PDA

View Full Version : should self nomination be allowed in the best bb post for 2003



Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 06:52 PM
Ok lets see what people think.

Atomic Pawn
05-02-2004, 06:53 PM
I think there should be a third option, ("Who cares?"). If it was there, I would vote for that option. :)

Oops, wait. Obviously you care. Maybe that should be ("I dont care"). :p

chesslover
05-02-2004, 07:17 PM
what point does that this serve except to undermine the rule of the law and paul b?

after considering all factors, paul B, came up with the thoughtful and careful decision that self nomination is okay. Now as the ultimate arbiter of the best post 2003 contest, people should just accept his verdict and move on....

Instead just because it does not sit well with your views you are inciting and trying to whip up a wave of oppossition to this rule. Why don't you just accept that you were WRONG and simply accept the decision of the umpire?

And even if you do get such a huge majority that votes in such big numbers what would that achieve? paul has made his decision, and whether we agree ot disagree we should accept that decision. Otherwise you are saying the law should be obeyed as long as I agree with it, and if not it should be changed to reflect my view.

And even if Paul B is forced to change his original binding decision, that would be caving in to mob rule and the campaign to incite hatred against a decision - a very very bad precedent for the ACF

Why is it so hard to admit you are wrong? Just accept it

ursogr8
05-02-2004, 07:26 PM
Ok lets see what people think.

I have heard no downside from self-nomination of a single post.

The up-side is a recognition for the poster and an attraction of funds to a local chess activity that is probably aligned to a majority support. These are both good things. Recognition is important and we must allow it to happen more often. BTW Bill, thanks for starting the thread.

With self-nomination goes an obligation to economise on the board-community and panel's time. Hence we are obliged to only self-nominate one post at the most. More is not better in this context.

starter

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 07:30 PM
what point does that this serve except to undermine the rule of the law and paul b?

after considering all factors, paul B, came up with the thoughtful and careful decision that self nomination is okay. Now as the ultimate arbiter of the best post 2003 contest, people should just accept his verdict and move on....
I dont accept that he is the ultimate arbiter.
The money is ACF money.
It wouldnt be too hard to get this whole farce cancelled and the money withdrawn by a simple email vote of the ACF Council.



Instead just because it does not sit well with your views you are inciting and trying to whip up a wave of oppossition to this rule. Why don't you just accept that you were WRONG and simply accept the decision of the umpire?
What a complete joke you are.
You are the one who doesnt want to accept the umpires decision regarding olympiad or NECG selection.
Your just a damn hypocrite.


And even if you do get such a huge majority that votes in such big numbers what would that achieve? paul has made his decision, and whether we agree ot disagree we should accept that decision.
Oh like you were advocating with regards the olympiad and NECG squads. :whistle:


Otherwise you are saying the law should be obeyed as long as I agree with it, and if not it should be changed to reflect my view.[/qupte]
Oh you mean like you were doing in your NECG posts. :whistle:

[QUOTE=chesslover]And even if Paul B is forced to change his original binding decision, that would be caving in to mob rule and the campaign to incite hatred against a decision - a very very bad precedent for the ACF
Actually it might just be a matter of democracy. Isnt that something you are a fervent defend of, or is that only when it suits your purpose. :rolleyes:


Why is it so hard to admit you are wrong? Just accept it
There have been a number of times I thought I was wrong but it turns out I was mistaken. :owned: :owned:

chesslover
05-02-2004, 09:12 PM
I dont accept that he is the ultimate arbiter.
The money is ACF money.
It wouldnt be too hard to get this whole farce cancelled and the money withdrawn by a simple email vote of the ACF Council.



What a complete joke you are.
You are the one who doesnt want to accept the umpires decision regarding olympiad or NECG selection.
Your just a damn hypocrite.


Actually it might just be a matter of democracy. Isnt that something you are a fervent defend of, or is that only when it suits your purpose. :rolleyes:


There have been a number of times I thought I was wrong but it turns out I was mistaken. :owned: :owned:

1. Let us put some perspective here - this self nomnation decision is not the same as a decision on NECG squad selection or the Olympiad selection. Do you accept that?

2. You may call me a hypocrite, but you who are the one who was so adamant against appeals for the NECG/Olympiad selections, are now stating that appeals should be allowed against the self nomination decision by paul b? do you see the irony here?

3. You going to the ACF and then demanding that they cancel the BB best prize comp, because you disagree with the decision is a supreme hypocracy. This is like a person contacting the NECG and asking them to withdraw the sponsorship because they disagree with the decision of the selection panel. At least if any person contacted the NECG people (using their website contact details) they would be only asking for the review of the selection decision, yet you do not want a review of paul's self nomination decision but to cancel the whole contest because you disagree with the decision

GOTCHA!!!! GOTCHA!!!

game, set and match to me

Oh I am so sorry, you are not wrong - just "mistaken" right? Feel free to correct your "mistakes" any time

PHAT
05-02-2004, 09:45 PM
1. Let us put some perspective here - this self nomnation decision is not the same as a decision on NECG squad selection or the Olympiad selection. Do you accept that?

2. You may call me a hypocrite, but you who are the one who was so adamant against appeals for the NECG/Olympiad selections, are now stating that appeals should be allowed against the self nomination decision by paul b? do you see the irony here?

3. You going to the ACF and then demanding that they cancel the BB best prize comp, because you disagree with the decision is a supreme hypocracy. This is like a person contacting the NECG and asking them to withdraw the sponsorship because they disagree with the decision of the selection panel. At least if any person contacted the NECG people (using their website contact details) they would be only asking for the review of the selection decision, yet you do not want a review of paul's self nomination decision but to cancel the whole contest because you disagree with the decision

GOTCHA!!!! GOTCHA!!!

game, set and match to me

Oh I am so sorry, you are not wrong - just "mistaken" right? Feel free to correct your "mistakes" any time

OMFG!! Felcher Christian has just KO'ed Obiwan. The bookies will not be happy little Vegemites tonight. :eek:

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 10:02 PM
1. Let us put some perspective here - this self nomnation decision is not the same as a decision on NECG squad selection or the Olympiad selection. Do you accept that?
You clearly dont think they are. Explain why.


2. You may call me a hypocrite, but you who are the one who was so adamant against appeals for the NECG/Olympiad selections, are now stating that appeals should be allowed against the self nomination decision by paul b? do you see the irony here?
No irony at all.You completely missed the sarcasm dripping from my call for an appeal.


3. You going to the ACF and then demanding that they cancel the BB best prize comp, because you disagree with the decision is a supreme hypocracy. This is like a person contacting the NECG and asking them to withdraw the sponsorship because they disagree with the decision of the selection panel. At least if any person contacted the NECG people (using their website contact details) they would be only asking for the review of the selection decision, yet you do not want a review of paul's self nomination decision but to cancel the whole contest because you disagree with the decision
No you suggested paul was the ultimate arbiter.
I simply pointed out he wasnt.
The ACF Council is.
I'm just suggesting that I dont believe if the ACF Council was asked to vote on it that their would be any BB prizes.


GOTCHA!!!! GOTCHA!!!

game, set and match to me
Thats a worry. Whilst I'm playing a game of chess your off playing tennis and juggling yer balls.


Oh I am so sorry, you are not wrong - just "mistaken" right? Feel free to correct your "mistakes" any time
I'm neither wrong nor mistaken.

I just highlighted that CL, the man who demands there must be appeals obviously doesnt believe that is true. He believes there are exceptions.

As I said you are a hypocrite.

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 10:05 PM
OMFG!! Felcher Christian has just KO'ed Obiwan. The bookies will not be happy little Vegemites tonight. :eek:
Hey my neanderthal mate if you believe that then you are not any brighter than CL. ;)
I'm just doing the old Ali trick of rope a dope. :whistle:

PHAT
05-02-2004, 10:12 PM
Hey my neanderthal mate if you believe that then you are not any brighter than CL. ;)

Yo dude, if you believe that then you are not versed in the role of the crowd at a boxing match. I wanna see someone on a stretcher. I want the dope to get up on the count of 9.

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2004, 10:15 PM
I think self-nomination should be allowed, because if you ban it you may just get those intent on self-nomination routing around it by finding another person so inclined and swapping nominations. That would be even worse in a sense, because it would be obvious that some of the nominations were not sincere. Therefore I voted "yes", which for the moment ties the score at 4-4.

I also think anyone who self-nominates a post which would not obviously have been nominated by others is making a goose of themselves and should be laughed at.

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 10:18 PM
I think self-nomination should be allowed, because if you ban it you may just get those intent on self-nomination routing around it by finding another person so inclined and swapping nominations. That would be even worse in a sense, because it would be obvious that some of the nominations were not sincere. Therefore I voted "yes", which for the moment ties the score at 4-4.

I also think anyone who self-nominates a post which would not obviously have been nominated by others is making a goose of themselves and should be laughed at.
I'm not going to disagree with you on either of those points. ;)

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 10:20 PM
Yo dude, if you believe that then you are not versed in the role of the crowd at a boxing match. I wanna see someone on a stretcher. I want the dope to get up on the count of 9.
You sicko. ;)
So you want the poor dope to get up at 9 just so he can be sat on his ass again.
Eventually the ref will step in and stop the fight before the poor dope ends up dead. :whistle:

Cat
05-02-2004, 10:33 PM
STOP! STOP! STOP!
GO AWAY AND NEVER COME BACK
GO AWAY AND NEVER COME BACK
GO A-WAY AND NEVER COME BACK

This is absolute, unadulterated madness. I suggest you all go to bed now and maybe in the morning you'll all be able to see how incredibly silly you've been.

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 10:37 PM
STOP! STOP! STOP!
GO AWAY AND NEVER COME BACK
GO AWAY AND NEVER COME BACK
GO A-WAY AND NEVER COME BACK

This is absolute, unadulterated madness. I suggest you all go to bed now and maybe in the morning you'll all be able to see how incredibly silly you've been.
Get a grip David. :rolleyes:

CL the "there must be an appeal mechanism" advocate has been caught out.

chesslover
05-02-2004, 10:38 PM
I think self-nomination should be allowed, because if you ban it you may just get those intent on self-nomination routing around it by finding another person so inclined and swapping nominations. That would be even worse in a sense, because it would be obvious that some of the nominations were not sincere. Therefore I voted "yes", which for the moment ties the score at 4-4.

I also think anyone who self-nominates a post which would not obviously have been nominated by others is making a goose of themselves and should be laughed at.

once again a very well made post...

You are of course correct, as if you ban self nomination people can swap nominations with one another. At least by allowing self nomination you are maintaining the "purity" and "integrity" of the process

maybe starter's suggestion of a maxium of one self nominated post may have been the way to go as well

chesslover
05-02-2004, 10:41 PM
OMFG!! Felcher Christian has just KO'ed Obiwan. The bookies will not be happy little Vegemites tonight. :eek:

thank you :)

But when Bill makes his "mistakes" and says one thing and does another when it suits him, it is easy to KO him!!

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 10:47 PM
thank you :)

But when Bill makes his "mistakes" and says one thing and does another when it suits him, it is easy to KO him!!
Lol you must be desperate to thank matt.

Unfortunately for you I havent made any mistakes.

You are the one who has failed the test.

You have made it clear to everyone that your support for appeals is not universal.

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 10:51 PM
once again a very well made post...
Yes especially the part when he mentions self nominators making gooses of themselves. :owned:



At least by allowing self nomination you are maintaining the "purity" and "integrity" of the process
You forgot to mention the crassness elemnt. :doh:


maybe starter's suggestion of a maxium of one self nominated post may have been the way to go as well
Ya reckon sherlock. :whistle:

chesslover
05-02-2004, 11:08 PM
Lol you must be desperate to thank matt.

Unfortunately for you I havent made any mistakes.

You are the one who has failed the test.

You have made it clear to everyone that your support for appeals is not universal.

1. Matt is a free spirit with an anti authoritarian view point. I respect his democratic right to free speech, even though sometimes he is not right. Nevertheless matt is a person who likes change, and comes with radical and exciting proposals that shake up the status quo. AFter being the brunt of your cruel attacks I now know how he must have felt when subject to these similar attacks by you, and empathise with him.

2. I only attacked you, because I thought that YOU were suddenly for appeals when the wise decision by Paul B on self nomination was not to your liking. That is why I pointed out how hypocritical your view was, considering that you have long argued with me on the right not to have any appeals, and how if anyone had any problems they could have gone to the courts

For the record and for clarification, I do think there should be an appeal mechanism for any team selection decisions. I did not think there should be one for the self nomination process, for I think that what Paul did was a wise and undoubtedly correct decision. The fact that despite your campaign to whip up hatred and outrage the scores are tied at the moment, shows how Paul B is in touch with the BB grassroots.

To me the matter of Paul deciding the self nomination decision is not a big deal as the matter of Olympiad or NECG decisions. There is no money involved, as any prizemoney will come back to an Australian chess activity

However if you want to appeal paul B's decision fine go ahead and do that. But if that is the case where do you want to draw the line? do you want an appeal system in place if any NSWCA member disagrees about the dates of NSWCA weekenders, prizemoney at NSWCA tournaments, the borrowing of clocks etc etc? The workings of the NSWCAand ACF will ground to a halt as day to day operational activities are appealed by disgruntled members....

Thus I think appeals for subjective team selections are fine, but appeals for "minor" things like this self nomination process is not fine. Nonetheless if you wish to seek a review of this go ahead, although I would very much doubt that you would marshall a convincing arugement to overturn this decision or muster enough popular support

Even such a smart person as the Grand Poobah said that self nomination is the way to go, so that makes 2 of the Moderator trio for self nomination. In addition the originator of the Best ACF 2003 post also self nominated

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 11:35 PM
1. Matt is a free spirit with an anti authoritarian view point. I respect his democratic right to free speech, even though sometimes he is not right. Nevertheless matt is a person who likes change, and comes with radical and exciting proposals that shake up the status quo. AFter being the brunt of your cruel attacks I now know how he must have felt when subject to these similar attacks by you, and empathise with him.
I'm sure that will make him feel all warm and fuzzy inside. :rolleyes:



2. I only attacked you, because I thought that YOU were suddenly for appeals when the wise decision by Paul B on self nomination was not to your liking. That is why I pointed out how hypocritical your view was, considering that you have long argued with me on the right not to have any appeals, and how if anyone had any problems they could have gone to the courts
As I said, no understanding of sarcasm.


For the record and for clarification, I do think there should be an appeal mechanism for any team selection decisions. I did not think there should be one for the self nomination process, for I think that what Paul did was a wise and undoubtedly correct decision.
Once more hoisted on your own petard.
If you cannot see how hypocritical that is then you are a totally lost cause. :whistle:



The fact that despite your campaign to whip up hatred and outrage the scores are tied at the moment, shows how Paul B is in touch with the BB grassroots.
It shows no such thing.
It shows most people couldnt give a rat's ass about the BB prizes.


To me the matter of Paul deciding the self nomination decision is not a big deal as the matter of Olympiad or NECG decisions. There is no money involved, as any prizemoney will come back to an Australian chess activity
Why should money have anything to do with it. In fact when it comes to olympiad selection it ends up as an expense for the player not a pay day.


However if you want to appeal paul B's decision fine go ahead and do that.
You still act as if my call for an appeal was serious and not saecastic.


But if that is the case where do you want to draw the line? do you want an appeal system in place if any NSWCA member disagrees about the dates of NSWCA weekenders, prizemoney at NSWCA tournaments, the borrowing of clocks etc etc? The workings of the NSWCAand ACF will ground to a halt as day to day operational activities are appealed by disgruntled members....
So now your arguing against appeals. Good for you.
However there is an appeals mechanism in place.
Its called the AGM.


Thus I think appeals for subjective team selections are fine, but appeals for "minor" things like this self nomination process is not fine.
And once again you fail the test.
Consider this.
Five selectors make a decision but you want an appealls process for it.
One person (paulb) makes a decision and you dont want an appeals process.
In that scenario decision making process is more likely to be flawed.



Nonetheless if you wish to seek a review of this go ahead, although I would very much doubt that you would marshall a convincing arugement to overturn this decision or muster enough popular support
And once again you act as if my call for an appeal was serious.


And once again you act as if my call for an appeal was serious.Even such a smart person as the Grand Poobah said that self nomination is the way to go, so that makes 2 of the Moderator trio for self nomination.
Actually Kevin said it is probably necessary to avoid collusion, not that it was a good thing.

WBA
05-02-2004, 11:48 PM
Geez, and I thought us Vics carried on!!! :p

Rincewind
05-02-2004, 11:50 PM
Geez, and I thought us Vics carried on!!! :p

You do! But at least you carry on about something important. ;)

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 11:54 PM
You do! But at least you carry on about something important. ;)
This from the person who tried unsuccessfully to teach CL the meaning of conceited. :whistle:

ursogr8
06-02-2004, 07:55 AM
You do! But at least you carry on about something important. ;)

Barry

Has the topic that Bill debates ever had the pre-requisite of 'importance' ?
Or does he just filter 'non-chess'; and everything else is in?
You have a better memory than me.



And, BTW have you worked out Matt's New Year Resolution yet? There have been enough hints.

starter

arosar
06-02-2004, 08:33 AM
Geez, and I thought us Vics carried on!!! :p

Mate, wait til Bill and Matt get it on for 2004. They haven't yet. But this whole 'best post' business is just plain stupid. I blame one man for it: Mr Syke!

AR

ursogr8
06-02-2004, 08:59 AM
Mate, wait til Bill and Matt get it on for 2004. They haven't yet. But this whole 'best post' business is just plain stupid. I blame one man for it: Mr Syke!

AR

AR
Is that the Paul Sike that has all the nominated posters crowd calling out >>

Syke, Syke, Syke

it is

moi, moi, moi


?



starter

Cat
06-02-2004, 09:57 AM
Get a grip David. :rolleyes:

CL the "there must be an appeal mechanism" advocate has been caught out.


The words come from Return of the King and were spoken by (the kinder) Smeagol when he was trying to expunge his (wicked) alter ego Gollum. It was once suggested that CL & BG may have been alter egos and this dialogue reminded me of the Gollum character, so driven by an obsession he had lost all perspective. The question is, who is Gollum and who is Smeagol? Now that would bean interesting poll!

arosar
06-02-2004, 10:19 AM
Yo Dr Richards mate - what did you think of the 3rd episode? Like it? I reckon the first one was always the best man. In the third there were scenes that sorta didn't make sense at all. Like when enemy boats were supposedly taken over. Jackson shoulda at least spent another 3 to 5 minutes showing us how they took over the pirates, etc. etc.

AR

chesslover
06-02-2004, 05:40 PM
As I said, no understanding of sarcasm.


Once more hoisted on your own petard.
If you cannot see how hypocritical that is then you are a totally lost cause. :whistle:

It shows no such thing.
It shows most people couldnt give a rat's ass about the BB prizes.

Why should money have anything to do with it. In fact when it comes to olympiad selection it ends up as an expense for the player not a pay day.

You still act as if my call for an appeal was serious and not saecastic.

So now your arguing against appeals. Good for you.
However there is an appeals mechanism in place.
Its called the AGM.

And once again you fail the test.
Consider this.
Five selectors make a decision but you want an appealls process for it.
One person (paulb) makes a decision and you dont want an appeals process.
In that scenario decision making process is more likely to be flawed.

And once again you act as if my call for an appeal was serious.

Actually Kevin said it is probably necessary to avoid collusion, not that it was a good thing.

I want to make a couple of points regarding your WRONG (sorry "mistaken") put downs on me, as I am feelingvery upset by this

1. Just as you were WRONG (sorry "mistaken") is your attempts to read paul B's mind, you are similarly WRONG (sorry "mistaken") in your ability to read Kevin's mind.

You read in Paul B's post for the best 2003 post thread that self nomination was not allowed. I and a couple of others analysed his post correcttly, and yet you carried on stating that we were wrong. Yet Paul B calrified and specifically stated that self nomination was allowed, and it was fine. Instead of admitting that you were WRONG (sorry "mistaken") you then threatened to launch appeals and have the ACF take the money away from the best BB post as this was not to your liking

Similarly Kevin posted that he was for self nomination. With two of the most respected and august individuals stating their preferences so clearly, you instead of admitting that you are WRONG (sorry "mistaken"), now try and twist Kevin's words by stating that he is only for the self nomination because it would avoid collusion. If you read Kevin's post and the post in another thread in relation to this, you will quite clearly see that yet once again you are WRONG (sorry "mistaken").

You see in others posts some thinmg that support ypur views, even when you are quite clearly WRONG (sorry "mistaken"). When these individuals repudiate your mind reading ability, instead of admitting that you are WRONG (sorry "mistaken"), you then attack the persons who call you WRONG (sorry "mistaken").

Why cannot you admit that you are WRONG (sorry "mistaken"), and we can then move on. Remember that otherwise you will never develop as a human being and your self will never grow.

2. When paul B announced that self nomination, rather than accept that you were WRONG (sorry "mistaken") you then threatened to launch appeals and have the ACF take the money away from the best BB post as this was not to your liking.

When I pointed out how this was quite hypocritical given your earlier stance on appeals, you were totally finished. Especially when I pointed out that you threatening to go with the ACF was an act of pure vindictiveness, and that it was much much worse than the NECG thread - which only argued for any disaffected person to contact NECG to appeal, NOT to take money away because they did not agree with the selection, which is what you were doing.Even one of the most practised practioner of the arts of flame wars and wits, Matt Sweeney, stated that you were Ko'd and that your arguements were all blown away and that you were quite simply WRONG.

Then instead of admitting that you were WRONG (sorry "mistaken"), you then hit upon the "sarcasm defence" to cover up the fact that you were WRONG (sorry "mistaken") in relation to your statement that you were going to appeal Paul B's edict that self nomination was wrong

The fact that the BB is split evenly, and that there is not a groundswell of opinion against Paul B is an apt reflection on how there is no case against self nomination. Will you accept that?

Whilst you have discovered the "sarcasm defence" to cover up the fact that you were WRONG (sorry "mistaken") in relation to stating that you want to appeal, I note that you have not provided any defence to the statement that you would go to the ACF and have the ACF council reverse the money they were going to provide to the Best post 2003, just because you did not agree with this decision of paul's. Your own words have condemned you and are being used against you Supreme Leader. This is farfar far worse than what I stated on the NECG post - which after all was merely to contact the NECG to appeal, not take the money away from the NECG squad. Do you accept that and admit that you were WRONG (sorry "mistaken") in relation to this statement about going to the ACF and taking the money away?

Or will you to cover the fact that you have now been exposed as a hypocrite, who cannot accpet the verdict of the umpire and that you were WRONG (sorry "mistaken") about this, coem up with another excuse?

PS - all humans err, and there is nothing to be ashamed of in being WRONG (sorry "mistaken"). I will wait to here your admission that you were WRONG (sorry "mistaken") in relation to self nomination, and your subsequent actions

Bill Gletsos
06-02-2004, 08:25 PM
I want to make a couple of points regarding your WRONG (sorry "mistaken") put downs on me, as I am feelingvery upset by this

1. Just as you were WRONG (sorry "mistaken") is your attempts to read paul B's mind, you are similarly WRONG (sorry "mistaken") in your ability to read Kevin's mind.

You read in Paul B's post for the best 2003 post thread that self nomination was not allowed. I and a couple of others analysed his post correcttly, and yet you carried on stating that we were wrong. Yet Paul B calrified and specifically stated that self nomination was allowed, and it was fine. Instead of admitting that you were WRONG (sorry "mistaken") you then threatened to launch appeals and have the ACF take the money away from the best BB post as this was not to your liking

Similarly Kevin posted that he was for self nomination. With two of the most respected and august individuals stating their preferences so clearly, you instead of admitting that you are WRONG (sorry "mistaken"), now try and twist Kevin's words by stating that he is only for the self nomination because it would avoid collusion. If you read Kevin's post and the post in another thread in relation to this, you will quite clearly see that yet once again you are WRONG (sorry "mistaken").
Are you a moron(sorry "stupid").
It has nothing to do with being right or wrong.
Paulb originally never mentioned that self nomination was allowed or disallowed. Now since self nomination is just crassness personified it was reasonable to assume it was disallowed. In fact in re-reading my posts I think I only suggested that paulb probably never expected anyone to be so crass as to self nominate. even if he did think someone would self nominate I doubt he expected someone to be so moronic(sorry "stupid") to do so 4 times.
Paulb eventually stated self-nomination was allowed. He did not give any reason why he was allowing it.

As for Kevin he made it quite clear why he thought self posting should be allowed.

I think self-nomination should be allowed, because if you ban it you may just get those intent on self-nomination routing around it by finding another person so inclined and swapping nominations. That would be even worse in a sense, because it would be obvious that some of the nominations were not sincere. Therefore I voted "yes",
Now my moronic(sorry "stupid") chap that shows his reason is to avoid collusion.
He then followed it up by saying self posters could make a goose of themselves.



You see in others posts some thinmg that support ypur views, even when you are quite clearly WRONG (sorry "mistaken"). When these individuals repudiate your mind reading ability, instead of admitting that you are WRONG (sorry "mistaken"), you then attack the persons who call you WRONG (sorry "mistaken").
You really are moronic(sorry "stupid").
I can interpret what is unwritten anyway I like. That does not make it wrong. And in fact with regards Kevins post I was not reading his mind but what he actually typed. In your zeal to claim Kevin as a supporter you overlooked what he was saying.



Why cannot you admit that you are WRONG (sorry "mistaken"), and we can then move on. Remember that otherwise you will never develop as a human being and your self will never grow.
Ha ha that is rich coming from you.
As far as I am concerned I don't believe I was wrong or mistaken.


2. When paul B announced that self nomination, rather than accept that you were WRONG (sorry "mistaken") you then threatened to launch appeals and have the ACF take the money away from the best BB post as this was not to your liking.
Moron(sorry "stupid") the call for an appeal was sarcasm.
As for the BB prizes it is ACF money, not yours, not paulb's and not Paul Sikes. I suspect that if it was announced in the ACF bulletin that there was going to be prizes for bb posts there would be an outcry.


When I pointed out how this was quite hypocritical given your earlier stance on appeals, you were totally finished. Especially when I pointed out that you threatening to go with the ACF was an act of pure vindictiveness, and that it was much much worse than the NECG thread - which only argued for any disaffected person to contact NECG to appeal, NOT to take money away because they did not agree with the selection, which is what you were doing.Even one of the most practised practioner of the arts of flame wars and wits, Matt Sweeney, stated that you were Ko'd and that your arguements were all blown away and that you were quite simply WRONG.
What a load of rubbish.
You who has no clue of irony, sarcasm, humour or wit were caught as being completely hypocritical as soon as I suggested I would appeal when you quickly pointed out that pualb was the sole arbiter and there is no appeal.
What was an even bigger joke was just 24-48 hours previously you had appealed against paulb deleting your NECG post. I remember you called him a barbarian and a hypocrite.


Then instead of admitting that you were WRONG (sorry "mistaken"), you then hit upon the "sarcasm defence" to cover up the fact that you were WRONG (sorry "mistaken") in relation to your statement that you were going to appeal Paul B's edict that self nomination was wrong
Well naturally someone who has no clue of saecasm would miss the fact I was being sarcastic.


The fact that the BB is split evenly, and that there is not a groundswell of opinion against Paul B is an apt reflection on how there is no case against self nomination. Will you accept that?
Ah you must count votes like your hero George Bush. At the moment the count is 6 in favour 7 against. Too bad you dont have a brother as an admin/moderator(sorry "Govenor").


Whilst you have discovered the "sarcasm defence" to cover up the fact that you were WRONG (sorry "mistaken") in relation to stating that you want to appeal, I note that you have not provided any defence to the statement that you would go to the ACF and have the ACF council reverse the money they were going to provide to the Best post 2003, just because you did not agree with this decision of paul's. Your own words have condemned you and are being used against you Supreme Leader.
Again learn to read CL.
I did not say I would go to the ACF Council.
I simply pointed out that it wouldnt be too difficult to get this whole farce cancelled by going to the ACF Council.
If I had meant I would go to the ACF Council I would have said "I intend to immediately call for an email vote of the ACF Council to put an end to this farce."



This is farfar far worse than what I stated on the NECG post - which after all was merely to contact the NECG to appeal, not take the money away from the NECG squad. Do you accept that and admit that you were WRONG (sorry "mistaken") in relation to this statement about going to the ACF and taking the money away?
Once again you really are a moron(sorry "stupid").
Even if the ACF Council did withdraw the funds the effect on chess would be minimal.
Your tactic on the otherhand was much more dangerous. If someone appealed /complained to the NECG people there would be an excellent chance they would withdraw $7,000 from junior chess.

[QUOTE=chesslover]Or will you to cover the fact that you have now been exposed as a hypocrite, who cannot accpet the verdict of the umpire and that you were WRONG (sorry "mistaken") about this, coem up with another excuse?
Actually the only hypocrite is you.
A moronic(sorry "stupid") hypocrite.
You argued for appeal processes for olympiad team and NECG selection.
You even appealed against paulb deleting one of your posts
But when suddenly some hints at appealing against something you believe. you are suddenly all for no appeals.

It was only after I pointed out what a hypocritical position this was that you suggested that maybe I could appeal, if I could be bothered.


PS - all humans err, and there is nothing to be ashamed of in being WRONG (sorry "mistaken"). I will wait to here your admission that you were WRONG (sorry "mistaken") in relation to self nomination, and your subsequent actions
Some humans are morons(sorry "stupid"). Some are unfortunately are born that way. Those have you deserved sympathy. Others however were not born morons(sorry "stupid"), they actually work hard to reach that stage every day.

You should work less hard at it.

chesslover
07-02-2004, 04:59 PM
Are you a moron(sorry "stupid").
It has nothing to do with being right or wrong.
Paulb originally never mentioned that self nomination was allowed or disallowed. Now since self nomination is just crassness personified it was reasonable to assume it was disallowed. In fact in re-reading my posts I think I only suggested that paulb probably never expected anyone to be so crass as to self nominate. even if he did think someone would self nominate I doubt he expected someone to be so moronic(sorry "stupid") to do so 4 times.
Paulb eventually stated self-nomination was allowed. He did not give any reason why he was allowing it.

As for Kevin he made it quite clear why he thought self posting should be allowed. Now my moronic(sorry "stupid") chap that shows his reason is to avoid collusion. He then followed it up by saying self posters could make a goose of themselves.

Moron(sorry "stupid") the call for an appeal was sarcasm.
As for the BB prizes it is ACF money, not yours, not paulb's and not Paul Sikes. I suspect that if it was announced in the ACF bulletin that there was going to be prizes for bb posts there would be an outcry.

What a load of rubbish.
You who has no clue of irony, sarcasm, humour or wit were caught as being completely hypocritical as soon as I suggested I would appeal when you quickly pointed out that pualb was the sole arbiter and there is no appeal.
What was an even bigger joke was just 24-48 hours previously you had appealed against paulb deleting your NECG post. I remember you called him a barbarian and a hypocrite.


Well naturally someone who has no clue of saecasm would miss the fact I was being sarcastic.


Ah you must count votes like your hero George Bush. At the moment the count is 6 in favour 7 against. Too bad you dont have a brother as an admin/moderator(sorry "Govenor").


Again learn to read CL.
I did not say I would go to the ACF Council.
I simply pointed out that it wouldnt be too difficult to get this whole farce cancelled by going to the ACF Council.
If I had meant I would go to the ACF Council I would have said "I intend to immediately call for an email vote of the ACF Council to put an end to this farce."


Actually the only hypocrite is you.
A moronic(sorry "stupid") hypocrite.
You argued for appeal processes for olympiad team and NECG selection.
You even appealed against paulb deleting one of your posts
But when suddenly some hints at appealing against something you believe. you are suddenly all for no appeals.

It was only after I pointed out what a hypocritical position this was that you suggested that maybe I could appeal, if I could be bothered.


1. I note that after the severe thrashing you have got by use of the you were WRONG (sorry "mistaken") theme, you have resorted to the "copycat attack", just like you used the "sarcasm defense" to get out of the appeal hole you had dug yourself into, and which was exposed. At least it shows that you can learn, and if needed adopt the views of others. Well done Supreme Leader

2. Who said self nomination is crassness personified? Just because YOU said so, does not make it a fact, It is just YOUR opinion. I on the other hand, as explained in a post, think that self nomination is taking individual action and taking charge of life - not waiting for someone and letting life take charge of you. You have stated that you are not the latter, but your entire attitude to self nomination indicates that subconsciously you are like that. At least it shows that evcen though you are a passive victim by nature, you have consciously worked to take active control of your life and it's action. BTW just so that you do not misunderstand it, that last sentence was a jibe meant to provoke you :p . The fact that PaulB did not explain it, shows that he did think it was so obvious that there was no need for an explanation.

3. You are taking Kevin's word out of context. Kevin said that he is FOR self nomination. End of story. Justify and twist his words any way you liek but Kevin's disendorsement of your position shows that even the wisest of all BB posters here has moved away from your position. Also Kevin made the reference to self nominators being gooses, only in the context of if a self nominator,nominates something that no one else would nominate. STop trying to twist Kevin's simple message to your own ends - like you did with paulB. Otherwise just like with paul,you will have to admit that you are "mistaken"

4. Nice try now argueing that you were being sarcastic after being blasted and exposed. This is just like the chess player who loses, saying that they lost becuase they felt sorry for the opponent. Are you now going to try and use your "sarcasm defense" every time you are "mistaken"

5. When you said that it was a threat. a plain and simple threat to have the ACF council withdraw the money because you did not agree with the decision of paulB. If you had said you would reverse the decision by going to the ACF, that would be another issue entirely as you would be using the aCF council as a defacto appeal source - just like I advocated with the NECG. Instead you threatend to take the entire money away - akin to a disgruntled parent asking the NECG to take the entire sponsorship dollars away because they disagree with the non selection of their child. That SUpreme leader was a big "mistake"

6. Although I stated that I appealed about the NECG post, I was "mistaken" in that regards. See - I can admit when I was "mistaken", so you too should not be ashamed to admit when you are "mistaken". I merely sought clarification from the moderators, and asked if they could change their mind on the deletion of the NECG post. Kevin said there was no appeal rights to deletion of posts

7.By teh way the votes are tied 50/50. Even if you win marginally, it shows that there is no overwhelming consensus to reverse the wise and correct decision made by paul b. By the way, and I will only say this sentence otherwise it will develeop into a fully fledged President Bush issue,but the US Supreme Court (the ultimate APPEAL court in the USA) agreed with the way President Bush's vote was counted. So in trying to be clever and link the vote counting to my political hero, you have just made another "mistake"

I will make a deal with you. If you admit that you were "mistaken" in relation to the self nomination process, then I am willing to let bygones be bygones, and put this behind us. Remember all humans make "mistakes"

Bill Gletsos
07-02-2004, 06:20 PM
1. I note that after the severe thrashing you have got by use of the you were WRONG (sorry "mistaken") theme, you have resorted to the "copycat attack", just like you used the "sarcasm defense" to get out of the appeal hole you had dug yourself into, and which was exposed. At least it shows that you can learn, and if needed adopt the views of others. Well done Supreme Leader
I didnt dig myself into any hole.
As for your so called sarcasm defence everyone knows you have no clue when it comes to irony or sarcasm.
It is therefore no wonder you would not see sarcasm if it hit you in the face.


2. Who said self nomination is crassness personified? Just because YOU said so, does not make it a fact, It is just YOUR opinion.
It is not just my opinion.
I described it as crassness.
Barry described it as being conceited.
There isnt much difference in the long run between those two descriptions.


I on the other hand, as explained in a post, think that self nomination is taking individual action and taking charge of life - not waiting for someone and letting life take charge of you. You have stated that you are not the latter, but your entire attitude to self nomination indicates that subconsciously you are like that.
Just what I need advice from a cretin.
Self nomination isnt taking control. It is either just an act of conceit by someone who overvalues there own work to else perpetrated by a goose who is scared that his posts will be completly overlooked by the other posters because they lack any real value.


At least it shows that evcen though you are a passive victim by nature, you have consciously worked to take active control of your life and it's action. BTW just so that you do not misunderstand it, that last sentence was a jibe meant to provoke you :p . The fact that PaulB did not explain it, shows that he did think it was so obvious that there was no need for an explanation.
Now who is reading minds. You have no clue one way or the other what paulb's reasoning is to accept self nomination.


3. You are taking Kevin's word out of context. Kevin said that he is FOR self nomination. End of story.
No Kevin said he is for the nomination BECAUSE and gave a reason.
That reason was collusion.


Justify and twist his words any way you liek but Kevin's disendorsement of your position shows that even the wisest of all BB posters here has moved away from your position. Also Kevin made the reference to self nominators being gooses, only in the context of if a self nominator,nominates something that no one else would nominate. STop trying to twist Kevin's simple message to your own ends - like you did with paulB. Otherwise just like with paul,you will have to admit that you are "mistaken"
Look dipstick, I dont have to twist Kevins words.
He was explict why he was for and that was because of the possibilty of collusion.
As for kevins reference to gooses, its clear you cannot understand what he is saying when he says it in plain english.


4. Nice try now argueing that you were being sarcastic after being blasted and exposed. This is just like the chess player who loses, saying that they lost becuase they felt sorry for the opponent. Are you now going to try and use your "sarcasm defense" every time you are "mistaken"
Yes well when your as stupid as you it is easy to understand how you cannot understand sarcasm.


5. When you said that it was a threat. a plain and simple threat to have the ACF council withdraw the money because you did not agree with the decision of paulB. If you had said you would reverse the decision by going to the ACF, that would be another issue entirely as you would be using the aCF council as a defacto appeal source - just like I advocated with the NECG. Instead you threatend to take the entire money away - akin to a disgruntled parent asking the NECG to take the entire sponsorship dollars away because they disagree with the non selection of their child. That SUpreme leader was a big "mistake"
Now your just misrepresenting the situation entirely. I never threatened to take the money away.
I said It wouldnt be hard to get the ACF Council to cancel this whole farce.


6. Although I stated that I appealed about the NECG post, I was "mistaken" in that regards. See - I can admit when I was "mistaken", so you too should not be ashamed to admit when you are "mistaken". I merely sought clarification from the moderators, and asked if they could change their mind on the deletion of the NECG post. Kevin said there was no appeal rights to deletion of posts
So what. You appealed the decision of paulb to delete you post. It was rejected.
Yet when I suggested I might appeal a paulb b decision you were suddenly screaming he was the ultimate arbiter and there was no appeal.
Just shows what a hypocrite you are.


7.By teh way the votes are tied 50/50. Even if you win marginally, it shows that there is no overwhelming consensus to reverse the wise and correct decision made by paul b. By the way, and I will only say this sentence otherwise it will develeop into a fully fledged President Bush issue,but the US Supreme Court (the ultimate APPEAL court in the USA) agreed with the way President Bush's vote was counted. So in trying to be clever and link the vote counting to my political hero, you have just made another "mistake"
Nice try but nearly anyone will tell you the US Supreme Court was biased. The court virtually voted along the judges political leanings.


I will make a deal with you. If you admit that you were "mistaken" in relation to the self nomination process, then I am willing to let bygones be bygones, and put this behind us. Remember all humans make "mistakes"
I you read and understand what I said tyhen I wasnt mistaken with regards self nomination.
So I suggest you dont hold your breath.
Therefore every time you continue to post on this I will reply.

However perhaps we should cut to the real issue here.
Will you answer the question that you have been avoiding for upteen posts.

You originally stated in other threads both here and on the old ACF baord that you beleived there should always be an appeals process.
Why do you suddenly chnage that and now only support an appeals process for the NECG and the Olympiad team and not support an appeal process for individuals appealing a paulb decision. Surely that is hypocritical.

chesslover
07-02-2004, 06:20 PM
Bill has said that I am a hypocrite for insisting that there be appeals for Olympiad/NECG selection, and none for this call for an appeal for the self nomination decision by paul B.

The reason is I make my decisions on a "bottom up" issue based perspective -not a "top down absolutist" perspective like Supreme Leader.

Thus it is not a black and white issue on all aspects, with everything being decided on precedent and the status quo preferred. It is more a decision based on issue by issue, with flexibility and acknowledgement that there are grey ideas, and things are rarely as simple as right or wrong.

Thus although in general principle I think appeals are good, and essential for Olympiad and NECG selection, I do not think that appeals are needed for the self nomination issue like Bill wanted. Like I stated if that is the case then every single NSWCA and ACF day to day decisions would ground to a halt as disgruntled people believe.

I think that rather than an appeal for everything/ no appeals at all decision, the more approrpraie decision should be should appeals exist for this? Most astute analysts and decision makers would agrtee with my flexible decision making process, than the crude absolutist decision making process that Bill demands that I make.

In the real world it is like that too - people seldom vote the same for all issues. People who are right wing, can be pro choice in abortion, be flexible in homosexual relationship (even Dick Chaney's daughter is a lesbian), belive in sex before marriage etc. Similarly people like Costello can be for the Republic, for aboriginal reconcilation etc. I liek President Bush, and support his war on terror but am against his anti-abortion policy, his pro-guns policy, his revulsion for gay marriages etc.

Thus the fact that I said that there should be appeals for Olympiad and NECG and none for Bill's self nomination process appeal, is not hypocritical at all

chesslover
07-02-2004, 07:01 PM
It is not just my opinion.
I described it as crassness.
Barry described it as being conceited.
There isnt much difference in the long run between those two descriptions.

Just what I need advice from a cretin.
Self nomination isnt taking control. It is either just an act of conceit by someone who overvalues there own work to else perpetrated by a goose who is scared that his posts will be completly overlooked by the other posters because they lack any real value.

No Kevin said he is for the nomination BECAUSE and gave a reason.
That reason was collusion. Look dipstick, I dont have to twist Kevins words.
He was explict why he was for and that was because of the possibilty of collusion.

As for kevins reference to gooses, its clear you cannot understand what he is saying when he says it in plain english.


Now your just misrepresenting the situation entirely. I never threatened to take the money away.
I said It wouldnt be hard to get the ACF Council to cancel this whole farce.


So what. You appealed the decision of paulb to delete you post. It was rejected.
Yet when I suggested I might appeal a paulb b decision you were suddenly screaming he was the ultimate arbiter and there was no appeal.
Just shows what a hypocrite you are.


Nice try but nearly anyone will tell you the US Supreme Court was biased. The court virtually voted along the judges political leanings.


You originally stated in other threads both here and on the old ACF baord that you beleived there should always be an appeals process.
Why do you suddenly chnage that and now only support an appeals process for the NECG and the Olympiad team and not support an appeal process for individuals appealing a paulb decision. Surely that is hypocritical.

Let me point out the "mistakes" you have made in the post above

1.In the dictionary is states
a Conceit - ingeniously contrived : fanciful : having an excessively high opinion of oneself
b crass - crassus thick, gross] : Gross, insensitive - cras.si.tude n

Thus shows that ypour comment that these words mean the same is.."mistaken"

2. Self nomination is not an acto of conceit or fear of being overlooked. I think that if you think it is good enpough you owe it to your self esteem and self respect and sunconsious that you self nominate, rather than wait for someone to nominate for you. It is all about taking control of your life - not being dependent on someone else to it for you. Another "mistake" by you

3. NO NO NO - Kevin said this "rubbish, the rules are very much to my taste, read the thread Bill started where I voted for allowing people to self-nominate and against any suggestion that self-nomination be banned" in the vBulletin conversion thread.

This suggests, as well as his vote for the self nomination in the poll that he is for the self nomination process, and is "AGAINST ANY suggestion that self nomination be banned"

oops..another "mistake" by you

4. Kevin said this in relation to "gooses" - " also think anyone who self-nominates a post which would not obviously have been nominated by others is making a goose of themselves and should be laughed at"

This only applies to posts that would not have OBVIOUSLY been nominated by others. If you nominate posts that would have not obviously been nominated by others it is not being a goose

Yet another "mistake"..oh dear, does not look good huh Supreme Leader?

5. I did not appeal the deletion of the NECG thread deletion, because there is no appeal rights for deletion by modertaors, as kevin pointed out in his email to me explaining why the decision would stand - "You have no appeal rights against a moderator's decision (except that you can ask us to change it, but that doesn't mean we will)"

Thus all I asked was for the decision to be changed, not appealed as you claim, as it is not possible to appeal against a moderators decision

Another "mistake" by you...had enough?

6. You said - "The money is ACF money.It wouldnt be too hard to get this whole farce cancelled and the money withdrawn by a simple email vote of the ACF Council."

This sounds like a threat anda dummy spit. If it sounds like a threat, looks like a threat, talks like a threat, walks like a threat,...that what is it?.......since I do not want you to make another "mistake" by coming to a wrong answer, I will answer ...it is a threat

7. you said that "nearly anyone will tell you the US Supreme Court was biased". I assume that you have talked to nearly everyone of the 6 billion people to ascertain this view? No...another "mistake"?....

maybe you talked to "nearly anyone" of the 300 million people in US to ascertain that the supreme court was biased?....no..oh dear...another "mistake"....a lot of them here huh?

The fact is when the US supreme court split 5-4 in favour of the count of Bush, the reactions is US was also similarly split. Conservatives agreed and the liberals disagreed. Bush supporters agreed, and Gore supporters disagreed. Some media agreed and some media disagreed. It was a roughly 50/50 split in relation to the supreme court verdict - just like it was in the election itself

8. Also the US Supreme court is the FINAL arbiter of all constitutional decisions and judical decions, irrespective of who appointed them, so what they say goes in the USA, even if you disagree with them. Hence if they say the way teh votes were counted that made Bush the winner was correct...then guess what?....IT IS CORRECT...because that is the verdict of the highest judicial body in the US..the US supreme court. Any contray ruling by any courts or institution in the US is wrong - or to put in words that you can identify with "mistaken"

9. I have explained why being for NECG/ Olympiad appeals and not being for appeals against self nomination is not hypocritical. This is not because I agree with Paul's decision, but based on common sense

Since you have made so many "mistakes" in the one post, surely as a clever man (and despite this issue, I still think you are a clever man) you must admit that it is possible that you could be "mistaken" over this whole saga?

I am a fair person and will not ask you to apologise, or even correct your "mistakes". Just admit that you were wrong (sorry "mistaken") and all will be fine....okay?

Bill Gletsos
07-02-2004, 07:11 PM
Bill has said that I am a hypocrite for insisting that there be appeals for Olympiad/NECG selection, and none for this call for an appeal for the self nomination decision by paul B.

The reason is I make my decisions on a "bottom up" issue based perspective -not a "top down absolutist" perspective like Supreme Leader.
You were the one who originally said that you believed there should always be an appeal mechanism. At that time you didnt qualify it. Therefore you were advocating an absolutist view. I was simply holding you to your previously stated views. If you are now saying you no longer holding the view that there must always be an appeals mechanism but will determine such things on there merits, then I applaud you for finally seeing the light.

In the case of the NECG I'm definately against appeals.
In the case of the olympiad squad/acf selections in general, I don't beleive I have stated a preference one way or the other regarding appeals. I had stated that according to legal advice received after the Depasquale case there was no need for an appeals process.
I'm leaning more against appeals than in favour, mainly due to the above mentioned legal advice.


Thus it is not a black and white issue on all aspects, with everything being decided on precedent and the status quo preferred. It is more a decision based on issue by issue, with flexibility and acknowledgement that there are grey ideas, and things are rarely as simple as right or wrong.

Thus although in general principle I think appeals are good, and essential for Olympiad and NECG selection, I do not think that appeals are needed for the self nomination issue like Bill wanted. Like I stated if that is the case then every single NSWCA and ACF day to day decisions would ground to a halt as disgruntled people believe.
People could simply perceive this as you are all for appeals in areas where YOU believe there should be appeals and all against appeals in areas where YOU dont believe there should be appeals.


I think that rather than an appeal for everything/ no appeals at all decision, the more approrpraie decision should be should appeals exist for this? Most astute analysts and decision makers would agrtee with my flexible decision making process, than the crude absolutist decision making process that Bill demands that I make.
You were the one who previously shown an absolutist view, not I.


In the real world it is like that too - people seldom vote the same for all issues. People who are right wing, can be pro choice in abortion, be flexible in homosexual relationship (even Dick Chaney's daughter is a lesbian), belive in sex before marriage etc. Similarly people like Costello can be for the Republic, for aboriginal reconcilation etc. I liek President Bush, and support his war on terror but am against his anti-abortion policy, his pro-guns policy, his revulsion for gay marriages etc.
This whole section is irrelevant. The examples you cite are all unrelated so it would seem natural that people would vote differently. However with appeals it is the issue of whether there should be appeals or not.


Thus the fact that I said that there should be appeals for Olympiad and NECG and none for Bill's self nomination process appeal, is not hypocritical at all
I'll leave that for others to decide.

Bill Gletsos
07-02-2004, 07:56 PM
Let me point out the "mistakes" you have made in the post above

1.In the dictionary is states
a Conceit - ingeniously contrived : fanciful : having an excessively high opinion of oneself
b crass - crassus thick, gross] : Gross, insensitive - cras.si.tude n

Thus shows that ypour comment that these words mean the same is.."mistaken"
I didnt say they were the same.
I said that in the long run there wasnt much difference.


2. Self nomination is not an acto of conceit or fear of being overlooked. I think that if you think it is good enpough you owe it to your self esteem and self respect and sunconsious that you self nominate, rather than wait for someone to nominate for you. It is all about taking control of your life - not being dependent on someone else to it for you. Another "mistake" by you
Ha ha. All this stuff about taking control of your life is just crap.
Barry pointed out self nomination is conceited especially when someone nominates 4 of their own posts. Kevin effectively called self nominaters gooses. That isnt a term most people would like attributed too them.


3. NO NO NO - Kevin said this "rubbish, the rules are very much to my taste, read the thread Bill started where I voted for allowing people to self-nominate and against any suggestion that self-nomination be banned" in the vBulletin conversion thread

This suggests, as well as his vote for the self nomination in the poll that he is for the self nomination process, and is "AGAINST ANY suggestion that self nomination be banned"
Your selectively reading that again.
Kevin made it quite clear when he voted in my poll on self nomination that he believed that banning self nomination would onkly lead to collusion.
He said

I think self-nomination should be allowed, because if you ban it you may just get those intent on self-nomination routing around it by finding another person so inclined and swapping nominations. That would be even worse in a sense, because it would be obvious that some of the nominations were not sincere. Therefore I voted "yes", which for the moment ties the score at 4-4.



4. Kevin said this in relation to "gooses" - " also think anyone who self-nominates a post which would not obviously have been nominated by others is making a goose of themselves and should be laughed at"

This only applies to posts that would not have OBVIOUSLY been nominated by others. If you nominate posts that would have not obviously been nominated by others it is not being a goose
I think you got that last sentence wrong you moronic goose.



5. I did not appeal the deletion of the NECG thread deletion, because there is no appeal rights for deletion by modertaors, as kevin pointed out in his email to me explaining why the decision would stand - "You have no appeal rights against a moderator's decision (except that you can ask us to change it, but that doesn't mean we will)"

Thus all I asked was for the decision to be changed, not appealed as you claim, as it is not possible to appeal against a moderators decision

Another "mistake" by you...had enough?
No the mistake is yours.
Yes but you didnt know there was no appeal rights at the time you appealed.
You appealed. You were then told there was no appeal rights.
You yourself said you appealed in two seperate posts.

and Kevin, appealing this deletion. and stating what happened...

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

So you called it an appeal twice. I simply used your words.
Therefore I made no mistake.



6. You said - "The money is ACF money.It wouldnt be too hard to get this whole farce cancelled and the money withdrawn by a simple email vote of the ACF Council."

This sounds like a threat anda dummy spit. If it sounds like a threat, looks like a threat, talks like a threat, walks like a threat,...that what is it?.......since I do not want you to make another "mistake" by coming to a wrong answer, I will answer ...it is a threat
If it looks like a goose and acts like a goose then its CL.


7. you said that "nearly anyone will tell you the US Supreme Court was biased". I assume that you have talked to nearly everyone of the 6 billion people to ascertain this view? No...another "mistake"?....

maybe you talked to "nearly anyone" of the 300 million people in US to ascertain that the supreme court was biased?....no..oh dear...another "mistake"....a lot of them here huh?

The fact is when the US supreme court split 5-4 in favour of the count of Bush, the reactions is US was also similarly split. Conservatives agreed and the liberals disagreed. Bush supporters agreed, and Gore supporters disagreed. Some media agreed and some media disagreed. It was a roughly 50/50 split in relation to the supreme court verdict - just like it was in the election itself
Thanks for making my point for me. The US supreme court was effectively split 5 republicans - 4 democrats. It isnt hard to see why the vote ended up 5-4 favouring a Republican president.


8. Also the US Supreme court is the FINAL arbiter of all constitutional decisions and judical decions, irrespective of who appointed them, so what they say goes in the USA, even if you disagree with them. Hence if they say the way teh votes were counted that made Bush the winner was correct...then guess what?....IT IS CORRECT...because that is the verdict of the highest judicial body in the US..the US supreme court. Any contray ruling by any courts or institution in the US is wrong - or to put in words that you can identify with "mistaken"
Cretin, I didn't say it was wrong I said it was biased.


9. I have explained why being for NECG/ Olympiad appeals and not being for appeals against self nomination is not hypocritical. This is not because I agree with Paul's decision, but based on common sense
Common sense says there should be no NECG appeals. You just had to look at the virtual total opposition to your actions/views in the old NECG thread.
Therefore I'm not sure your sense is common.


Since you have made so many "mistakes" in the one post, surely as a clever man (and despite this issue, I still think you are a clever man) you must admit that it is possible that you could be "mistaken" over this whole saga?

I am a fair person and will not ask you to apologise, or even correct your "mistakes". Just admit that you were wrong (sorry "mistaken") and all will be fine....okay?
Why would I admit a non existant mistake to a goose.

chesslover
07-02-2004, 09:10 PM
You were the one who originally said that you believed there should always be an appeal mechanism. At that time you didnt qualify it. Therefore you were advocating an absolutist view. I was simply holding you to your previously stated views. If you are now saying you no longer holding the view that there must always be an appeals mechanism but will determine such things on there merits, then I applaud you for finally seeing the light.

In the case of the NECG I'm definately against appeals.
In the case of the olympiad squad/acf selections in general, I don't beleive I have stated a preference one way or the other regarding appeals. I had stated that according to legal advice received after the Depasquale case there was no need for an appeals process.I'm leaning more against appeals than in favour, mainly due to the above mentioned legal advice.

This whole section is irrelevant. The examples you cite are all unrelated so it would seem natural that people would vote differently. However with appeals it is the issue of whether there should be appeals or not.



Okay then we are in agreement that rather than "one size fits all" approach, we should apply our decision on an issue by issue basis, rather than taking an absolutionist view

In the NECG we both differ - I think there should be, you do not
In the Olympiad we both differ - I think there should be, you do not
In the self nomination we both differ - I think there should not be, you think you should be able to appeal
In the matterof post deletion - I am unsure but think there should be no appeal, and am unsure of your view

As for my example it is very relevant. It shows that a person who is a "conservative" is not generally right wing in all issues, and similarly a person who is "liberal" is not liberal on all issues

chesslover
07-02-2004, 09:26 PM
I didnt say they were the same.
I said that in the long run there wasnt much difference.


Ha ha. All this stuff about taking control of your life is just crap.
Barry pointed out self nomination is conceited especially when someone nominates 4 of their own posts. Kevin effectively called self nominaters gooses. That isnt a term most people would like attributed too them.


Your selectively reading that again.
Kevin made it quite clear when he voted in my poll on self nomination that he believed that banning self nomination would onkly lead to collusion.

Yes but you didnt know there was no appeal rights at the time you appealed.
You appealed. You were then told there was no appeal rights.
You yourself said you appealed in two seperate posts.So you called it an appeal twice. I simply used your words.Therefore I made no mistake.

Thanks for making my point for me. The US supreme court was effectively split 5 republicans - 4 democrats. It isnt hard to see why the vote ended up 5-4 favouring a Republican president.Cretin, I didn't say it was wrong I said it was biased.



1. Sorry, you are "mistaken". As my dictionary definition shows there is a difference, between being crass and conceited - short, medium or long term.

2. Kevin DID NOT call self nominators gooses. He only said they are gooses, if they post a post that OBVIOUSLY woudl not be nominated by others. The term OBVIOUSLY by the way is a lower standard of proof and is also very subjective - which meant that a literal reading of his post means that I am not a goose, for how can you OBVIOUSLY say that others would not have nominated them? Remeber that at least 2 people offered to nominate my post and even vote for them - something that shows that my self nomination did not met the "OBVIOUS test" which means that I am not a goose

Again you were "mistaken"

3. Kevin in the vBulletin thread said "rubbish, the rules are very much to my taste, read the thread Bill started where I voted for allowing people to self-nominate and against any suggestion that self-nomination be banned".

This is very strong language by the Grand Poobah ("Rubbish!") and expresses his opinion in a very precise manner ("the rules are very much to my taste") and again reiterates his support for the self nomination process ("I voted for allowing people to self-nominate and against any suggestion that self-nomination be banned"). Does this sound like the post of a man who is forced into accepting self nomination?, And then Grand Poobah exclaims again very strongly (" I am AGAINST ANY SUGGESTION that self nomination be banned). Note the strong and vehement langauge that he uses - he is against "ANY suggestion".

another "mistake" Supreme Leader?

4. But if I thought there was an appeal, and there was no appeal rights, then was it really an appeal? If a tree falls, and no one knows about it, did the tree fall at all?

5. Do not even talk to me about US presidential politics. Just as you know far far far more than me about ratings, I know more about US presidential politics than you.

Take my word for it, you are WRONG (sorry "mistaken") in your statement about the Supreme Court verdict on Bush/Gore.

Bill Gletsos
07-02-2004, 11:08 PM
1. Sorry, you are "mistaken". As my dictionary definition shows there is a difference, between being crass and conceited - short, medium or long term.
Not in respect to you.
Your nominating of your own posts was crass.
As Barry suggested your nominating of your own pists was conceited.


2. Kevin DID NOT call self nominators gooses. He only said they are gooses, if they post a post that OBVIOUSLY woudl not be nominated by others. The term OBVIOUSLY by the way is a lower standard of proof and is also very subjective - which meant that a literal reading of his post means that I am not a goose, for how can you OBVIOUSLY say that others would not have nominated them? Remeber that at least 2 people offered to nominate my post and even vote for them - something that shows that my self nomination did not met the "OBVIOUS test" which means that I am not a goose

Again you were "mistaken"
Kevin makes it clear that he thinks you are a goose. Your just too stupid to realise it.


3. Kevin in the vBulletin thread said "rubbish, the rules are very much to my taste, read the thread Bill started where I voted for allowing people to self-nominate and against any suggestion that self-nomination be banned".

This is very strong language by the Grand Poobah ("Rubbish!") and expresses his opinion in a very precise manner ("the rules are very much to my taste") and again reiterates his support for the self nomination process ("I voted for allowing people to self-nominate and against any suggestion that self-nomination be banned"). Does this sound like the post of a man who is forced into accepting self nomination?, And then Grand Poobah exclaims again very strongly (" I am AGAINST ANY SUGGESTION that self nomination be banned). Note the strong and vehement langauge that he uses - he is against "ANY suggestion".
This is a total misrepresentation of kevin's comments in that and other threads.

Kevin calls your mutiple self nominations a farce.

The farce value is almost entirely due to the spectacular efforts of a single poster.
In response you said

I think you are referring to me, and if so your post is very very wrong and hurtful
I have done nothing wrong, as all I have done is within the rules. Tell me where I have broken the rules?

Kevin Replied:

You do not need to break the rules to generate a farcical situation. You have not broken any rules of the nomination process, but you've used it in a manner that's become controversial and lowered people's impression of the process.

....the farce concerns your use of self-nomination to nominate posts that otherwise would not have been nominated.
You replied:

Well if you think that is wrong, change the rules, The rules are there, and if I have not broken the rules then I do think that it is very rich of you to attack me - especially when I have ensured that I have complied with the rules.

Just because the rules are not to your taste, and Bill's and a couple of others, does not mean that it makes it right. The rules are the rules, and I have not broken any rules by self nomination.


Kevin then replied :

Rubbish, the rules are very much to my taste, read the thread Bill started where I voted for allowing people to self-nominate and against any suggestion that self-nomination be banned. Please don't misrepresent my position like this. And I have no problem with Paul S nominating his own post because it was a post that others would have nominated anyway - except that it gave you a precedent to use out of context.
Kevins reference to his post in my thread was:


I think self-nomination should be allowed, because if you ban it you may just get those intent on self-nomination routing around it by finding another person so inclined and swapping nominations. That would be even worse in a sense, because it would be obvious that some of the nominations were not sincere. Therefore I voted "yes", which for the moment ties the score at 4-4.

I also think anyone who self-nominates a post which would not obviously have been nominated by others is making a goose of themselves and should be laughed at.

All of the above shows:
1) Kevin thinks your self nominations were a farce. (the 3.07am post)
2) He thinks no one else would have nominated your posts. (the 6.49pm post)
3) He tells you to he is happy with the rules and tells you to read his post in my thread(the 11.15[m post) and to stop misrepresenting his words. (the 02.17am post)
4) He shows he is in favour of self nomination because of the problem of collusion.(the 11.15pm post)
5) He calls you a goose, because hr syayes in the 11.15pm post what constitutes a goose and that condition is what he criticesed you over in his 6.49pm post.

All in all you have been misrepresenting Kevins views.

So I was correct when I called your behaviour a farce and I wasnt the only person.
I was correct when I called you a goose and I wasnt the only one doing it.
I was correct in saying Kevin was in favour of self nomination because of the danger of collusion.



4. But if I thought there was an appeal, and there was no appeal rights, then was it really an appeal? If a tree falls, and no one knows about it, did the tree fall at all?
The fact kevin told you there was no appeal mechanism is immaterial.
In your mind you were appealing at the time and in those reading the thread they thought you were appealing.
Subsequently the fact there wasnt does not change the fact that you tried to appeal.


5. Do not even talk to me about US presidential politics. Just as you know far far far more than me about ratings, I know more about US presidential politics than you.

Take my word for it, you are WRONG (sorry "mistaken") in your statement about the Supreme Court verdict on Bush/Gore.
Obviously like I was wrong about Kevin calling your behaviour a farce. (Thats sarcasm in case you didnt realise) :whistle:

paulb
07-02-2004, 11:56 PM
A few remarks:

1. First, my attachment to the idea of self-nomination is not a deep philosophical position; rather it's based on practical considerations. The main reason I think self-nomination should be allowed is that the poster most familiar with their own posts is, of course, themselves. So if poster A believes he or she has written a number of good posts, they'll probably know best which ones they are and where to get them, whereas someone else may well have forgotten about them. So allowing self-nomination has the practical advantage of possibly unearthing worthy, but widely overlooked, posts. This may well lead to a broader and better collection of posts to vote on.

Of course, whether they are any good or not is another question. Self-nomination may lead to lots of unworthy posts. But surely that's a problem with non-self-selection too: I may be biased towards my own posts, but equally I'm likely to be biased towards others posts, eg, I will no doubt nominate posts from other people that conform to my prejudices.

2. Self-nomination is fairly common. For example, painters submit their own works to the Archibald or other art competitions. Chess tournaments are usually (though not always) a mattering of individuals entering, rather than being invited. And politicians put themselves forward at elections, rather than being invited by others.

3. The fact that a post has been nominated doesn't mean you have to vote for it, of course. And the fact that poster X has 10 nominations doesn't mean they'll win. The award is for the best post, not the best poster.

4. Logically, the fact that a post is nominated by its own poster, rather than someone else, says nothing about the quality of the post. It may or may not say something about the mindset of the poster, but again, that's not being judged.

5. The one strong objection I can see to self-posting is that if, say, 99 per cent of nominations were self-nominations by one person, that might inflate the chances of them winning, simply through chance. That strikes me as an reasonable objection.

6. The best cure for (5) is for other BB posters to ensure that lots of worthy posts are put up in competition. I notice that far more effort seems to have gone into the question of whether self-nomination is reasonable, etc, than has gone into actually nominating posts. Those who take this contest seriously would be well advised to ensure its integrity by nominating lots of worthy posts.

Indeed, I'd suggest that lack of nominations is a much bigger problem than self-nomination.

7. As I said in (1), my attachment to self-nomination is practical, not philosophical. (For example, in politics, I think we might have much better government if election candidates were drafted by the community, rather than their own ambition (... along the lines of Plato, with his reluctant philosopher-kings ). So if there is overwhelming opposition to the idea of self-nomination, it can be dropped. However, when last I checked it was about 50-50, so if that's indicative, it's simplest to keep it.

8. Regarding worthy posts, I'd suggest they should generally be something constructive about Australian chess - simply because it's the Australian Chess Federation that is giving the award. I, like Firegoat, much enjoyed Peter Hanna's political contributions - his views, I think, are pretty much identical to mine, and the post nominated was most enlightening - but it doesn't have anything to do with chess or the ACF.

I would have thought that Sweeney should be nominated for some of his posts - I frequently disagree, but I think many of them are paradigm examples of someone using his brain to try and think of ways forward, and I think that's ideally what we want to reward. Similarly, I think many posts from the ratings debate were very good and enlightening, and there were whole threads about tournament structure, ACF structure etc that should provide rich pickings for nominators.

(I should say that my decision to cut CL's NECG post was not a question of quality but "management").

9. On the issue of the award generally, I don't have any deep objection to it. I think it's a fair enough idea, but I don't think it's a major issue, principally because - as with the vast majority of bulletin boards - this one consists primarily of a huge volume of posts by a small number of people who have the interest, enthusiasm, time and access to visit the board regularly. It would be great if this were an "agora" for the Australian chess community but it's really an agora for a small part of the aust chess community, principally for practical reasons of time, access and enthusiasm. That's not a criticism of the BB regulars but just an acknowledgement of the practical reality. Of course, it'd be great if 99 per cent of aussie chess players posted here, but they don't.

Bill Gletsos
08-02-2004, 12:11 PM
A few remarks:

1. First, my attachment to the idea of self-nomination is not a deep philosophical position; rather it's based on practical considerations. The main reason I think self-nomination should be allowed is that the poster most familiar with their own posts is, of course, themselves. So if poster A believes he or she has written a number of good posts, they'll probably know best which ones they are and where to get them, whereas someone else may well have forgotten about them. So allowing self-nomination has the practical advantage of possibly unearthing worthy, but widely overlooked, posts. This may well lead to a broader and better collection of posts to vote on.

Of course, whether they are any good or not is another question. Self-nomination may lead to lots of unworthy posts. But surely that's a problem with non-self-selection too: I may be biased towards my own posts, but equally I'm likely to be biased towards others posts, eg, I will no doubt nominate posts from other people that conform to my prejudices.

2. Self-nomination is fairly common. For example, painters submit their own works to the Archibald or other art competitions. Chess tournaments are usually (though not always) a mattering of individuals entering, rather than being invited. And politicians put themselves forward at elections, rather than being invited by others.

3. The fact that a post has been nominated doesn't mean you have to vote for it, of course. And the fact that poster X has 10 nominations doesn't mean they'll win. The award is for the best post, not the best poster.

4. Logically, the fact that a post is nominated by its own poster, rather than someone else, says nothing about the quality of the post. It may or may not say something about the mindset of the poster, but again, that's not being judged.

5. The one strong objection I can see to self-posting is that if, say, 99 per cent of nominations were self-nominations by one person, that might inflate the chances of them winning, simply through chance. That strikes me as an reasonable objection.

6. The best cure for (5) is for other BB posters to ensure that lots of worthy posts are put up in competition. I notice that far more effort seems to have gone into the question of whether self-nomination is reasonable, etc, than has gone into actually nominating posts. Those who take this contest seriously would be well advised to ensure its integrity by nominating lots of worthy posts.

Indeed, I'd suggest that lack of nominations is a much bigger problem than self-nomination.

7. As I said in (1), my attachment to self-nomination is practical, not philosophical. (For example, in politics, I think we might have much better government if election candidates were drafted by the community, rather than their own ambition (... along the lines of Plato, with his reluctant philosopher-kings ). So if there is overwhelming opposition to the idea of self-nomination, it can be dropped. However, when last I checked it was about 50-50, so if that's indicative, it's simplest to keep it.

8. Regarding worthy posts, I'd suggest they should generally be something constructive about Australian chess - simply because it's the Australian Chess Federation that is giving the award. I, like Firegoat, much enjoyed Peter Hanna's political contributions - his views, I think, are pretty much identical to mine, and the post nominated was most enlightening - but it doesn't have anything to do with chess or the ACF.

I would have thought that Sweeney should be nominated for some of his posts - I frequently disagree, but I think many of them are paradigm examples of someone using his brain to try and think of ways forward, and I think that's ideally what we want to reward. Similarly, I think many posts from the ratings debate were very good and enlightening, and there were whole threads about tournament structure, ACF structure etc that should provide rich pickings for nominators.

(I should say that my decision to cut CL's NECG post was not a question of quality but "management").

9. On the issue of the award generally, I don't have any deep objection to it. I think it's a fair enough idea, but I don't think it's a major issue, principally because - as with the vast majority of bulletin boards - this one consists primarily of a huge volume of posts by a small number of people who have the interest, enthusiasm, time and access to visit the board regularly. It would be great if this were an "agora" for the Australian chess community but it's really an agora for a small part of the aust chess community, principally for practical reasons of time, access and enthusiasm. That's not a criticism of the BB regulars but just an acknowledgement of the practical reality. Of course, it'd be great if 99 per cent of aussie chess players posted here, but they don't.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the issue paul.

Although I argued against self nomination from the start, what really discredited the idea was I believe when CL made a total farce of the procedure by nominating 4 (5 if you consider the deleted NECG post) of his own posts.
If he has not been so stupid as to submit his NECG post for nomination in the first place(virtually everyone was against it on the old BB, so its chances of winng a prize were virtually non-existant) and been more gracious like Paul Sike and only self nominated one post I doubt the issue would even have been raised.

Kevin Bonham
08-02-2004, 02:45 PM
And politicians put themselves forward at elections, rather than being invited by others.

Just a minor point but this is actually incorrect at some levels - to stand for parliament and many other kinds of elections, you require a substantial number of nominations with your nomination (for the Senate when I last heard it was several dozen, although the candidate may be one of them). Electoral requirements for candidates to demonstrate some level of support through nominations have generally tightened, because each extra candidate who is added in a preferential election (especially one using quotas) significantly increases the cost of counting the election. Hence there are a lot less joke candidates than there used to be. I can't think of any important elections in Australia that allow a candidate to simply nominate themselves.

chesslover
08-02-2004, 07:00 PM
A few remarks:

1. First, my attachment to the idea of self-nomination is not a deep philosophical position; rather it's based on practical considerations. The main reason I think self-nomination should be allowed is that the poster most familiar with their own posts is, of course, themselves. So if poster A believes he or she has written a number of good posts, they'll probably know best which ones they are and where to get them, whereas someone else may well have forgotten about them. So allowing self-nomination has the practical advantage of possibly unearthing worthy, but widely overlooked, posts. This may well lead to a broader and better collection of posts to vote on.

Of course, whether they are any good or not is another question. Self-nomination may lead to lots of unworthy posts. But surely that's a problem with non-self-selection too: I may be biased towards my own posts, but equally I'm likely to be biased towards others posts, eg, I will no doubt nominate posts from other people that conform to my prejudices.

2. Self-nomination is fairly common. For example, painters submit their own works to the Archibald or other art competitions. Chess tournaments are usually (though not always) a mattering of individuals entering, rather than being invited. And politicians put themselves forward at elections, rather than being invited by others.

3. The fact that a post has been nominated doesn't mean you have to vote for it, of course. And the fact that poster X has 10 nominations doesn't mean they'll win. The award is for the best post, not the best poster.

4. Logically, the fact that a post is nominated by its own poster, rather than someone else, says nothing about the quality of the post. It may or may not say something about the mindset of the poster, but again, that's not being judged.

5. The one strong objection I can see to self-posting is that if, say, 99 per cent of nominations were self-nominations by one person, that might inflate the chances of them winning, simply through chance. That strikes me as an reasonable objection.

6. The best cure for (5) is for other BB posters to ensure that lots of worthy posts are put up in competition. I notice that far more effort seems to have gone into the question of whether self-nomination is reasonable, etc, than has gone into actually nominating posts. Those who take this contest seriously would be well advised to ensure its integrity by nominating lots of worthy posts.

Indeed, I'd suggest that lack of nominations is a much bigger problem than self-nomination.

7. As I said in (1), my attachment to self-nomination is practical, not philosophical. (For example, in politics, I think we might have much better government if election candidates were drafted by the community, rather than their own ambition (... along the lines of Plato, with his reluctant philosopher-kings ). So if there is overwhelming opposition to the idea of self-nomination, it can be dropped. However, when last I checked it was about 50-50, so if that's indicative, it's simplest to keep it.

8. Regarding worthy posts, I'd suggest they should generally be something constructive about Australian chess - simply because it's the Australian Chess Federation that is giving the award. I, like Firegoat, much enjoyed Peter Hanna's political contributions - his views, I think, are pretty much identical to mine, and the post nominated was most enlightening - but it doesn't have anything to do with chess or the ACF.

I would have thought that Sweeney should be nominated for some of his posts - I frequently disagree, but I think many of them are paradigm examples of someone using his brain to try and think of ways forward, and I think that's ideally what we want to reward. Similarly, I think many posts from the ratings debate were very good and enlightening, and there were whole threads about tournament structure, ACF structure etc that should provide rich pickings for nominators.

(I should say that my decision to cut CL's NECG post was not a question of quality but "management").

9. On the issue of the award generally, I don't have any deep objection to it. I think it's a fair enough idea, but I don't think it's a major issue, principally because - as with the vast majority of bulletin boards - this one consists primarily of a huge volume of posts by a small number of people who have the interest, enthusiasm, time and access to visit the board regularly. It would be great if this were an "agora" for the Australian chess community but it's really an agora for a small part of the aust chess community, principally for practical reasons of time, access and enthusiasm. That's not a criticism of the BB regulars but just an acknowledgement of the practical reality. Of course, it'd be great if 99 per cent of aussie chess players posted here, but they don't.

Bill,

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA :lol: :lol:

You have been THRASHED comhrehensively here

Paul B, a most respected and well thought of individual has just endorsed what I have been saying, and repudiated all that you have stated about self nomination

You are WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG ....sorry "MISTAKEN MISTAKEN MISTAKEN MISTAKEN"

Ahhh it is good to feel correct and given the pigheadedness you have exhibited in not admitting that you were WRONG(sorry "mistaken") i feel entitled to a gloat

I told you so...HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

a more comphrehensive support from the webmaster I cannot imagine

Now go and lick your wounds, and being a person who still admires you, I will speak no more about your utter defeat in this issue, and the fact that Paul B has 100% supported all that I have said

It feels so good to best you Bill.... :p :p

Cat
08-02-2004, 08:25 PM
Yo Dr Richards mate - what did you think of the 3rd episode? Like it? I reckon the first one was always the best man. In the third there were scenes that sorta didn't make sense at all. Like when enemy boats were supposedly taken over. Jackson shoulda at least spent another 3 to 5 minutes showing us how they took over the pirates, etc. etc.

AR

I thought its was great, but I know what you mean. All the cinema versions have been abridged, the extended DVD versions are released 6 months later and carry much of the missing dialogue.

Amie l, I reckon we've no option but to take 'The Best Posts' and throw them into the cracks of Mount Doom. What dya say?

Bill Gletsos
08-02-2004, 08:41 PM
Bill,

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA :lol: :lol:

You have been THRASHED comhrehensively here

Paul B, a most respected and well thought of individual has just endorsed what I have been saying, and repudiated all that you have stated about self nomination

You are WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG ....sorry "MISTAKEN MISTAKEN MISTAKEN MISTAKEN"

Ahhh it is good to feel correct and given the pigheadedness you have exhibited in not admitting that you were WRONG(sorry "mistaken") i feel entitled to a gloat

I told you so...HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

a more comphrehensive support from the webmaster I cannot imagine

Now go and lick your wounds, and being a person who still admires you, I will speak no more about your utter defeat in this issue, and the fact that Paul B has 100% supported all that I have said

It feels so good to best you Bill.... :p :p

Paulb hasnt supported you at all.

Paulb has made no comment on what he thinks about you, however he did see fit to delete your NECG post. The only nomination deleted.

As I stated above what you did was make a complete farce of the procedures.

Kevin called what you did a farce.
Kevin called you a goose.
Barry called you conceited.

If paulb is suggesting your behaviour has not been farcical then I am sorry to say he is also a goose. ;)

Two of the three moderators think your actions brought the whole idea of bb prizes into disrepute.

You are just a total moron. :whistle:

Paul S
08-02-2004, 11:15 PM
OK, I thought I should give my thoughts on self nomination of posts for best BB post of 2003.

I don't see anything wrong with one self nomination (as there is only one prize, it seems silly for anyone to nominate more than one of their posts).

A nomination is just that - a nomination! Remember that a nomination can be either accepted or rejected.

I think Paul B's analogy to an artist submitting a painting for the Archibald Prize is a good one.

However, I would be totally opposed to anyone voting for their own post, as its very difficult (if not impossible!) to be objective about oneself! I would like to insist that when it comes to voting for best BB post of 2003 that there be some mechanism in place whereby if anyone votes for their own post then that vote is declared null and void.

Paul S
08-02-2004, 11:22 PM
A few remarks:

1. First, my attachment to the idea of self-nomination is not a deep philosophical position; rather it's based on practical considerations. The main reason I think self-nomination should be allowed is that the poster most familiar with their own posts is, of course, themselves. So if poster A believes he or she has written a number of good posts, they'll probably know best which ones they are and where to get them, whereas someone else may well have forgotten about them. So allowing self-nomination has the practical advantage of possibly unearthing worthy, but widely overlooked, posts. This may well lead to a broader and better collection of posts to vote on.

Of course, whether they are any good or not is another question. Self-nomination may lead to lots of unworthy posts. But surely that's a problem with non-self-selection too: I may be biased towards my own posts, but equally I'm likely to be biased towards others posts, eg, I will no doubt nominate posts from other people that conform to my prejudices.

2. Self-nomination is fairly common. For example, painters submit their own works to the Archibald or other art competitions. Chess tournaments are usually (though not always) a mattering of individuals entering, rather than being invited. And politicians put themselves forward at elections, rather than being invited by others.

3. The fact that a post has been nominated doesn't mean you have to vote for it, of course. And the fact that poster X has 10 nominations doesn't mean they'll win. The award is for the best post, not the best poster.

4. Logically, the fact that a post is nominated by its own poster, rather than someone else, says nothing about the quality of the post. It may or may not say something about the mindset of the poster, but again, that's not being judged.

5. The one strong objection I can see to self-posting is that if, say, 99 per cent of nominations were self-nominations by one person, that might inflate the chances of them winning, simply through chance. That strikes me as an reasonable objection.

6. The best cure for (5) is for other BB posters to ensure that lots of worthy posts are put up in competition. I notice that far more effort seems to have gone into the question of whether self-nomination is reasonable, etc, than has gone into actually nominating posts. Those who take this contest seriously would be well advised to ensure its integrity by nominating lots of worthy posts.

Indeed, I'd suggest that lack of nominations is a much bigger problem than self-nomination.

7. As I said in (1), my attachment to self-nomination is practical, not philosophical. (For example, in politics, I think we might have much better government if election candidates were drafted by the community, rather than their own ambition (... along the lines of Plato, with his reluctant philosopher-kings ). So if there is overwhelming opposition to the idea of self-nomination, it can be dropped. However, when last I checked it was about 50-50, so if that's indicative, it's simplest to keep it.

8. Regarding worthy posts, I'd suggest they should generally be something constructive about Australian chess - simply because it's the Australian Chess Federation that is giving the award. I, like Firegoat, much enjoyed Peter Hanna's political contributions - his views, I think, are pretty much identical to mine, and the post nominated was most enlightening - but it doesn't have anything to do with chess or the ACF.

I would have thought that Sweeney should be nominated for some of his posts - I frequently disagree, but I think many of them are paradigm examples of someone using his brain to try and think of ways forward, and I think that's ideally what we want to reward. Similarly, I think many posts from the ratings debate were very good and enlightening, and there were whole threads about tournament structure, ACF structure etc that should provide rich pickings for nominators.

(I should say that my decision to cut CL's NECG post was not a question of quality but "management").

9. On the issue of the award generally, I don't have any deep objection to it. I think it's a fair enough idea, but I don't think it's a major issue, principally because - as with the vast majority of bulletin boards - this one consists primarily of a huge volume of posts by a small number of people who have the interest, enthusiasm, time and access to visit the board regularly. It would be great if this were an "agora" for the Australian chess community but it's really an agora for a small part of the aust chess community, principally for practical reasons of time, access and enthusiasm. That's not a criticism of the BB regulars but just an acknowledgement of the practical reality. Of course, it'd be great if 99 per cent of aussie chess players posted here, but they don't.

An EXCELLENT post, Paul B.

I think this is the front runner for best BB post of 2004!

:D ;) :cool: :clap:

paulb
08-02-2004, 11:48 PM
Just a minor point but this is actually incorrect at some levels - to stand for parliament and many other kinds of elections, you require a substantial number of nominations with your nomination (for the Senate when I last heard it was several dozen, although the candidate may be one of them). Electoral requirements for candidates to demonstrate some level of support through nominations have generally tightened, because each extra candidate who is added in a preferential election (especially one using quotas) significantly increases the cost of counting the election. Hence there are a lot less joke candidates than there used to be. I can't think of any important elections in Australia that allow a candidate to simply nominate themselves.

You're quite correct, but it's a technical quibble. In practical terms, the candidate politicians who we get to vote for are invariably there through their own drive and persistence and self-belief, rather than sitting there passively and being being drafted by popular opinion. As for nominations etc, they go and actively seek/lobby for these. So in a practical sense, they submit themselves for election, and in that practical sense it's akin to self-nomination on the BB, I think.

Kevin Bonham
09-02-2004, 12:36 AM
You're quite correct, but it's a technical quibble. In practical terms, the candidate politicians who we get to vote for are invariably there through their own drive and persistence and self-belief, rather than sitting there passively and being being drafted by popular opinion. As for nominations etc, they go and actively seek/lobby for these. So in a practical sense, they submit themselves for election, and in that practical sense it's akin to self-nomination on the BB, I think.

That's debatable, at least on the "invariably" bit. Once a person gets into politics and performs impressively there will often be behind-the-scenes attempts to draft them as a candidate. My mother was Deputy Lord Mayor of Hobart for several years and during that time received unsolicited offers to stand as a candidate for higher office from several political parties.

paulb
09-02-2004, 04:16 PM
OK. My missus runs/ran a community action group and was approached to run for council, too, so I know what you mean (she was approached by the Liberal Party - ugghhh - rather than "the community"). But it's pretty clear at least that most state and federal MPs are there principally through their own efforts, and not through being "drafted". It's enough to make my point that this is reasonably common, even if not ubiquitous.

chesslover
09-02-2004, 06:01 PM
Paulb hasnt supported you at all.

Paulb has made no comment on what he thinks about you, however he did see fit to delete your NECG post. The only nomination deleted.

As I stated above what you did was make a complete farce of the procedures.

Kevin called what you did a farce.
Kevin called you a goose.
Barry called you conceited.

If paulb is suggesting your behaviour has not been farcical then I am sorry to say he is also a goose. ;)

Two of the three moderators think your actions brought the whole idea of bb prizes into disrepute.

You are just a total moron. :whistle:

WHAT ROT

Were you even reading the same posts that I am? Are you on some mind altering drugs? You cannot be serious, that Paul B's statement supports your view point, and not mine

person after person, from paul B, to Paul S, to the Grand Poobah, to matt to arosar to firegoat to davd R, have endoresed my statement and repudiated yours. Yet like Howard dean, you refuse to accept the inevitable and continue on with your vain attempt to prove that your stance on self nomination is right. Simply Supreme Leader, you are WRONG, or in terms that you can understand extremly "MISTAKEN"

Paul stated that "First, my attachment to the idea of self-nomination is not a deep philosophical position"

What does that mean? let me tell you, so that you do not make another one of your famous "mistakes". Paul here implicitly acknowleges the philiosophy and the doctrine behind self nomination that I articualted ie it is about direct action, taking individual responsibility for your life. taking charge of life, not having dependence on others etc. A resounding endorsement for me, and a complete repudiation of your view that it is "crass"

Paul B then goes on to state that his support is "rather it's based on practical considerations. The main reason I think self-nomination should be allowed is that the poster most familiar with their own posts is, of course, themselves. So if poster A believes he or she has written a number of good posts, they'll probably know best which ones they are and where to get them, whereas someone else may well have forgotten about them. So allowing self-nomination has the practical advantage of possibly unearthing worthy, but widely overlooked, posts. This may well lead to a broader and better collection of posts to vote on."

This is again what I have been saying all along about self nomination as well - that the person who self nominates is most familar with teh post and thus should nominate as well will unearth overlooked worthy posts. A complete repudiation of your statement that if it is good enough someone will nominate, and to nominate is crass

When paul stated that "Self-nomination may lead to lots of unworthy posts. But surely that's a problem with non-self-selection too: I may be biased towards my own posts, but equally I'm likely to be biased towards others posts, eg, I will no doubt nominate posts from other people that conform to my prejudices" he again gives explict endorsement that a self nomianted post is equal to a post nominated by others - something that you have rejected

When paul says that "self-nomination is fairly common. For example, painters submit their own works to the Archibald or other art competitions. Chess tournaments are usually (though not always) a mattering of individuals entering, rather than being invited. And politicians put themselves forward at elections, rather than being invited by others" he again explicitly 100% supports my self nomination support, not your view that it is crass. By stating that self nomination is crass, you are saying that all chess players who nominate themselves in a tournament are "crass" - a big "mistake" I am sure you would agree

When you attack me for posting 4 posts, pls note that Paul B said specifically that even if you self nominate 10 posts that is fine as his line "The fact that a post has been nominated doesn't mean you have to vote for it, of course. And the fact that poster X has 10 nominations doesn't mean they'll win. The award is for the best post, not the best poster". He only has a problem with multiple self nomination if 99% of all posts were self nominated by one person - as quite aptly seen by his statement "The one strong objection I can see to self-posting is that if, say, 99 per cent of nominations were self-nominations by one person, that might inflate the chances of them winning, simply through chance. That strikes me as an reasonable objection". This is the only instance that Paul condemns self nomination

Paul only deleted by NECG posts not because it was unworthy or poor quality, but because others might not understand the deep philiosophical reasoning behind it, and contact the NECG people directly inappropriately. This is very specifially mentioned by paul B ("I should say that my decision to cut CL's NECG post was not a question of quality but "management").

Paul B has not called my self nominations a farce but has 100% endorsed it, and has even gone so far in this post to encourage it. And for that you call him a "goose". Well if paul B, a wise and knowlegable and intelligent man is a "goose", then by heck I too am proud to be associated with paul B, and be a goose as well

And you are 100% WRONG (ie MISTAKEN in your words) that Kevin called me a goose. I DARE you to show me the post where the Grand Poobah called me a goose. He did not, as that is not a word that he loves to use

In summary, you are wrong, and just refuse to admit that in this self nomiantion sage you are wrong. You are simply WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG - or as you may say MISTAKE MISTAKE MISTAKE MISTAKE MISTAKE

Who is the moran now? You are

Who is the goose now - YOU are

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 07:27 PM
Paul stated that "First, my attachment to the idea of self-nomination is not a deep philosophical position"

What does that mean? let me tell you, so that you do not make another one of your famous "mistakes". Paul here implicitly acknowleges the philiosophy and the doctrine behind self nomination that I articualted ie it is about direct action, taking individual responsibility for your life. taking charge of life, not having dependence on others etc. A resounding endorsement for me, and a complete repudiation of your view that it is "crass"
What a load of crap.


Paul B then goes on to state that his support is "rather it's based on practical considerations. The main reason I think self-nomination should be allowed is that the poster most familiar with their own posts is, of course, themselves. So if poster A believes he or she has written a number of good posts, they'll probably know best which ones they are and where to get them, whereas someone else may well have forgotten about them. So allowing self-nomination has the practical advantage of possibly unearthing worthy, but widely overlooked, posts. This may well lead to a broader and better collection of posts to vote on."

This is again what I have been saying all along about self nomination as well - that the person who self nominates is most familar with teh post and thus should nominate as well will unearth overlooked worthy posts. A complete repudiation of your statement that if it is good enough someone will nominate, and to nominate is crass
Rubbish. Although Paul is entitled to his opinion it doesnt make him right.
Your self nomination of multiple posts is just crass.


When paul stated that "Self-nomination may lead to lots of unworthy posts. But surely that's a problem with non-self-selection too: I may be biased towards my own posts, but equally I'm likely to be biased towards others posts, eg, I will no doubt nominate posts from other people that conform to my prejudices" he again gives explict endorsement that a self nomianted post is equal to a post nominated by others - something that you have rejected

When paul says that "self-nomination is fairly common. For example, painters submit their own works to the Archibald or other art competitions. Chess tournaments are usually (though not always) a mattering of individuals entering, rather than being invited. And politicians put themselves forward at elections, rather than being invited by others" he again explicitly 100% supports my self nomination support, not your view that it is crass. By stating that self nomination is crass, you are saying that all chess players who nominate themselves in a tournament are "crass" - a big "mistake" I am sure you would agree
Didn't you pay any attention to what Kevin said about politicians.
And to suggest chess players entering a tournament is somehow related to self nomination just shows what a complete imbecile you are.


Paul only deleted by NECG posts not because it was unworthy or poor quality, but because others might not understand the deep philiosophical reasoning behind it, and contact the NECG people directly inappropriately.
HA HA HA HA HA.
That is the biggest load of conceited crap I have read in a long time.
To suggest it has some deep philosophical meaning is a complete joke.




Paul B has not called my self nominations a farce but has 100% endorsed it, and has even gone so far in this post to encourage it. And for that you call him a "goose". Well if paul B, a wise and knowlegable and intelligent man is a "goose", then by heck I too am proud to be associated with paul B, and be a goose as well
Well you are definately a goose.

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 07:28 PM
And you are 100% WRONG (ie MISTAKEN in your words) that Kevin called me a goose. I DARE you to show me the post where the Grand Poobah called me a goose. He did not, as that is not a word that he loves to use
You really are dumber than even I imagined.

Try and follow the following posts.

Kevin calls your mutiple self nominations a farce.

The farce value is almost entirely due to the spectacular efforts of a single poster.
In response you said

I think you are referring to me, and if so your post is very very wrong and hurtful
I have done nothing wrong, as all I have done is within the rules. Tell me where I have broken the rules?

Kevin Replied:

You do not need to break the rules to generate a farcical situation. You have not broken any rules of the nomination process, but you've used it in a manner that's become controversial and lowered people's impression of the process.

....the farce concerns your use of self-nomination to nominate posts that otherwise would not have been nominated.
You replied:

Well if you think that is wrong, change the rules, The rules are there, and if I have not broken the rules then I do think that it is very rich of you to attack me - especially when I have ensured that I have complied with the rules.

Just because the rules are not to your taste, and Bill's and a couple of others, does not mean that it makes it right. The rules are the rules, and I have not broken any rules by self nomination.


Kevin then replied :

Rubbish, the rules are very much to my taste, read the thread Bill started where I voted for allowing people to self-nominate and against any suggestion that self-nomination be banned. Please don't misrepresent my position like this. And I have no problem with Paul S nominating his own post because it was a post that others would have nominated anyway - except that it gave you a precedent to use out of context.
Kevins reference to his post in my thread was:


I think self-nomination should be allowed, because if you ban it you may just get those intent on self-nomination routing around it by finding another person so inclined and swapping nominations. That would be even worse in a sense, because it would be obvious that some of the nominations were not sincere. Therefore I voted "yes", which for the moment ties the score at 4-4.

I also think anyone who self-nominates a post which would not obviously have been nominated by others is making a goose of themselves and should be laughed at.

All of the above shows:
1) Kevin thinks your self nominations were a farce. He says so in the 3.07am post.
2) He thinks no one else would have nominated your posts. He says so in the 6.49pm post when he says the farce concerns your use of self-nomination to nominate posts that otherwise would not have been nominated
3) Then in the 11.15pm post he makes it clear what constitutes making a goose of themslves when he says I also think anyone who self-nominates a post which would not obviously have been nominated by others is making a goose of themselves
4) Therefore the condition that Kevin says constitutes someone making a goose of themselves(in the 11.15pm post) is the condition he accuses you of in the 6.49pm post.
5) Therefore Kevin is calling you a goose.

Kevin Bonham
09-02-2004, 08:39 PM
I could interfere and resolve the dispute about whether or not I called chesslover a goose.

But I am having too much fun laughing at all the arguments about it. :owned:

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 08:42 PM
I could interfere and resolve the dispute about whether or not I called chesslover a goose.

But I am having too much fun laughing at all the arguments about it. :owned:
Sadist. ;)

chesslover
09-02-2004, 08:53 PM
Well you are definately a goose.

Since you are calling Paul B a goose, I am proud to be associated with him and to be called a goose. Keep this up and the term goose will be a term of honour, worn with pride in defiance of you

Also note that Paul S, also called the stirring endorsement of Paul b for self nomination the best post of 2004. This from the visonary man who came up with the best post 2003, and who had put a lot of time and effort in nominating his 6 best BB posts. It is interesting to note, that even Paul S, said self nomination should be allowed

Note also that there have been a lot of people including the free spirit arosar and the intellectual and articulate Grand Poobah all saying that self nomination is fine - So does that mean that we are all a pack of gooses?

PHAT
09-02-2004, 08:56 PM
So does that mean that we are all a pack of gooses?

That should be a gaggle of geese. ;)

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 08:59 PM
Since you are calling Paul B a goose, I am proud to be associated with him and to be called a goose. Keep this up and the term goose will be a term of honour, worn with pride in defiance of you

Also note that Paul S, also called the stirring endorsement of Paul b for self nomination the best post of 2004. This from the visonary man who came up with the best post 2003, and who had put a lot of time and effort in nominating his 6 best BB posts. It is interesting to note, that even Paul S, said self nomination should be allowed

Note also that there have been a lot of people including the free spirit arosar and the intellectual and articulate Grand Poobah all saying that self nomination is fine - So does that mean that we are all a pack of gooses?
No the only geese are those that support multiple self nominations.

chesslover
09-02-2004, 09:05 PM
You really are dumber than even I imagined.

Try and follow the following posts.

1) Kevin thinks your self nominations were a farce. He says so in the 3.07am post.
2) He thinks no one else would have nominated your posts. He says so in the 6.49pm post when he says the farce concerns your use of self-nomination to nominate posts that otherwise would not have been nominated
3) Then in the 11.15pm post he makes it clear what constitutes making a goose of themslves when he says I also think anyone who self-nominates a post which would not obviously have been nominated by others is making a goose of themselves
4) Therefore the condition that Kevin says constitutes someone making a goose of themselves(in the 11.15pm post) is the condition he accuses you of in the 6.49pm post.
5) Therefore Kevin is calling you a goose.

HA HA HA HA HA

"MISTAKE MISTAKE MISTAKE MISTAKE"

By your own words you have been condemned.

Kevin states in his 11:15pm post that what is a goose in his view - it is as you stated anyone who self-nominates a post which would not obviously have been nominated by others is making a goose of themselves

It is clear that this is his criteria for a goose - some who self nominates a post that would not obviously have been nominated by others. The term OBVIOUSLY is a very important term - it is not a post that would not have been nominated by others, it is not possibly a psot that would not have been nomninated by others, and it is not even probably a post that would not have been nominated by others - it is in fact a post that would not OBVIOUSLY have been nominated by others.

The term OBVIOUSLY shows how strong the standard of proof is - it is not possible, probably, but is indeed certain to not have been nominated by others.

Now at least 3 people in these threads have offered to nominate my posts, and indeed the MCC's champion firegoat has even nominated one of my posts.

Thus given that there has been a lot of people wanting to nominate my posts, the term kevin used to indicate a person as a goose ("would not OBVIOUSLY have been nominated") does not apply to me..

Since it does not apply to me, Kevin did not call me a goose

And hence since Kevin did not call me a goose, when you said that Kevin called me a goose, you were WRONG.

Sorry you were simply "mistaken"

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 09:17 PM
HA HA HA HA HA

"MISTAKE MISTAKE MISTAKE MISTAKE"

By your own words you have been condemned.

Kevin states in his 11:15pm post that what is a goose in his view - it is as you stated anyone who self-nominates a post which would not obviously have been nominated by others is making a goose of themselves

It is clear that this is his criteria for a goose - some who self nominates a post that would not obviously have been nominated by others. The term OBVIOUSLY is a very important term - it is not a post that would not have been nominated by others, it is not possibly a psot that would not have been nomninated by others, and it is not even probably a post that would not have been nominated by others - it is in fact a post that would not OBVIOUSLY have been nominated by others.

The term OBVIOUSLY shows how strong the standard of proof is - it is not possible, probably, but is indeed certain to not have been nominated by others.
Kevin stated explicitly that no one would have nominated your posts. he said the farce concerns your use of self-nomination to nominate posts that otherwise would not have been nominated

The use of the word obviously in the goose context is therefore irrelevant.

Kevin called you a goose.


Now at least 3 people in these threads have offered to nominate my posts, and indeed the MCC's champion firegoat has even nominated one of my posts.

Thus given that there has been a lot of people wanting to nominate my posts, the term kevin used to indicate a person as a goose ("would not OBVIOUSLY have been nominated") does not apply to me..
All that shows is that they are as big a bunch of morons as you are.

chesslover
09-02-2004, 09:50 PM
Kevin stated explicitly that no one would have nominated your posts. he said the farce concerns your use of self-nomination to nominate posts that otherwise would not have been nominated

The use of the word obviously in the goose context is therefore irrelevant.

Kevin called you a goose.


All that shows is that they are as big a bunch of morons as you are.

You are twisting and using kevin's words out of context to support something that does nto exist, rather than admit that you are WRONG (ie "mistaken")

The word "obviously" is the most important word and the word in which the statement goose should be considered. That is just commen sense.

Kevn quite explicitly stated that anyone who self-nominates a post which would not obviously have been nominated by others is making a goose of themselves. This 11:15 pm post is the ONLY post in which the Grand Poobah uses the word Goose. Nowhere else in his 1400+ posting does he use the word goose in connection to self nomination.

Hence the only context in which the word goose is relevent is in the "obviously" context. That is very explicitly stated - it is a clear declaration of fact in the mind of kevin. A person can only be a goose if their post would not OBVIOUSLY have been nominated by others. That principle is for the first and only time espoused here, so that the only way you can ascertain who is a goose is by reference to this sentence only.

To then drag a post in another thread, is taking it out of context and findings meanings that just is not there. I would hate for you to be a preacher, and interpret the Bible if this is an example of your analytical and interpretive skills.

Thus it is when a post is self nominated that woudl OBVIOUSLY not have been nominated, is a person justified to be a called a goose. Given that at least a significant number of regular posters have offered to nominate by posts, and a couple have even stated that they want me to win, the term OBVIOUSLY not have is not applicable to be. SInce it does not apply to me, I am not a goose

Once again your mistakes have been exposed. Good thing you are not at schools these days, as with the number of "mistakes" that you have been making recently you will have to repeat a couple of years!!

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 10:11 PM
You are twisting and using kevin's words out of context to support something that does nto exist, rather than admit that you are WRONG (ie "mistaken")

The word "obviously" is the most important word and the word in which the statement goose should be considered. That is just commen sense.

Kevn quite explicitly stated that anyone who self-nominates a post which would not obviously have been nominated by others is making a goose of themselves. This 11:15 pm post is the ONLY post in which the Grand Poobah uses the word Goose. Nowhere else in his 1400+ posting does he use the word goose in connection to self nomination.

Hence the only context in which the word goose is relevent is in the "obviously" context. That is very explicitly stated - it is a clear declaration of fact in the mind of kevin. A person can only be a goose if their post would not OBVIOUSLY have been nominated by others. That principle is for the first and only time espoused here, so that the only way you can ascertain who is a goose is by reference to this sentence only.

To then drag a post in another thread, is taking it out of context and findings meanings that just is not there. I would hate for you to be a preacher, and interpret the Bible if this is an example of your analytical and interpretive skills.

Thus it is when a post is self nominated that woudl OBVIOUSLY not have been nominated, is a person justified to be a called a goose. Given that at least a significant number of regular posters have offered to nominate by posts, and a couple have even stated that they want me to win, the term OBVIOUSLY not have is not applicable to be. SInce it does not apply to me, I am not a goose

Once again your mistakes have been exposed. Good thing you are not at schools these days, as with the number of "mistakes" that you have been making recently you will have to repeat a couple of years!!
HA HA HA.
Talk about clutching at straws.

Kevin made it claer.
As far as he was concerned no one would have nominated your self nominated posts.
He said so explicitely in his 6.49pm post.

This "obviously" means NO ONE WOULD HAVE NOMINATED YOUR POSTS.

He called anyone who self nominated their own posts that obviously no one else would nominate a goose in his 11.15pm post.

Enjoy the rest of your goosey existance moron.

chesslover
09-02-2004, 10:26 PM
HA HA HA.
Talk about clutching at straws.

Kevin made it claer.
As far as he was concerned no one would have nominated your self nominated posts.
He said so explicitely in his 6.49pm post.

This "obviously" means NO ONE WOULD HAVE NOMINATED YOUR POSTS.

He called anyone who self nominated their own posts that obviously no one else would nominate a goose in his 11.15pm post.

Enjoy the rest of your goosey existance moron.

Your lack of English analysis has been exposed

The only way you can call someone a goose (in reference to Kevin's statement) is if a person self nominates a post that would OBVIOUSLY not have been nominated by others. That is it. Period. Nothing more and nothing less need be said, as that sentence of Kevin states what he believes should be a goose. It is a simple and clear statement, that stands and falls by itself - with no need for any other sentences or statements. Given that a significant number of regular posters have offered to nominate my posts, this does not apply to me, as I have self nominated poststhat would be nominated by others.

Now that you have admitted that you have lost this arguement and are WRONG ("mistaken") you have resorted to take another of kevin's post and use it out of context - you have stated that his statement t"he farce concerns your use of self-nomination to nominate posts that otherwise would not have been nominated"

Note the use of the word otherwise. This is different to the word OBVIOUSLY, as the latter is a higher standard of proof than "otherwise"

This again shows that even when you try to fudge the issue, and strain to use words out of contextto prove a point you lose

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 10:33 PM
Your lack of English analysis has been exposed

The only way you can call someone a goose (in reference to Kevin's statement) is if a person self nominates a post that would OBVIOUSLY not have been nominated by others. That is it. Period. Nothing more and nothing less need be said, as that sentence of Kevin states what he believes should be a goose. It is a simple and clear statement, that stands and falls by itself - with no need for any other sentences or statements. Given that a significant number of regular posters have offered to nominate my posts, this does not apply to me, as I have self nominated poststhat would be nominated by others.

Now that you have admitted that you have lost this arguement and are WRONG ("mistaken") you have resorted to take another of kevin's post and use it out of context - you have stated that his statement t"he farce concerns your use of self-nomination to nominate posts that otherwise would not have been nominated"

Note the use of the word otherwise. This is different to the word OBVIOUSLY, as the latter is a higher standard of proof than "otherwise"

This again shows that even when you try to fudge the issue, and strain to use words out of contextto prove a point you lose

Its fairly straight forward.
You are obviously a goose otherwise Kevin would come out and defend you. After all you claim the Grand Poobah is such an intelligent individual(except of course when he disagreees with you) he would obviously want to reduce any suffering/embarassment on your part and remove any hint of goosyness that has been thrust upon you.

chesslover
09-02-2004, 10:42 PM
Its fairly straight forward.
You are obviously a goose otherwise Kevin would come out and defend you. After all you claim the Grand Poobah is such an intelligent individual(except of course when he disagreees with you) he would obviously want to reduce any suffering/embarassment on your part and remove any hint of goosyness that has been thrust upon you.

That is just silly, and you know that. You are trying vainly to grab on toanything so that you do not have to admit that you made a "mistake".

According to you, if something is posted then - unless someone else confirms it - it is not true? :eek: :eek:

Have you thought that the reason the Grand Poobah does not come out and say that you are wrong and I am right, is that he trying to reduce any suffering and embarrassment on your part?

If you had just admitted your mistake far far earlier, then no one would have thought much about it. But given the way you have carried on, clutching at straws and operating flawed unethical emotional polls to boost your views, a statement by the Grand Poobah reiterating his statement (ie showing how you made an elementery mistake in analysis) would cause you immense suffering/embarrassment. Grand Poobah's silence is to protect you

chesslover
09-02-2004, 10:48 PM
This is the webster's dictionary definition of the word OBVIOUSLY - "Easily discovered, seen, or understood; readily perceived by the eye or the intellect; plain; evident; apparent; as, an obvious meaning; an obvious remark"


Now contrast that with the definition of the word OTHERWISE - " In other respects"

Do you notice the difference?

OBVIOUSLY is a higher standard of proof than OTHERWISE.

When Kevin states that Person X self nominated a post that otherwise would not be nominated, it is different to Kevin stating that Person X self nominated a post that OBVIOSULY would not be nominated.

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 10:52 PM
That is just silly, and you know that. You are trying vainly to grab on toanything so that you do not have to admit that you made a "mistake".

According to you, if something is posted then - unless someone else confirms it - it is not true? :eek: :eek:

Have you thought that the reason the Grand Poobah does not come out and say that you are wrong and I am right, is that he trying to reduce any suffering and embarrassment on your part?
Ha ha ha.
I'm not the timid little petal that was concerned about confronting his boss.
Kevin would not worry about telling me I was wrong, because he knows it wouldnt make any difference to my ongoing argument with you.


If you had just admitted your mistake far far earlier, then no one would have thought much about it. But given the way you have carried on, clutching at straws and operating flawed unethical emotional polls to boost your views, a statement by the Grand Poobah reiterating his statement (ie showing how you made an elementery mistake in analysis) would cause you immense suffering/embarrassment. Grand Poobah's silence is to protect you
Yeah right.
The only person clutching at straws has been you CL.
Why is it always the losers that claim polls are unethical or flawed.

Not only are you a goose, you are a moron as well.

I can keep up posting reponses to your crappy posts forever and a day.

PHAT
09-02-2004, 10:55 PM
I can keep up posting reponses to your [CL's] crappy posts forever and a day.

Please don't.

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 10:59 PM
Please don't.
That doesnt sound like that Matt the BB posters ;ast year came to know and love. Since when did you let CL have the last word.
Therefore you dont seriously expect me to let him have the last word do you Matt.
Or are you suggesting he is such a goose and a moron that I should no longer waste my time.

skip to my lou
09-02-2004, 11:14 PM
Or are you suggesting he is such a goose and a moron that I should no longer waste my time.

Now now, lets not overestimate that much.

chesslover
09-02-2004, 11:54 PM
Yeah right.
The only person clutching at straws has been you CL.
Why is it always the losers that claim polls are unethical or flawed.


First of all, is there a time deadlien for these polls? if so you can rule the lien at the end of the deadline and claim that you have won. Currently except for the multipost poll where 80% of the people voting with an interest in the matter have rebuffed you, the other 2 polls are marginal

However that by itself does not prove anything, for I have conclusively shown that your polls are flawed, biased and are not correct

About the only poll of the 3 that you have launched, in a bizarre attempt to avoid admitting that you are wrong, that is fair and unbiased is the "self nomination" poll - which ironically you are marginally in front

In the "prize for BB" poll - you made 3 serious "mistakes" - you stated that there were "prizes" hwnb paul B clearly at the time stated that there would be just a prize, you used the emotive term waste money to expand on your preferred option and convince people to vote for that, and you neglected to mention that the prize was " a very small prize" as that would influence people to vote against your views

In the "multipost poll", you again had a push poll title for the yes option (which you obviously wanted people to vite for).

By any objective measure your polls are biased, flawed, meaningless and misleads and misinforms people voting

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 12:02 AM
First of all, is there a time deadlien for these polls? if so you can rule the lien at the end of the deadline and claim that you have won. Currently except for the multipost poll where 80% of the people voting with an interest in the matter have rebuffed you, the other 2 polls are marginal
Talk about selective counting.
You cannot exclude the third option.
If it was not there then it is likely all those votes would have called you a goose. You therefore have 8/14 not 8/10.


However that by itself does not prove anything, for I have conclusively shown that your polls are flawed, biased and are not correct
All you have shown is that you are a poor loser.


About the only poll of the 3 that you have launched, in a bizarre attempt to avoid admitting that you are wrong, that is fair and unbiased is the "self nomination" poll - which ironically you are marginally in front
Again sore loser.


In the "prize for BB" poll - you made 3 serious "mistakes" - you stated that there were "prizes" hwnb paul B clearly at the time stated that there would be just a prize, you used the emotive term waste money to expand on your preferred option and convince people to vote for that, and you neglected to mention that the prize was " a very small prize" as that would influence people to vote against your views
And again a sore loser.


In the "multipost poll", you again had a push poll title for the yes option (which you obviously wanted people to vite for).
Now your just a sore winner.


By any objective measure your polls are biased, flawed, meaningless and misleads and misinforms people voting
Crap.
Your just making excuses because your losing 3 of the 4 polls.

arosar
10-02-2004, 08:20 AM
Amie l, I reckon we've no option but to take 'The Best Posts' and throw them into the cracks of Mount Doom. What dya say?

Mate, this whole crap is schi*._tting me. These people write essays for cryin out loud on one small thing!

AR

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 09:11 AM
Mate, this whole crap is schi*._tting me. These people write essays for cryin out loud on one small thing!
AR, I am sure you too could write essays if you put your mind to it. ;)

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2004, 04:01 PM
You are obviously a goose otherwise Kevin would come out and defend you.

Actually what I said was that a poster who nominated his own posts (that would not have obviously been nominated by others) would be "making a goose of themselves".

It has since occurred to me that I did not fully clarify whether this would complete or merely initiate the process of goose-making.

As such the possibility that chesslover is a semigoose should now be considered by the learned pundits on this thread.

(Off you go you two, I expect at least 50 posts arguing the interpretation of the above words.)

Rincewind
10-02-2004, 04:27 PM
Perhaps CL is both a goose and a non-goose at the same time. If only this dabate could collapse like a Schrödinger Wave equation.

PHAT
10-02-2004, 04:38 PM
I am not sure that one can be a "semigoose", "demigoose" or "quasigoose"- although, one might be able to find a parcookedgoose. Perhaps we could try analysing the phrase "bit of a goose". Does this mean:

Some part of the goose;
A semigoose; or
A garden variety goose in all its waddling glory.

The first is never what we are meant to understand. The second might be what one intends to comunicate, ie that the silly person has goose-like qualities but is not a fullgoose. However, I believe it is the last meaning that is the usual meaning.

It is unlikely then, that the semigoose a common creature, in deed there may not be one in existance. A useful analogy might be the phrase, "little bit pregnant". Similarly, a silly person is either a nongoose or not, ie. a fullgoose - but never a semigoose.

[EDIT] PS. Upon reading Barry's Physics lesson, I propose that there may be a Paulis exclusion principle opperating. One can be in either the goosestate (n) or (n+1) but never something in between - and certainly noone else can be a goose with you, ie always a goose alone. I suppose then, that there cannot be a gaggle of geese on the one BB but there could be identical goose(s) on other BBs.

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 05:58 PM
Actually what I said was that a poster who nominated his own posts (that would not have obviously been nominated by others) would be "making a goose of themselves".

It has since occurred to me that I did not fully clarify whether this would complete or merely initiate the process of goose-making.
:lol: :lol:
Enjoying yourself here arent you. ;)


As such the possibility that chesslover is a semigoose should now be considered by the learned pundits on this thread.
Like Matt, I dont think you can be a semigoose.
You are either all or nothing and in CL's case he is all goose. :owned:


(Off you go you two, I expect at least 50 posts arguing the interpretation of the above words.)
Well based on that comment this obviously wont be one of the threads ggrayggray suggested the moderators might lock. :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2004, 07:12 PM
Enjoying yourself here arent you. ;)

Very much so. Those enjoying this debate might want to direct their attention to the mexicans thread where they are now having a very similar (but so far far less rich) discussion of whether WBA is a drongo.


Like Matt, I dont think you can be a semigoose.
You are either all or nothing and in CL's case he is all goose.

I envisage a gradual transition from CL's previous state (whatever that was) to full blown goosehood. However this would cause major problems for current evolutionary theory.

Alternatively, perhaps he is a weregoose. The full moon of a subject especially dear to his heart rises and the change is upon him. :eek:

Garvinator
10-02-2004, 07:20 PM
:lol: :lol:

Well based on that comment this obviously wont be one of the threads ggrayggray suggested the moderators might lock. :whistle:
ok then it could be the best post thread that get the treatment, or the one with the poll :clap: :clap: :whistle: :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 07:31 PM
Very much so. Those enjoying this debate might want to direct their attention to the mexicans thread where they are now having a very similar (but so far far less rich) discussion of whether WBA is a drongo.
Yes well I've had more experience in debates like this with Matt. ;)


I envisage a gradual transition from CL's previous state (whatever that was) to full blown goosehood. However this would cause major problems for current evolutionary theory.
Ha Ha Ha. Full blown goosehood. What a great phrase.
He has certainly achieved that.


Alternatively, perhaps he is a weregoose. The full moon of a subject especially dear to his heart rises and the change is upon him. :eek:
Hasn't the full moon come and gone. :whistle:

chesslover
11-02-2004, 07:40 PM
Actually what I said was that a poster who nominated his own posts (that would not have obviously been nominated by others) would be "making a goose of themselves".

It has since occurred to me that I did not fully clarify whether this would complete or merely initiate the process of goose-making.

As such the possibility that chesslover is a semigoose should now be considered by the learned pundits on this thread.

(Off you go you two, I expect at least 50 posts arguing the interpretation of the above words.)

You are either a goose or you are not a goose - you cannot be a semi goose. That is obvious, just liek you can be pregnant or not pregnant - never semi pregnant

I would think this clarificaton shows you did not call me a goose, in the first statement?

chesslover
11-02-2004, 07:45 PM
Yes well I've had more experience in debates like this with Matt. ;)


Ha Ha Ha. Full blown goosehood. What a great phrase.
He has certainly achieved that.


Hasn't the full moon come and gone. :whistle:

that is not nice at all :mad:

I do not deserve this treatment, and ask to be treated with dignity and respect, as is the want of all humans

Given that you are not going to bend, and neither am I, can we come to a compromise that will acceptable to both of us in this whole self nomination debate?

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2004, 09:19 PM
that is not nice at all :mad:

I do not deserve this treatment, and ask to be treated with dignity and respect, as is the want of all humans

Given that you are not going to bend, and neither am I, can we come to a compromise that will acceptable to both of us in this whole self nomination debate?
Well if you wish to resign from the debate thats fine by me.

If you desist from any further comments regarding self-nomination and gooses or non gooses I will stop, otherwise I can continue this ad infinatum.

chesslover
11-02-2004, 10:20 PM
Well if you wish to resign from the debate thats fine by me.

If you desist from any further comments regarding self-nomination and gooses or non gooses I will stop, otherwise I can continue this ad infinatum.

are you offering mea draw? if so I may accept your offer

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2004, 10:23 PM
are you offering mea draw? if so I may accept your offer
I thought what I said was obvious.

Garvinator
11-02-2004, 10:31 PM
are you offering mea draw? if so I may accept your offer
claiming a draw when it isnt offered, is that forfeit of game :p

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2004, 10:40 PM
claiming a draw when it isnt offered, is that forfeit of game :p
Yes, he seemed to be the one tiring of the debate and others were now openly calling him a goose or variations there of.

I gave him the option to at least having me stop calling him a goose over self-nominations.

Kevin Bonham
12-02-2004, 01:58 AM
You are either a goose or you are not a goose - you cannot be a semi goose.

Some of the creatures I study, being intermediate in form between slugs and snails (ie they have very small and relatively useless shells), are called semi-slugs (or semi-snails, is the glass half-empty or half-full?).

Also, I play the Semi-Slav.

Hence, the concept of a semi-goose makes complete sense to me.

It could indeed be argued that a semi-goose is not a true goose as such, and hence if I had called you a semi-goose that I would not have called you a true goose. However, if these things were so, I would not draw too much comfort from them, except that they'd give you a chance to tell Bill he was "wrong", er sorry, "mistaken".

Please note that I have not called anyone a semi-goose at this stage, I have simply raised the possibility.

Actually, this whole thread reminds me of a bunch of geese gaggling away. Or maybe that's just my laughter when I'm reading it. :owned:

ursogr8
12-02-2004, 08:20 AM
Please note that I have not called anyone a semi-goose at this stage, I have simply raised the possibility.



And I am glad to hear this Kevin. :)


Is name-calling by a few a symptom that CL is gaining the upper-hand? :rolleyes:

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 11:06 AM
And I am glad to hear this Kevin. :)


Is name-calling by a few a sympton that CL is gaining the upper-hand? :rolleyes:
Nope.
All it is showing is that he has been identified as a member of the genus moronicus goosus. :owned: :clap:

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 11:10 AM
Some of the creatures I study, being intermediate in form between slugs and snails (ie they have very small and relatively useless shells), are called semi-slugs (or semi-snails, is the glass half-empty or half-full?).

Also, I play the Semi-Slav.

Hence, the concept of a semi-goose makes complete sense to me.

It could indeed be argued that a semi-goose is not a true goose as such, and hence if I had called you a semi-goose that I would not have called you a true goose. However, if these things were so, I would not draw too much comfort from them, except that they'd give you a chance to tell Bill he was "wrong", er sorry, "mistaken".

Please note that I have not called anyone a semi-goose at this stage, I have simply raised the possibility.
Note I have not called him a semi-goose.
I have always given him full goosehood status. :whistle:


Actually, this whole thread reminds me of a bunch of geese gaggling away. Or maybe that's just my laughter when I'm reading it. :owned:
Its just you wrapped up in your own mirth. ;)

ursogr8
12-02-2004, 11:13 AM
Nope.
All it is showing is that he has been identified as a member of the genus moronicus goosus. :owned: :clap:

I was hoping that Kevin, who is a bit of an expert in the behaviour of BB threads when they are diverging or petering out, would be able to tell us what position in the life-cycle of a debate we are in when one side is reduced to name-calling. Now I know fg7 is the exception here...he tends to start his threads that way.
But you know, in general, is name-calling of CL winning a war or battle or debate or anything?

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 11:29 AM
I was hoping that Kevin, who is a bit of an expert in the behaviour of BB threads when they are diverging or petering out, would be able to tell us what position in the life-cycle of a debate we are in when one side is reduced to name-calling. Now I know fg7 is the exception here...he tends to start his threads that way.
But you know, in general, is name-calling of CL winning a war or battle or anything?
Well I originally only suggested what CL did was farcical.
I also just referred to him as a moron, cretin and dipstick. These of course are not examples of name calling but are instead simply descriptive terms describing his thought process or lack there of. :hmm:
It was Kevin who first brought up the issue of being a goose.
Goosedom goes far deeper than just describing a thought process but instead relates to a persons behaviour. :whistle:

Cat
12-02-2004, 11:58 AM
Well I originally only suggested what CL did was farcical.
I also just referred to him as a moron, cretin and dipstick. These of course are not examples of name calling but are instead simply descriptive terms describing his thought process or lack there of. :hmm:
It was Kevin who first brought up the issue of being a goose.
Goosedom goes far deeper than just describing a thought process but instead relates to a persons behaviour. :whistle:

Bill, can you give us all any idea of when your own disgraceful behaviour might end? It seems to be occupying a fair bit of space and is all entirely pointless. The BB is fast becoming a virtual toilet. Your arrogance combined with witlessness and absence of imagination is boring everybody to hell. Your pathetic attempts at ridicule and is creating enormous sympathy for CL and the Best Post poll is threatening to become a poll about your style of communication, or lack of it. I don't think I've ever seen a personality more self-destructive. Spare us any more of your bile, your opinions are failing to attract resonance, and the poll on this thread is a clear repudiation of your opinions on this matter. Give it up Bill.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 12:59 PM
Bill, can you give us all any idea of when your own disgraceful behaviour might end? It seems to be occupying a fair bit of space and is all entirely pointless. The BB is fast becoming a virtual toilet. Your arrogance combined with witlessness and absence of imagination is boring everybody to hell. Your pathetic attempts at ridicule and is creating enormous sympathy for CL and the Best Post poll is threatening to become a poll about your style of communication, or lack of it. I don't think I've ever seen a personality more self-destructive. Spare us any more of your bile, your opinions are failing to attract resonance, and the poll on this thread is a clear repudiation of your opinions on this matter. Give it up Bill.
Ah I was wondering when the goose from up north would enter the fray. :rolleyes:

Firstly let me point out there are a number of people who feel he is a goose including yourself. :clap:

I know CL's a goose, we all know

Secondly, the Grand Poobah has even seen fit to encourage continued discussion of CL's goosiness. :twisted:

Thirdly, althought the yes vote here has increased in the last 24 hrours so has the votes against CL in other threads. It is clear you ability to comprehend such things is no better now than when you entered the ratings debate. I suggest you stick to the non chess subjects like Are Chessplayers homophobic.

Fourthly, no one is forcing you to read these threads or are you like some people who just have to take a look no matter what.

Fifthly, I gave CL an opportunity to desist and end the discussion but he appears to have decided to continue. As such so shall I.

Finally, what you think or don't think does not concern me as I dont care what your opinion is. :hand: :hand: :whistle:

arosar
12-02-2004, 02:32 PM
Ah I was wondering when the goose from up north would enter the fray. :rolleyes:

Sorry BG mate, but I'm with Dr Richards on this. And here you are going straight for the jugular calling people names. He's an MD for f**k's sake; you should be respectful. What he says is fair enough man. This whole bullsc*h_it you and CL are carryin' on with is boring. I am pretty sure you're just as equally looking like a goose to everyone else.

Bill mate, I got much respect for you mate, but I also got two words for you buddy: "SUCKED IN". Cos that's literrally what this is.

Now I gonna post a serious question to you on another thread so pay attention there OK?

AR

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 03:37 PM
Sorry BG mate, but I'm with Dr Richards on this. And here you are going straight for the jugular calling people names. He's an MD for f**k's sake; you should be respectful.
As you pointed out he is an MD therefore the only time he deserves respect is in one area, medicine.


What he says is fair enough man. This whole bullsc*h_it you and CL are carryin' on with is boring. I am pretty sure you're just as equally looking like a goose to everyone else.
Well others are also joining in and have called him a goose so I'm not sure it is boring.



Bill mate, I got much respect you for you mate, but I also got two words for you buddy: "SUCKED IN". Cos that's literrally what this is.
To me this whole topic is just one big joke, however CL takes it all too seriously.
He could have easily just pulled his head in when I pointed out that Kevin had implied he was a goose but he however decided to try and argue he wasnt and just made himself look like an even bigger goose.
Kevin has recently even further expanded on this with regards to goosedom, semi-gooses and were-gooses.


Now I gonna post a serious question to you on another thread so pay attention there OK?
Ok ask away.

Garvinator
12-02-2004, 03:53 PM
this could also be stopped with an admin or moderators lock ;)

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 04:47 PM
this could also be stopped with an admin or moderators lock ;)
Of course the admin shouldnt be moderating in that manner and secondly there is an moderator actively encouraging futher debate on the goose aspect, so it would see a little strange for it to be locked..

Kevin Bonham
12-02-2004, 06:38 PM
I was hoping that Kevin, who is a bit of an expert in the behaviour of BB threads when they are diverging or petering out, would be able to tell us what position in the life-cycle of a debate we are in when one side is reduced to name-calling.

It's called "the fluff death of the universe" phase. By the way my intention in still feeding the goose speculation was to render the discussion absurd and farcical in the hope that no-one would be able to post without cracking up laughing, but it doesn't appear to have worked. :rolleyes: In fact, it has all got a little bit out of the nest and personal and if I'd anticipated this I wouldn't have used the g-word in the first place.

chesslover
12-02-2004, 06:48 PM
Bill, can you give us all any idea of when your own disgraceful behaviour might end? It seems to be occupying a fair bit of space and is all entirely pointless. The BB is fast becoming a virtual toilet. Your arrogance combined with witlessness and absence of imagination is boring everybody to hell. Your pathetic attempts at ridicule and is creating enormous sympathy for CL and the Best Post poll is threatening to become a poll about your style of communication, or lack of it. I don't think I've ever seen a personality more self-destructive. Spare us any more of your bile, your opinions are failing to attract resonance, and the poll on this thread is a clear repudiation of your opinions on this matter. Give it up Bill.

That is true...

The polls are threatening to become a referendum on Supreme Leader, and the fact that in the multiple thread poll, it is running 2-1 against Bill is an example of this. Even this poll, which was the only "fair" one that Bill initiated in this issue (no "push polling" features or incorrect facts here) has seen it go to 50/50 within hours of Bill's tantrums

In US Politics they would hide Bill from the voters, for as soon as he starts insulting others who dare have a different view to him, the cause that he identifies with starts to lose voters, and there is a clear sympathy vote for the person that he attacks

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 07:11 PM
That is true...

The polls are threatening to become a referendum on Supreme Leader, and the fact that in the multiple thread poll, it is running 2-1 against Bill is an example of this. Even this poll, which was the only "fair" one that Bill initiated in this issue (no "push polling" features or incorrect facts here) has seen it go to 50/50 within hours of Bill's tantrums
Even Kevin counts all the votes in that multiple nominations thread so its actualy 1-1 not 2-1.



In US Politics they would hide Bill from the voters, for as soon as he starts insulting others who dare have a different view to him, the cause that he identifies with starts to lose voters, and there is a clear sympathy vote for the person that he attacks
Ha Ha Ha.
This is a bit rich.
You are taking solace from the Dr. D when he himself called you a goose. :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 07:13 PM
I gave you the opportunity to desist from continuuing oisting on this last night, but I gather you have decided to continue on.

If that isnt the sign of a goose I dont know what is. :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
12-02-2004, 07:55 PM
Even Kevin counts all the votes in that multiple nominations thread so its actualy 1-1 not 2-1

Actually I vary which way I count it depending on what claim is being made. If CL is boasting about the No count I look at the No count as a proportion of the total. If you are boasting about the Yes count I look at the Yes count as a proportion of the total.

In any case, as you said before (when your side was losing one of the polls) the sample sizes are generally not meaningful. They could be if the vote was overwhelming.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 08:00 PM
Actually I vary which way I count it depending on what claim is being made. If CL is boasting about the No count I look at the No count as a proportion of the total. If you are boasting about the Yes count I look at the Yes count as a proportion of the total.

In any case, as you said before (when your side was losing one of the polls) the sample sizes are generally not meaningful. They could be if the vote was overwhelming.
I dont think I have ever referred to the Yes count in that poll.
I have just rejected CL's use of the total as only being the sum of the Yes and No counts.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 08:05 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.

ursogr8
12-02-2004, 08:17 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.

No need for the nexus Bill.

You could unilaterally declare that you have stopped calling him a goose, and leave the other issue for him to ponder.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 08:24 PM
No need for the nexus Bill.

You could unilaterally declare that you have stopped calling him a goose, and leave the other issue for him to ponder.
I disagree, I see them as all linked and related.

chesslover
12-02-2004, 11:04 PM
I disagree, I see them as all linked and related.

I disagree, and have to agree with starter

The issues are

1. You calling me a goose and I disagreeing (if you stop calling me a goose, I will have no need to debate that)

2. Whether the best post 2003 should be self nominated
(since the decision has been made, all you can do is try to whinge and show that it was the wrong decision - but as the opinons are 50/50, Paul B will not change his mind)

3. Whether there should be a PRIE for the best post 2003 (once again as before, paul b and the ACF supreme leader have decided that it be so, and are unlikly to change their mind)

4. Is multiple self nomination wrong (yet once again Paul B has stated that this is fine)

I think we should stop on 1, and in all others Paul B has made his decisions (which are obviously not consistent with your views)

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 11:07 PM
I disagree, and have to agree with starter

The issues are

1. You calling me a goose and I disagreeing (if you stop calling me a goose, I will have no need to debate that)

2. Whether the best post 2003 should be self nominated
(since the decision has been made, all you can do is try to whinge and show that it was the wrong decision - but as the opinons are 50/50, Paul B will not change his mind)

3. Whether there should be a PRIE for the best post 2003 (once again as before, paul b and the ACF supreme leader have decided that it be so, and are unlikly to change their mind)

4. Is multiple self nomination wrong (yet once again Paul B has stated that this is fine)

I think we should stop on 1, and in all others Paul B has made his decisions (which are obviously not consistent with your views)
You agreed on the other thread to cease and desist.

It was clear I did not mean on just one thread.

I therefore suggest you shut up, otherwise I will have to consider it a decision on your part to now to reject the agreement and there is going to be another round of gander sightings.

Now don't start another debate here just say ok and be done with it.

PHAT
13-02-2004, 06:55 PM
You agreed on the other thread to cease and desist.

Have you got something against the plain English word, "stop"?

skip to my lou
13-02-2004, 07:07 PM
Matt you want another game now?

PHAT
13-02-2004, 07:20 PM
I would like to but my kids are gonna linch me if I am not off the puter in 10 minutes. We don't have a TV so they like to watch a DVD on frisat nights.

So, must be another night. Sorry.

chesslover
14-02-2004, 08:29 AM
Have you got something against the plain English word, "stop"?

why use one simple word, when 3 can do?

and you have to admit that "cease and desist" sounds more impressive than "stop" ;)