worse than CL.

CL - Don't be upset.. give paulB a chance to respond and I'm sure it'll be sorted out.. it'll be all good man.

Ggray - Why the hell would you delete any of these posts? It's just a bulletin board.. this isn't some kiddie school class and everyone should be perfectly capable of dealing with things in a mature way...

Cat
07-03-2004, 10:16 PM
I had some trouble using the link and so sent a personal message to PaulB, to which he replied that all was well. Maybe he decided to discount it or forgot it? But what about Amiel, he said he was voting for CL - that would make 3, including CL himself?

chesslover
07-03-2004, 10:36 PM
cl, you have now given your opinion. Now just wait for paul b's response and say nothing more.

okay, I'll wait for Paul B who can maybe shed some light in this matter

Bill Gletsos
07-03-2004, 10:36 PM
Bill - Sued? Are you nuts? You're going off the deep end worse than CL.
He pretty much slandered paulb in his outburst.
It one thing to call someone an idiot, its another to imply they are corrupt.

chesslover
07-03-2004, 10:39 PM
I had some trouble using the link and so sent a personal message to PaulB, to which he replied that all was well. Maybe he decided to discount it or forgot it? But what about Amiel, he said he was voting for CL - that would make 3, including CL himself?

Yes, I 100% promise that I voted for myself - and even have proof of that email vote I sent Paul B. That plus your vote should make it at least equal second - and in the run off with starter's post.

It all depends on AMiel'svote. If he stated he voted for me too, then I won

ursogr8
07-03-2004, 10:42 PM
congrats to Starter - well done


Thanks CL
You certainly provided a lot of competition.




Trev' how about a donation to a national cause like the Olympiad fund? :cool:


Thanks Barry
I did think about creating a thread on how to allocate the money. Your suggestion would have looked good there, et al.
However I have been musing how to make the prize link either to
>PaulS's original post that inspired my nomination,
or >> something consistent with cultural idea of ‘recognise and reward’.


No it is not. I am appealling the whole selection process. I expect that I will take this all the way to court. I believe that I should be the one to donate $50 to the Olympiad Appeal. Everyone involved in this farce should be killed - and I am in the mood to do it. :evil:

Matt
I wouldn’t support your appeal over my dead body.



ALL
Here is the challenge. If you can post on the board a recognition that is deserved and should be rewarded by a $50 allocation to something chessical then I will consider. The length of time you have is until I can think of something justifiable. If you need a reminder of the sort of things I think should be recognised-rewarded then read Nomination 5 again. Or go back to the old board and read PaulS’s nice post about clock-repairing.

Now Baz, you can join in this part too.
On your marks.

starter

chesslover
07-03-2004, 10:43 PM
He pretty much slandered paulb in his outburst.
It one thing to call someone an idiot, its another to imply they are corrupt.

I never called paul B corrupt. Go through the posts in this thread, and you will find that I never ever called paul corrupt.

I called him a dictator, who had ignored teh wishes of the BB voters and a meglomaniac, but not corrupt. And neither did I call him an idiot

And I do not think Paul B is corrupt. Why on earth would he do this just to get $50 - which by the way goes to someone else not him.

Maybe Paul just made a mistake - he is not perfect.

skip to my lou
07-03-2004, 10:43 PM
9 votes and a $50 prize! Each vote was worth ~$5.56 :eek:

At least it is over now. :D

Trev' how about a donation to a national cause like the Olympiad fund? :cool:

How about a donation to CK BB! :)

chesslover
07-03-2004, 10:47 PM
Thanks CL
You certainly provided a lot of competition.


Thanks Barry
I did think about creating a thread on how to allocate the money. Your suggestion would have looked good there, et al.
However I have been musing how to make the prize link either to
>PaulS's original post that inspired my nomination,
or >> something consistent with cultural idea of ‘recognise and reward’.



Matt
I wouldn’t support your appeal over my dead body.



ALL
Here is the challenge. If you can post on the board a recognition that is deserved and should be rewarded by a $50 allocation to something chessical then I will consider. The length of time you have is until I can think of something justifiable. If you need a reminder of the sort of things I think should be recognised-rewarded then read Nomination 5 again. Or go back to the old board and read PaulS’s nice post about clock-repairing.

Now Baz, you can join in this part too.
On your marks.

starter

Just a second starter. The voting results have been appealed due to perceived irregularities. It is now awaiting the decision by the election commisioner (paulB)

Also I thought that the top 2/3 posts were going to have a run-off vote due to the fact that so little people voted, and a couple may have voted pastthe Thursday deadline? Kevin said maybe make it a week of voting

If I won I was going to give the money to the ACF for it's website activities

chesslover
07-03-2004, 10:50 PM
How about a donation to CK BB! :)

actually if I had won I would have done that - as it was a BB voted prize, it seemed approproiate that it went to the BB.

Maybe if paul b is wrong and has a run off election and my post wins in the runoff, then I can still do that

Bill Gletsos
07-03-2004, 10:50 PM
WHY?

what have I done that is wrong?

PaulB gave the "results" of the best post 2003.

Originally I accepted that my post was third, as I thought that I was the only person who voted for that, and congratulated Starter. See, I accept the verdict of the people.

Then when Dr david said that he voyted for me too, and also queried the results, I sensed that something was rotten.
Its here you look like a goose.
If there is a problem it is much more likely that it was unintentional instead of any anti CL bias on the part of paulb.


Even Matt said he wanted to appeal, as he too was outraged and angry.
Firstly Matt made his post well before David and your posts. In fact I thought MAtt was just being sarcastic.


I have done nothing wrong. I have queried how come paul B ignored the votes cast for my post. That is perfectly correct and proper
No you went off the deep end and called him corrupt.


I am very upset by all this, and feel traumatised and angry
Poor petal.

chesslover
07-03-2004, 10:54 PM
Poor petal.

thank you for your empathy and sympathy

But I am more calmer and okay now. My partner comforted me, and told me to wait for the decision of paul b

Bill Gletsos
07-03-2004, 11:01 PM
I never called paul B corrupt. Go through the posts in this thread, and you will find that I never ever called paul corrupt.
Nice try but you are W-R-O-N-G.

You said :

Corruption and vote rigging in the ACF, Just what is going on?
Since the only person involved here is the ACF Webmaster/Vice President paulb, then your claim of corruption by the ACF is a claim against paulb.

You went on to claim

This is blatent vote tampering. This is very very shocking and serious matter
I think ICAC might see a claim of vote tampering as a claim of corruption.




I called him a dictator, who had ignored teh wishes of the BB voters and a meglomaniac, but not corrupt. And neither did I call him an idiot
As shown above you called him corrupt.
I never said you called him an idiot, you idiot.


And I do not think Paul B is corrupt.
Then you should not have made the claim above.


Maybe Paul just made a mistake - he is not perfect.
Then you should have made a more reasonable post instead of going off the deep end with your outburst.

Bill Gletsos
07-03-2004, 11:05 PM
thank you for your empathy and sympathy
Its just that if you were traumatised as you claim then you come across as extremley emotionally fragile.

PHAT
08-03-2004, 05:18 AM
Matt
I wouldn’t support your appeal over my dead body.


So be it. I have taken out the contract - see you in hell :evil:

Actually I am going to have to get rid of CL too. His appeal may have legs.

PB is for it, and anyone else who gets in my way. This is just the kind of publicity Australian chess needs. :uhoh:

arosar
08-03-2004, 08:49 AM
Yes, I did vote for CL, didn't I? I said Nomination 22.

AR

ursogr8
08-03-2004, 09:05 AM
Just a second starter. The voting results have been appealed due to perceived irregularities. It is now awaiting the decision by the election commisioner (paulB)



CL
1 I have an e-mail from PaulB, and I am proceeding to advise the ACF where to allocate the money (provided that the ACF accepts PaulB’s recommendation).
2 Your appeal will possibly be dealt with in a similar resolution of the Aus. Junior appeal. That is, two winners declared. :D Then a banning of all posting . :hand:




Also I thought that the top 2/3 posts were going to have a run-off vote due to the fact that so little people voted, and a couple may have voted past the Thursday deadline? Kevin said maybe make it a week of voting


Just out of interest do you negotiate with your opponent re the castling rules after the game has started?




If I won I was going to give the money to the ACF for it's website activities


Noted.
And I will consider as a candidate for allocation if PaulB’s recommendation gets up.

starter

Garvinator
08-03-2004, 02:40 PM
where is paul b on all this :hmm:

paulb
08-03-2004, 04:17 PM
My apologies - I overlooked a vote from Chesslover for nomination 22; - I receive a lot of email and occasionally something goes astray.

If someone is seriously claiming that any other votes haven't been counted you should, if possible, indicate the details of the email so I can track it down (many email programs keep copies of what you send).

If the claim is that CL should have received two votes rather than 1, then Starter's stilll the winner. The award was for best post, rather than best poster (In case there's any confusion about this).

cheers - PaulB

paulb
08-03-2004, 04:22 PM
Yes, I did vote for CL, didn't I? I said Nomination 22.

AR

I don't seem to have received any vote from you :(

Cheers - PaulB

chesslover
08-03-2004, 05:00 PM
Yes, I did vote for CL, didn't I? I said Nomination 22.

AR

That means 3 votes for me - and I WON.

Yet they are denying me my win, which is fair and square and voted by the BB posters

I voted for me and I thought that was all the votes I got.

Then David said that he voted for me too, so that is 2 votes

and now arosar said he voted for me too

all 3 voted for nomination 22 - the post that was nominated by that wise and knowlegable dr from queensland

now 1+1+1 = 3

That means I got 3 votes

and starter won with 3 votes - which means that I shpould be equal first at the very least

Before my very eyes, I am seeing the robbery of democracy and my votes

My heart is broken and my soul is sickened by this

I always thought that paul b, was a fair man - but why is he involved in thsi conspiracy to defraud me of my win. I thought as a person working for the Daily Tele, he had integrity, yet he is not counting my 3 votes

This is so unfair and so unjust that it is enough to make a grown man cry.

Garvinator
08-03-2004, 05:06 PM
did you read the next post regarding paul not receiving arosar's vote?

chesslover
08-03-2004, 05:07 PM
CL
1 I have an e-mail from PaulB, and I am proceeding to advise the ACF where to allocate the money (provided that the ACF accepts PaulB’s recommendation).
2 Your appeal will possibly be dealt with in a similar resolution of the Aus. Junior appeal. That is, two winners declared. :D Then a banning of all posting . :hand:
starter

BUT YOU HAVE NOT WON

that is the POINT - YOU HAVE NOT WON

The vote counting is wrong. I voted for nomination 22, david did as well and arosar said he voted for nomination 22 as well.

that is at least 3 votes that we know of for me. yet paul is saying that i only got 1 vote - but I got 3 votes

so why is 3 votes for me, being counted as 1 vote? what is going on. WHY IS THERE A CONSPIRACY TO KEEP MY VOTES FROM BEING COUNTED?

I thought that we were living in a democracy, where every vote was cherished and sacred. Yet my post nomination 22 got 3 votes - but paul is only saying I got 1 vote

I should be first - not equal 3rd as i got 3 votes - not 1.

And already paul B is giving the money to starter and congraulating him on winning

But I got 3 votes - same as Starter

yet starter is getting the money and the winning prize. this is so so so so unfair - WHY IS MY 3 VOTES NOT TEH SAME AS STARTER'S 3 VOTES

I got the most vote, and they are saying someone else is the winner - is this justice? IS THAT FAIR

I got 3 votes that I know of - yet they say i only got 1

Garvinator
08-03-2004, 05:12 PM
did you read paul's post regarding arosar's vote? if you did and ignored it, then you should be banned from this bb. if you didnt read it, then you should check your facts before claiming persecution.

I have had an absolute gutful of your rantings on here like in this thread.

chesslover
08-03-2004, 05:16 PM
My apologies - I overlooked a vote from Chesslover for nomination 22; - I receive a lot of email and occasionally something goes astray.

If someone is seriously claiming that any other votes haven't been counted you should, if possible, indicate the details of the email so I can track it down (many email programs keep copies of what you send).

If the claim is that CL should have received two votes rather than 1, then Starter's stilll the winner. The award was for best post, rather than best poster (In case there's any confusion about this).

cheers - PaulB

AHA!!!!!!!!! AHA!!!!!! AHA!!!! AHA!!!!!

So suddenly as if my magic a vote is found for me!!!!

AHA!! AHA!!! AHA!!!! AHA!!!!

THE LOST VOTE IS FOUND!!! after complaints that at least 3 people voted for me, and public declarations as such suddenly a vote is found!!!

ABRACADABRA - MAGIC!!

AHA!!! AHA!!!! AHA!!! AHA!!!!!

so now nomination 22 has got 2 "official" votes - including 1 that MAGICALLY was found after people said that they were disenfranchised

So that means that my post is equal second?

But that means that there is still a missing vote....WHERE IS THE MISSING VOTE?

I voted for nomination 22. so did Dr david and so too did arosar. This means that there are 3 votes for my post.

Yet only 2 votes are declared for me by the election commisioner

Since 1 got 3 votes and only two votes have been officially certified for me, that still leaves an unaccounted vote for me that is not being declared

I should have 3 votes, which means that I should be declared equal first with Starter - and have a run off election or be declared equal first

Garvinator
08-03-2004, 05:26 PM
By Paul B to arosar:

I don't seem to have received any vote from you

Have you deliberately ignored this post by paul b. I am going to complain to the admins of this board if you dont stop claiming about conspiracies. You have made your point and now you leave everyone in a no win situation. You have just made it certain that there will be no prize for 2004. well done, i hope you are proud of yourself.

You could have voiced your opinion in so many ways, but you chose to be claim conspiracies, where is that word again, ggggooo :evil:

chesslover
08-03-2004, 05:38 PM
By Paul B to arosar:

I don't seem to have received any vote from you

Have you deliberately ignored this post by paul b. I am going to complain to the admins of this board if you dont stop claiming about conspiracies. You have made your point and now you leave everyone in a no win situation. You have just made it certain that there will be no prize for 2004. well done, i hope you are proud of yourself.

You could have voiced your opinion in so many ways, but you chose to be claim conspiracies, where is that word again, ggggooo :evil:

no, I saw this post from paul b when I posted last time on this thread. I read posts sequentially

and why am I to blame for there being no prize in 2004. if anything it shows that votes need be counted properly

and no conspiracy? arosar said he voted for my nomination 22, yet paul says he did not get it. How can that happen? enlighten me (I am being sarcastic)

and also why was an additional vote suddenly discovered after others stated that they had voted as well, and it was obvious that more than one person had voted for nomination 22?

paulb
08-03-2004, 06:14 PM
...why was an additional vote suddenly discovered after others stated that they had voted as well, and it was obvious that more than one person had voted for nomination 22?
Because I was alerted to it, went to look for it, and discovered it.

The reason I didn't see it the first time was that I had searched for emails headed "Nomination ..." which is what I actually asked for; your email is headed "best post 2003 nomination 22" which isn't near the "Ns" in the alphabetical listing I checked.

Cheers - PaulB

Garvinator
08-03-2004, 06:17 PM
paul, i think you need to give a more thorough explaination of these events, mainly to shut cl up. if you dont there could be an email complaint headed your way regarding cl's posts.

chesslover
08-03-2004, 06:32 PM
paul, i think you need to give a more thorough explaination of these events, mainly to shut cl up. if you dont there could be an email complaint headed your way regarding cl's posts.
what have I done wrong?

I originally congraulated starter for winning, as i thought I was the only person who had voted for nominbation 22

when david said that he too voted for it, I did my maths calculation and realised that 1+1 = 2, and that this was one vote more than what was given to me. I thus raised this concern in this BB, as did the brilliant Dr david, and later arosar. Even matt said that my concerns had validitity.

In the end i was proven right, and Paul B stated that I was entitled to at least 2 votes

given that arosar had said that he too voted for me in thsi thread (Yes, I did vote for CL, didn't I? I said Nomination 22. ), that should make it 3 votes. Arosar is a decent, honourable and honest man whose word is his bond. If arosar states that he voted for nomination 22, then he did vote for that. Arosar is a man who has done a lot for australian chess, and spends a lot of money contributing to it. In american they had a revolution, because there was "taxation without representation", and yet the ACF takes arosar's money but does not count his vote. Arosar said he voted for nomination 22, and this gentleman's word is good enough for me. Why would arosar lie?

Given that I should have 3 votes - which as the highest vote getter should give me the first place

Bill Gletsos
08-03-2004, 06:41 PM
paul, i think you need to give a more thorough explaination of these events, mainly to shut cl up. if you dont there could be an email complaint headed your way regarding cl's posts.
Irrespective of all that he still called paulb corrupt.
I notice he hasnt had the good grace to retract that statement.

As paulb pointed out he asked that votes be done in a particular manner.
CL apparently did not follow the rules.
Now I wonder how AR voted, did he follow the rules. Did he vote before th cutoff?
We will just have to weight for paulb to provide more info.

None of this of course excuses CL for his accusations in this thread.

Kevin Bonham
08-03-2004, 06:51 PM
He pretty much slandered paulb in his outburst.
It one thing to call someone an idiot, its another to imply they are corrupt.

There is one reason why CL's claims might not be considered defamatory - because CL has such a well-established reputation for these kinds of over-the-top accusations that no one will take his claims seriously. :owned:

That aside, Bill's right - this kind of stuff is flat-out defamatory, I'm sure Paul will complain if he wants it removed but frankly I very much doubt he cares.

As for the run-off please bear in mind that this was only a suggestion I made, one which had no official standing whatsoever, and as Paul is doubtless busy and probably sick of this whole charade I don't blame him at all for bringing this to a close before it gets any more farcical.

Bill Gletsos
08-03-2004, 06:54 PM
what have I done wrong?

I originally congraulated starter for winning, as i thought I was the only person who had voted for nominbation 22

when david said that he too voted for it, I did my maths calculation and realised that 1+1 = 2, and that this was one vote more than what was given to me. I thus raised this concern in this BB, as did the brilliant Dr david, and later arosar. Even matt said that my concerns had validitity.

In the end i was proven right, and Paul B stated that I was entitled to at least 2 votes

given that arosar had said that he too voted for me in thsi thread (Yes, I did vote for CL, didn't I? I said Nomination 22. ), that should make it 3 votes. Arosar is a decent, honourable and honest man whose word is his bond. If arosar states that he voted for nomination 22, then he did vote for that. Arosar is a man who has done a lot for australian chess, and spends a lot of money contributing to it. In american they had a revolution, because there was "taxation without representation", and yet the ACF takes arosar's money but does not count his vote. Arosar said he voted for nomination 22, and this gentleman's word is good enough for me. Why would arosar lie?
Could you please explain how AR spends a lot of money contributing to australian chess. Perhaps he just spends a lot of money at chess businesses.

You are however a moron.
No one is suggesting AR lied.
However maybe he did not vote in the appropriate manner hence paulb overlooked his vote.

It is of course no surprise that as usual you are full of praise for someone whilst it suits your purpose. No doubt this will change once you perceive he has wronged you again.


Given that I should have 3 votes - which as the highest vote getter should give me the first place
You cannot even state this correctly.
At best you are equal first not as this implies first alone.

Alan Shore
08-03-2004, 07:26 PM
I would vote to not hold this contest any more... look at the shitstorm is created out of something so trivial. :wall:

PHAT
08-03-2004, 07:39 PM
I would vote to not hold this contest any more... look at the shitstorm is created out of something so trivial. :wall:

Yes, we can start shitstorms over important things instead.

Garvinator
08-03-2004, 07:45 PM
Yes, we can start shitstorms over important things instead.
yes, i want to know how bruce and matt got that s word past the censor :owned:

chesslover
08-03-2004, 07:57 PM
Irrespective of all that he still called paulb corrupt.
I notice he hasnt had the good grace to retract that statement.

As paulb pointed out he asked that votes be done in a particular manner.
CL apparently did not follow the rules.
Now I wonder how AR voted, did he follow the rules. Did he vote before th cutoff?
We will just have to weight for paulb to provide more info.

None of this of course excuses CL for his accusations in this thread.

I did not call Paul B corrupt. but if people got that impression then I apologise to Paul b , and withdraw any implications of that. That was not teh intention

I was very upset, as I saw votes not being counted that were lodged. I still do not know what happened to arosar's votes.

And irrespective of how arosar or I voted, the intention was clear - we were voting for nomination 22. The fact that i stated that it was best post nomination 22, does nto mean that it is not a valid vote.

SImilarly the fact that arosar said he voted for nomination 22 means that his intention is very clear, and it is a moral duty to give effect to this vote by arosar, who has helped australian chess thrive because of his monetery contribution.

ursogr8
08-03-2004, 08:02 PM
BUT YOU HAVE NOT WON

that is the POINT - YOU HAVE NOT WON



CL

Why are you shouting at me?
First, I advise you that I have an e-mail from PaulB (and I gave you the details of its contents). Are you shouting at me because you think I misread what is in black and white? Do you think I am unreliable?
Second, I assuaged your grief by reminding you how a previous appeal was decided. And still you caste doubt on my understanding of my good fortune.
Why are you shouting at me?
How do you think my position has changed?
starter

chesslover
08-03-2004, 08:04 PM
Could you please explain how AR spends a lot of money contributing to australian chess. Perhaps he just spends a lot of money at chess businesses.

You are however a moron.
No one is suggesting AR lied.
However maybe he did not vote in the appropriate manner hence paulb overlooked his vote.



AR spends money on chess books. In an earlier post he stated that he could show credit card statements that show how much he has contributed to australian chess. australian chess needs dedicated people like him who spend a lot of money and keep the australian chess businesses and employees employed. he is a fine upstanding individual and I think a lot of him

and you keep on calling me a moron, yet have the hide to find hidden meanings in my message that you think calls paulb corrupt. I have never specifically said that paulb was corrupt - instead I was saying that not counting the 3 votes for me was unjust and unfair

and it is irrelevent how I or arosar voted. The intent was for nomination 22. The US supreme court amongst other things, said in Florida 2000, that the intent of the vote was important in counting the vote. Are you saying that you know more than the US supreme court?

paulb
08-03-2004, 08:04 PM
If Amiel did indeed vote, then we can do a recount :) I can't find it in my email; if Amiel can determine (perhaps via his "sent items" email folder) whether he sent it or not then we can decide the issue. (His remark "i voted, didn't I?" looks ambiguous to me).

I must say I feel flattered, not defamed, by the Machievallian imputations: to claim that I, having endured some flak for allowing CL's multi-self-nominations, should then deliberately ignore his decisive self-vote, is to attribute to me a level of perversity more monumental than I had hitherto allowed myself in even my most grandiose delusions ... but having such greatness thrust upon me, I shall rise - or sink - to the occasion :) Let's have a Royal Commission!

Kevin Bonham
08-03-2004, 08:05 PM
SImilarly the fact that arosar said he voted for nomination 22 means that his intention is very clear, and it is a moral duty to give effect to this vote by arosar, who has helped australian chess thrive because of his monetery contribution.

Either he voted or he didn't. In either case what he has done for Australian chess is irrelevant to whether his vote should be counted.

If Paul doesn't have a vote from AR then AR has to prove he did in fact vote, which shouldn't be too hard if he's saved a copy of the email. After all, email is not an infallible delivery system.

If Paul can't find AR's vote and AR cannot prove he voted then no "vote" should be counted. Imagine if someone went to the Electoral Commission after an election and said "Hey, you didn't record me as going to vote, but I did, I voted Liberal, why haven't you counted my vote?"

Sometimes seems that the amount of gaggle an issue generates on this BB is more or less inversely proportional to how much the issue matters.

chesslover
08-03-2004, 08:09 PM
CL

Why are you shouting at me?
First, I advise you that I have an e-mail from PaulB (and I gave you the details of its contents). Are you shouting at me because you think I misread what is in black and white? Do you think I am unreliable?
Second, I assuaged your grief by reminding you how a previous appeal was decided. And still you caste doubt on my understanding of my good fortune.
Why are you shouting at me?
How do you think my position has changed?
starter
sorry

i was very emotional and upset as I thought that votes cast for me was being robbed in a very unfair manner

I assumed that you were saying that the outcome of teh election was that you won, and that paulb's email was confirmation that it was a win for you - when in fact the final result has not been decided, as it all hangs on the missing vote of arosar

remember I have nothing against you, and in fact when I thought that it was only me who voted for me, I congratulated you as you were the winner. That was when i conceded victory to you, but now I unconcede the concession post, as the voting is still not decided.

in any case arosar has said thathe voted for nomination 22, and I think that should count

apologies if you were upset

Bill Gletsos
08-03-2004, 08:12 PM
AR spends money on chess books. In an earlier post he stated that he could show credit card statements that show how much he has contributed to australian chess. australian chess needs dedicated people like him who spend a lot of money and keep the australian chess businesses and employees employed. he is a fine upstanding individual and I think a lot of him
That shows he contributes to chess business, not Australian chess.


and you keep on calling me a moron,
well if the shoe fits.


yet have the hide to find hidden meanings in my message that you think calls paulb corrupt. I have never specifically said that paulb was corrupt
There was no hidden meaning in your message. You called the ACF corrupt. The only ACF person involved in this was paulb, hence you are calling him corrupt.
If you cannot see this, then you are a moron.


and it is irrelevent how I or arosar voted. The intent was for nomination 22. The US supreme court amongst other things, said in Florida 2000, that the intent of the vote was important in counting the vote. Are you saying that you know more than the US supreme court?
Who gives a rats ass what the US Supreme Court said.
This is Australia.
Perhaps since you love the US so much you should move there.

chesslover
08-03-2004, 08:21 PM
If Amiel did indeed vote, then we can do a recount :) I can't find it in my email; if Amiel can determine (perhaps via his "sent items" email folder) whether he sent it or not then we can decide the issue. (His remark "i voted, didn't I?" looks ambiguous to me).

I must say I feel flattered, not defamed, by the Machievallian imputations: to claim that I, having endured some flak for allowing CL's multi-self-nominations, should then deliberately ignore his decisive self-vote, is to attribute to me a level of perversity more monumental than I had hitherto allowed myself in even my most grandiose delusions ... but having such greatness thrust upon me, I shall rise - or sink - to the occasion :) Let's have a Royal Commission!

YOU of all people should appreciate the irony of this. You who have read Michael Moore books about Gore's win in Florida, are denying the voting intent of arosar. If arosar intended to vote for nomination 22, then his vote should go to nomination 22- never mind the fact that it may not have been in the format that was required.

The same arguement that was used by President Bush in Florida 2000 is the arguement that you are defending - a strictly legalistic interpretation of what is a vote. If a person intended to vote for something, then their vote should be counted, regardless of the fact that it may not have been in the format you wanted.

to me if arosar had said in this BB that he wanted to vote for my post, then that is his clear declared intent on how to vote - which he is boldly and bravely proclaiming to the rest of the world. His intent on which post he wanted to vote for is beyond any doubt and should be included.

ps - sorry if you are upset. I got emotional as i thought you were trying to rob votes. I never thought you were corrupt - merely evil and perverse, in defending me and then stabbing me when my back was turned

skip to my lou
08-03-2004, 08:27 PM
All this crap over $50. Thats less than my transport costs for one week. :eek:

chesslover
08-03-2004, 08:30 PM
That shows he contributes to chess business, not Australian chess.


There was no hidden meaning in your message. You called the ACF corrupt. The only ACF person involved in this was paulb, hence you are calling him corrupt.
If you cannot see this, then you are a moron.



if someonewcontributes to australian chess businesses, then they also contribute to australian chess as well

and i know what you are doing with this notion that I am calling PaulB corrupt. You are using this as a "wedge" issue to create friction and pour fuel into the fire. I have said that I have never ever called paulB corrupt, and that If I did it was unintentional, and that I withdraw and apologise to PaulB if anyone drew that conclusion.

have you thought of going into politics - I hear John Howard is looking at experts in "wedge" politics as is President Bush, and you have shown that you are eminently qualified for this :p ;)

Thunk
08-03-2004, 08:32 PM
ALL
Here is the challenge. If you can post on the board a recognition that is deserved and should be rewarded by a $50 allocation to something chessical then I will consider. The length of time you have is until I can think of something justifiable. If you need a reminder of the sort of things I think should be recognised-rewarded then read Nomination 5 again.

starter

hEy startEr

you could by rights do thE gEntlEmany thing on this occasion and makE your allocation to chEsslovEr dirEct.
this has a lot going for it. Equity. rEcognizEs chEsslovEr and rEwards him <which is dEar to your hEart> for his many contributions. rEconciliation for all.

would hE havE to rEvEal himsElf to thE board in ordEr to collEct thE prizE? :confused:

:) thE HUNK :)

chesslover
08-03-2004, 08:33 PM
All this crap over $50. Thats less than my transport costs for one week. :eek:

this $50 is not for the person with the best post.

the person with the best post MUST donate this $50 to an Australian chess activity - be it teh Olympiad appeal, ACF website/this BB, their local chess association, junior developments and so on

Garvinator
08-03-2004, 08:33 PM
I have said that I have never ever called paulB corrupt, and that If I did it was unintentional, and that I withdraw and apologise to PaulB if anyone drew that conclusion.
I think you should direct your attention to the thread I created to deal directly with this issue of your allegations of corruption of the acf and paul B.

skip to my lou
08-03-2004, 08:36 PM
this $50 is not for the person with the best post.

the person with the best post MUST donate this $50 to an Australian chess activity - be it teh Olympiad appeal, ACF website/this BB, their local chess association, junior developments and so on

I thought that was just a suggestion and that its not being enforced! Anyhow, how will you donate to this BB? :eek: :uhoh: :owned:

chesslover
08-03-2004, 08:46 PM
I thought that was just a suggestion and that its not being enforced! Anyhow, how will you donate to this BB? :eek: :uhoh: :owned:

no, it was a condition of entry that teh prize be donated to an australian chess activity. If I had won, I would have donated it to the ACF website/BB, but am not sure if starter or matt would have done the same. I appreciate all the hard work and great work that have been done by paulb and yourself, which is why I would have donated the money to you both.

I guess $50 is not much, but in terms of how it would be donated formally, I have no idea. I guess it would be similar to matt donating the money to NSWCA - a cheque from the ACF to the NSWCA

skip to my lou
08-03-2004, 08:54 PM
Firstly, this is not the ACF BB. So if you were donating to this BB you wouldn't be donating to ACF. :doh:

Garvinator
08-03-2004, 08:55 PM
can someone point me to where it actually stated that the $50 was to be donated back to some australian chess activity I thought that this idea was just that, an idea and a recommended suggestion. I did not think the winner was being told how they were to spend their winnings :hand:

skip to my lou
08-03-2004, 08:58 PM
PaulB recommended $50 for a prize. However I always thought how the money was spent was up to the winner.

chesslover
08-03-2004, 09:16 PM
Paul Sikes said that when he proposed the best BB for 2003 prize to the ACF, that he wanted the prize to be given back to Australian chess. The winner would decide to which activity it would go to.

That is what I had always thought. I did not know that $50 wqould go to the winner to do as they please. I had always stated that if I won I would give the money to the ACF website/this BB, and PaulB knew that too. If he was really corrupt (which I can guarantee 100% he is not) he would have given me the win as that way his chess activity wins

and yes i know that this BB is not the ACF website. I just equate them together because they are both about Australian chess. When I said that I was going to donate the money to ACF website/this bb, I meant share the winning equally between them

skip to my lou
08-03-2004, 09:18 PM
Umm, thanks, but no thanks.

arosar
09-03-2004, 07:56 AM
This is just hilarious!

I don't know what to make of youse people. How the hell was I supposed to have voted. I recall a while back asking CL what post he wanted me to vote for and he says to me, he said, "Number 22 please" (or words like that) and I replied affirmatively. What the hell's the problem? Nomination 22 it is. So just freaking count it and we can all be done with.

(Methinks I so need a net connection at home so I won't miss out on this. Whaddya boys reckon of TPG dropping price to $19.95/mth for ADSL?)

AR

Garvinator
09-03-2004, 08:06 AM
This is just hilarious!

I don't know what to make of youse people. How the hell was I supposed to have voted. I recall a while back asking CL what post he wanted me to vote for and he says to me, he said, "Number 22 please" (or words like that) and I replied affirmatively. What the hell's the problem? Nomination 22 it is. So just freaking count it and we can all be done with.

(Methinks I so need a net connection at home so I won't miss out on this. Whaddya boys reckon of TPG dropping price to $19.95/mth for ADSL?)

AR
be very careful about those cheap deals regarding broadband. i have seen them and they have very low MB limits. If you only do simple things, like view this, check emails and play chess, plus a few other things, you will normally struggle to stay under 500MB in a month. that is what i have found.

So i would be very wary of what the MB limit is for these deals. Usually they will say that there is an excess charge for going over the MB limit.

Rincewind
09-03-2004, 09:07 AM
be very careful about those cheap deals regarding broadband. i have seen them and they have very low MB limits. If you only do simple things, like view this, check emails and play chess, plus a few other things, you will normally struggle to stay under 500MB in a month. that is what i have found.

So i would be very wary of what the MB limit is for these deals. Usually they will say that there is an excess charge for going over the MB limit.

Yes, TNG's Broadband Value [sic] package has a limit of 200Mb/month. The excess charge is $150/Gb, which is quite high although this is capped at $40/month. So I guess their banking on everyone using 333Mb/month when they will be paying $40.

Garvinator
09-03-2004, 10:19 AM
Yes, TNG's Broadband Value [sic] package has a limit of 200Mb/month. The excess charge is $150/Gb, which is quite high although this is capped at $40/month. So I guess their banking on everyone using 333Mb/month when they will be paying $40.
I have not read the fine print of the deal you are talking about, but i would take that $40 to in excess of the standard monthly charge. So the total cost would be: average monthly charge+ excess usage= total bill for one month.

arosar
09-03-2004, 12:21 PM
Cheers boys. Actually, I think it is cheaper to be on the $49.95/mth + unlimited than the $19.95 one because that turns to be $59.95 / mth effectively. I think I'll be with TPG as they gimme the ADSL modem for free apparently.

AR

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 12:49 PM
This is just hilarious!

I don't know what to make of youse people. How the hell was I supposed to have voted. I recall a while back asking CL what post he wanted me to vote for and he says to me, he said, "Number 22 please" (or words like that) and I replied affirmatively. What the hell's the problem? Nomination 22 it is. So just freaking count it and we can all be done with.
PaulB made it quite clear in his thread "Voting for the Best Post" how people were supposed to vote.
Now in post 2 of that thread you asked CL which nomination he would like you to vote for and he responded in post 3 with Nomination 22.

However nowhere in that thread do you then acknolwdge that.
Nowehere in that thread do you say you are voting for Nomination 22.

Even if you did acknowledge him (which you didnt), your vote should only be counted if you voted as per Paulb's instructions. Any other form of vote should be counted as informal and invalid.

arosar
09-03-2004, 01:25 PM
Yeah, whatEEevah!!

Since I am a regular here I want my vote to be included. That's that. End of story. Sometimes you blokes just get me all upset.

AR

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 01:34 PM
Yeah, whatEEevah!!

Since I am a regular here I want my vote to be included. That's that. End of story. Sometimes you blokes just get me all upset.

AR
What vote?
You asked a question, he responded and you made no other comment.
I see no indication that you actually voted for CL on the BB at all.

arosar
09-03-2004, 01:47 PM
Listen here Bill. Stop being so friggin' stubborn OK. I know you don't like this fella CL very much - but what's it to you if I vote now and that's that? Huh? Sometimes Bill you're sooo unwise. You just have to freakin take on every single battle. It's ridiculous!

I vote now. Count it. End of story. Sheesh!

AR

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 01:54 PM
Listen here Bill. Stop being so friggin' stubborn OK. I know you don't like this fella CL very much - but what's it to you if I vote now and that's that? Huh? Sometimes Bill you're sooo unwise. You just have to freakin take on every single battle. It's ridiculous!
Its got nothing to do with the fact its CL.
Its just their is no evidence you voted for him.
No email to paulb and no post on the BB.


I vote now. Count it. End of story. Sheesh!

How can you vote now after the polls have closed last week.

Kevin Bonham
09-03-2004, 04:29 PM
How can you vote now after the polls have closed last week.

In fact there is a very strong argument for refusing to allow a vote after the polls have closed in this case. Knowing the results gives someone who has not voted a potential unfair advantage in making their vote more powerful by allowing them to direct it to a contender (if there was preferential voting this would not matter). If it cannot be proven that he voted before the deadline, he should definitely not be permitted to vote. Sorry AR. :p

chesslover
09-03-2004, 05:39 PM
This is just hilarious!

I don't know what to make of youse people. How the hell was I supposed to have voted. I recall a while back asking CL what post he wanted me to vote for and he says to me, he said, "Number 22 please" (or words like that) and I replied affirmatively. What the hell's the problem? Nomination 22 it is. So just freaking count it and we can all be done with.

AR

It is now official. We now know how amiel voted - he voted for my nomination 22 post

This means that my post has 3 votes (mine, Dr David and amiel). This means that it is equal first (assuming that no other votes for me was given which did not go "astray") with starter's post

Given the bitterness, hatred and name calling that has happened, I am not sure if a run-off election between my post and starter's is what australian chess needs right now. It should be a period of reconciliation and love, instead of another around of aggressive campaigning.

If Starter is happy, I am willing to forgo the run-off election between my post and his, and agree to share the award and prize for the best post of 2003 with him. I have a lot of respect for starter and am happy to share the prize and award for him

With my $25 (half of the prize of $50), I want it to be donated to paulB for anyACF chesswebsite work that he may see fit. PaulB has worked very hard and tirelessly in the interests of australian chess, and has made the world a better place

I also will not gloat that I have won - especially over Supreme Leader. Even though I polled a massive 300% more votes than him, and showed that 3 times as many people thought highly of me than him, I am prepared to be inclusive and not rub it in

Thank you for the people who voted for my post being equal first, and I appreciate your votes. This is very much a victory for you'll as for me and for electronic democracy/ Thank youu and God Bless

chesslover
09-03-2004, 05:46 PM
Yeah, whatEEevah!!

Since I am a regular here I want my vote to be included. That's that. End of story. Sometimes you blokes just get me all upset.

AR

EXACTLY!!

Bill is just being silly, or must be joking.

It is obvious that you voted, and that your vote has gone "astray". The intent of your vote is very clear - it was a vote for my post, nomination 22

You have now also reaffirmed and reconfirmed what the intention of your vote earlier was. Any fool knows who you voted for - my nomination 22 post

You are a regular, and have been one of the formost posters in the old ACF BB and this BB. Do not be cowed by SUpreme Leader's attempt to disenfranchise you

You VOTED, and you voted for me. The intent was clear to any idiot. And now repetaedly you have stated that you have voted for me. The case is simple.

Do not let Supreme Leader take away your fundamental right to vote and dictate terms to you. Stand up for your rights mate - I am proud of you dude

ursogr8
09-03-2004, 05:49 PM
All
In response to PaulB's e-mail I have advised him of my preference as detailed in the text pasted in below.
I was looking for an application of the funds that was consistent with a recognise-reward culture, rather than just having the money absorbed into general revenue of some appeal.
Thanks to those who took the time to advise me, but I decided I could see a definite individual who deserved to be recognised. Undoubtedly there are many others who should be recognised in the chess community; we should go out of our way to say thanks regularly to them.

starter
-------------------------------
Paul B
I have considered the application of $50, if your recommendation to the ACF is accepted, and would like to see it awarded to a fledgling tournament that started this year in Country Victoria. The AGE chess columnist noted that the inaugural Drouin week-ender had a turnout that was comparable with previous best Gippsland effort of many years ago. The driving force behind this event was David Bell who financed and managed much of the activities to make it a success. The link to junior players was achieved by David and this is a great beginning of what we would hope is an annual event on the calendar.
We should all recognise that David took a big chance and did a great job. The $50 is probably insignificant in relation to his costs and labour, but nevertheless is a tangible recognition to him that the chess community appreciated his volunteer spirit and energy in this start-up venture.

Regards
Trevor

Garvinator
09-03-2004, 05:51 PM
I am proud of you dude
I wonder if you will be saying this next time arosar disagrees with you? I dont think so.

Btw, arosar's intention to which post he voted for has been made after the polls has closed. that means it doesnt count.

What would you say cl if someone else who was a regular on here and said i voted for a starter post but my vote wasnt received/got lost, but my intention was to vote for starter's post? Would you be willing to accept that vote after the polls have closed :hmm:

ursogr8
09-03-2004, 05:54 PM
The case is simple.



CL

Our posts crossed in time as we must have been typing together. Good luck with your appeal and I hope calumny can be eschewed by all.

starter

chesslover
09-03-2004, 05:55 PM
All
In response to PaulB's e-mail I have advised him of my preference as detailed in the text pasted in below.
I was looking for an application of the funds that was consistent with a recognise-reward culture, rather than just having the money absorbed into general revenue of some appeal.
Thanks to those who took the time to advise me, but I decided I could see a definite individual who deserved to be recognised. Undoubtedly there are many others who should be recognised in the chess community; we should go out of our way to say thanks regularly to them.

starter

starter

but with all due respect, have you won? I think that your allocation and prize is fine and even though I am not a mexican I think that it si inspired

But given that it is now obvious amiel voted for me, as did Dr David and myself, that makes 3 votes for my post as well. This is the same as the votes you have got

At teh very least it is a tie for first place

chesslover
09-03-2004, 06:00 PM
Btw, arosar's intention to which post he voted for has been made after the polls has closed. that means it doesnt count.

What would you say cl if someone else who was a regular on here and said i voted for a starter post but my vote wasnt received/got lost, but my intention was to vote for starter's post? Would you be willing to accept that vote after the polls have closed :hmm:

No, arosar voted for me before the poll closed. he stated that as did Dr david. Amiel again showed that he voted for me, and then reiterated it.

That is different to someone who just shows up now and says they voted for person xxxx.

All of this voting was done by amiel before the deadline, and all he is doing now is clarifying the obvious intent of the earlier cast vote to others

chesslover
09-03-2004, 06:04 PM
CL

Our posts crossed in time as we must have been typing together. Good luck with your appeal and I hope calumny can be eschewed by all.

starter

thanks for your good wishes

I will be proud to share the first prize for the best post 2003 with you, and have a lot of time and admiration and respect to ypu

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 06:26 PM
EXACTLY!!

Bill is just being silly, or must be joking.

It is obvious that you voted, and that your vote has gone "astray". The intent of your vote is very clear - it was a vote for my post, nomination 22

You have now also reaffirmed and reconfirmed what the intention of your vote earlier was. Any fool knows who you voted for - my nomination 22 post

You are a regular, and have been one of the formost posters in the old ACF BB and this BB. Do not be cowed by SUpreme Leader's attempt to disenfranchise you

You VOTED, and you voted for me. The intent was clear to any idiot. And now repetaedly you have stated that you have voted for me. The case is simple.

Do not let Supreme Leader take away your fundamental right to vote and dictate terms to you. Stand up for your rights mate - I am proud of you dude
Hey you goose, can you actually show a post where CL explicity states he is voting for nomination 22 anywhere on this board after paulb asked for voting to begin.
The answer is NO.

chesslover
09-03-2004, 06:35 PM
Hey you goose, can you actually show a post where CL explicity states he is voting for nomination 22 anywhere on this board after paulb asked for voting to begin.
The answer is NO.

you are "mistaken"

We are not talking about me voting, but amiel

he stated that he voted before the deadline, said it was an affirmatuon that left no doubt about which vote he wanted to vote for(nomination 22), and then clarified it again repeatedly so that even you could understand

Amiel has contrinuted so much to australian chess, is a regular poster, and is a fine upstanding and delightful man. Yet you deny him his right to vote - are you upset that he did not vote for you and for me? :owned:

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 06:46 PM
you are "mistaken"

We are not talking about me voting, but amiel
So I mistyped it. That does not make me mistaken, just a lousy typist. :whistle:
It was supposed to say "show a post CL where AR".


he stated that he voted before the deadline, said it was an affirmatuon that left no doubt about which vote he wanted to vote for(nomination 22), and then clarified it again repeatedly so that even you could understand
So where is this so called post on the BB.


Amiel has contrinuted so much to australian chess,
You keep claiming this but I havent seen you provide any proof to support it.


is a regular poster, and is a fine upstanding and delightful man.
Yes, AR is a nice guy, so what.


Yet you deny him his right to vote - are you upset that he did not vote for you and for me? :owned:
Ha ha ha ha.
You are an absolute moron. :clap:
I never nominated any of my posts.
I never voted because I think this whole idea is a total farce. :hand:

However all that is immaterial because AR never actually voted.
Not via email according to paulb and not in any post on this BB.

chesslover
09-03-2004, 06:53 PM
this is what PaulB said when he called for votes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,

It's time to vote for the best post of 2003.

I've numbered the nominations in the best posts thread.

I assume that most people would prefer a private vote.

To vote, please email broekhuysep@bigpond.com and write your vote in the header of the email eg "Nomination 27"

In the body of the email please write YOUR OWN handle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The key word is paul's declaration that "I assume that most people would prefer a privatevote". If so they could vote by emailing him with the voting intention

In this case, Amiel decided he wanted to vote publically. It is not forbidden. He affirmed bravely and boldly declaring his choice to the world - he would vote for nomination 22

Thus his vote should be counted, as he voted publically and his intent was clear at that time when he voted. Today repeteadly this little gem of a man, declared that he voted for me. When Supreme Leader tried to intimidate him, this most wonderful man, looked at him in the eyes and refused to be cowed by bully boy tactics. Bravo amiel bravo :clap: :clap: Amiel again clarified that he voted then and the intention was to vote for him

Not coubnting Amiel's vote would be an extreme transgession againbst democracy and poor amiel

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 06:58 PM
this is what PaulB said when he called for votes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,

It's time to vote for the best post of 2003.

I've numbered the nominations in the best posts thread.

I assume that most people would prefer a private vote.

To vote, please email broekhuysep@bigpond.com and write your vote in the header of the email eg "Nomination 27"

In the body of the email please write YOUR OWN handle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The key word is paul's declaration that "I assume that most people would prefer a privatevote". If so they could vote by emailing him with the voting intention

In this case, Amiel decided he wanted to vote publically. It is not forbidden. He affirmed bravely and boldly declaring his choice to the world - he would vote for nomination 22

Thus his vote should be counted, as he voted publically and his intent was clear at that time when he voted. Today repeteadly this little gem of a man, declared that he voted for me. When Supreme Leader tried to intimidate him, this most wonderful man, looked at him in the eyes and refused to be cowed by bully boy tactics. Bravo amiel bravo :clap: :clap: Amiel again clarified that he voted then and the intention was to vote for him

Not coubnting Amiel's vote would be an extreme transgession againbst democracy and poor amiel
Hey dipstick,
Instead of carrying on with all this crap, just point to the actual post by AR where he states he is voting for nomination 22.

chesslover
09-03-2004, 07:08 PM
So I mistyped it. That does not make me mistaken, just a lousy typist. :whistle:
It was supposed to say "show a post CL where AR".


So where is this so called post on the BB.


You keep claiming this but I havent seen you provide any proof to support it.


Yes, AR is a nice guy, so what.


Ha ha ha ha.
You are an absolute moron. :clap:
I never nominated any of my posts.
I never voted because I think this whole idea is a total farce. :hand:

However all that is immaterial because AR never actually voted.
Not via email according to paulb and not in any post on this BB.

W-R-O-N-G Supreme Leader

interesting to note that when you are W-R-O-N-G, you have gone from saying you were "msitaken" to "just testing" to now being a "lousy typist". You are in denial Mr Leader

AMiel said he voted. His word is his bond. Are you calling him a liar? If not, then yu have to accept he coted for me. I have great faith in the integrity of Amiel, and would trust my life with this fine and distinguished gentleman

I do not know where his vote is. Maybe in some of the BB outages it vanished? technical problems happen you know

and Amiel contributes a lot to chess. He can prove it as seen by his credit card

the final result is he voted, he voted for me, which means that I am equal first with starter

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 07:17 PM
W-R-O-N-G Supreme Leader

interesting to note that when you are W-R-O-N-G, you have gone from saying you were "msitaken" to "just testing" to now being a "lousy typist". You are in denial Mr Leader

AMiel said he voted. His word is his bond. Are you calling him a liar? If not, then yu have to accept he coted for me. I have great faith in the integrity of Amiel, and would trust my life with this fine and distinguished gentleman
I am simply saying there is no evidence he voted.
Perhaps he just thinks he voted.


I do not know where his vote is. Maybe in some of the BB outages it vanished? technical problems happen you know
Ha ha.
Nice try.



and Amiel contributes a lot to chess. He can prove it as seen by his credit card
That just shows he supports chess businesses, not Australian chess.


the final result is he voted, he voted for me, which means that I am equal first with starter
Yes, I am sure your much espoused US Supreme Court would allow a persons vote based on no evidence other than their belief that they voted.

You are just a total self serving moron.

Garvinator
09-03-2004, 07:33 PM
I assume that most people would prefer a private vote.

To vote, please email broekhuysep@bigpond.com and write your vote in the header of the email eg "Nomination 27"

In the body of the email please write YOUR OWN handle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


unless i am mistaken ;) this post says that to vote, please email etc. that was the stated voting procedure

chesslover
09-03-2004, 07:36 PM
I am simply saying there is no evidence he voted.
Perhaps he just thinks he voted.

That just shows he supports chess businesses, not Australian chess.

Yes, I am sure your much espoused US Supreme Court would allow a persons vote based on no evidence other than their belief that they voted.

You are just a total self serving moron.
when a person supports australian chess businesses, he supports australian chess as well. That is easy to understand for most people

Amiel said he voted - this is what he said (I recall a while back asking CL what post he wanted me to vote for and he says to me, he said, "Number 22 please" (or words like that) and I replied affirmatively. What the hell's the problem? Nomination 22 it is. So just freaking count it and we can all be done with)

Now the fact that you cannot see the vote couldbe because of system problems, thatcaused his vote to vanish. That does not matter, for amiel said he voted and then repeated that fact many times

I am 100% convinced he voted

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 07:41 PM
when a person supports australian chess businesses, he supports australian chess as well. That is easy to understand for most people
Only a goose would make that connection.
He supports chess businesses.
That does not mean he supports australian chess.


Amiel said he voted - this is what he said (I recall a while back asking CL what post he wanted me to vote for and he says to me, he said, "Number 22 please" (or words like that) and I replied affirmatively. What the hell's the problem? Nomination 22 it is. So just freaking count it and we can all be done with)

Now the fact that you cannot see the vote couldbe because of system problems, thatcaused his vote to vanish. That does not matter, for amiel said he voted and then repeated that fact many times
He never said he voted, he said he replied in the affirmative to your post telling him to vote for number 22. Of course there is no evidence even of that.


I am 100% convinced he voted
Oh and of course you wouldnt be biased now would you, you goose.

chesslover
09-03-2004, 07:42 PM
unless i am mistaken ;) this post says that to vote, please email etc. that was the stated voting procedure
NO

PaulB said that he "assumed" that "most people would prefer a private vote", and then followed that up with a sentence asking people who wnated to vote to email him.

Most people would have read it as ONLY voting by email if they wished a private vote. Nowhere does it say that the ONLY form of voting that is valid is by voting to PaulB by email

Amiel is a brave fellow, and he does not mind publically showing who he votes for. That is the strength of charcter and integrity we come to expect from Amiel. He publically in a BB post stated that he was voting for my post.

It is a valid vote that was cast by Amiel, it was validly cast for me, and that means that I win. Even Dr David agreed with that, as he too knew that Amiel voted for me

That supports my claim, as one by one evidence mounts for amiel's vote for me

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 07:51 PM
NO

PaulB said that he "assumed" that "most people would prefer a private vote", and then followed that up with a sentence asking people who wnated to vote to email him.

Most people would have read it as ONLY voting by email if they wished a private vote. Nowhere does it say that the ONLY form of voting that is valid is by voting to PaulB by email

Amiel is a brave fellow, and he does not mind publically showing who he votes for. That is the strength of charcter and integrity we come to expect from Amiel. He publically in a BB post stated that he was voting for my post.

It is a valid vote that was cast by Amiel, it was validly cast for me, and that means that I win. Even Dr David agreed with that, as he too knew that Amiel voted for me
David has no evidence that AR voted for you.


That supports my claim, as one by one evidence mounts for amiel's vote for me
Crap.
There is no evidence he voted.
In fact there is no evidence he even acknowledged your telling him to vote for number 22.

chesslover
09-03-2004, 07:59 PM
David has no evidence that AR voted for you.



This is what Dr David said - "Yes, I demand a recount! I voted for CL and I believe Amiel did also, so where's CL's missing vote?"

This shows that teh fact Amiel voted for me was known well before the deadline

Also bear in mind before you set your vicious attack on him, that Dr David is a kind and intelligent man, who is a professional Doctor who saves lives and contributes far more to society than any of us here.

The fact that he also stated that Amiel voted for me, taken in conjunction with Amiel's empthetic and resounding affirmation are all evidence that he voted for me

I believe it is game over - or rather election tied?

Garvinator
09-03-2004, 08:03 PM
This is what Dr David said - "Yes, I demand a recount! I voted for CL and I believe Amiel did also, so where's CL's missing vote?"


you are a freak cl, david said by your post that he believed amiel voted for you. there is a big difference between believe and know. from this post, david cant say for 100% certainty that amiel did vote for you. He only believes it.

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 08:03 PM
This is what Dr David said - "Yes, I demand a recount! I voted for CL and I believe Amiel did also, so where's CL's missing vote?"

This shows that teh fact Amiel voted for me was known well before the deadline
He said he believed AR voted for you.
He does not say he knows AR voted for you.


The fact that he also stated that Amiel voted for me, taken in conjunction with Amiel's empthetic and resounding affirmation are all evidence that he voted for me
No evidence at all, just self serving arguments on your part.


I believe it is game over - or rather election tied?
The game has been over for ages.
You lost.

Garvinator
09-03-2004, 08:05 PM
He said he belived AR voted for you.
He does not say he knows AR voted for you.

stop copying my posts :p :lol:

chesslover
09-03-2004, 08:08 PM
this is more proof that amiel voted for me.

A most respected and intelligent man, Dr David said this "I had some trouble using the link and so sent a personal message to PaulB, to which he replied that all was well. Maybe he decided to discount it or forgot it? But what about Amiel, he said he was voting for CL - that would make 3, including CL himself?"

This shows that there were SYSTEM PROBLEMS at the time Dr david and Amiel voted. PaulB was made aware of this

And dr David said that ("Amiel, he said he was voting for CL") providing independent credible evidence that Amiel voted for me

take that in conjunction with Amiel's post stating that he voted for me - and there is now proof that Amiel voted for me in a time of system problems.

This I think is the Killer evidence that proves it. An independent and highly regarded man (a Dr no less - WOW) has said there were system problems when he voted. He also said that Amiel said he voted for me.

I respectfully ask Paul B to now certify the elecyion closed and declare me the winner with Starter. I am prepared for a run-off election but am very happy to share first prize with the always reasonable starter

skip to my lou
09-03-2004, 08:14 PM
Wait, PaulB, did you get my vote for starters post??? ;)

chesslover
09-03-2004, 08:23 PM
you are a freak cl, david said by your post that he believed amiel voted for you. there is a big difference between believe and know. from this post, david cant say for 100% certainty that amiel did vote for you. He only believes it.

look at this statement by AMiel today ("How the hell was I supposed to have voted. I recall a while back asking CL what post he wanted me to vote for and he says to me, he said, "Number 22 please" (or words like that) and I replied affirmatively. What the hell's the problem? Nomination 22 it is. So just freaking count it and we can all be done with.")

Here we can see that he is quite certain how he voted and can remember the vote exactly ("I recall a while back asking CL what post he wanted me to vote for") and then goes on to say in a very definite manner that when I replied number 22, that he "I replied affirmatively". It was obvious to Amiel what he did was vote for the best post 2003, and which post he voted for("What the hell's the problem? Nomination 22 it is. So just freaking count it and we can all be done with"). By not counting his vote you are deliberately making Amiel a second class person in his own country. This to a fine upstanding gentleman who has contibuted so much to Australian chess - take his money, but dont count his votes is it?

And then an independent and highly credible Doctor also comes to the scene and states, that he too knew that Amiel voted for me ("But what about Amiel, he said he was voting for CL"). Note that it now goes beyond mere beleif to a definite knowledge.

It has also been established that during this time that there were system problems, and that the kind and gentle Dr experienced this and informed Paul B himself of this (""I had some trouble using the link and so sent a personal message to PaulB")

From this we can establish that Amiel posted before the deadline, there was no doubt in his mind who or for what post he voted for, that David also saw that vote and there were system problems at that time.

All of this means that a valid vote before teh deadline was cast for me, and that I shoud thus be declared equal first.

Fair is fair. I won and I ask for all people to be fair and accept the verdict of Amiel.

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 08:25 PM
this is more proof that amiel voted for me.

A most respected and intelligent man, Dr David said this "I had some trouble using the link and so sent a personal message to PaulB, to which he replied that all was well. Maybe he decided to discount it or forgot it? But what about Amiel, he said he was voting for CL - that would make 3, including CL himself?"

This shows that there were SYSTEM PROBLEMS at the time Dr david and Amiel voted. PaulB was made aware of this
It shows that David had a problem not AR.


And dr David said that ("Amiel, he said he was voting for CL") providing independent credible evidence that Amiel voted for me
Yes but did AR actually vote either by swnding paul an email or posting on the BB. There is no evidence he did.


take that in conjunction with Amiel's post stating that he voted for me - and there is now proof that Amiel voted for me in a time of system problems.
Even AR wasnt sure that he voted.
He said :

Yes, I did vote for CL, didn't I? I said Nomination 22.


This I think is the Killer evidence that proves it. An independent and highly regarded man (a Dr no less - WOW) has said there were system problems when he voted. He also said that Amiel said he voted for me.
Ha ha killer evidence. David may or may not be highly regarded. The fact he is a doctor is irrelevant. He just belives Ar vioted for you he does not know.
In fact as shown above even Ar does not know if he voted.


I respectfully ask Paul B to now certify the elecyion closed and declare me the winner with Starter. I am prepared for a run-off election but am very happy to share first prize with the always reasonable starter
I just hope paulb makes a decison so all this can end.

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 08:27 PM
Wait, PaulB, did you get my vote for starters post??? ;)
Yes, your vote must have gotten lost in the same "problem :rolleyes:" that lost AR's vote.

skip to my lou
09-03-2004, 08:29 PM
Well Damn, then if AR's vote is counted then mine should be too! :)

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 08:33 PM
look at this statement by AMiel today ("How the hell was I supposed to have voted. I recall a while back asking CL what post he wanted me to vote for and he says to me, he said, "Number 22 please" (or words like that) and I replied affirmatively. What the hell's the problem? Nomination 22 it is. So just freaking count it and we can all be done with.")

Here we can see that he is quite certain how he voted and can remember the vote exactly ("I recall a while back asking CL what post he wanted me to vote for") and then goes on to say in a very definite manner that when I replied number 22, that he "I replied affirmatively". It was obvious to Amiel what he did was vote for the best post 2003, and which post he voted for("What the hell's the problem? Nomination 22 it is. So just freaking count it and we can all be done with"). By not counting his vote you are deliberately making Amiel a second class person in his own country. This to a fine upstanding gentleman who has contibuted so much to Australian chess - take his money, but dont count his votes is it?

And then an independent and highly credible Doctor also comes to the scene and states, that he too knew that Amiel voted for me ("But what about Amiel, he said he was voting for CL"). Note that it now goes beyond mere beleif to a definite knowledge.

It has also been established that during this time that there were system problems, and that the kind and gentle Dr experienced this and informed Paul B himself of this (""I had some trouble using the link and so sent a personal message to PaulB")

From this we can establish that Amiel posted before the deadline, there was no doubt in his mind who or for what post he voted for, that David also saw that vote and there were system problems at that time.
Crap.
David never said he saw AR's vote.
All he is stating is that he believed AR was voting for you.
Now it is clear AR did ask you what number he should vote for, but their is no evidence that he voted. He never even acknowledged your post.


All of this means that a valid vote before teh deadline was cast for me, and that I shoud thus be declared equal first.
No evidence he voted or attempted to vote.


Fair is fair. I won and I ask for all people to be fair and accept the verdict of Amiel.
Yes fair is fair. You lost.

chesslover
09-03-2004, 08:36 PM
Even AR wasnt sure that he voted.
He said :



Ha ha killer evidence. David may or may not be highly regarded. The fact he is a doctor is irrelevant. He just belives Ar vioted for you he does not know.
In fact as shown above even Ar does not know if he voted.


I just hope paulb makes a decison so all this can end.

RUBBISH

Amiel is sure that he voted - I have proved posts from him that say that

Dr David is sure Amiel said he voted for me, and I have proven that he did say that

I have also showsn that theere were system problems

You are the SUpreme Leader of our state, and yet instead of supporting the people in NSW, you want a post from another state to win. To this end you are happy to support the disfranchising of the vote of Amiel, and stop me getting the best post award. Why is that?

Are you traumatised that I got the highest vote in NSW, and 300% votes more than you. Are you jealous? Please say it is'nt so, for that would be petty

You should support the people in your own state, who are being denied the opportunity to have their votes counted. At least with Jeb Bush he had a brother who would benefit from disfranchising the Florida people he was Governor of, but what is your excuse?

chesslover
09-03-2004, 08:39 PM
Well Damn, then if AR's vote is counted then mine should be too! :)

you are an idiot

you are a good webmaster, and I respect your undoubted skills in this regard, but treating this as a joke and trivialising it lowers any respect and regard I have for you

Garvinator
09-03-2004, 08:39 PM
you are kidding, your last post is disgusting. no one should support a person who is wrong.

skip to my lou
09-03-2004, 08:40 PM
So if a new south welshmen is definately in the wrong (e.g lets say he/she is a terrorist) will you still support them?

skip to my lou
09-03-2004, 08:42 PM
you are an idiot

you are a good webmaster, and I respect your undoubted skills in this regard, but treating this as a joke and trivialising it lowers any respect and regard I have for you

You moron. Understand this:

1) You are an idiot (and a moron), not me
2) This IS a joke, and so are you
3) I dont have ANY respect for you, therefore why would I care if you respected me?

:owned:

Garvinator
09-03-2004, 08:43 PM
are you cl so keen to trust bill's judgement now regarding the nsw blocks votes at the acf agm :p :doh:

chesslover
09-03-2004, 08:46 PM
the electronic democracy nomination, was prefaced thus by the nomiantor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's a simple message, but a message of hope. Its a belief that as chess players with a mutual interest we can come together in a spirit of respect to work together to solve our problems. It supports a principle that anyone who has an opinion that they seek to further in the interests of chess has a right to be heard, indeed that we should be embracing anyone who wants to contribute to the cause.

Perhaps the fact it was overlooked is because the message is so alien to the present ACF practice. I know it has been the ACF's unofficial policy that all dissention should be treated with ridicule, profanities and derision, but one wonders whether an experiment in collective consideration and tolerance (and I can use this word any way I like) may be worth the risk.

This message is so out of left field for the ACF it deserves nomination for it's originality and boldness. If decency doesn't work then the ACF can always return to brutality. CL may not be the smartest guy around, but he is able to see over the bridge of his nose."

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

Were people scared of the message of opennes and inclusiveness that this message brings? is that why Supreme leader and a couple of others are running a virulent and vicious campaign to stop this from winning?

why are people scared of people power? is the establishment trying to stop the democratic forces from winning? Is that why there is so much opposition to this post from winning

The fact that Amiel is a person who is not an establishment figure may explain why his fundamental right to have his vote counted is being ignored

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 08:49 PM
RUBBISH

Amiel is sure that he voted - I have proved posts from him that say that

Dr David is sure Amiel said he voted for me, and I have proven that he did say that

I have also showsn that theere were system problems

You are the SUpreme Leader of our state, and yet instead of supporting the people in NSW, you want a post from another state to win. To this end you are happy to support the disfranchising of the vote of Amiel, and stop me getting the best post award. Why is that?

Are you traumatised that I got the highest vote in NSW, and 300% votes more than you. Are you jealous? Please say it is'nt so, for that would be petty

You should support the people in your own state, who are being denied the opportunity to have their votes counted. At least with Jeb Bush he had a brother who would benefit from disfranchising the Florida people he was Governor of, but what is your excuse?
This is the biggest load of crap you have posted yet.
I did not even vote in this farce so its a bit stupid for you to claim I am jealous.
As I have said repeatedly I think this whole idea of a prize is a total farce.
As for favouring a NSW person over another person, thats just stupid.
This prize has nothing to do with the NSWCA therefore I have no obligation to support a NSW person over any other person.

Howvere it has nothing to do with supporting starter over you.

Its a simple matter. There is no evidence that AR ever voted or even attempted to vote.

Finally as for disenfanchising AR's vote, their is no evidence he voted at all.
AR clearly questioned whether he had voted or not.

Yes, I did vote for CL, didn't I? I said Nomination 22.

Garvinator
09-03-2004, 08:53 PM
im growing very tired of cl's trolling on this stuff. if cl truly felt aggreived about all this, then he would copy the posts he thinks supports his argument and then send an email to paul b. but he hasnt done that. he keeps up trying to push a case that he doesnt have support with the other posters involved. Anyone with any sense would decide to change audience, but we all know that cl is a goose and a moron :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 08:55 PM
the electronic democracy nomination, was prefaced thus by the nomiantor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's a simple message, but a message of hope. Its a belief that as chess players with a mutual interest we can come together in a spirit of respect to work together to solve our problems. It supports a principle that anyone who has an opinion that they seek to further in the interests of chess has a right to be heard, indeed that we should be embracing anyone who wants to contribute to the cause.

Perhaps the fact it was overlooked is because the message is so alien to the present ACF practice. I know it has been the ACF's unofficial policy that all dissention should be treated with ridicule, profanities and derision, but one wonders whether an experiment in collective consideration and tolerance (and I can use this word any way I like) may be worth the risk.

This message is so out of left field for the ACF it deserves nomination for it's originality and boldness. If decency doesn't work then the ACF can always return to brutality. CL may not be the smartest guy around, but he is able to see over the bridge of his nose."

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



Were people scared of the message of opennes and inclusiveness that this message brings? is that why Supreme leader and a couple of others are running a virulent and vicious campaign to stop this from winning?

why are people scared of people power? is the establishment trying to stop the democratic forces from winning? Is that why there is so much opposition to this post from winning

The fact that Amiel is a person who is not an establishment figure may explain why his fundamental right to have his vote counted is being ignored
You are a total joke.
It has nothing to do with the nomination.

Its all to do with whether a vote should be counted.
A vote that there is no evidence ever occurred.
A vote that even the voter is unsure that he ever made.

chesslover
09-03-2004, 08:57 PM
im growing very tired of cl's trolling on this stuff. if cl truly felt aggreived about all this, then he would copy the posts he thinks supports his argument and then send an email to paul b. but he hasnt done that. he keeps up trying to push a case that he doesnt have support with the other posters involved. Anyone with any sense would decide to change audience, but we all know that cl is a goose and a moron :whistle:

I will email paul, and then leave it to him to decide

until he makes a decision, I will not post on this topic. I have said my piece.

I was also responding to soem inaccurate posts as well

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 08:59 PM
I will email paul, and then leave it to him to decide

until he makes a decision, I will not post on this topic. I have said my piece.

I was also responding to soem inaccurate posts as well
The only inaccurate posts were yours which were full of your self serving little rants.

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 09:01 PM
Perhaps paul should just re-open the voting until the end of this week, so that all those people who possibly had their votes lost can vote. :whistle:

skip to my lou
09-03-2004, 09:03 PM
Ha Ha

Kevin Bonham
09-03-2004, 09:19 PM
This I think is the Killer evidence that proves it. An independent and highly regarded man (a Dr no less - WOW) has said there were system problems when he voted.

Completely irrelevant but being a medical Dr shouldn't either add or detract from David's credibility or reputation on anything unrelated to that field, just as my possessing a PhD in biogeography doesn't make me an expert on computer system problems either.

If anyone wants an off-topic board discussion about the merit (or in my view, otherwise) of organisations like "Doctors For Forests" that trade on the reputation of medical doctors for political gain, bring it on!

Kevin Bonham
09-03-2004, 09:34 PM
im growing very tired of cl's trolling on this stuff.

Actually I find it quite entertaining.

Obviously no change in style from the previous fracas so I feel it is necessary to declare that the world ruling body FUBAR (Federated Union of Birdlike Argumentative Repertoire) has hereby awarded CL a GooseMaster norm for his superb performance on this thread. :clap: :clap: :clap:

Of course, posting nonsense on the BB is the slow, hard road to this prestigious title. One can instead automatically qualify by playing a tournament at more than 500 points below one's rating.

(I'll take the avatar and this whole stupid joke down if enough people complain. Sorry CL - I simply couldn't resist it any longer. :oops: )

Garvinator
09-03-2004, 09:41 PM
Actually I find it quite entertaining.well yes entertaining is another word, but is part of it that someone other than bill or you is putting cl to the sword. also the giving cl back what he dishes out has to have some humour value ;)


Obviously no change in style from the previous fracas so I feel it is necessary to declare that the world ruling body FUBAR (Federated Union of Birdlike Argumentative Repertoire) has hereby awarded CL a GooseMaster norm for his superb performance on this thread. :clap: :clap: :clap:
:lol: :lol: :lol:



(I'll take the avatar down if enough people complain.)
yeah i have a complaint, it is being shown for the wrong person :doh: :owned:

skip to my lou
09-03-2004, 09:46 PM
Can we start a new group? The GooseBusters? We will slap goose pics everywhere CL or any goose posts a 'goosey' message. Hows that?

skip to my lou
09-03-2004, 09:50 PM
KB = President
GG = V.President
KR = Webmaster

Kevin Bonham
09-03-2004, 09:55 PM
Can we start a new group? The GooseBusters? We will slap goose pics everywhere CL or any goose posts a 'goosey' message. Hows that?

Why pick on just one person? Are we not all geese sometimes? Let he who is without goose cast the first.

chesslover
09-03-2004, 09:57 PM
Perhaps paul should just re-open the voting until the end of this week, so that all those people who possibly had their votes lost can vote. :whistle:

hold on just a second sunshine

the election deadline was thursday, and the results were announced just a couple of days ago. The verdict was that starter was first and Matt second and I equal third

I formally concede and congratulate Starter on a fine win. Starter plans on who he is going to give the prize to.

Then allegations of voters not having their votes counted circulate and formal appeals are made. a recount is undertaken which then reveals that I am now equal second with matt. The election is then declared over and starter is told he wins. Starter plans on who he is going to give the prize to.

Then rumours circulate that yet another voter was disfranchised. Arguements start over whether the voter voted for me or not or even voted and is unresolved.

I then formally tell Starter that I take back my concesion speech, and that I "unconcede" my defeat.

Then voter Amiel stated that he voted for me. However opponents prove that the system showed he did not vote.

AMiel however declares that he voted, and is quite adamant that he did vote for me and declares that as he was disfranchised he wants to vote again.

Then counter objections are lodged stating that Amiel cannot vote again and that his vote was not really a vote as it did not confirm to the rules of the votes.

Then a source is found who can back Amiel's claim thathe voted for me. That source is immediately attacked, with people saying that he cannot be sure of this fact.

Then appeals are lodged shpwing that it was the intent of Amiel was to vote for me, that it was repeatedly clear who he was going to vote for and that this should be taken into account and I should get an extra vote.

Claims are made that the entire voting is too complicated and disadvatages people. Also it was stated that the rules on voting only applied to private voting, and that public voting was allowed before the deadline , with a public declaration of who they were going to vote for. It was also pointed out that since nothing specifically stated that anyother means of voting was specifially disallowed, amiel's public declaration that he was voting for me was a valid vote.

This is bitterly counter appealed with the leader of the state saying that if that is the case there should be evidence of amiel's vote for me in the BB. The Supreme Leader of the state is advised of bias, and having philiosphical differences with the winner. Supreme Leader declares his annoyance, and states that he is fair and just.

Then there comes evidence of system problems, which might explain why Amiel's vote was not counted or received or seen. The arguement that amiel's declaration that he voted for me, his clear intention that he was going to vote for my post should also be taken into account are all raised

Then idiots appear saying that they too are disfranchised and that they want their votes counted too

Starter then declares who he will give the prize too. Promptly the other side declared that it is not valid as he did not win yet, and declare who they too will give the prizemoney too.

Witness and expert testimonmy are all dragged out to bloseter the aarguements of each side. The election commissioner is accused of being evil, partisan, biaised etc. The

Allegationns of electoral abuse, right wing/ left wing conspiracy, corruption, gooses, morans, dicatorship etc etc are made and suspicion and division is rife

Now a call is made for the election date to be extended so that people who had system problems can vote

This is becoming more entertaining (or agonising) than the Florida 2000 election :lol:

I think it is time the Supreme COurt equivalent here, made a final decision and brought this to an end.

Both parties have made their points - let the Judge decide

i will abide by his decision

Garvinator
09-03-2004, 09:58 PM
Why pick on just one person? Are we not all geese sometimes? Let he who is without goose cast the first.
not sure about this one, but still even if we are all goose sometimes, at least most ppl have the sense to realise they have been goosed and admit defeat. ;)

skip to my lou
09-03-2004, 09:58 PM
Why pick on just one person? Are we not all geese sometimes? Let he who is without goose cast the first.

"or any goose posts a 'goosey' message"

skip to my lou
09-03-2004, 10:01 PM
I thought the goose wasn't posting here till PaulB sorts this joke out?

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 10:02 PM
KB = President
GG = V.President
KR = Webmaster
Hey dont I get a mention. ;)

Maybe I could be the Founder or the Patron. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
09-03-2004, 10:02 PM
"or any goose posts a 'goosey' message"

Yeah I know, I tried to fix that bit but kept getting "invalid post specified" when I tried. Weird, huh?

CL - very witty. This is all making Florida look like chickenfeed. Actually another parallel to Florida - in Florida there were concerns about double-ups in electoral responsibility. Here PB is both the appeals judge and the original returning officer. :eek:

Hey CL - are you allowed to appeal on this one? If not, will you be posting Jeo's phone number so people who dislike your treatment can ring him up and ask him to withdraw his support for this BB group?

skip to my lou
09-03-2004, 10:04 PM
Hey dont I get a mention. ;)

Maybe I could be the Founder or the Patron. :lol:

I'll start a new thread. They got a system like this over at BoS.

You can be whatever you want to be! Just PM me what you want to be... look at the new thread in a few mins.

Cat
09-03-2004, 10:09 PM
It is now clear from Amiel that he believed in good faith he had registered a vote for CL. He posted his intent to do so on prior to the vote, posted again in response to PaulB announcement that the poll had been opened and now has clearly posted that he believed he had registered a vote.

As Amiel is a regular contributor to the BB, it would be undemocratic to deny his vote as a result of what is essentially a technicality. It appears from PaulB that he only suggests using the link, not demands it. As such there is no clear indication as to what actually constitutes a vote. Without such definition, it is simply a matter of opinion as to the correct method of voting.

In these circumstances, it is appropriate that Amiel's vote is taken in good faith. Either Starter is the winner of 'The Bulletin Board minus one" or we have a tie!

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 10:14 PM
hold on just a second sunshine

the election deadline was thursday, and the results were announced just a couple of days ago. The verdict was that starter was first and Matt second and I equal third

I formally concede and congratulate Starter on a fine win. Starter plans on who he is going to give the prize too.

Then allegations of voters not having their votes counted circulate and formal appeals are made. a recount is undertaken which then reveals that I am now equal second with matt. The election is then declared over and starter is told he wins.

Then rumours circulate that yet another voter was disfranchised. Arguements start over whether the voter voted for me or not or even voted and is unresolved.

I then formally tell Starter that I take back my concesion speech, and that I "unconcede" my defeat.

Then voter Amiel stated that he voted for me. However opponents prove that the system showed he did not vote.

AMiel however declares that he voted, and is quite adamant that he did vote for me and declares that as he was disfranchised he wants to vote again.
You are very good at presenting facts not in evidence.
AR makes it clear he does not know if he voted or not.


Then counter objections are lodged stating that Amiel cannot vote again and that his vote was not really a vote as it did not confirm to the rules of the votes.

Then a source is found who can back Amiel's claim thathe voted for me. That source is immediately attacked, with people saying that he cannot be sure of this fact.

Then appeals are lodged shpwing that it was the intent of Amiel was to vote for me, that it was repeatedly clear who he was going to vote for and that this should be taken into account and I should get an extra vote.
This is all rubbish.
David is no source. He just eblives AR voted, he has no evidence that AR voted.


Also it was stated that the rules on voting only applied to private voting, and that public voting was allowed with a person before the deadline declaring who they could vote for. It was also pointed out that since nothing stated that anyother means of voting was specifially disallowed, amiel's public declaration that he was voting for me was a valid vote.

This is bitterly counter appealed with the leader of the state saying that if that is the case there should be evidence of amiel's vote for me in the BB.

Then there comes evidence of system problems, which might explain why Amiel's vote was not counted or received or seen. The arguement that amiel's declaration that he voted for me, his clear intention that he was going to vote for my post should also be taken into account are all raised
Again this is just more rubbish.
Their is no evidence he ever voted or even attempted to vote.
He did not even acknowledge your post telling him how to vote.


Then idiots appear saying that they too are disfranchised and that they want their votes counted too
Why call them idiots you goose.
Perhaps they are just unfortunate victim of circumstances.


Witmess and expert testimonmy are all dragged out to bloseter the aarguements of each side.

Allegationns of electoral abuse, right wing/ left wing conspiracy, corruption, gooses, morans, dicatorship etc etc are made and suspicion and division is rife

Now a call is made for the election date to be extended so that people who had system problems can vote

This is becoming more entertaining (or agonising) than the Florida 2000 election :lol:

I think it is time the Supreme COurt equivalent here, made a final decision and brought this to an end.

Both parties have made their points - let the Judge decide

i will abide by his decision
You better pray to your God it isnt Judge Dredd.

Trent Parker
09-03-2004, 10:18 PM
You are very good at presenting facts not in evidence.
AR makes it clear he does not know if he voted or not.


This is all rubbish.
David is no source. He just eblives AR voted, he has no evidence that AR voted.


Again this is just more rubbish.
Their is no evidence he ever voted or even attempted to vote.
He did not even acknowledge your post telling him how to vote.


Why call them idiots you goose.
Perhaps they are just unfortunate victim of circumstances.


You better pray to your God it isnt Judge Dredd.
an adequate emoticon :pray: :lol: :pray:

HEY JEO, THE PRAY EMOTICON DOES NOT WORK. damn.

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 10:18 PM
It is now clear from Amiel that he believed in good faith he had registered a vote for CL. He posted his intent to do so on prior to the vote, posted again in response to PaulB announcement that the poll had been opened and now has clearly posted that he believed he had registered a vote.

As Amiel is a regular contributor to the BB, it would be undemocratic to deny his vote as a result of what is essentially a technicality. It appears from PaulB that he only suggests using the link, not demands it. As such there is no clear indication as to what actually constitutes a vote. Without such definition, it is simply a matter of opinion as to the correct method of voting.
Even so after CL informed AR to vote for number 22, there is nothing by AR on the board acknowledging it. He failed to vote in any manner whatsoever.
Why should his intentions constitute a vote.

chesslover
09-03-2004, 10:19 PM
It is now clear from Amiel that he believed in good faith he had registered a vote for CL. He posted his intent to do so on prior to the vote, posted again in response to PaulB announcement that the poll had been opened and now has clearly posted that he believed he had registered a vote.

As Amiel is a regular contributor to the BB, it would be undemocratic to deny his vote as a result of what is essentially a technicality. It appears from PaulB that he only suggests using the link, not demands it. As such there is no clear indication as to what actually constitutes a vote. Without such definition, it is simply a matter of opinion as to the correct method of voting.

In these circumstances, it is appropriate that Amiel's vote is taken in good faith. Either Starter is the winner of 'The Bulletin Board minus one" or we have a tie!

Just as I had lost faith in humanity, and was going to give up the fight, like a guardian angel you appear to fortify my spirit. Thank you very much

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 10:20 PM
Just as I had lost faith in humanity, and was going to give up the fight, like a guardian angel you appear to fortify my spirit. Thank you very much
Yes, instead of one we have the makings of a flock.

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 10:21 PM
an adequate emoticon :pray: :lol: :pray:
Unfortunately the pray emoticon does not work.

chesslover
09-03-2004, 10:22 PM
this just shows how important each vote is!

A vote either way could have made a difference in this very very close race. Never let it be said that you vote will not make a differnce, for it would have

skip to my lou
09-03-2004, 10:28 PM
Umm well think of another word that means pray and ill make it :thatword:

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 10:28 PM
Yeah 10 votes, 11 if AR's had been legal.

This really caught the BB populations imagination. :whistle:

chesslover
09-03-2004, 10:29 PM
CL - very witty. This is all making Florida look like chickenfeed. Actually another parallel to Florida - in Florida there were concerns about double-ups in electoral responsibility. Here PB is both the appeals judge and the original returning officer. :eek:

Hey CL - are you allowed to appeal on this one? If not, will you be posting Jeo's phone number so people who dislike your treatment can ring him up and ask him to withdraw his support for this BB group?

yes, and the coincidence just grows.

If appealed it will go to the ACF Council (the Supreme Court). Sitting in the Supreme Court is none other than Supreme leader. What do you think are the chances of him voting for me in my appeal? ;)

I am actually in the same predicament as Al Gore. I had more people intending to vote for me, and none were "hydra" votes as well

Also the Election Commissioner, the recount officer and the appeal judge are all the same person. Sitting in the powerful supreme court is the man who lead the campaign to declare me lost and not count Amiel's vote!!

In the end it came to not many people voting. Are there any Ralph nader votes here? people who got votes, which would have naturally gone to either me or Starter? What about Matt's role in this - who would his voters have gone to?

Kevin Bonham
09-03-2004, 10:34 PM
this just shows how important each vote is!

A vote either way could have made a difference in this very very close race. Never let it be said that you vote will not make a differnce, for it would have

Exxxxxxxxxxxactly. And that's why AR should have actually got off his hindquarters and voted properly (unless he did and his vote has been lost). Incidentally even if there were problems at Paul's end AR should still have the email somewhere, depending on where he sent it from.

Close elections do happen, though the last US Presidential election was probably the most remarkable example I've ever heard of. I scrutineered for a candidate who was elected as an Alderman by 11 votes out of the entire city of Hobart (17,000 votes cast).

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 10:37 PM
yes, and the coincidence just grows.

If appealed it will go to the ACF Council (the Supreme Court). Sitting in the Supreme Court is none other than Supreme leader. What do you think are the chances of him voting for me in my appeal? ;)

I am actually in the same predicament as Al Gore. I had more people intending to vote for me, and none were "hydra" votes as well

Also the Election Commissioner, the recount officer and the appeal judge are all the same person. Sitting in the powerful supreme court is the man who lead the campaign to declare me lost and not count Amiel's vote!!

In the end it came to not many people voting. Are there any Ralph nader votes here? people who got votes, which would have naturally gone to either me or Starter? What about Matt's role in this - who would his voters have gone to?
Well if you appealed then you would be appealing against the all wise all knowing, impartial and universally aclaimed fair play master, paulb.
Now paulb sits on the ACF Council.

Also sitting on the ACF Council is the equally wise, fair and head goosemaster the Grand Poohbah.

Finally Supreme Leader aka Obiwan is also on the ACF Council. He is unfortunately for you also all knowing, all wise, totally impartial and completely infalliable(if only this latter part extended to his chess) and is only swayed by evidence, data and the strict adherence of logic and rejects all emotional appeals.

Therefore overall it looks like any appeal you may lodge is stuffed. ;)

Kevin Bonham
09-03-2004, 10:39 PM
yes, and the coincidence just grows.

If appealed it will go to the ACF Council (the Supreme Court). Sitting in the Supreme Court is none other than Supreme leader. What do you think are the chances of him voting for me in my appeal? ;)

Well it will only go to the ACF Council if the President puts it on the agenda. And I reckon that on a slow day George might reckon this matter was weighty enough for about 20 seconds of his time. Fat chance.

Of course, you could convince your state representative to raise the matter for you. And your state representative is ...

Oh dear. You seem to be checkmated.

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 10:40 PM
Perhaps we should give a prize for the best poster at "hoovering" their fellow posters.
This could of course turn out to be a no contest. ;)

Garvinator
09-03-2004, 10:41 PM
Therefore overall it looks like any appeal you may lodge is stuffed. ;)
i think cl hasnt posted for a bit cause he is looking for a good lawyer so he can win his $50. off to the courts we go, where is my suit again :owned: :doh: :uhoh:

chesslover
09-03-2004, 10:43 PM
Exxxxxxxxxxxactly. And that's why AR should have actually got off his hindquarters and voted properly (unless he did and his vote has been lost). Incidentally even if there were problems at Paul's end AR should still have the email somewhere, depending on where he sent it from.

Close elections do happen, though the last US Presidential election was probably the most remarkable example I've ever heard of. I scrutineered for a candidate who was elected as an Alderman by 11 votes out of the entire city of Hobart (17,000 votes cast).

Election 2000 is something taht i will remember forevrer. It was so exciting and each day there was new twists - the certification of elections, the legal suits, the republican mob, counties recounting over and over, bias and corruption claims, systematic failures, appeals and counter appeals, the prospcet that both men would declare themselves leaders and prompt if not a civil war - at least a vicious partisan war, the enticements for electoral delegates to swithch sides. It had it all :)

Incidently I am claiming that there was no requirement for Amiel to send a vote by email to paulb, for that vote to be counted as valid. I stated that PaulB's suggestion to email him was only for people who wanted to privatly vote, and that it did not apply for people who wanted to publically declare their votes and vote.

David has mounted an even more sophisticated arguement in his very articulate, concise and intelligent response - "it would be undemocratic to deny Amiel's vote as a result of what is essentially a technicality. It appears from PaulB that he only suggests using the link, not demands it. As such there is no clear indication as to what actually constitutes a vote. Without such definition, it is simply a matter of opinion as to the correct method of voting"

Garvinator
09-03-2004, 10:47 PM
it is pointless arguing with an idiot, all they do is drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. seems very appropriate comment here :doh:

chesslover
09-03-2004, 10:49 PM
Well it will only go to the ACF Council if the President puts it on the agenda. And I reckon that on a slow day George might reckon this matter was weighty enough for about 20 seconds of his time. Fat chance.

Of course, you could convince your state representative to raise the matter for you. And your state representative is ...

Oh dear. You seem to be checkmated.
:lol: :eek:

yes it is like Al Gore trying to get the Florida Governor, Jeb Bush, to choose a rival electoral slate that is anti George Bush. Jeb Bush of course together with the electoral commissioner was in charge of President Bush's campaign in Florida

The state Supreme Leader of NSW, has been leading the campaign to not recognise the vote of his fellow stateman Amiel, and will have to be convinced to raise this matter to the ACF. My chances are between nil and buckley's I think :wall: :wall:

chesslover
09-03-2004, 10:52 PM
Well if you appealed then you would be appealing against the all wise all knowing, impartial and universally aclaimed fair play master, paulb.
Now paulb sits on the ACF Council.

Finally Supreme Leader aka Obiwan is also on the ACF Council. He is unfortunately for you also all knowing, all wise, totally impartial and completely infalliable(if only this latter part extended to his chess) and is only swayed by evidence, data and the strict adherence of logic and rejects all emotional appeals.

Therefore overall it looks like any appeal you may lodge is stuffed. ;)

but of course being fair, impartial judges and recognising the conflict of interest and partisan bias that may be levelled, you will excuse yourself from the Supreme Court ;)

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 10:54 PM
Whats really interesting here is:
1) The nominator of Nomination 22 (david) votes for it.
2) The person who was the original poster votes for it(CL).
3) Someone (AR) who cant even make up his own mind but has to ask the person in 2) how to vote, cannot then even bother voting either by email, PM or apparently on the BB.

Is it just me or does this not make a complete mockery of the idea that the prize should go to the best post, yet AR cannot even determine the best post by himself. :whistle:

No wonder this is such a complete and utter farce.

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 10:55 PM
but of course being fair, impartial judges and recognising the conflict of interest and partisan bias that may be levelled, you will excuse yourself from the Supreme Court ;)
No because being fair and impartial judges there is therefore no need fo us to excuse ourselves. :owned:

Cat
09-03-2004, 11:06 PM
Whats really interesting here is:
1) The nominator of Nomination 22 (david) votes for it.
2) The person who was the original poster votes for it(CL).
3) Someone (AR) who cant even make up his own mind but has to ask the person in 2) how to vote, cannot then even bother voting either by email, PM or apparently on the BB.

Is it just me or does this not make a complete mockery of the idea that the prize should go to the best post, yet AR cannot even determine the best post by himself. :whistle:

No wonder this is such a complete and utter farce.


Now this just sounds like sour grapes!

chesslover
09-03-2004, 11:12 PM
Whats really interesting here is:
1) The nominator of Nomination 22 (david) votes for it.
2) The person who was the original poster votes for it(CL).
3) Someone (AR) who cant even make up his own mind but has to ask the person in 2) how to vote, cannot then even bother voting either by email, PM or apparently on the BB.

Is it just me or does this not make a complete mockery of the idea that the prize should go to the best post, yet AR cannot even determine the best post by himself. :whistle:

No wonder this is such a complete and utter farce.

I think you are a little bit miffed tha you only got one vote

c'mon....admit it

share your pain with us Bill. It must hurt that not only did Matt get twice as much vote as you, but I got 3 times as much

Look, you cannot win everything okay. Sometimes there are people in this world who are better than you and you must accept that.

It is okay to cry mate. Men can crythese days

poor petal

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 11:17 PM
Now this just sounds like sour grapes!
And you just sound like a goose.

The whole situation is a farce.

Ar couldnt even be bothered to actually determine which was the best vote.
He had to ask for assistance.

skip to my lou
09-03-2004, 11:17 PM
http://www.chesschat.org/image.php?u=650&dateline=1078831992

The Goose Level Officer has spoken!

Gnite Folks.

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 11:20 PM
I think you are a little bit miffed tha you only got one vote

c'mon....admit it

share your pain with us Bill. It must hurt that not only did Matt get twice as much vote as you, but I got 3 times as much

Look, you cannot win everything okay. Sometimes there are people in this world who are better than you and you must accept that.

It is okay to cry mate. Men can crythese days

poor petal
You are just a complete and utter moron.
This whole thing was a farce.
Mainly thru your efforts.

Unlike you, i dont have issues with my boss, nor am I emotionally fragile like you and get traumatised and upset at a drop of a hat.

You poor pathetic goose.

chesslover
09-03-2004, 11:22 PM
And you just sound like a goose.

The whole situation is a farce.

Ar couldnt even be bothered to actually determine which was the best vote.
He had to ask for assistance.

I resent you calling David that

He is a kind and gentle and intelligent man, and I think he is one of the best inhabitants of this BB. He does not deserve to be spoken like that by you :mad: :mad:

make fun of me if you want and call me names, but not david. He is entitled to receive and expect courtesy :mad:

You may be upset that he has shown some of the shortcomings of your rating system, but you have to learn to divorce yourself from Glicko 2. A criticism of Glicko 2 is not a criticim of you.

And you should also learn to compartmantalise your life. Just because someone disagrees with you on one topic, you should not attack them in another issue on that basis

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2004, 11:28 PM
I resent you calling David that
I couldnt care less whether you resent it or not.


IHe is a kind and gentle and intelligent man, and I think he is one of the best inhabitants of this BB. He does not deserve to be spoken like that by you :mad: :mad: [/'quote]
Then he should not make such stupid statements.

[QUOTE=chesslover]make fun of me if you want and call me names, but not david. He is entitled to receive and expect courtesy :mad:
Ha ha thats rich the head goose leaping to the defense of one of its flock.


You may be upset that he has shown some of the shortcomings of your rating system, but you have to learn to divorce yourself from Glicko 2. A criticism of Glicko 2 is not a criticim of you.
You really do speak a load of crap. David has not shown any shortcomings in the Glicko system.


And you should also learn to compartmantalise your life. Just because someone disagrees with you on one topic, you should not attack them in another issue on that basis
If they make stupid statements then they deserved to be attacked irrespective of where the staement is made.

arosar
10-03-2004, 01:07 PM
I am sure I said somewhere, 'nomination 22, it is". See, KB here deleted some posts from here this thread a coupla weeks ago. I betcha he buggered CL back then by doing that. Look, whatever right, how the hec was I s'pose to know I had to freakin' email? This bloke Bill is just being a bully - always bullying CL for no particular reason. Just quit it and count me vote.

AR

Garvinator
10-03-2004, 01:42 PM
how is bill being a bully, even if he is being a bully, two other ppl highly involved in this thread are saying the vote should not count.

arosar
10-03-2004, 01:48 PM
Listen here you QLD state poster-boy for sticky-beaks . . . close your mouth!

AR

Garvinator
10-03-2004, 01:50 PM
Listen here you QLD state poster-boy for sticky-beaks . . . close your mouth!

AR
y should i?

Bill Gletsos
10-03-2004, 01:52 PM
Look, whatever right, how the hec was I s'pose to know I had to freakin' email?
Given the number of posts you have, It could be assumed you actually read posts. Given paulb asked everyone to email him at the start of the voting thread, one would assume thats how you were supposed to know to email your vote.


This bloke Bill is just being a bully - always bullying CL for no particular reason.
I see no reason why CL should be able to carry on like a total goose and not be called to account.

Also just ask yourself who is the most hysterical poster on this BB.

chesslover
10-03-2004, 06:02 PM
I am sure I said somewhere, 'nomination 22, it is". See, KB here deleted some posts from here this thread a coupla weeks ago. I betcha he buggered CL back then by doing that. Look, whatever right, how the hec was I s'pose to know I had to freakin' email? This bloke Bill is just being a bully - always bullying CL for no particular reason. Just quit it and count me vote.

AR

Good on you amiel. It is 100% obvious and clear that you voted. The highly respected David said the same as well. Thank you for voting for me. :)

In addition to Kevin deleting posts (when he may have accidently deleted your post), it was established as well there were a lot of system problems during that time.

And in relation to emailing paul B, very few people knew that. The wording was not clear and it was not obvious to many people that you had to vote via email to have your vote counted. Indeed reading it again, with the accumulated wisdom of participating in this thread, it is still not clear.

I think david said it best when he said this "It is now clear from Amiel that he believed in good faith he had registered a vote for CL. He posted his intent to do so on prior to the vote, posted again in response to PaulB announcement that the poll had been opened and now has clearly posted that he believed he had registered a vote"

david also said that "As Amiel is a regular contributor to the BB, it would be undemocratic to deny his vote as a result of what is essentially a technicality. It appears from PaulB that he only suggests using the link, not demands it. As such there is no clear indication as to what actually constitutes a vote. Without such definition, it is simply a matter of opinion as to the correct method of votingIn these circumstances, it is appropriate that Amiel's vote is taken in good faith. Either Starter is the winner of 'The Bulletin Board minus one" or we have a tie!"".

I think David has captured in just 2 paragraphs the entire points of this matter. Wonderful stuff David.

Whatever the system problems and the deletions undertaken by Kevin, it is obviosu you voted and oyu voted for me. Your vote has ensured that nomination 22 is at least equal first post of 2003.

However I am afraid that Bill will not allow that. For some strange reason he seems hellbent on denying you your right to vote, and stop mef rom getting the first place. I do not think there is anything that you or I can do that will make him see reason, and act fair and admit that your vote should be counted

paulb
10-03-2004, 06:14 PM
After some discussions with various people, here are revised results that hopefully should be acceptable to everyone:

Nomination 5 / Starter / 3 votes (1st)
Nomination 22 / ChessLover / 2.5 votes (2nd)
Nomination 3 / Matthew Sweeney / 2 votes (3rd)

I've counted Amiel's "vote" for ChessLover as half a point for two reasons:
1. Didn't follow voting procedure
2. Asking CL which one he should vote for seems a bit dubious to me

Another reason why Starter should win:
1. CL voted for himself, whereas Starter received three independent votes. Self-voting was allowed, of course, but it seems reasonable to count a self-vote as slightly less valuable than independent votes in a "tie-break" or disputed-result situation.

And a facetious objection, designed entirely to create another useless dispute for people to rave on about (what else is a BB for?):
1. CL made clear that he intended to assign any BB prize to my good self. This looks like bribery and should be discouraged :)
Besides, $25 or $50 is nowhere near enough :)

Cheers - PaulB

chesslover
10-03-2004, 06:25 PM
I've counted Amiel's "vote" for ChessLover as half a point for two reasons:
1. Didn't follow voting procedure
2. Asking CL which one he should vote for seems a bit dubious to me

Another reason why Starter should win:
1. CL voted for himself, whereas Starter received three independent votes. Self-voting was allowed, of course, but it seems reasonable to count a self-vote as slightly less valuable than independent votes in a "tie-break" or disputed-result situation.

And a facetious objection, designed entirely to create another useless dispute for people to rave on about (what else is a BB for?):
1. CL made clear that he intended to assign any BB prize to my good self. This looks like bribery and should be discouraged :)
Besides, $25 or $50 is nowhere near enough :)

Cheers - PaulB

Since starter did not vote for himself that indicates that he had no faith in his own post. He thought that against a qulaity post like mine his was not good enough, and by his absence of self-voting indicated that he preferred my post to his. :p :p This of course means that that is an "implied" vote for me, and should be counted to my post. :p

As for bribary, you have to start small and aim big. $25 was just the start :p
And it was not meant as a bribary, but as an "incentive" :p

And now that you have "half a vote", can you now be "half pregnant" or be "half a man"? :p

chesslover
10-03-2004, 06:30 PM
After some discussions with various people, here are revised results that hopefully should be acceptable to everyone:

Nomination 5 / Starter / 3 votes (1st)
Nomination 22 / ChessLover / 2.5 votes (2nd)
Nomination 3 / Matthew Sweeney / 2 votes (3rd)
Cheers - PaulB

Oh...yes....I forgot to say that I accept the decision of the Supreme Court Justice paulb. I think it is a fair decision consdiering the circumstances, and shows that paulB has the wisdom of Solomon.

I congratulate starter on the way he conducted himself during this very divisive and vicious campaign. He was a great credit to himself

Well done and congratulations Mr Starter

PS - now that I have the best post from NSW in this BB, will the Supreme Leader now start to treat me with more respect and admiration? I hope he does not fawn over me and be a s.uckhole to me, as I will be very uncomfortable if he did that and lose all respect for him :p

Bill Gletsos
10-03-2004, 06:39 PM
PS - now that I have the best post from NSW in this BB, will the Supreme Leader now start to treat me with more respect and admiration?
There were 10.5 votes for this crap out of the total BB posters.
Not a ringing endoresment.

As for having the most votes for a NSW post that is irrelevant.
The State of the poster was not an issue in any of this.

Somehow I doubt Matt would vote for himself.
Therefore I think his two votes are more meritorious than your 2.5. :clap:

Finally you will get treated with respect when you dont act like a goose. :whistle:

PHAT
10-03-2004, 06:45 PM
Somehow I doubt Matt would vote for himself.
Therefore I think his two votes are more meritorious than your 2.5. :clap:


Errrrrrr Ummmmm . I did vote for my own post. I thought it was good for its practical outcome. I did however have to flip a coin to make the vote and justify it with the weak plea of self interest. :oops: Maybe I should have voted for the other.

chesslover
10-03-2004, 06:51 PM
Somehow I doubt Matt would vote for himself.
Therefore I think his two votes are more meritorious than your 2.5. :clap:



Have you read my earlier post abput how not voting for yourself, indicates a lack of belief in your own post, and shows that subconsiouly you think that the other person's post was better than yours. Have you ever heard of a candidate for political office, going to the poll and not voting for themself? what do you think about that?

As for Matt not voting for himself, I think he did. I guess you are W-R-O-N-G, or make that "mistaken". Or were you "just testing" or being a "bad typist", excuses you have used to cover up the fact that you were W-R-O-N-G

Bill Gletsos
10-03-2004, 06:52 PM
Errrrrrr Ummmmm . I did vote for my own post. I thought it was good for its practical outcome. I did however have to flip a coin to make the vote and justify it with the weak plea of self interest. :oops: Maybe I should have voted for the other.
You disappoint me Matthew. :(
However I suspect you could care less about that. ;)

chesslover
10-03-2004, 06:58 PM
You disappoint me Matthew. :(


Heartbroken hey?

Poor Petal

Bill Gletsos
10-03-2004, 07:35 PM
Heartbroken hey?
Obviously not you cretin.


Poor Petal
I'm neither poor nor a petal you goose.
Now go away and try and think of a put-down all by your little self. :whistle:

chesslover
10-03-2004, 07:43 PM
I'm neither poor nor a petal you goose.
Now go away and try and think of a put-down all by your little self. :whistle:

then why did YOU call me a poor petal

I am not rich, but then I am not poor either - middleclass

Also I am a human not a petal

So why is using your own putdown against you wrong, yet when applied to me it is right :confused:

chesslover
10-03-2004, 07:45 PM
i thought that after 2000 posts (which I just passed, yay to me!!!), I get to nominate my own title if it is not rude. How come Bill was able to nominate his own title, while I cannot when he passed 2000 posts? :confused:

chesslover
10-03-2004, 07:53 PM
aha, I just figured it out (yay to me again)

Bill Gletsos
10-03-2004, 07:58 PM
then why did YOU call me a poor petal

I am not rich, but then I am not poor either - middleclass

Also I am a human not a petal

So why is using your own putdown against you wrong, yet when applied to me it is right :confused:
Because you goose you were claiming you were traumatised.

I simply expressed disappointment in Matt.

The put down "poor petal" is therefore meaningless in that circumstance.

ursogr8
10-03-2004, 08:41 PM
Well done and congratulations Mr Starter



Thank you CL.
And congratulations on your concerted campaign; the BB would not be the same without you.

In answer to your question where did I vote; well, I nominated a post from Barry and one from Matt that I thought showed humour and cleverness. It was natural that I had to support one of these and I did so gladly.

The process of allowing discussion of best posts allowed some gems to be resurrected and this was a genuine plus for our efforts last year.

starter

chesslover
10-03-2004, 08:47 PM
Thank you CL.
And congratulations on your concerted campaign; the BB would not be the same without you.

In answer to your question where did I vote; well, I nominated a post from Barry and one from Matt that I thought showed humour and cleverness. It was natural that I had to support one of these and I did so gladly.

The process of allowing discussion of best posts allowed some gems to be resurrected and this was a genuine plus for our efforts last year.

starter
I also think that it was a very good choice to give the prize to the Drouin organiser. very very very inspired and correct choice

Alan Shore
10-03-2004, 11:07 PM
Supreme emperor of all... such a pious title! I should make my title (x) For all n, x = n + 1, where n = CL's title :cool:

Cat
10-03-2004, 11:16 PM
Congratulations Starter, a worthy victor.

Bad luck CL! I thought you were hard done by, but you took it with good grace. Matt, your post would have certainly recieved my vote, if it weren't for some tough competition from CL! A happy end to a painful passage.

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2004, 01:52 AM
Have you ever heard of a candidate for political office, going to the poll and not voting for themself?

Yes. I can remember a few such cases. The most notorious being John Gorton, who famously used his casting vote to dismiss himself from office as Prime Minister after a leadership spill was tied.

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2004, 02:08 AM
I am sure I said somewhere, 'nomination 22, it is". See, KB here deleted some posts from here this thread a coupla weeks ago. I betcha he buggered CL back then by doing that.

All irrelevant now, but for the record, no - there have been no post deletions on this thread by anyone since the moderations closed.

It would be nice to be able to have a moderators' log here so you knew what we had or hadn't deleted, but some days it would simply be too much work.

Garvinator
11-03-2004, 10:54 AM
something that is rather humerous to me, cl is adamant that ar's vote shouldve been counted and has been all this time. Paul B comes on and says ar's vote is only going to count for .5 and cl accepts it. What a joke you are cl. Why did we bother replying to you at all if your opinion only counts for 0.5 :whistle:

ursogr8
11-03-2004, 11:15 AM
something that is rather humerous to me, cl is adamant that ar's vote shouldve been counted and has been all this time. Paul B comes on and says ar's vote is only going to count for .5 and cl accepts it. What a joke you are cl. Why did we bother replying to you at all if your opinion only counts for 0.5 :whistle:

Probably means that PaulB has an extra skill, rather than anything about CL?

starter

PHAT
11-03-2004, 02:46 PM
Yes. I can remember a few such cases. The most notorious being John Gorton, who famously used his casting vote to dismiss himself from office as Prime Minister after a leadership spill was tied.

and Billy Big Ears got the job. What a joke!

chesslover
11-03-2004, 07:39 PM
something that is rather humerous to me, cl is adamant that ar's vote shouldve been counted and has been all this time. Paul B comes on and says ar's vote is only going to count for .5 and cl accepts it. What a joke you are cl. Why did we bother replying to you at all if your opinion only counts for 0.5 :whistle:

so what do you want me to do?????? kepp arguing forever, and continue to fight and promote hatred and divisivness in this BB???

I find it ironic that I am subject to arttack for accepting the verdict of Paulb, and would have been subjected to attack if I contnued to fight the verdict of Paulb. Damned if you do, and damned if you do not hey?

And waht about poor amiel? he has just been declared half a man - he is not even a full man in the eyes of the ACF. Poor amiel

chesslover
11-03-2004, 07:40 PM
and Billy Big Ears got the job. What a joke!
serves John Gorton right for being so silly

If it was me, I would (with deep reluctance of course) vote for myself and cast the winnin vote

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2004, 10:34 PM
and Billy Big Ears got the job. What a joke!

Indeed. My grandad, who is still trying to find the Country Party on the ballot paper, maintains that Billy McMahon was the very worst prime minister Australia ever had and blames him for roughly the next 25 years of economic problems.

CL - the point of Gorton voting himself out was that his position was clearly terminal, had he survived that challenge he would have lost another within months.

chesslover
11-03-2004, 11:28 PM
CL - the point of Gorton voting himself out was that his position was clearly terminal, had he survived that challenge he would have lost another within months.

But you never can know that for sure

If a week is a long time in politics, whatabout a month??

Gorton could have reshuffled the cabinet, bribed Mcmahon's supporters with ministerial spots, started a war with Fiji. Who knows?

He should have casted the vote for himself - knowing full well while 50% of the party did not like him another 50% did not like Mcmhaon. As the PM he could have had greater power and influence the Mcmahon supporters to switch back, than Mcmahon

Gorton should have castthe vote for himself and fought on

Alan Shore
11-03-2004, 11:31 PM
serves John Gorton right for being so silly

If it was me, I would (with deep reluctance of course) vote for myself and cast the winnin vote

You would you self-absorbed patzer.. you'd kill your party's chances by taking such a stand. You only have to look at Simon Crean when he tried to hang onto leadership, things just got worse.. resigning was the best thing he ever did and now it's paying dividends for the ALP.