PDA

View Full Version : Comments/waffle on Best posts of 2003



Paul S
02-02-2004, 03:09 PM
In the opening post of the thread "Best posts of 2003", Paul B stated:


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.
__________________
cheers - paulb

Therefore, I thought it good to start this new thread so people can put their comments HERE as much as possible, so as to leave the thread "Best Posts of 2003" as free as possible for the actual posts themselves!

chesslover
02-02-2004, 04:57 PM
I think, and have consistently maintained it since you came up with the proposal for best post of 2003, that it should be interactive and democratic, and chosen by BB voters. The format I see having the most appeal in terms of audience particpation and ownserhip is modelled on the American Idol model

I think the phases should be as thus

1. submission of all candidate posts - say 2 weeks for the deadline for submissions

2. This BB has a poll feature to enable BB members to vote. I think that the maximum allowed options for polls is 5(?)

2a. If so group candidate posts randomly in groups of 5, and have a week of BB poll of the candiate post options - winner of the qualifying post stage goes to the semifinal stage.

2b. Have a run off election of second place candiates that got the highest poll numbers, with the winner also going to the semi-final stage

3. Have the semifinal grouped into groups of 5 as above, with the winner going to the finals. Also have a runoff for the second placed getters, with the winner also going to the final

4a.Have a final 5 that is availble for voting by the BB denizens, and have a week of voting.

4b. If any post gets more than 50% of the final figures that is the winning post of 2003. Otherwise have a run off election between the top 2 voted posts

Another variation is that instead of steps 2 and 3, a panel judges the final 5, and presents it for voting in a BB poll as per 4. That however will be a bit elitist, and not be full electrionic democracy

Rincewind
02-02-2004, 05:30 PM
I would have thought self-control and humility should have prevented people nominating their own posts as entries in the competition. One indiscretion can be over-looked I suppose (when posting 6 nominations) but 2 out of 2. Shame, CL, shame!

From now on, no more nominating your own posts. That goes for everyone, OK?

chesslover
02-02-2004, 05:42 PM
1. Barry, I nominated 4 posts, of which just 2 were mine. 2 indiscretions out of 1600+ posts is fine I think :p

2. I was going to nominate your Olympiad selection via ACC, but then realised that it was a 2004 post and would not be eligible for the 2003 contest :doh:

3. Fine I will no longer nominate my own psots, but how do you stop someone from having multiple aliases, and using one alias to nominate the post of their other aliases? :hmm:

chesslover
02-02-2004, 05:49 PM
has paul come up with how he is going to enable the best post of 2003 to be chosen?

If not can he or Jeo run a binding poll, whilst the nominations are being received on how it should be done?

There are basically just 3 sensible options for choosing the best 2003 post, with variations within these 3 groups

1. A panel chooses the final 5 nominees from the candiate posts, and then selects the best BB post for 2003 by itself

2. A panel chooses the final 5 nominess from the candiate posts, and then has a BB poll to enable the BB members to choose the best post of 2003. This could be just making the final post with the most votes the winner, or like American Idol/ football grand finals, having the top 2 vote gatherers run off against each other for BB votes

3. BB members choose a final 5 nominees by voting for the candidate posts through a series of polls. Then the BB members have a BB poll to choose the best BB post for 2003 - either via the post getting the most votes, or a final 5 runoff

chesslover
02-02-2004, 05:51 PM
by the way, posters can no longer run polls in this new version of the BB? :eh: :confused:

I thought that when we moved from the old ACF BB, we could run polls, but the new change seems to have disabled this option?

Otherwise I was going to run a poll on which of these 3 above options for selecting the best BB post, people liked most

skip to my lou
02-02-2004, 06:02 PM
by the way, posters can no longer run polls in this new version of the BB? :eh: :confused:

I thought that when we moved from the old ACF BB, we could run polls, but the new change seems to have disabled this option?

Otherwise I was going to run a poll on which of these 3 above options for selecting the best BB post, people liked most
:hmm:

Give me a min to look into it.

Bill Gletsos
02-02-2004, 06:08 PM
He is wrong. :rolleyes:

skip to my lou
02-02-2004, 06:18 PM
:eek: Something is wrong.

Even teh super admin cannot post poll! :doh:

Bill Gletsos
02-02-2004, 06:20 PM
Well I just posted a poll. Thats why I said he was wrong.

skip to my lou
02-02-2004, 06:34 PM
Yes... great :eh:

One of the forums disabled poll.. thats where I got caught, fixed.

And also you cannot post poll on reply chesslover, I think thats where u got caught. Gotta start new thread ;)

Rincewind
02-02-2004, 06:56 PM
1. Barry, I nominated 4 posts, of which just 2 were mine. 2 indiscretions out of 1600+ posts is fine I think :p

Your own two were the first two posted. I didn't see your next two or Garvin's indiscretion until after my post. I noticed it afterwards but also had to hurry away for some tea.

My argument is any nomination for one's own posts is too many. It would be too easy for posters to climb on their respective hobby-horses.


3. Fine I will no longer nominate my own psots, but how do you stop someone from having multiple aliases, and using one alias to nominate the post of their other aliases?

Hydras will be dealt with in the usual manner. :wink:

PHAT
02-02-2004, 07:16 PM
1. Barry, I nominated 4 posts, of which just 2 were mine. 2 indiscretions out of 1600+ posts is fine I think :p


Actually, it was 2 reasonable posts out of 1600+ indiscretions.

chesslover
02-02-2004, 08:26 PM
He is wrong. :rolleyes:

I was RIGHT

even Jeo stated so

Next time before you rush to pick on me and attack me, think whether what I stated is correct - which plainly it was in this case

The correct response should have been..."well I can post" not "he is wrong" and rolling your eyes at me. That is not fair Supreme Leader, not fair at all :sad: :sad:

skip to my lou
02-02-2004, 08:29 PM
I was RIGHT

even Jeo stated so

Next time before you rush to pick on me and attack me, think whether what I stated is correct - which plainly it was in this case

The correct response should have been..."well I can post" not "he is wrong" and rolling your eyes at me. That is not fair Supreme Leader, not fair at all :sad: :sad:
Actually you were wrong, because I was trying to post in News/Announcements, which has limited permissions and you were not.

chesslover
02-02-2004, 08:36 PM
Actually you were wrong, because I was trying to post in News/Announcements, which has limited permissions and you were not.

okay then why does it state that I can do the following only in this new BB?

You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

In the BB version you had before the transfer, it stated that I could also post polls?

I am very confused :confused:

skip to my lou
02-02-2004, 08:39 PM
a poll is part of the thread, you cant post a poll in a reply.

The new BB software is totally different to old BB. We used to run phpBB now we run vBulletin.

chesslover
02-02-2004, 09:36 PM
thanks Jeo

I figured out what to do now to poll, and all is well

chesslover
02-02-2004, 09:39 PM
there was a post by matt i was going to put into the best post of 2003, but could not find it...

the one where matt has "comma fun" with teh statement "I worship Jesus not satan" statement

even though the joke was at my expense, i still thought it was a very witty BB post of 2003

Rincewind
02-02-2004, 09:45 PM
there was a post by matt i was going to put into the best post of 2003, but could not find it...

the one where matt has "comma fun" with teh statement "I worship Jesus not satan" statement

even though the joke was at my expense, i still thought it was a very witty BB post of 2003

Do you mean this one?




Jesus is who I worship not Satan.

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.]

chesslover
02-02-2004, 09:54 PM
Do you mean this one?
yes :-)

I will cut and paste your post to the bst post 2003 thread

thanks

Rincewind
02-02-2004, 10:15 PM
yes :-)

I will cut and paste your post to the bst post 2003 thread

thanks

No worries. Did you ever say what sense was your intended meaning? :)

chesslover
02-02-2004, 10:55 PM
No worries. Did you ever say what sense was your intended meaning? :)

No, but I would have thpought it was obvious

Jesus is who I worship, not Satan :)

jase
02-02-2004, 11:33 PM
I was going to suggest that a 'best post' competition is a waste of time and the ACF's funds, but that's been said already.

I was going to say "who cares", since so few people do, based on the small clique of responses. But that's very pessimistic of me, and if one aspect of Paul Sike's concept here is to give credit to constructive posts, then this can't be a bad thing, potentially.

One wouldn't think that it would need to be said that it's rather poor form to nominate oneself, but... :hand:

I think I have the spirit of this award wrong [ie to reward constructive posts] based on some of the crap [in this sense, not constructive - funny maybe, to someone, somewhere...]. Of course "best" is so subjective that we'll all have our own idea of what standard of post measures up.

If we're to regard this as a piece of writing, then my [double :wink: ]standard is:
1. Constructive discussion of a significant topic
2. Well written

It's a piece of writing. An opinion piece. Use of language is important. Something well written allows the ideas to be presented in an economical fashion that makes it interesting to read. Easy to understand. A pleasure to read, even! The best post I've read on here [perhaps because it's quite fresh in my memory] is starter's piece on visiting the MCC. Gave me a great sense of the place, even though I haven't been there myself in 7 or 8 years. I'm not nominating it because it was written about a week ago.

If posters could restrict themselves to posts that ARE NOT THEIR OWN, and that enhanced or initiated constructive debate, then it would be great to read those posts again - obviously some very good posts have been made which get forgotten. Especially by the lunatics with +1,000 posts :uhoh:

For example, Paul Sike's general thread about the biggest problem in chess bore out some excellent written pieces.

Regarding judging, it's unfortunate this wasn't decided beforehand. First past the post would be good if there was a reasonable number of people voting, but there wont be. I think a panel narrowing it down to 4 or 5 and then first past the post is fair. If we go down the 'Idol' path we'll be here for months.

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2004, 01:23 AM
The best post I've read on here [perhaps because it's quite fresh in my memory] is starter's piece on visiting the MCC.

That one will certainly be in the running for 2004 if there's an award for this year as well, I thought that one was excellent.

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2004, 07:17 PM
Actually, it was 2 reasonable posts out of 1600+ indiscretions.

Actually one was reasonable, but the other ...

It amused me how CL not only nominated two of his own posts that probably would not have been nominated otherwise (unlike Paul S, whose biggest problem in chess thread would certainly have been nominated anyway) but also how the infamous NECG contact details post was one of them. I reckon that one would be a frontrunner for worst post of the year. Even firegoat would have trouble competing with that.

Garvinator
03-02-2004, 07:28 PM
I reckon that one would be a frontrunner for worst post of the year. Even firegoat would have trouble competing with that.
I dont know, fg7 first post would have to be the frontrunner for worst post of the year, followed my Matts incest post :hand:

chesslover
03-02-2004, 08:36 PM
I dont know, fg7 first post would have to be the frontrunner for worst post of the year, followed my Matts incest post :hand:

I think Matt's incest post was by farthe worst, where he tried to get pity and sympathy from others by lying. It still makes me mad that he suckered so many people with this :mad:

On the other hand my NECG post was grass roots democracy at it's best, fighting for the little poor australian chess family that just could not afford to appeal to the courts and have to live with the injuctice of an incorrect selection decision because the ACF abolished the appeals for NECG selection. It showed that the fact that the ACF stated that no appeals were allowed, did not mean that no appeals were allowed - as appeals could be undertaken to the NECG senior management

chesslover
03-02-2004, 08:43 PM
Bill and a couple of others have stated that people should not nominate their own posts?

But is that right? I do not think so

I think that a person should be able to nominate their own posts that they feel is particularly good or that they are proud of (within reason, maybe maximum of 5?)

After all who but the person who wrote the posts thinks how good it is? Bill has written a number of simply instructive posts on ratings, yet the one that was nominated was the one he did not think was the same quality as the others that he wrote. It would have been so much better for Bill to simply nominate a rating post that he thought was better than the rating post nominated by paul?

Also this is akin to the poltical process, or American Idol process, where candidates nominate and offer themselves for judgement

In addition if you leave it to others to nominate you they may simply miss your best post in the waffles of the threads that you posted it in

Thus I really think you should be able to nominate to a maximum of 5, some of your posts for the judgement and scrutiny of your fellow BB peers

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2004, 09:19 PM
After all who but the person who wrote the posts thinks how good it is?

If no-one but the author thinks it is good enough for nomination then it won't win anyway and therefore shouldn't be nominated.


In addition if you leave it to others to nominate you they may simply miss your best post in the waffles of the threads that you posted it in

If the post was not memorable enough for others to remember it (or find it) and nominate it then it is probably not good enough to win and again should not be nominated.

chesslover
03-02-2004, 09:33 PM
I am very disappointed that the admisn have taken to deleting a nomination for the best post 2003 - the NECG post.

It was nominated for the best post of 2003, and then deleted by one of the modertors (unsure which of the 3 liberals who moderate here did that) because they did not like what it stated

That is very very bad, and shows that the so called free speech and democracy that is bandied about is only allowed when the ACF agrees with this free speech and democracy :(

Shame on the ACF for this deletion of an ACF 2003 post nomination. What happened to the principle, "I might disagree with you, but I will agree with your right to say this"?

PAULB RESPONSE: Quite frankly CL, $7000 per annum from a generous private donor is more important than your free speech in this matter :)

Post it again and I'll ban you :evil:

chesslover
03-02-2004, 09:45 PM
If no-one but the author thinks it is good enough for nomination then it won't win anyway and therefore shouldn't be nominated.



If the post was not memorable enough for others to remember it (or find it) and nominate it then it is probably not good enough to win and again should not be nominated.

that i respectfully think is wrong. How many times have you seen people who others would have overlooked offer themselves for nomination and get elected or chosen in contests such Idol?

You have to offer what you think are your best posts, and if the panel/ BB members disagree then fine - that is democracy in action. If on the other hand these "hidden gems" are undiscoverd and not nominated, then others would not have the chance to look at them, and who knows - the eventual best post selected could be from them.

rather than limit it to other's nominating posts, I think that if you allow a person to nominate what they think it is their best post, then you will get a higher quality of posts for submission

chesslover
03-02-2004, 09:51 PM
one of my posts that was nominated for the best post of 2003 was deleted by the moderators, because they did not agree with what was said in that post.

When I then wrote a post in that thread to state that this had happened, that post was also deleted

well done...thank you for showing your tolerence for free speech and the opinions of others...(that was sarcasm by the way)

Chess Dad
03-02-2004, 09:54 PM
I am very disappointed that the admisn have taken to deleting a nomination for the best post 2003 - the NECG post.

It was nominated for the best post of 2003, and then deleted by one of the modertors (unsure which of the 3 liberals who moderate here did that) because they did not like what it stated



How can you say it was nominated when it was nominated by yourself. :naughty: You hardly have an objective view of the quality of the origonal post. :eek:

This is not a nomination at all but an attempt to resurrect a discussion which at the time raised a lot of critism and from recollection did not gain any support. :evil:

I did not support it at the time and I do not support it now for even being considerred for nomination. :snooty:

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2004, 10:03 PM
one of my posts that was nominated for the best post of 2003 was deleted by the moderators, because they did not agree with what was said in that post.

When I then wrote a post in that thread to state that this had happened, that post was also deleted

I deleted that second post because it was off-topic, and I had stated that I would delete further off-topic posts in that thread - this in response to your complaint about too many people posting material other than nominations. Have you no sense of self-irony at all? Had it stayed up it would have inevitably caused a flurry of off-topic responses from various posters. I was going to move it here but I see that you have already done so, therefore I have not bothered.


well done...thank you for showing your tolerence for free speech and the opinions of others...(that was sarcasm by the way)

Well done...thank you for showing your remarkable coolness under pressure and ability to appreciate the true substance of the issue ... (that was sarcasm by the way). :hand:

chesslover
03-02-2004, 10:05 PM
How can you say it was nominated when it was nominated by yourself. :naughty: You hardly have an objective view of the quality of the origonal post. :eek:

This is not a nomination at all but an attempt to resurrect a discussion which at the time raised a lot of critism and from recollection did not gain any support. :evil:

I did not support it at the time and I do not support it now for even being considerred for nomination. :snooty:

well EXCUSE me - who made you judge, jury and executioner for the judging of the 2003 posts?

The fact that YOU do not agree with this, does not mean that it is correct. The fact that others do not agree with this, does not mean it is correct. However the best post 2003 is a post that the majority of BB members will vote for, so if it does nto win, then fine - the people have spoken and the verdict must be accepted even though I may disagree with that

But the most important issue about the deletion of this thread is the censorship issue.

If the moderators do not agree, that is fine, and when the panel shortlists it will be weeded out. But to delete the post is pure vandalism, and brings back memories of the early days of this BB wherein Matt was kciked out, posts deleted, threads locked, entire threads deleted just because the admin did not agree with these

If the info I gave was defamatory or offensive I would be the first to agree that it should be deleted, as i would nto want to bring any harm to this BB. But this was publically available contact information

And I still stand behind my statement that the NECG squad like all ACF seelction should have an appeal process within the ACF to ensure that obivous errors are followed, so that expensive court appeals are not initiated. In the NECG case, however you have a defacto appeal board - the senior NECG management

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2004, 10:07 PM
that i respectfully think is wrong. How many times have you seen people who others would have overlooked offer themselves for nomination and get elected or chosen in contests such Idol?

Irrelevant comparison because here we have people doing the nominating who are in a position to have seen every post. In the case of trash like Idol only the individuals and their closest acquaintances may ever have seen their talents.


If on the other hand these "hidden gems" are undiscoverd and not nominated, then others would not have the chance to look at them, and who knows - the eventual best post selected could be from them.

Nothing is hidden, everything has been in public view before.


rather than limit it to other's nominating posts, I think that if you allow a person to nominate what they think it is their best post, then you will get a higher quality of posts for submission

Your own abuse of the process to renew your NECG campaign proves otherwise. :wall:

Chess Dad
03-02-2004, 10:08 PM
well EXCUSE me - who made you judge, jury and executioner for the judging of the 2003 posts?




Who said I was the judge. Isn't this thread to discuss the relative merits of posts so that people can make there own opinions.

All I have expressed is my own opinion

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2004, 10:16 PM
well EXCUSE me - who made you judge, jury and executioner for the judging of the 2003 posts?

This comment is utterly out of line, he is as entitled to express his opinion as you are. You have been utterly dogmatic on this and yet fly off the handle when someone else has a different version of events.

Chess Dad
03-02-2004, 10:17 PM
The fact that YOU do not agree with this, does not mean that it is correct. The fact that others do not agree with this, does not mean it is correct.


Well if there is anyone out there that agrees perhaps they can nominate your post.

The panel can then decide whether it is worthy to go forth and then the BB can have the last say.

But until someone else other than the originator nominates the post I don't think it should be considered.

Perhaps this should happen to all the other self nominated posts as well? :hmm:

chesslover
03-02-2004, 10:18 PM
Nothing is hidden, everything has been in public view before.



Your own abuse of the process to renew your NECG campaign proves otherwise. :wall:

ha ha ha ha - nothing is hidden indeed

this from the same person who DELETED the NECG post from consideration by the panel, because he did not agree with what was being said

is that fair? is that just? is that correct? is that consistent with free speech? or liberal values? hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite - shame, shame, shame, barbarian, barbarian, barbarian

i did not renew any NECG campaign. There was a best post 203 nomination process, and following in the footsteps of others I nominated 2 posts of mine that I thought were good - one of that was the NECG appeal post

Imagien my shock, horror, and dissapointment that one of the posts that was posted in 2003 was DELETED in a very cruel and insensitive manner - because YOU thought that it should not belong. Yet there was nothing wrong with that paste

very very very very bad Grand Poobah - very very very bad indeed. Power has corrupted you

chesslover
03-02-2004, 10:21 PM
To those who think that the censorship and deletion of the posts that the 3 ACF admins do not agree with this is not their problem, I say look at this wonderful poem that shows what happens when good people are silent in the face of injustice


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
03-02-2004, 10:24 PM
Bill and a couple of others have stated that people should not nominate their own posts?

But is that right? I do not think so

I think that a person should be able to nominate their own posts that they feel is particularly good or that they are proud of (within reason, maybe maximum of 5?)

After all who but the person who wrote the posts thinks how good it is? Bill has written a number of simply instructive posts on ratings, yet the one that was nominated was the one he did not think was the same quality as the others that he wrote. It would have been so much better for Bill to simply nominate a rating post that he thought was better than the rating post nominated by paul?
I totally disagree.

If a post is worthy of nomination then someone else will nominate it.
There is NO need for nominating ones own posts.


Also this is akin to the poltical process, or American Idol process, where candidates nominate and offer themselves for judgement
Enough with the @%&# American idol comparisons. :mad:
If I see another one I'm going to jump though the computer and break your fingers. :clap:

chesslover
03-02-2004, 10:28 PM
Well if there is anyone out there that agrees perhaps they can nominate your post.

The panel can then decide whether it is worthy to go forth and then the BB can have the last say.

But until someone else other than the originator nominates the post I don't think it should be considered.

Perhaps this should happen to all the other self nominated posts as well? :hmm:

hold on this is changing rules midstream. The original post for nomination did not state anything about self nomination - and even now does not

Then when others self nominate posts, there was no problems as it was "ACF correct". However when I nominate post, and one of them is critical of the ACF appeals policy and empowers the person who suffers due to the ACF no appeal policy, it is deleted. Think about that please

Deleted, because the admins do not agree with that..

Then there is a hue and cry about self nomination, and I am attacked for that - even though others have self nominated

Can you see how there is a dogma about no appeals, and that anyone who is "heretic" enough to challenge this or express their freedom of sppech is attacked, and their posts deleted?

very very bad indeed

Garvinator
03-02-2004, 10:33 PM
I have to agree with cl here. other posters have been able to self nominate their posts, so it should be applied to all posters and to all posts. To do otherwise is hypocritical.

that does not mean that any persons post will get past the first round of voting.

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 10:36 PM
To those who think that the censorship and deletion of the posts that the 3 ACF admins do not agree with this is not their problem, I say look at this wonderful poem that shows what happens when good people are silent in the face of injustice


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.

You are a complete and utter moron. :rolleyes:

The points are:
1) Dont nominate your own posts.
2) Dont repost something after a moderator hass deleted it. If you do I think a ban is warranted.
3) Your self nominated post wasnt deleted because the moderators and others disagreed with you, it was deleted because it was a self nominated post.


You can rant and carry on as much as you like. It just make you look like a fool.

You show a extreme degree of total intolerance to anyone whose view disagrees with you. As a supposed good Christian you should be ashamed. :doh:

I on the other hand am totally intolerant of morons, dipsticks and cretins. :whistle:
For that I make no apologies. :hand:

Chess Dad
03-02-2004, 10:39 PM
Then when others self nominate posts, there was no problems as it was "ACF correct". However when I nominate post, and one of them is critical of the ACF appeals policy and empowers the person who suffers due to the ACF no appeal policy, it is deleted. Think about that please




I am not ACF, and I do not believe the post to be of a quality worth nominating.

I believe the nomination process is flawed in allowing self nomination and therefore I am appealing the process. ;)


I have no problem with the subject of the post, or even discussing it on the BB, if it was argued in a reasonable manner. What I have a problem with is the way you went about it and therefore I do not believe it was a post worthy of nomination.

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 10:39 PM
To those who think that the censorship and deletion of the posts that the 3 ACF admins do not agree with this is not their problem, I say look at this wonderful poem that shows what happens when good people are silent in the face of injustice


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.
This is about the 3rd or 4th time you have used this poem in posts.

It is neither original or relevant.

It is old and stale.

Try something different in future.

chesslover
03-02-2004, 10:41 PM
I have to agree with cl here. other posters have been able to self nominate their posts, so it should be applied to all posters and to all posts. To do otherwise is hypocritical.

that does not mean that any persons post will get past the first round of voting.

thank you :clap: :clap:

at last a sane fair voice in this wilderness of unjustness :clap:

But given the fact that the 3 ACF admins (or one "rogue" ACF admin) has decided that they can now simply delete posts that they do not agree with, I would not be so vocal to voice any opposition to this unholy trio (or the rogue)

I still do not knwo WHY the post was deleted, as it was not offensive, defamatory and simply had information that was publically available to others...

I know that the Three Who Must Be Obeyed (or that rogue) may feel that they need not explain their actions (those that the God hate, they first make mad), but since this NECG appeal post was one that was posted in 2003, and self nomination is allowed, I think that what they diod in deleting the NECG appeal post was very very very bad, and does no credit to them

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 10:48 PM
hold on this is changing rules midstream. The original post for nomination did not state anything about self nomination - and even now does not
Perhaps it was just that paulb did not think anyone would be so crass as to nominate their own posts. :rolleyes:

chesslover
03-02-2004, 10:48 PM
You are a complete and utter moron. :rolleyes:

The points are:
1) Dont nominate your own posts.
2) Dont repost something after a moderator hass deleted it. If you do I think a ban is warranted.
3) Your self nominated post wasnt deleted because the moderators and others disagreed with you, it was deleted because it was a self nominated post.



ME a moron? HA HA that is very rich indeed, as your post above makes it readily obvious who the true moron is

1. There is NO rule about self nominating posts. NO RULE. It is ALLOWED. Others have done it before me, and after I have slef nominated

2. I DID NOT repost something after the moderator deleted it. I have followed the moderator's rules

3. WRONG WRONG WRONG. It was NOT deleted because it was self nominated. There are other self nominated posts in the ACF 2003 nominattions - including the grandslam self nomination posts. It WAS deleted because the Admmins (or the rouge Admin) did not like it.

Remember whilst you think it does not affect you, this could happen to you too - ask now for whom the bell tolls, for it tolls for thee too

WHO is the moron NOW? :mad: :mad:

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 10:48 PM
Hmm, by ACF admin do you mean CK Moderator? :hmm: :eh:

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 10:51 PM
I assume that is what you mean.

If you have a problem with a moderator, please PM me with details and I will try and resolve the issue.

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 10:52 PM
Hmm, by ACF admin do you mean CK Moderator? :hmm: :eh:
I would guess so.

chesslover
03-02-2004, 10:52 PM
Hmm, by ACF admin do you mean CK Moderator? :hmm: :eh:

Was it you who deleted the NECG appeal post in the best psot 2003 thread?

Yes meant the 3 ACF admins

chesslover
03-02-2004, 10:54 PM
Perhaps it was just that paulb did not think anyone would be so crass as to nominate their own posts. :rolleyes:

No, it does not mean that at all

It could also mean that paul did not mind if people nominated their posts or not

Has that occured to you?

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 10:57 PM
chesslover, please contact me by PM to resolve the issue.

btw It was not deleted by me.

Garvinator
03-02-2004, 10:57 PM
ok i think this is the post in question by Paul S who even says himself that he has self nominated.


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?

therefore if paul can self nominate, then others have to be allowed too. this does not mean that any other persons self nominated post will get through the first round of selection, but any persons post must be given a chance.

chesslover
03-02-2004, 10:58 PM
I am not ACF, and I do not believe the post to be of a quality worth nominating.

I believe the nomination process is flawed in allowing self nomination and therefore I am appealing the process. ;)


I have no problem with the subject of the post, or even discussing it on the BB, if it was argued in a reasonable manner. What I have a problem with is the way you went about it and therefore I do not believe it was a post worthy of nomination.

that is your opinion, and I disagree with that. I think self nomination is okay, and that the NECG appealpost was of a quality worthy of nomination, and for judgement by the panel/bb

we however will never know, for now it has been DELETED and taken out of the nomination process, because certain people were threatened by the free speech expressed in it, and by the fact that it introduced a loophole that made the entire ACF no appeal policy in relations to the NECG squad irrelevent

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 10:59 PM
ME a moron?
If the shoe fits. :owned:


1. There is NO rule about self nominating posts. NO RULE. It is ALLOWED. Others have done it before me, and after I have slef nominated
I answered this in another post.
As I said I doubt paul thought anyone would be so crass as to self nominate.
In fact you saw fit to do it multiple times.
Doesn't your God say something about humility. :whistle:


2. I DID NOT repost something after the moderator deleted it. I have followed the moderator's rules
I didn't say you did. I just suggested you don't.


3. WRONG WRONG WRONG. It was NOT deleted because it was self nominated. There are other self nominated posts in the ACF 2003 nominattions - including the grandslam self nomination posts. It WAS deleted because the Admmins (or the rouge Admin) did not like it.
You have no proof of that. It is just supposition on your part.


Remember whilst you think it does not affect you, this could happen to you too - ask now for whom the bell tolls, for it tolls for thee too
Actually that is just the little cuckoo clock going off inside your head. :whistle:


WHO is the moron NOW? :mad: :mad:
As Bugs Bunny would say "Looks like you Daffy". :owned:

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 11:04 PM
chesslover, please contact me by PM to resolve the issue.

btw It was not deleted by me.
I have to ask the question.
How can you resolve it?
Surely you wont restore it?

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 11:05 PM
therefore if paul can self nominate, then others have to be allowed too. this does not mean that any other persons self nominated post will get through the first round of selection, but any persons post must be given a chance.
My point is all self-nominated posts should be deleted.

chesslover
03-02-2004, 11:15 PM
chesslover, please contact me by PM to resolve the issue.

btw It was not deleted by me.

i sent now a PM to you and Kevin, appealing this deletion. and stating what happened...

Cat
03-02-2004, 11:15 PM
Isn't this supposed to be a fun thing? What does it matter that CL or GG nominate their own threads, for goodness sake? I love their brash enthusiasm, surely better that than no response. This thread is starting to look like a metaphor for Australian Chess. Let's just have fun!

Garvinator
03-02-2004, 11:19 PM
Isn't this supposed to be a fun thing? What does it matter that CL or GG nominate their own threads, for goodness sake? I love their brash enthusiasm, surely better that than no response. This thread is starting to look like a metaphor for Australian Chess. Let's just have fun!
hey david, i nominated one of my own posts, then it was pointed out that it was a 2004 post and would be ineligible :doh:

chesslover
03-02-2004, 11:22 PM
I answered this in another post.
As I said I doubt paul thought anyone would be so crass as to self nominate.
In fact you saw fit to do it multiple times.

You have no proof of that. It is just supposition on your part.


Actually that is just the little cuckoo clock going off inside your head. :whistle:




1. You cannot speak for paul B. If paul B had meant that no one shoudl self nominate, he would have said so. In the absence of that , we can only presume that he intended us to self nominate - if not he would have stated that in his post.

You are interpreting Paul's simple message to suit your own view

2. It is not supposition. If all self nominated posts are still there, and the only self nominated post deleted with out warning is the NECG appeal post, what conclusion would you draw?

3. I have no cuckoo clock in my place. That means that I cannot hear any cuckoo clocks, as there is none in my place

Cat
03-02-2004, 11:22 PM
hey david, i nominated one of my own posts, then it was pointed out that it was a 2004 post and would be ineligible :doh:

Bad luck, maybe you could find another one?

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2004, 11:22 PM
i sent now a PM to you and Kevin, appealing this deletion. and stating what happened...

Jeo agreed not to have jurisdiction over what was posted here so any role he would have in sorting it out would I assume be advisory only. If he overrides a moderator's decision he would himself be moderating.

I've received your PM and will respond shortly.

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 11:24 PM
Bad luck, maybe you could find another one?
Hopefully someone will nominate one of his from 2003. ;)

Garvinator
03-02-2004, 11:28 PM
Hopefully someone will nominate one of his from 2003. ;)
i dont see you rushing to find any :hmm: actually i cant think of any that i would put up for contention myself :uhoh:

chesslover
03-02-2004, 11:29 PM
Hopefully someone will nominate one of his from 2003. ;)

or he can self nominate ;)

which is ALLOWED under the rules

if not tell me what you want nominated, and I will nominate it for you

in return I will tell you what posts of mine I think are good, so that you can nominate it for me

shows how silly rules like this are ineffective huh?

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 11:31 PM
i dont see you rushing to find any :hmm: actually i cant think of any that i would put up for contention myself :uhoh:
Yes and you also didnt see me rushing to nominate my own posts. :hand:

Garvinator
03-02-2004, 11:35 PM
Yes and you also didnt see me rushing to nominate my own posts. :hand: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 11:36 PM
or he can self nominate ;)

which is ALLOWED under the rules

if not tell me what you want nominated, and I will nominate it for you

in return I will tell you what posts of mine I think are good, so that you can nominate it for me

shows how silly rules like this are ineffective huh?
Like two players deciding before a chess game what exact moves they will make in a pre-arranged draw. It would just show what a pair of clowns you both are and should bring you both nothing but condemnation by others. :hand:

Garvinator
03-02-2004, 11:41 PM
or he can self nominate ;)
which is ALLOWED under the rules
if not tell me what you want nominated, and I will nominate it for you
in return I will tell you what posts of mine I think are good, so that you can nominate it for me
shows how silly rules like this are ineffective huh?
I hope you are joking with this post :uhoh:

Why would i want to do this when I dont gain anything financially and have also agreed to assist Bob with the gp coordinators position?

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 11:45 PM
I hope you are joking with this post :uhoh:
I don't think he is. :rolleyes:
And its not an attempt at irony as CL made clear elsewhere that irony isnt one of his strong points. :whistle:

chesslover
03-02-2004, 11:55 PM
Jeo and kevin have resolved this issue about the deleted NECG post. Thank you :)

Kevin has explained why it happened, and even though I had no success with my appeal, and still do not agree, I accept the verdict of the umpire and the outcome

Also it was not Kevin the deleted the NECG appeal post, so I apologise unreservedly to Kevin for blasting him, and calling him a barbarian and a hypocrite. He did not even ask for this apology, yet I have wronged him by attacking him. Sorry Kevin and apologies

chesslover
04-02-2004, 12:01 AM
Like two players deciding before a chess game what exact moves they will make in a pre-arranged draw. It would just show what a pair of clowns you both are and should bring you both nothing but condemnation by others. :hand:

and so you have to bring in another rule - the no collusion rule, to follow the no self nomination rule. where will it stop?

See how simple it would be if there was self nomination, which is still allowed, and has not been prohibited by the way

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2004, 12:01 AM
Also it was not Kevin the deleted the NECG appeal post, so I apologise unreservedly to Kevin for blasting him, and calling him a barbarian and a hypocrite.
I guess that means then that either Paulb or Barry is the barbarian and hypocrite. :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2004, 12:05 AM
See how simple it would be if there was self nomination,
Sounds more like self gratification. :whistle:

Rincewind
04-02-2004, 12:08 AM
I guess that means then that either Paulb or Barry is the barbarian and hypocrite. :whistle:

I've always said I have no problem living in a oligarchy so long as I'm a member of the ruling class :wink:

But I can state unreservedly that it was not I. :whistle:

I confess I have WANTED to delete all self-nominations. It seems to be little more than a display of conceit and encourages poster to attempt to resurrect long-dead threads. I think if a post was good enough it will be nominated by someone else. However, I have not deleted any.

chesslover
04-02-2004, 12:15 AM
I confess I have WANTED to delete all self-nominations. It seems to be little more than a display of conceit and encourages poster to attempt to resurrect long-dead threads. I think if a post was good enough it will be nominated by someone else. However, I have not deleted any.

This is not a million dollar prize....

all it is will be to bring to the attention of the panel/BB , what a person thinks are the best posts of 2003....

If you give a person a maximum of 3 (just 3) self nomination posts then what harm is that? the individual will post that, and that is it - no discussion, nothing

If the panel/ BB members then think it is good it will be in the final or win - otherwise it will not get past the first base

The fact that if it is good enough it will be nominated, may not be correct for what if you cannot find the post, or cannot remember what thread it was posted in etc etc.

By self nomination, the individual can offer the posts (a maximum of just 3) to the judgement and scrutiny of his peers, and they can if they share his view vote for it, or reject it

At least YOU assess what YOUR best posts are and put it forward to the judgement of all - not some others, who by the way can nominate your posts as well.

Garvinator
04-02-2004, 12:18 AM
here is a way to get around this problem of self nomination. Everyone can nominate any post they like, including their own and then the panel(acf council or whoever) tosses out the self nominees first :doh: :wall:

chesslover
04-02-2004, 12:22 AM
I guess that means then that either Paulb or Barry is the barbarian and hypocrite. :whistle:

and neither paul nor barry are barbarians and hypocrites. I said all of this in the height of passion, as I was very worked up. sorry

Rincewind
04-02-2004, 12:33 AM
CL, This reply was repetitive and fails to address the points I raised almost entirely. Well done, even for you this is quite an achievement and no doubt this post will make it to the final list of best post of 2004.


This is not a million dollar prize....

True, so if you miss out by having a literary gem overlooked then no sheep stations are lost.


all it is will be to bring to the attention of the panel/BB , what a person thinks are the best posts of 2003....

Please look up conceited in a dictionary.


If you give a person a maximum of 3 (just 3) self nomination posts then what harm is that? the individual will post that, and that is it - no discussion, nothing

See resurrection of trolling posts point.


If the panel/ BB members then think it is good it will be in the final or win - otherwise it will not get past the first base

If it had a chance of winning it would be nominated by someone else. Have faith in the system CL.


The fact that if it is good enough it will be nominated, may not be correct for what if you cannot find the post, or cannot remember what thread it was posted in etc etc.

Again no sheep stations lost.


By self nomination, the individual can offer the posts (a maximum of just 3) to the judgement and scrutiny of his peers, and they can if they share his view vote for it, or reject it

Why waste the everyone's time? I think self-nominated entries will be tainted by the means of their nomination and you are actually reducing the chance that anyone would vote for them. But hey, that's just me. Perhaps most people disagree.


At least YOU assess what YOUR best posts are and put it forward to the judgement of all - not some others, who by the way can nominate your posts as well.

To save you some time...

conceited a have a too high an opinion of one's own ability, etc


Garvin,


here is a way to get around this problem of self nomination. Everyone can nominate any post they like, including their own and then the panel(acf council or whoever) tosses out the self nominees first :doh: :wall:

Does get around the resurrection of trolling posts issue.

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2004, 02:43 AM
Also it was not Kevin the deleted the NECG appeal post, so I apologise unreservedly to Kevin for blasting him, and calling him a barbarian and a hypocrite. He did not even ask for this apology, yet I have wronged him by attacking him. Sorry Kevin and apologies

Very funny actually - I didn't even see the barbarian post until now. Thanks.

There used to be a chess club in Hobart called the Barbarians. Their constitution had a clause that said that any member found not to have brought the game of chess into disrepute may be expelled.

chesslover
04-02-2004, 09:19 PM
I have decided after some thought and analysis that I will nominate some of the posts of mine that I thought were good to be in line for the best posts of 2003

I think that this is appropriate and teh correct thing to do for the following reasons:

1. Paul asked for nominations for the best post of 2003, and this included self nominations as well as external nominations. What I did was thus entirely within the rules of nomination, and is not wrong

2. Others have done it before me, and I only feel that what I am doing is within precedent that others have set before me

3. I feel that the poster knows best what his best posts are, and is thus best placed to nominate the best posts that they had posted in 2003. This is like the artist who nominates his best piece of work for judgement. If the panel/BB does not like it, that is fine as it is democracy in action.

4. Some posts are good but may have been forgotten by others, or may be difficult to find amongst the mass of other posts and threads. After all there are about 10,000 posts in the 2003 threads and it is like looking for a needle in a haystack. By self nominating you are allowing these people to remember these posts that they liked so much when it was posted so long ago/ could not find

5. this is also about self esteem and individual active action. If you think that it is good enough then you owe it to yourself that your post be nominated. To not do that is being unfair and demeaning to yourself and not valuing your own work and contribution, and this will affect your subconsious and through that every fibre of your life. By posting what you think is good, you are taking direct action and responsibility, rather than passively waiting in the hope that others will notice you and nominate you. This way you are not dependent on others and their actions, but are taking control of your life

To meet any objections, and to stop people psoting a lot of their own silly crap, I have decided to set an example for all, by unilaterally confining my self nominations to a maximum of 5 quality posts, and hope that others who follow will do the same, and exercise the same self imposed restraint as me.

Cat
04-02-2004, 09:50 PM
Look, I'm going to give CL my vote, he's convinced me. Tell me which one you want me to nominate and you've got it!

chesslover
04-02-2004, 10:29 PM
Look, I'm going to give CL my vote, he's convinced me. Tell me which one you want me to nominate and you've got it!

thank you :)

I have nominated 4 of my posts in the 2003 thread in keeping with my self imposed restrictions for considerations by the panel/BB. If people feel that they are worthless, fine but I have done my best and will know that what I have considered my posts will now be nominated - and even if I fail I will have no regrets. You only live once, and you have to make things happen, not pass life passively

jase
04-02-2004, 10:43 PM
[Un]fortunately CL's self-nominated posts are self-defeating, because the nomination of one's own posts marks conceit [BC; and in the extreme when one must rave on ad nauseum in justification], and an ironic vote of no confidence in one's own ideas, when the fear that no-one will love you strikes such fear that one throws up FOUR of their own posts.

Discovering this news is a stern discouragement for trudging through the BEST POSTS threads.

Rincewind
04-02-2004, 11:09 PM
Discovering this news is a stern discouragement for trudging through the BEST POSTS threads.

Outright despair is closer to the mark. :wall:

Still there is still the option of adding chesslover to your ignore list before reading the thread. You can remove him from the list once you're done reading the entries... or not, as you prefer. :owned:

Cat
05-02-2004, 10:23 AM
thank you :)

I have nominated 4 of my posts in the 2003 thread in keeping with my self imposed restrictions for considerations by the panel/BB. If people feel that they are worthless, fine but I have done my best and will know that what I have considered my posts will now be nominated - and even if I fail I will have no regrets. You only live once, and you have to make things happen, not pass life passively

Surely you can reduce it to 1 CL? After all, only 1 post can win.

jase
05-02-2004, 11:22 AM
Still there is still the option of adding chesslover to your ignore list before reading the thread. You can remove him from the list once you're done reading the entries... or not, as you prefer. :owned:

I was not aware of this feature. For the purposes of selecting the best post, I will add anyone who has self-nominated a post to my ignore list.

The process is surprisingly easy, for anyone who wants to block the posts of any forum member:

Click on "User CP" [top left menu function]
Scroll down the left-hand menu to "Buddy / Ignore Lists" - click it.
Type the forum member you wish to ignore. Eg "chesslover". Then click on the "Update Ignore List" tab.
You're done!

You may even like to leave this active well after the Best Posts saga has come and gone...

skip to my lou
05-02-2004, 11:27 AM
or just click on a members profile, and select "add this user to ignore list"

PHAT
05-02-2004, 11:30 AM
I urge everyone from using the "ignore" facility. It not for culling annoying people - it is for those who are truly giving you grief, not for creating you own private Xanadu in a public place.

paulb
05-02-2004, 11:34 AM
I guess that means then that either Paulb or Barry is the barbarian and hypocrite. :whistle:

I'm the barbarian. :evil:

arosar
05-02-2004, 11:37 AM
Look, let's just shut CL up and vote for him. I'm voting for you too CL.

AR

Thunk
05-02-2004, 11:38 AM
I urge everyone from using the "ignore" facility. It not for culling annoying people - it is for those who are truly giving you grief, not for creating you own private Xanadu in a public place.

mEntonE calling mr swEEnEy

hErE is an offEr.

i will switch you back on to my non-ignorE list if you will switch-off thosE attEntion-grabbing, vErtigo-inducing, homE snap-shots of your dog’s EyEs in your signaturE.

:rolleyes: :evil: thE HUNK :evil: :rolleyes:

jase
05-02-2004, 11:38 AM
Matt - fair point.

But blocking trolls is something I might do more often.

In this instance, I am only interested in reading posts that are genuine nominations for Best Post of 2003 - not the penmanship of some self-important geezer waving a big flag screaming "won't someone look at me!?"

Self-nominated posts are totally devoid of credibility and are a waste of my time.

skip to my lou
05-02-2004, 11:38 AM
I urge everyone from using the "ignore" facility. It not for culling annoying people - it is for those who are truly giving you grief, not for creating you own private Xanadu in a public place.
How anyone uses the ignore feature is solely up to them.

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 12:46 PM
Matt - fair point.

But blocking trolls is something I might do more often.

In this instance, I am only interested in reading posts that are genuine nominations for Best Post of 2003 - not the penmanship of some self-important geezer waving a big flag screaming "won't someone look at me!?"

Self-nominated posts are totally devoid of credibility and are a waste of my time.
The danger is jase that although CL nominated his own posts he also nominated other peoples posts. If you put him on your ignore list whilst reading the best post threads you may unintentionally miss those.

Perhaps it is just easier when reading the thread to mentally skip the post if it mentions at the top that it is a self nomination.

Rincewind
05-02-2004, 12:57 PM
I urge everyone from using the "ignore" facility. It not for culling annoying people - it is for those who are truly giving you grief, not for creating you own private Xanadu in a public place.

Did somebody say something? ;)

Rincewind
05-02-2004, 12:59 PM
The danger is jase that although CL nominated his own posts he also nominated other peoples posts. If you put him on your ignore list whilst reading the best post threads may unintentionally miss those.

That's right. In fact, replace the word "danger" with "bonus" and "may unintentionally" to "will also" and I would agree with you 100%.

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 01:04 PM
That's right. In fact, replace the word "danger" with "bonus" and "may unintentionally" to "will also" and I would agree with you 100%.
:lol: :lol:

ursogr8
05-02-2004, 01:27 PM
Did somebody say something? ;)


That's right. In fact, replace the word "danger" with "bonus" and "may unintentionally" to "will also" and I would agree with you 100%.

Jeez Baz
I nominate you for the top dog prize, and now I find you poking fun at two of the most influential posters on the board. They vote you know. And they could vote for your post.
Look at it this way, if you don’t win, and if CL does, what will 2004 be like.
Just cool it with the jokes, for a while, till the voting is over.

starter


ps
They were very funny, but. :clap: :clap: :lol: :lol:

PHAT
05-02-2004, 01:29 PM
How anyone uses the ignore feature is solely up to them.

Yes. However, we should encourage community ahead of cocooning.

You generation "Y" types think you are such cool individuals, but you are not. You are just scared and self-absorbed with a venere social responsability.

Rincewind
05-02-2004, 01:58 PM
Yes. However, we should encourage community ahead of cocooning.

You generation "Y" types think you are such cool individuals, but you are not. You are just scared and self-absorbed with a venere social responsability.

Talk to the :hand: 'cause the :) ain't listenin'.

Garvinator
05-02-2004, 02:16 PM
Talk to the :hand: 'cause the :) ain't listenin'.
dont go there girlfriend :cool:

skip to my lou
05-02-2004, 02:22 PM
:confused:

Barry is your girlfriend eh gg?

:eh:

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 02:26 PM
:confused:

Barry is your girlfriend eh gg?

:eh:
I was just waiting for someone to say that. :whistle:

skip to my lou
05-02-2004, 02:30 PM
I was just waiting for someone to say that. :whistle:

mmhmm

Garvinator
05-02-2004, 02:32 PM
:confused:

Barry is your girlfriend eh gg?

:eh:
i thought you would have known austin powers a bit more :p :lol:

skip to my lou
05-02-2004, 02:42 PM
:lol: I dont remember anything from movies.

chesslover
05-02-2004, 05:47 PM
Perhaps it was just that paulb did not think anyone would be so crass as to nominate their own posts. :rolleyes:

Now that Paul B has SPECIFICALLY stated that self posts are allowed, and that whether a post is self nominated or not, makes no difference - something that I have been stating here in this thread and which vindicates 100% my stance - I eagerly await your admission that you were wrong

Given that you have never ever admitted that you were wrong to me, I however will not be holding my breath

Howver I will tell you this///I TOLD YOU SO!!

DoroPhil
05-02-2004, 05:49 PM
Why don't we go back on-topic, which is, I believe, best posts of last year.

I would like to nominate all the posts by Bill Gletsos in the "Bill Gletsos versus Bill Gletsos" debate, in which Bill demonstrated that he is clearly superior than his opponent.

I also have some data to back up the claim that those posts are indeed the most humorous of the whole year.

Long live our Supreme Leader!

chesslover
05-02-2004, 05:54 PM
Look, let's just shut CL up and vote for him. I'm voting for you too CL.

AR

You should only vote for my post, if you think that it is of a high enough quality to be the best post. that is all

I have nominated a couple of my posts for your judgement, and if you think that they are better than the 20+ other posts, then vote for them. If not then do not vote for them

Either way it is electronic democracy, and the will of the majority that matters - and if I am in the minority position, then so be it, for the people have spoken

but thank you anyway for saying that you will vote for me, and I hope that this was based on the quality of my post

chesslover
05-02-2004, 05:57 PM
[Un]fortunately CL's self-nominated posts are self-defeating, because the nomination of one's own posts marks conceit [BC; and in the extreme when one must rave on ad nauseum in justification], and an ironic vote of no confidence in one's own ideas, when the fear that no-one will love you strikes such fear that one throws up FOUR of their own posts.

Discovering this news is a stern discouragement for trudging through the BEST POSTS threads.

whatever jason

do whatever you want. This is a democracy and you have the right to have your own personal opinion and free speech, just as I am entitled to the same right

read them/ dont read them. ignore me/ dont ignore me. attack me/ dont attack me. i do not care, for that is your democratic right

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 06:15 PM
Why don't we go back on-topic, which is, I believe, best posts of last year.

I would like to nominate all the posts by Bill Gletsos in the "Bill Gletsos versus Bill Gletsos" debate, in which Bill demonstrated that he is clearly superior than his opponent.
I dont think there was ever a thread with that title.
Wasnt it just a slanging match between Matt and I in a particular topic. :whistle:


Long live our Supreme Leader!
Arent you from Victoria, in which case I'm not your supreme leader, Gary Wastell is. :)

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 06:25 PM
Now that Paul B has SPECIFICALLY stated that self posts are allowed, and that whether a post is self nominated or not, makes no difference - something that I have been stating here in this thread and which vindicates 100% my stance - I eagerly await your admission that you were wrong
You just made an assumption. You had a 50% of being right.
You fluked one.
Obviously paulb did believe that people would be crass enough to nominate their own posts. Maybe he never considered anyone would be so conceited as to nominate 4 or is it 5 of their own posts.
Perhaps he didn't care because he possibly figured that no one would vote for a post nominated by the originator of the post.



Given that you have never ever admitted that you were wrong to me, I however will not be holding my breath
You got something right. :whistle:


Howver I will tell you this///I TOLD YOU SO!!
That doesnt make you right.
The majority of people think self nomination is crass.

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 06:27 PM
I have nominated a couple of my posts for your judgement,
A couple is 2.
You have nominated more than a couple.

chesslover
05-02-2004, 06:28 PM
I was just waiting for someone to say that. :whistle:

a very apt metaphor for this whole sorry self nomination sage

you will wait for someone to do something that you think should be done - a passive action, where you go with the flow and let life dictate to you what should happen

I on the other hand, like a brave few in this BB, take action - I do not wait for someone to do something that I think should be done - and do it myself - taking active control of my life and destiny, and living my own life

which is better?

After all when you die the thing you most regret is what you always wanted to do, but never did - not the things that you did and failed at

chesslover
05-02-2004, 06:38 PM
I confess I have WANTED to delete all self-nominations. It seems to be little more than a display of conceit and encourages poster to attempt to resurrect long-dead threads. I think if a post was good enough it will be nominated by someone else. However, I have not deleted any.

in the light of the thoughtful and wise decision by paul B where he EXPLCITLY stated that self nomination is allowed, do you have anything to say Barry? something like I was wrong would be fine. :p

I am quite prepared to forgive you, for we are all mortal humans and capable of mistakes - to err is human and to forgive is devine :p

Now that Paul B the organiser of this best BB 2003 post contest, has come out and SPECIFICALLY stated that my stance on the self nomination post is 100% correct and that it is allowed, it shows how important rules are to moderators. If you had deleted these self nominated posts using your Deputy Grand Poobah powers how would you feel now, after Paul has said self nomination is fine - feeling pretty silly huh? :p

That is why the only way to go is to follow the rules - and my interpretation of teh rules was correct. I would like to say that it was due to my superior analysis and intellect, but it was just common sense. Paul B stated that anyone could nominate posts, and as it did not exclude self nomination, that meant that self nomination was fine.

Rincewind
05-02-2004, 06:39 PM
a very apt metaphor for this whole sorry self nomination sage

you will wait for someone to do something that you think should be done - a passive action, where you go with the flow and let life dictate to you what should happen

I on the other hand, like a brave few in this BB, take action - I do not wait for someone to do something that I think should be done - and do it myself - taking active control of my life and destiny, and living my own life

which is better?

After all when you die the thing you most regret is what you always wanted to do, but never did - not the things that you did and failed at

Does anyone else think this sounds like a Delta Goodrem ARIA award acceptance speech?

Perhaps BB posters should get reality ratings (like credit ratings) ranging from "salt of the earth" to "off with the fairies". After this last post Moodies has just upgraded CL from "garden variety vanity" to "delusions of grandeur". ;)

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 06:40 PM
a very apt metaphor for this whole sorry self nomination sage

you will wait for someone to do something that you think should be done - a passive action, where you go with the flow and let life dictate to you what should happen

I on the other hand, like a brave few in this BB, take action - I do not wait for someone to do something that I think should be done - and do it myself - taking active control of my life and destiny, and living my own life

which is better?

After all when you die the thing you most regret is what you always wanted to do, but never did - not the things that you did and failed at
You cretin. :evil:
Anyone could clearly tell the intention of gg's remark.
The reason I said in that particular circumstance that I was just waiting for someone to say it was because it clearly didn't deserve to be said. :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 06:41 PM
Perhaps BB posters should get reality ratings (like credit ratings) ranging from "salt of the earth" to "off with the fairies". After this last post Moodies has just upgraded CL from "garden variety vanity" to "delusions of grandeur". ;)
:lol: :clap: :owned:

Rincewind
05-02-2004, 06:49 PM
in the light of the thoughtful and wise decision by paul B where he EXPLCITLY stated that self nomination is allowed, do you have anything to say Barry? something like I was wrong would be fine. :p

I am quite prepared to forgive you, for we are all mortal humans and capable of mistakes - to err is human and to forgive is devine :p

Now that Paul B the organiser of this best BB 2003 post contest, has come out and SPECIFICALLY stated that my stance on the self nomination post is 100% correct and that it is allowed, it shows how important rules are to moderators. If you had deleted these self nominated posts using your Deputy Grand Poobah powers how would you feel now, after Paul has said self nomination is fine - feeling pretty silly huh? :p

That is why the only way to go is to follow the rules - and my interpretation of teh rules was correct. I would like to say that it was due to my superior analysis and intellect, but it was just common sense. Paul B stated that anyone could nominate posts, and as it did not exclude self nomination, that meant that self nomination was fine.

Let's just say that Paul and I have a difference of opinion on this. I believe Paul is allowing self nomination based on two criteria.

(1) He doesn't want to spend any more time on this silly competition than he has to, so it is easier to leave the existing nominations than try to weed them out

(2) It is a competition on BB post quality not personal modesty so we shouldn't handicap the immodest

I understand and respect his position but do not consider any of my posts in this thread to be "wrong" or "silly".

I was not for this competition in the first place and only nominated a post which I thought would display how farcical the whole thing really is. When it changed from a BB posters' back-slapping competition to a self gratification session, its hard to imagine me caring about anything less right now.

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 06:49 PM
in the light of the thoughtful and wise decision by paul B where he EXPLCITLY stated that self nomination is allowed, do you have anything to say Barry? something like I was wrong would be fine. :p
Actually I think Barry is right and paulb is wrong.


I am quite prepared to forgive you, for we are all mortal humans and capable of mistakes - to err is human and to forgive is devine :p
Stuff that for a joke.
Don't get mad get even is a better motto.
Or perhaps revenge is a dish best serbed cold.


Now that Paul B the organiser of this best BB 2003 post contest, has come out and SPECIFICALLY stated that my stance on the self nomination post is 100% correct and that it is allowed, it shows how important rules are to moderators. If you had deleted these self nominated posts using your Deputy Grand Poobah powers how would you feel now, after Paul has said self nomination is fine - feeling pretty silly huh? :p
paulb isnt infalliable. :(
If he was he would have handled the changeover from the old bopard better. :owned:


That is why the only way to go is to follow the rules - and my interpretation of teh rules was correct.
Actually there was no such rule. It wasnt stated originally therefore it should not have been assumed.
Secondly your such a great one for appeals.
Therefore I appeal to the 3 moderators to take a vote on whether self nominations be allowed.



I would like to say that it was due to my superior analysis and intellect, but it was just common sense. Paul B stated that anyone could nominate posts, and as it did not exclude self nomination, that meant that self nomination was fine.
Just because it wasnt explicitly excluded didnt mean it was implicity included.

chesslover
05-02-2004, 06:49 PM
You just made an assumption. You had a 50% of being right.
You fluked one.
Obviously paulb did believe that people would be crass enough to nominate their own posts. Maybe he never considered anyone would be so conceited as to nominate 4 or is it 5 of their own posts.
Perhaps he didn't care because he possibly figured that no one would vote for a post nominated by the originator of the post.


You got something right. :whistle:


That doesnt make you right.
The majority of people think self nomination is crass.

1. Nope. I did not make an assumption.I analysed the post of paul B announcing the nomiantion process, and using common sense realised that it allowed self nomination, which I agree with on philosophical grounds.

Yet you and others just twisted his simple words to find meanings and interpretations that was just not there, just to reinforce your passive victim view of life. This saga tells a lot about the people who supported this viewpoint

And as it turned out, and as I knew all along I was RIGHT, and you were WRONG. This was not a surprise, an assumption but something that was clearly evident in the rules.

2. Now that the rules have been made clear in terms that you can understand (SELF NOMINATION IS FINE), you still sulk and carry on about it. You are like the kid who takes his bat and balls and goes home after not agreeing to a cricket rule

3. and like I said before it fdoes not matter if no one votes for my posts- i will accept the verdict of the people, and if they do not share my asssessment than I accept it. I note however that both arosarand davbid richards have expressed that they would vote for my posts

4. Rules are the rules. Simple. The fact the the majority of people think taht it is bad, is irrelevent for the RULES ARE THE RULES. If you do not like the rules, change the rules and I will obey the rules. Until then admit the fact that in relation to self nomination that I am right and you are wrong (see paul b's wonderful clarification of the self nomination issue)

The fat lady has sung, and the umpire's verdict is final - self nomination is fine, as I have always claimed

chesslover
05-02-2004, 07:01 PM
Actually I think Barry is right and paulb is wrong.

Actually there was no such rule. It wasnt stated originally therefore it should not have been assumed.
Secondly your such a great one for appeals.
Therefore I appeal to the 3 moderators to take a vote on whether self nominations be allowed.

Just because it wasnt explicitly excluded didnt mean it was implicity included.

you want to APPEAL????????????????? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

unfortunatly for you the ACF does not believe any more in appeals, so you will have to take us to the courts if you want to appeal a decision by the ACF

No spare thousand of dollars, or more important things to do with your hard earned money than appeal? oh what a shame indeed, I guess the decision will have to stand then, as if you feel that you are right you would have appealed :rolleyes:

How does it feel now that the boot is on the other foot? mighty frustrating huh? A salutory lesson, in the fact that unless you live in the other man's shoes it is hard to imagien how he lives.

There is no appeal from paul B's decision that self nomination is okay, so see you in the courts if you want to appeal this further...

now bye bye

I was RIGHT and you were WRONG. Paul B the ultimate arbiter has stated so, and the lack of any appeals has shown how correct he is

:p :p :p :p

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 07:08 PM
1. Nope. I did not make an assumption.I analysed the post of paul B announcing the nomiantion process, and using common sense realised that it allowed self nomination, which I agree with on philosophical grounds.

Yet you and others just twisted his simple words to find meanings and interpretations that was just not there, just to reinforce your passive victim view of life. This saga tells a lot about the people who supported this viewpoint
Ha ha ha.
You are such a fool if you would describe me as a passive victim.
Your "friend' who was having problems with his boss, now there was a passive victim. :whistle:


And as it turned out, and as I knew all along I was RIGHT, and you were WRONG. This was not a surprise, an assumption but something that was clearly evident in the rules.
You always think you are right even when you are terribly wrong. :rolleyes:



2. Now that the rules have been made clear in terms that you can understand (SELF NOMINATION IS FINE), you still sulk and carry on about it. You are like the kid who takes his bat and balls and goes home after not agreeing to a cricket rule
You wont see me walk away from a fight. I would have thought you would have realised that by now. :doh:


3. and like I said before it fdoes not matter if no one votes for my posts- i will accept the verdict of the people, and if they do not share my asssessment than I accept it. I note however that both arosarand davbid richards have expressed that they would vote for my posts
Yeah well my opinion of them both dropped immeasurably after they made those statements. It may take some effort on their part to ressurect themselves. :rolleyes:


4. Rules are the rules. Simple. The fact the the majority of people think taht it is bad, is irrelevent for the RULES ARE THE RULES. If you do not like the rules, change the rules and I will obey the rules. Until then admit the fact that in relation to self nomination that I am right and you are wrong (see paul b's wonderful clarification of the self nomination issue)
Rules are very rarely simple. Just because something isnt said does not mean it is allowed.


The fat lady has sung, and the umpire's verdict is final
Interesting coming from Mr there must be an appeal process.
paulb made a unilateral decision all by his lonesome, yet you say his decsion is final.
Based on that logic a selection committee picks the olympiad squad or the NECG squad. Therefore their decision is final.

Hoisted on your own petard. :owned: :owned: :clap: :clap:

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 07:13 PM
you want to APPEAL????????????????? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

unfortunatly for you the ACF does not believe any more in appeals, so you will have to take us to the courts if you want to appeal a decision by the ACF

No spare thousand of dollars, or more important things to do with your hard earned money than appeal? oh what a shame indeed, I guess the decision will have to stand then, as if you feel that you are right you would have appealed :rolleyes:

How does it feel now that the boot is on the other foot? mighty frustrating huh? A salutory lesson, in the fact that unless you live in the other man's shoes it is hard to imagien how he lives.

There is no appeal from paul B's decision that self nomination is okay, so see you in the courts if you want to appeal this further...

now bye bye
More crap from you, however the following is priceless.


Paul B the ultimate arbiter has stated so
Ah the ultimate arbiter.
Guess thats sort of like the ultimate selection committee.
You poor deluded fool. :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 07:15 PM
Let's just say that Paul and I have a difference of opinion on this. I believe Paul is allowing self nomination based on two criteria.

(1) He doesn't want to spend any more time on this silly competition than he has to, so it is easier to leave the existing nominations than try to weed them out

(2) It is a competition on BB post quality not personal modesty so we shouldn't handicap the immodest

I understand and respect his position but do not consider any of my posts in this thread to be "wrong" or "silly".

I was not for this competition in the first place and only nominated a post which I thought would display how farcical the whole thing really is. When it changed from a BB posters' back-slapping competition to a self gratification session, its hard to imagine me caring about anything less right now.

Well said Barry. :clap:

Chess Dad
05-02-2004, 07:31 PM
you want to APPEAL????????????????? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

unfortunatly for you the ACF does not believe any more in appeals, so you will have to take us to the courts if you want to appeal a decision by the ACF





There is no appeal from paul B's decision that self nomination is okay, so see you in the courts if you want to appeal this further...

I have already appealed on tuesday night:


I believe the nomination process is flawed in allowing self nomination and therefore I am appealing the process.


But if you now support the NO APPEAL stance of the ACF I suppose I can accept that and perhaps you should withdraw your nomination of the NECG post as you now don't support your own post. :clap:

chesslover
05-02-2004, 07:31 PM
Interesting coming from Mr there must be an appeal process.
paulb made a unilateral decision all by his lonesome, yet you say his decsion is final.
Based on that logic a selection committee picks the olympiad squad or the NECG squad. Therefore their decision is final.

Hoisted on your own petard. :owned: :owned: :clap: :clap:

Just a second..

you are the one who goes on and on about the need for no appeals within the ACF, and the need to go to courts if you want to appeal

Hence if you do not like paul's decision, you either take it to teh court or accept it. It is very simple

Dont whinge and whine about it - for according to your polciy there is no one to appeal to but the courts in regards to the decision that Paul has made.

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 07:53 PM
Just a second..

you are the one who goes on and on about the need for no appeals within the ACF, and the need to go to courts if you want to appeal

Hence if you do not like paul's decision, you either take it to teh court or accept it. It is very simple

Dont whinge and whine about it - for according to your polciy there is no one to appeal to but the courts in regards to the decision that Paul has made.
As usual you completely miss the point.
I dont really care if I can appeal or not appeal pauls decision.

What I have been doing however is waiting months for you to demonstrate what a complete hypocrite you are because if you really did believe that there should always be an appeal mechanism as you have said on numerous occasions then you should have said above: "paulb has made his decsion. If you dont lkike it appeal".

You even appealed the other day to the moderators after paulb deleted one of your posts.
You said:

and even though I had no success with my appeal

So is ok for you to appeal a paulb decision but not me.

You are just a hypocrite. :whistle:

chesslover
05-02-2004, 08:39 PM
As usual you completely miss the point.
I dont really care if I can appeal or not appeal pauls decision.

What I have been doing however is waiting months for you to demonstrate what a complete hypocrite you are because if you really did believe that there should always be an appeal mechanism as you have said on numerous occasions then you should have said above: "paulb has made his decsion. If you dont lkike it appeal".

You even appealed the other day to the moderators after paulb deleted one of your posts.
You said:


So is ok for you to appeal a paulb decision but not me.

You are just a hypocrite. :whistle:

I am the hypocrite huh? rubbish

All I was doing is holding YOU (that means YOU Supreme leader) to the same standard that you preach in regards to the appeal

YOU stated that there is no need for an appeal process - Yes or No . YES

YOU stated that that if anyone wanted to appeal they should go to teh court - Yes or No...YES

YOU stated that fi anyone could not afford it, or thought that there was more important things to do, then they accept that they were in the wrong....Yes or No.....YES

after all this, YOU (yes YOU) want to appeal a decision by Paul in relation to the self nomination determination...

WHO is the hypocrite now? Tell me WHO.....i will make it simple for you...it is YOU....yes YOU

YOU cannot have your cake and eat it too....

chesslover
05-02-2004, 08:46 PM
I have already appealed on tuesday night:




But if you now support the NO APPEAL stance of the ACF I suppose I can accept that and perhaps you should withdraw your nomination of the NECG post as you now don't support your own post. :clap:


1. yes I have appealed on Tuesday night, and yes that request to reverse the deletion of the NECG post got dismissed, and yes I disagree with that decision, but yes I accept that decision

2. I do not support the no appeal ACF policy for the NECG, Olympiad squad pr for any selection

I was merely responding to Bill carrying on now that he has been exposed as being WRONG, that he should accept the verdict of the umpire. This is what Bill essentially told us to do for ACF selections

So now that the situation is reversed he wants to appeal? where is the consistency is that? why are people not being fair and attacking Bill for being a hypocrite but attacking me for being a hypocrite..

3. I cannot withdraw the nomination for the NECG post for it had been deleted by paul b. I disagree with that decision, but accept his decision to do so and beleive that it was done in a fair manner

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 09:51 PM
So now that the situation is reversed he wants to appeal? where is the consistency is that? why are people not being fair and attacking Bill for being a hypocrite but attacking me for being a hypocrite
The reason why they are not attacking me is because they could see that my call for an appeal was just me being sarcastic.

I'll spell it out for you so even you can understand it CL.
You the person who was demanding their must be appeals tells be to just accept paulb's decision.
In that circumstance my demand for an appeal is clearly me being sarcastic.

Perhaps you have never heard of being the devils advocate.
That simply means I can argue a position even if I dont agree with the position.

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 10:15 PM
I am the hypocrite huh? rubbish

All I was doing is holding YOU (that means YOU Supreme leader) to the same standard that you preach in regards to the appeal

YOU stated that there is no need for an appeal process - Yes or No . YES

YOU stated that that if anyone wanted to appeal they should go to teh court - Yes or No...YES

YOU stated that fi anyone could not afford it, or thought that there was more important things to do, then they accept that they were in the wrong....Yes or No.....YES

after all this, YOU (yes YOU) want to appeal a decision by Paul in relation to the self nomination determination...

WHO is the hypocrite now? Tell me WHO.....i will make it simple for you...it is YOU....yes YOU

YOU cannot have your cake and eat it too....
:lol: :lol:
Your attempt at sarcasm there is very funny because when it is empolyed by others against you, your complete lack of understanding of it is evident for everyone to see. :hand:

Garvinator
05-02-2004, 11:05 PM
Anyone could clearly tell the intention of gg's remark.

im going to make an assumption that the little g's mean me, so what remark are you referring to, i have forgotten as so much crap has been posted here :doh: :wall:

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 11:13 PM
im going to make an assumption that the little g's mean me, so what remark are you referring to, i have forgotten as so much crap has been posted here :doh: :wall:
I was referring to your response to Barry:

dont go there girlfriend :cool:

Garvinator
05-02-2004, 11:18 PM
I was referring to your response to Barry:
thought so :lol:

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 10:42 PM
firegoat your post of 6.27am on 09/02/2004 in the Best posts of 2003 is not the post CL previously posted and had deleted.

The deleted post was the NECG post where he published their contact details.

However paulb threatened to ban CL if he reposted it.
I assume the same fate would happen to anyone else.

Now before CL claims I am lying like he did in a now deleted post and that paulb never threatened to ban him, he needs to check out his following own post.


I am very disappointed that the admisn have taken to deleting a nomination for the best post 2003 - the NECG post.

It was nominated for the best post of 2003, and then deleted by one of the modertors (unsure which of the 3 liberals who moderate here did that) because they did not like what it stated

That is very very bad, and shows that the so called free speech and democracy that is bandied about is only allowed when the ACF agrees with this free speech and democracy :(

Shame on the ACF for this deletion of an ACF 2003 post nomination. What happened to the principle, "I might disagree with you, but I will agree with your right to say this"?

PAULB RESPONSE: Quite frankly CL, $7000 per annum from a generous private donor is more important than your free speech in this matter :)

Post it again and I'll ban you :evil:

It is clear from this that paulb threatened to ban him if he reposted it.

chesslover
09-02-2004, 11:14 PM
firegoat your post of 6.27am on 09/02/2004 in the Best posts of 2003 is not the post CL previously posted and had deleted.

The deleted post was the NECG post where he published their contact details.

However paulb threatened to ban CL if he reposted it.
I assume the same fate would happen to anyone else.

Now before CL claims I am lying like he did in a now deleted post and that paulb never threatened to ban him, he needs to check out his following own post.



It is clear from this that paulb threatened to ban him if he reposted it.

I missed that response by Paul, as I only logon to the internet after work, and when my partner and child do not want to do anything.

Now that you have shown that Paul B stated that, I admit that I was indeed "mistaken".

And for the record I accept the verdict of Paul B in relation to his deletion of my post, and the reasons he gave.

Now that I have admitted to a "mistake", will you too similarly admit to a "mistake" in relation to your posts against paul B's decision to allow self nomination and multiple nomination a small prize for the best BB post?

Or do you only like to quote and support Paul B, when it suits you?

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 11:26 PM
I missed that response by Paul, as I only logon to the internet after work, and when my partner and child do not want to do anything.
Nice try but no cigar.
Learn to read and comprehend CL.
I did not quote paulb.
You stated in YOUR post what paulb had told you. Therefore you must have read it because YOU typed it.
Since his words do not seem to appear in any paulb post one can only assume he sent it to you via private message, which you then expressed in YOUR post.



Or do you only like to quote and support Paul B, when it suits you?
As I just pointed out I did not quote one of paulb's posts, I quoted one of yours.
Neither did I say whether I supported his actions or not.
I just posted what you said paulb said.

chesslover
09-02-2004, 11:37 PM
This is what the passioante hero of MCC, a man of great conviction and hatred of injustice stated. Bravo Firegoat Bravo.....I salute you my dear friend

There are a lot of hypocrites in this place that occupy a position of power, and let power corrupt their idealism and values. The fact that you are still true to your ideals and values, after being an important person holding a very responsible position in a very prestigeous chess club is an inspiration to all of us, that power does not corrupt


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

Dear chessplayers,


I am actually supporting you on this one chesslover. Seems like the thought police actually do not want freedom of expression. Unless of course it suits there agenda. Whoever they are and whatever that is

Regards FG7

chesslover
09-02-2004, 11:41 PM
Nice try but no cigar.
Learn to read and comprehend CL.
I did not quote paulb.
You stated in YOUR post what paulb had told you. Therefore you must have read it because YOU typed it.
Since his words do not seem to appear in any paulb post one can only assume he sent it to you via private message, which you then expressed in YOUR post.


As I just pointed out I did not quote one of paulb's posts, I quoted one of yours.
Neither did I say whether I supported his actions or not.
I just posted what you said paulb said.

Nope - another in a long line of "mistakes" in this issue

I DID NOT type Paul B's statement in the post of mine. Paul B must have used his moderator access, to type that post in add subtitled it paulb's response

That explains why I missed it.

So I did not post paul b's response - as paul b must have done it himself

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 11:48 PM
Nope - another in a long line of "mistakes" in this issue

I DID NOT type Paul B's statement in the post of mine. Paul B must have used his moderator access, to type that post in add subtitled it paulb's response

That explains why I missed it.

So I did not post paul b's response - as paul b must have done it himself
Yeah right.
We all believe that one now dont we. :whistle:

If he wanted to make a response he could have just replied to it normally.

So far moderators have apparently on deleted entire posts or changed/removed offensive words and not added comments to other peoples posts.

chesslover
10-02-2004, 12:00 AM
Yeah right.
We all believe that one now dont we. :whistle:

If he wanted to make a response he could have just replied to it normally.

So far moderators have apparently on deleted entire posts or changed/removed offensive words and not added comments to other peoples posts.

BUT IT IS TRUE

I dont know why Paul B did it - but he did it. He should have responded normally but he did not - I do not know why

I 100% will promise you this - from the bottom of my heart that what I am saying is true. Paul B wrote the words using his edit access.

If nothing else, I do not even know what the evil emoticions means so have not used it - so it cannot be me that useed the icon. Paul B on the other hand likes the evil icon, and used that when he said that he was the barbarian in response to my post that called him a barbarian for deleting the NECG post

If you disbelieve me, you are WRONG

chesslover
10-02-2004, 12:06 AM
This is what the post stated
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-02-2004, 10:33 PM

I am very disappointed that the admisn have taken to deleting a nomination for the best post 2003 - the NECG post.

It was nominated for the best post of 2003, and then deleted by one of the modertors (unsure which of the 3 liberals who moderate here did that) because they did not like what it stated

That is very very bad, and shows that the so called free speech and democracy that is bandied about is only allowed when the ACF agrees with this free speech and democracy

Shame on the ACF for this deletion of an ACF 2003 post nomination. What happened to the principle, "I might disagree with you, but I will agree with your right to say this"?

PAULB RESPONSE: Quite frankly CL, $7000 per annum from a generous private donor is more important than your free speech in this matter

Post it again and I'll ban you

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by paulb : 05-02-2004 at 12:38 PM.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look at who last edited it it says PAUL B!!! PAUL B!!!!

What does that mean? That PAUL B edited my post using his moderator access to write his response to my post

I WAS RIGHT....YOU ARE WRONG

to give you a face saving way out of this, will you now admit that you are "mistaken" bill?

jase
10-02-2004, 12:18 AM
Although I've got Chesslover on my ignore list, I still get to read some of the tripe through the selective quoting of other posters.

Sure does look like gripping stuff. Anyone else added CL yet? To be fair, were I even-handed I ought to add Bill too :uhoh:

Sweeney Todd, err, Matt, let me know when you've got some time to thrash out some ideas for a +100 player rapid play tournament.

Sorry, I've said nary a word on-topic. If support for BB prizes remains, is it now conclusive that the inmates are incapable of the 3 R's [reason, responsiblity, restraint] and that if this rubbish isn't already overwhelmingly self-defeating, then at a minimum future nominations will be done by a panel [by future I mean in a year's time - this year's is beyond salvation].

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 12:19 AM
BUT IT IS TRUE

I dont know why Paul B did it - but he did it. He should have responded normally but he did not - I do not know why

I 100% will promise you this - from the bottom of my heart that what I am saying is true. Paul B wrote the words using his edit access.

If nothing else, I do not even know what the evil emoticions means so have not used it - so it cannot be me that useed the icon. Paul B on the other hand likes the evil icon, and used that when he said that he was the barbarian in response to my post that called him a barbarian for deleting the NECG post

If you disbelieve me, you are WRONG
So never used the evil emoticons.

I guess its strange then that they appear in a post of yours in the thread The old ACF BB be restored to full finc.

EXACTLY :x

I was so sorry that I even prayed for Matt and his family :x

Complete and utter disgrace with his lies :x :evil: :evil:

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 12:25 AM
This is what the post stated
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-02-2004, 10:33 PM

I am very disappointed that the admisn have taken to deleting a nomination for the best post 2003 - the NECG post.

It was nominated for the best post of 2003, and then deleted by one of the modertors (unsure which of the 3 liberals who moderate here did that) because they did not like what it stated

That is very very bad, and shows that the so called free speech and democracy that is bandied about is only allowed when the ACF agrees with this free speech and democracy

Shame on the ACF for this deletion of an ACF 2003 post nomination. What happened to the principle, "I might disagree with you, but I will agree with your right to say this"?

PAULB RESPONSE: Quite frankly CL, $7000 per annum from a generous private donor is more important than your free speech in this matter

Post it again and I'll ban you

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by paulb : 05-02-2004 at 12:38 PM.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look at who last edited it it says PAUL B!!! PAUL B!!!!

What does that mean? That PAUL B edited my post using his moderator access to write his response to my post

I WAS RIGHT....YOU ARE WRONG

to give you a face saving way out of this, will you now admit that you are "mistaken" bill?
Ha ha ha ha ha.
So you think you are telling me something I didnt know.

Guess you are not as stupid as you seem.
I didnt think you would bother checking the post.

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 12:28 AM
Sure does look like gripping stuff. Anyone else added CL yet? To be fair, were I even-handed I ought to add Bill too :uhoh:
Yes but then you would actually miss out on my non CL related posts. ;)

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2004, 01:32 AM
Yes but then you would actually miss out on my non CL related posts. ;)

Which are a slim minority at the moment. Looks like a post-count rigging conspiracy to me. :p

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 09:07 AM
Which are a slim minority at the moment. Looks like a post-count rigging conspiracy to me. :p
:lol: :lol:

paulb
10-02-2004, 12:06 PM
This is what the post stated
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

03-02-2004, 10:33 PM

I am very disappointed that the admisn have taken to deleting a nomination for the best post 2003 - the NECG post.

It was nominated for the best post of 2003, and then deleted by one of the modertors (unsure which of the 3 liberals who moderate here did that) because they did not like what it stated

That is very very bad, and shows that the so called free speech and democracy that is bandied about is only allowed when the ACF agrees with this free speech and democracy

Shame on the ACF for this deletion of an ACF 2003 post nomination. What happened to the principle, "I might disagree with you, but I will agree with your right to say this"?

PAULB RESPONSE: Quite frankly CL, $7000 per annum from a generous private donor is more important than your free speech in this matter

Post it again and I'll ban you

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by paulb : 05-02-2004 at 12:38 PM.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look at who last edited it it says PAUL B!!! PAUL B!!!!

What does that mean? That PAUL B edited my post using his moderator access to write his response to my post

I WAS RIGHT....YOU ARE WRONG

to give you a face saving way out of this, will you now admit that you are "mistaken" bill?

That's correct, if I recall. I did add a response to a ChessLover post. Apparently non-standard but I'm still getting the hang of this system.

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 12:25 PM
That's correct, if I recall. I did add a response to a ChessLover post. Apparently non-standard but I'm still getting the hang of this system.
It was clear you edited the post.
I was just suprised CL picked it up so quickly.
I had hoped I could string him along longer. :whistle:

ursogr8
10-02-2004, 12:25 PM
Which are a slim minority at the moment. Looks like a post-count rigging conspiracy to me. :p

Just what are you suggesting Kevin? That Bill and CL are one and the same?

starter

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 12:27 PM
Just what are you suggesting Kevin? That Bill and CL are one and the same?
No you clown. :lol:
He is theorising that perhaps it is a conspiracy on our part to increase our post counts. :whistle:

PHAT
10-02-2004, 12:31 PM
Just what are you suggesting Kevin? That Bill and CL are one and the same?

starter

Look, I have already posted the best theory for who is who. CL is Bill's son and PaulB is CL's brother. Bill may have been a bit of a lady's man.

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 12:36 PM
Look, I have already posted the best theory for who is who. CL is Bill's son and PaulB is CL's brother. Bill may have been a bit of a lady's man.
:lol: :lol:
Now although I must admit I like women I cannot lay claim to being related to CL or PaulB.
To start with I was just 9 when Paulb was born. :whistle:

ursogr8
10-02-2004, 12:43 PM
No you clown. :lol:
He is theorising that perhaps it is a conspiracy on our part to increase our post counts. :whistle:

If CL is not you then anyone as smart as Kevin could see that a conspiracy is just not possible between you and CL. So that can't be Kevin's theory.

That leaves the other theory that CL is you. That is why I asked.

Now stop posting on this thread and wait for Kevin to clear the issue up tonight when he posts. :hand: .

ursogr8
10-02-2004, 12:53 PM
Look, I have already posted the best theory for who is who. CL is Bill's son and PaulB is CL's brother. Bill may have been a bit of a lady's man.

Matt

Looks like you have got all the answers today.

* Best time controls for w/enders
* CL lineage

Try this one >> Have you sent a copy of your coaches accreditation doco. to MCC, recently?

starter

PHAT
10-02-2004, 01:22 PM
Matt

Looks like you have got all the answers today.

* Best time controls for w/enders
* CL lineage

Try this one >> Have you sent a copy of your coaches accreditation doco. to MCC, recently?

starter

:lol: The short cheap Level 1 bridging course (for current coaches) is having its Is dotted and Ts crossed.

Garvinator
10-02-2004, 03:45 PM
Matt

Looks like you have got all the answers today.

* Best time controls for w/enders
* CL lineage

Try this one >> Have you sent a copy of your coaches accreditation doco. to MCC, recently?

starter
stop trolling starter :p , you might actually catch me at this rate haha :clap: :clap: ;)

ursogr8
10-02-2004, 05:07 PM
stop trolling starter :p , you might actually catch me at this rate haha :clap: :clap: ;)

rag'rag'

First of all I have no idea what trolling is.
Second I don't do it.
Third, my post was entirely consistent with the post where Matt claimed definitive descriptin of CL lineage.
Fourth, I am just a starter and follow the practices of those who have been here longer like you.
Fifth, this is just about my first post in the WAFFLE thread whereas you, my friend,....
Sixth, Bill PM'd me to always have the last word; so don't bother replying to this message to maintain the differential.

starter

Garvinator
10-02-2004, 05:24 PM
rag'rag'

First of all I have no idea what trolling is.
Second I don't do it.

so don't bother replying to this message to maintain the differential.

starter
sorry to disappoint you but im replying with a question.

How can you say you dont troll when you dont know what trolling is? :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 05:38 PM
Sixth, Bill PM'd me to always have the last word; so don't bother replying to this message to maintain the differential.
I did? :eh:

ursogr8
10-02-2004, 09:29 PM
I did? :eh:

Is it not a good idea to have the last word?
You have often told me this.

ursogr8
10-02-2004, 09:30 PM
sorry to disappoint you but im replying with a question.

How can you say you dont troll when you dont know what trolling is? :hmm:

Easy.
I presume if I put some decent content in a post then it is not trolling.

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 10:24 PM
Is it not a good idea to have the last word?
You have often told me this.
Yes, but I don't think I ever said it via a PM.

ursogr8
11-02-2004, 07:11 AM
Yes, but I don't think I ever said it via a PM.

Bill
:eek: :eek: :eek:
Do you mean I am not the only one reading your posts? I thought everyone else, who counts, had you on IGNORE. :wink:

starter

chesslover
11-02-2004, 07:52 PM
It was clear you edited the post.
I was just suprised CL picked it up so quickly.
I had hoped I could string him along longer. :whistle:

So you make statements that you know are obviously wrong, in the hope that your opponent will not pick it up and concede the point?

That is intellectual dishonesty Supreme Leader... :mad:

Given that you have posted biased polls witth flawed methodology to prove to "trick" BB voters into voting for your point of view, and selectively post words out of context, I guess this should not surprise me

Shame, shame, shame

PHAT
11-02-2004, 08:07 PM
So you make statements that you know are obviously wrong, in the hope that your opponent will not pick it up and concede the point?

That is intellectual dishonesty Supreme Leader... :mad:

Given that you have posted biased polls witth flawed methodology to prove to "trick" BB voters into voting for your point of view, and selectively post words out of context, I guess this should not surprise me

Shame, shame, shame

10/10

Garvinator
11-02-2004, 08:11 PM
10/10
hmmm cl and matt on the same side, i never thought i would see the day :p . or have i got the whole convo passage wrong :eek:

chesslover
11-02-2004, 08:20 PM
hmmm cl and matt on the same side, i never thought i would see the day :p . or have i got the whole convo passage wrong :eek:

why is that a surprise?

Matt is a very intelligent person, and is capable of very funny wit and insight. In person he is even more remarkable, and presents as an articulate, common sensical and intelligent person.

Although at times I disagree with his posts, he is a free spirit, capable of original analysis, and always stands up to bully boy tactics by the establishment status quo and authoritarianism. Matt is an asset to NSWCA and Australian chess and is in the side of the little common battler

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2004, 09:06 PM
So you make statements that you know are obviously wrong, in the hope that your opponent will not pick it up and concede the point?

That is intellectual dishonesty Supreme Leader... :mad:

Given that you have posted biased polls witth flawed methodology to prove to "trick" BB voters into voting for your point of view, and selectively post words out of context, I guess this should not surprise me

Shame, shame, shame
Nothing dishonest about it at all.

It is simply testing to see if you really know what is happening.
After all it was fairly easy for anyone to determine if paul had edited it or not.

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2004, 09:09 PM
why is that a surprise?

Matt is a very intelligent person, and is capable of very funny wit and insight. In person he is even more remarkable, and presents as an articulate, common sensical and intelligent person.

Although at times I disagree with his posts, he is a free spirit, capable of original analysis, and always stands up to bully boy tactics by the establishment status quo and authoritarianism. Matt is an asset to NSWCA and Australian chess and is in the side of the little common battler
I'm sure I could troll through al the posts on the old BB and find where your opinion of Matt is less than flattering.

I might even go so far as to suggest your sucking up to him now is only because you see him supporting your views.

Garvinator
11-02-2004, 09:28 PM
why is that a surprise, well how about matts incest post for a start. Do you want to retract that intelligent comment of yours now about matt?

Or are you the most forgettable goose on this bb?

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2004, 10:06 PM
why is that a surprise, well how about matts incest post for a start. Do you want to retract that intelligent comment of yours now about matt?

Or are you the most forgettable goose on this bb?

I think this post of CL's on the old BB sums it up best:

In addition, I really do not want matt on my side, as I will be associated with Matt - which will do my cause no good

Garvinator
11-02-2004, 10:16 PM
lets see if cl tries the, times change and things move on, defence :lol: :doh:

chesslover
11-02-2004, 11:17 PM
Nothing dishonest about it at all.

It is simply testing to see if you really know what is happening.
After all it was fairly easy for anyone to determine if paul had edited it or not.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA :lol:

That is so funny

You really should be in politics SUpreme leader

When caught out being WRONG, you say it is a "mistake"

When I expose the "mistake" after "mistake" in relation to the "goose' statement by Kevin, the biased and flawed polls, the term "prizes" for the ACF 2003 post, the "crass"/"conceited" mistake, the "obviously"/"otherwise" mistakes, and then expose you again, suddenly it is not WRONG, it is not you making a "mistake", but it suddenly becomes "testing"

A classic

chesslover
11-02-2004, 11:24 PM
I think this post of CL's on the old BB sums it up best:

You are a "binary man" - to you it is either yes/no, white/black, correct/incorrect is'nt it

The fact that at some times in the past I (like you and numerous others) have disagreed and attacked Matt's posts, does not mean that this is always teh case in the future.

Even you admitted that you liked Matt face to face and got on well with him. You were the first to stand up and fight for Matt when he got banned in this BB.

So what if in the past I disagreed and did not like what matt was stating? does that mean that I have to always disagree 100% and unconditionally dislike all that he posts? NO

It depends issue by issue, and in this issue, I happen to agree with matt. During the last couple of weeks I have grown to feel a lot of empathy with Matt, and I think that this year for some reason the majority of the posts of matt have been pretty reasonable and well argued

Rincewind
11-02-2004, 11:34 PM
You are a "binary man" - to you it is either yes/no, white/black, correct/incorrect is'nt it

Put enough binaries together you can represent a number of arbitrary precision. ;)

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2004, 11:44 PM
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA :lol:

That is so funny

You really should be in politics SUpreme leader

When caught out being WRONG, you say it is a "mistake"

When I expose the "mistake" after "mistake" in relation to the "goose' statement by Kevin, the biased and flawed polls, the term "prizes" for the ACF 2003 post, the "crass"/"conceited" mistake, the "obviously"/"otherwise" mistakes, and then expose you again, suddenly it is not WRONG, it is not you making a "mistake", but it suddenly becomes "testing"

A classic
The only classic is you, a classic goose.

The only one saying WRONG or "mistake: is you ya goose.

Kevin even discussed you elevation to goosehood or being a were-goose when the full moon is out.

______________________
Love the Life you Goose
Goose the Life you Love

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2004, 11:49 PM
You are a "binary man" - to you it is either yes/no, white/black, correct/incorrect is'nt it
If that was true your rating would then be either 0 or 1.
Fortunately for you I'm not restricted to your yes/no poll crap.


The fact that at some times in the past I (like you and numerous others) have disagreed and attacked Matt's posts, does not mean that this is always teh case in the future.

Even you admitted that you liked Matt face to face and got on well with him. You were the first to stand up and fight for Matt when he got banned in this BB.
I didnt say he was a good guy, I simply argued his ban was uncalled for. There is a difference.


So what if in the past I disagreed and did not like what matt was stating? does that mean that I have to always disagree 100% and unconditionally dislike all that he posts? NO

It depends issue by issue, and in this issue, I happen to agree with matt. During the last couple of weeks I have grown to feel a lot of empathy with Matt, and I think that this year for some reason the majority of the posts of matt have been pretty reasonable and well argued
I'll give him this, on the chess related threads his posts have been much better than last years. He's still abused a few on the non chess related recently.

Too bad the same can't be said of yours. :whistle:


______________________
Love the Life you Goose
Goose the Life you Love

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2004, 11:50 PM
lets see if cl tries the, times change and things move on, defence :lol: :doh:
Nice premptive post.
You got it in one. :owned: :clap:

Garvinator
12-02-2004, 12:24 AM
Nice premptive post.
You got it in one. :owned: :clap:
thanks :lol: :owned:

but whats even funnier to me is that cl then still used that defence but didnt attack me for trying to pre-empt his defence :eek: :hand:

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 12:40 AM
thanks :lol: :owned:

but whats even funnier to me is that cl then still used that defence but didnt attack me for trying to pre-empt his defence :eek: :hand:
What can I say.
He is a goose.

chesslover
12-02-2004, 06:13 PM
What can I say.
He is a goose.For the LAST f$#@ing time - I am NOT a goose

stop being an utter and complete moran

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 07:06 PM
For the LAST f$#@ing time - I am NOT a goose

stop being an utter and complete moran
Ha Ha Ha Ha.
Kevin called you a goose, just accept it and shut up.
David Richards called you a goose.
gg thinks you are a goose.

6 of the people who have voted so far on the multiple nominations thread think you are a goose.

Guess that makes you a goose. :whistle:

skip to my lou
12-02-2004, 07:08 PM
HE IS NOT JUST A GOOSE! HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT!

He is a chess loving goose.

Kevin Bonham
12-02-2004, 07:39 PM
6 of the people who have voted so far on the multiple nominations thread think you are a goose.

Guess that makes you a goose. :whistle:

Now you really are just stirring him. Even if the voice of the majority was any proof of goosedom (it isn't), you don't in any sense have a majority on that poll. We have no idea what the people who said they didn't care about BB prizes think of all this.

I'd really not like to see a bunch of people now following CL from thread to thread baiting him and calling him a goose over anything and everything he says. Probably all of us make a goose of ourselves some time or other.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 07:45 PM
Now you really are just stirring him. Even if the voice of the majority was any proof of goosedom (it isn't), you don't in any sense have a majority on that poll. We have no idea what the people who said they didn't care about BB prizes think of all this.
Yes it is true that we have no idea what the people who dont care think about, however I wasnt claiming a majority considered him a goose just that 6 people did. Therefore I was trying to point out that I was not alone in my belief.


I'd really not like to see a bunch of people now following CL from thread to thread baiting him and calling him a goose over anything and everything he says. Probably all of us make a goose of ourselves some time or other.
I gave him the opportunity to stop all of this last night. He has apparently declined.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 08:04 PM
CL I'll give you one more opportunity to end this.

I'll post this in multiple threads so you cannot miss it.

I will stop calling you a goose and continuing arguing with you over self nominations/you making a farce ot it/multiple nominations/single or multiple prizes and related issues if you agree to also stop.

Just reply to this post with a simple Yes I accept or No I dont accept.

Any other response will be considered a rejection.

chesslover
12-02-2004, 10:55 PM
Yes it is true that we have no idea what the people who dont care think about, however I wasnt claiming a majority considered him a goose just that 6 people did. Therefore I was trying to point out that I was not alone in my belief.


I gave him the opportunity to stop all of this last night. He has apparently declined.

Actually the Yes question on your biased and flawed multiple threads poll, asked for whether multiple posts by me brought the whole best post 2003 comp to ridicule. The yes answer does not indicate that people thought I was a goose

I could go on, but as you offered a draw offer, and as there seems to be no end in sight if we both continue on, I will cease and desist

PHAT
12-02-2004, 10:59 PM
I could go on, but as you offered a draw offer, and as there seems to be no end in sight if we both continue on, I will cease and desist

He didn't offer a draw. he told you to resign, and you did, in a even position.

chesslover
12-02-2004, 11:10 PM
He didn't offer a draw. he told you to resign, and you did, in a even position.he did not ask me to resign, I thought that it was a draw offer and even if I may win by playing on, I thought I would accept the draw offer...

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 11:13 PM
Actually I would rather just sit back and wait for the next MS V CL fight to break out or perhaps the MS V Jeo rumble. :whistle:

skip to my lou
12-02-2004, 11:17 PM
haha I dont think so :hand:

I will not be involved at all in the BB very soon.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 11:19 PM
haha I dont think so :hand:

I will not be involved at all in the BB very soon.
Ah well there is still the MCC V CV debates to "look" forward to I suppose. :whistle:

chesslover
12-02-2004, 11:39 PM
even though it is specifially allowed in the rules of the best post comp, and reiterated by Paul B, I have unilaterally decided to delete all my self nomination posts, except for one - the one in relation to the grandslam chess tourneys in the grand prix circuit

This should now make Supreme Leader happy, as he has got his way - even though I was right and I had a perfect right to do what I did

Hobbes
14-07-2011, 08:17 PM
Ah well there is still the MCC V CV debates to "look" forward to I suppose. :whistle:

Thank goodness those days are behind us now!

:uhoh:

Garvinator
14-07-2011, 08:58 PM
I offer Hobbes post as a record for longest period between posts on a thread. 7 years, 5 months, 1 day.

Kevin Bonham
14-07-2011, 09:31 PM
I offer Hobbes post as a record for longest period between posts on a thread. 7 years, 5 months, 1 day.

Most likely the longest period between undeleted bumps. A few months back AC bumped some 2003 threads (from before most CC members were added) but his bumping was deleted.

Hobbes
14-07-2011, 09:41 PM
Well I thought the quoted sentence was relevant in view of the recent tantrums, wouldn't you agree?

:sad:

Kevin Bonham
14-07-2011, 09:47 PM
Well I thought the quoted sentence was relevant in view of the recent tantrums, wouldn't you agree?

:sad:

Absolutely. It's been an ongoing theme for a long time except that it has new frontiers now that MCC is no longer isolationist.