PDA

View Full Version : Best BB post prizes



Bill Gletsos
08-02-2004, 08:53 PM
Lets see who believes there should be prizes.

skip to my lou
08-02-2004, 08:56 PM
waste

Cat
08-02-2004, 10:10 PM
Lets see who believes there should be prizes.

Get a life!

Bill Gletsos
08-02-2004, 10:15 PM
Get a life!
Is that the best you can do david.

A number of people have suggested that the BB prizes are a waste of money.
I'm simply giving them an opportunity to express that view via a poll.

Cat
08-02-2004, 10:30 PM
Is that the best you can do david.

A number of people have suggested that the BB prizes are a waste of money.
I'm simply giving them an opportunity to express that view via a poll.

Bill, if it was just that, it'd be ok; but after the way you've carried on with CL its really turned the whole thing into a debacle. Money no, a kick up the pants, yes! Trouble is, this is a window on the ACF and it's not inspiring. Either put the whole process out of it's misery or hold a moratorium until people have regained their senses.

Bill Gletsos
08-02-2004, 10:36 PM
Bill, if it was just that, it'd be ok; but after the way you've carried on with CL its really turned the whole thing into a debacle. Money no, a kick up the pants, yes! Trouble is, this is a window on the ACF and it's not inspiring. Either put the whole process out of it's misery or hold a moratorium until people have regained their senses.
I disagree, but I guess you figured I would say that.
What turned this into a debacle was CL when he nominated his NECG post and then followed that up with another 4 nominations of his own posts.
As for a non inspiring window on the ACF I think its more a window on how a goose can end up laying an egg.

paulb
08-02-2004, 10:38 PM
Just to put the matter in perspective, all that's been mentioned is "a very small prize". It's more a matter of kudos than cash.

Paul S
08-02-2004, 10:41 PM
As for a non inspiring window on the ACF I think its more a window on how a goose can end up laying an egg.

Indded, its a case of a goose laying a GOLDEN egg!!!

The golden egg (great idea) of a prize for the best BB post of 2003.

:D ;) :D

Cat
08-02-2004, 10:42 PM
I disagree, but I guess you figured I would say that.
What turned this into a debacle was CL when he nominated his NECG post and then followed that up with another 4 nominations of his own posts.
As for a non inspiring window on the ACF I think its more a window on how a goose can end up laying an egg.

I know CL's a goose, we all know, but he's a nice goose. It takes 2 to tango and you're a very good dancer.

WBA
08-02-2004, 10:45 PM
Okay here goes

I do not think someone should vote for themselves, however I do not think they should be banned from doing that either, it should be a personal choice, I think restricting them would be a little undemocratic. Having said that people are not going to vote for a post they do not believe is a good post, and others (such as myself), are not interested in voting at all. I have no problem with these small prizes, and who knows occassionally there might well be some interesting conversations take place in between the fighting.

Bill Gletsos
08-02-2004, 10:47 PM
I know CL's a goose, we all know, but he's a nice goose. It takes 2 to tango and you're a very good dancer.
Actually I'm more the soccer player than a dancer and was enjoying using my opponent as the ball.

Bill Gletsos
08-02-2004, 10:50 PM
Okay here goes

I do not think someone shoudl vote for themselves, however I do not think they should be banned from doing that either, it should be a personal choice, I thinkretricting them would be a little undemocratic. Having said that people are not going to vote for a post they do not believe is a good post, and others (such as myself), are not interested in voting at all. I have no problem with these small prizes, and who knows occassionally there might well be some interesting conversations take place in between the fighting.
The point was that at worst a person could perhaps nominate one of their own posts.
CL effectively nominated 5 of his own(4 plus the deleted NECG post).

WBA
08-02-2004, 10:59 PM
HI Bill

I realise this, but I do question the harm that can come from self nominations, I mean perhaps there should be a limit of 1 or 2 posts regardless of whether they are your own or someone elses, but I would try and deal with that side of things rather than self-nomination. As said, I would suspect that a poster nomniating themselves is likely to fail to attract the votes anyway.

Rgds

WBA

Paul S
08-02-2004, 11:01 PM
Just to put the matter in perspective, all that's been mentioned is "a very small prize". It's more a matter of kudos than cash.

Exactly! BTW, Paul, what is the prize? Trying to "read between the lines" I would imagine it would be somewhere between $50 to $100?

I can't believe the absurd reactions of people on the prize money. Lets assume for arguments sake that the prize is $100 for best BB prize of 2003 (BTW, as has been agreed by virtually everyone on this BB, this money is to be re-invested into Australian Chess as per my suggestion).

I estimate that $100 would be about 0.1% of the ACF's yearly expenses. Yet on this BB over the last 12 months there has been more fuss made about how this 0.1% is to be spent than about the other 99.9%!!! Talk about penny wise and pound foolish! Is it any wonder that chess in Australia has problems when people focus on minutae instead of important things?

I must say I am disappointed with Bill's behaviour on this topic. I think it is undignified that the leader (NSWCA President) of NSW Chess behaves like a bully boy on this BB.

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 09:14 AM
I must say I am disappointed with Bill's behaviour on this topic. I think it is undignified that the leader (NSWCA President) of NSW Chess behaves like a bully boy on this BB.
Lets get a few things straight here Paul.
The NSWCA has taken no discussion or vote on the ACF providing BB prizes.
My belief there should be no BB prizes is as an individual not as NSWCA President. I have not posted in any capacity on this topic on behalf of the NSWCA nor in my capacity as NSW President.
I'm also of the opinion that CL's behaviour in self nominating at least 4 of his own posts was farcical and was counter productive to the whole idea of a best BB prize.

arosar
09-02-2004, 09:28 AM
I have not posted in any capacity on this topic on behalf of the NSWCA nor in my capacity as NSW President.

You keep saying this but how are we to know it?


I'm also of the opinion that CL's behaviour in self nominating at least 4 of his own posts was farcical and was counter productive to the whole idea of a best BB prize.

OK...enough already!! FMD - all weekend youse people talk about this. Look, BB prize was a dumb idea in the first place. If ACF wants to spend money - hec, then so be it. I couldn't give a flying f**k about it. And just so we won't get into another round of crap about he'd been hardly done by - just give the prize to chesslover.

AR

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 09:39 AM
You keep saying this but how are we to know it?
Simple AR.
On rating topics it is reasonable to assume I am responding as the ACF Ratings Officer.
On topics where someone asks what the NSWCA is doing/decided on topic XXX then it is reasonable to assume I am reponding as the NSW President.

Otherwise it makes sense to assume I am responding as an individual.

If there was any ambiguity as to what capacity I was responding in I would have ended the posts as follows:
Bill Gletsos
NSWCA President

chesslover
09-02-2004, 09:21 PM
Just to put the matter in perspective, all that's been mentioned is "a very small prize". It's more a matter of kudos than cash.

Thank you for injecting some facts and logic and rationality and bringing comman sense back into this thread - as always. Well done and superb effort

The whole premise of the poll is WRONG. However if Bill states that he is NEVER WRONG, lets say it is a "mistake"

Supreme Leader stated that there were "prizes" in the poll, leading people to think that there was more than one prize awared.

Also he did not state that the prize (singular) that would be awarded is a "very small prize. If BB people knew that then the whole poll result would change. Given that you had stated that at least a couple of times, the excuse of ignorance cannot be believed.

As it is this whole poll is illegitimate, has flawed methodology and indeed would even make Florida blush. This is the Supreme Leader's way of "push pollling" to get an outcome that he wants - in violation of every principle of truth, faireness and justice, just so that he can get his own way.

The whole poll is illegitimate and is WRONG (sorry a "mistake")

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 10:03 PM
Thank you for injecting some facts and logic and rationality and bringing comman sense back into this thread - as always. Well done and superb effort

The whole premise of the poll is WRONG. However if Bill states that he is NEVER WRONG, lets say it is a "mistake"

Supreme Leader stated that there were "prizes" in the poll, leading people to think that there was more than one prize awared.

Also he did not state that the prize (singular) that would be awarded is a "very small prize. If BB people knew that then the whole poll result would change. Given that you had stated that at least a couple of times, the excuse of ignorance cannot be believed.

As it is this whole poll is illegitimate, has flawed methodology and indeed would even make Florida blush. This is the Supreme Leader's way of "push pollling" to get an outcome that he wants - in violation of every principle of truth, faireness and justice, just so that he can get his own way.

The whole poll is illegitimate and is WRONG (sorry a "mistake")

Well actually the title of the thread on the old ACF BB was "Prizes for BB postings".

Paul's proposal called for prizes of around $600, split over 3 prizes of $300, $200 and $100.

Now I recall that George Howard responded via email to Pauls email proposal in late October some time.

On the old BB on Dec 28th at 3.25pm Paul Sike posted:

Dear Paul B

What is happening with the BB prizes for best post(s) of the year?

Just before those idiots from Brazil came along, it was all but agreed (on this thread) that there would be BB prizes for the best posts of 2003.


So, what did you (and, presumably ACF Council) decide as regards prizes (and method for determining prizes etc) for best BB posts of 2003?

It is clear from this that multiple prizes were expected.

In fact the discussion on the old BB had been that instead of the posters receiving the prize money the money would go to chess related activities nominated by the winners.

chesslover
11-02-2004, 07:25 PM
Well actually the title of the thread on the old ACF BB was "Prizes for BB postings".

Paul's proposal called for prizes of around $600, split over 3 prizes of $300, $200 and $100.

Now I recall that George Howard responded via email to Pauls email proposal in late October some time.

On the old BB on Dec 28th at 3.25pm Paul Sike posted:


It is clear from this that multiple prizes were expected.

In fact the discussion on the old BB had been that instead of the posters receiving the prize money the money would go to chess related activities nominated by the winners.

Jolly good effort. Show proof that in the old ACF BB board that multiple prizes were canvassed for, but ignore all the recent posts that indicate that it is one "very small prize"

Glad to know that your objectivity and fairness is still intact, and that you do not selectively quote words out of context to support your view

Superb effort

BTW this is all sarcasm

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2004, 09:13 PM
Jolly good effort. Show proof that in the old ACF BB board that multiple prizes were canvassed for, but ignore all the recent posts that indicate that it is one "very small prize"

Glad to know that your objectivity and fairness is still intact, and that you do not selectively quote words out of context to support your view

Superb effort

BTW this is all sarcasm
Too bad you missed the point.

Until Paulb just recently posted it was one "very small prize" all anyone had to go with was the previous posts.

One might therefore ask when was the decision made to chnage the condition and why werent the posters informed about it sooner.

chesslover
11-02-2004, 11:06 PM
Too bad you missed the point.

Until Paulb just recently posted it was one "very small prize" all anyone had to go with was the previous posts.

One might therefore ask when was the decision made to chnage the condition and why werent the posters informed about it sooner.

I will now demolish your entire case and the basis of this biased "push polling".

On 08-02-2004, 09:53 PM , you posted the poll and started the thread stating that will be ACFprizes. Your rationale for that was that the old ACF BB stated that there would be numberous prizes (even though no official decision was decided in relation to this)

Howver on 29-01-2004, 11:17 AM Paul posted this to start off the best post 2003 thread;

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

Now 29 January 2004 is much earlier than your 08 feb post. Even a stubborn person must you must admit that

Also note what Paul B states - Prize: not sure, but not much . The important word is PRIZE, in the singualr sense, not PRIZES. That indicates that rather than numerous prizes, just one prize (not much) will be awarded.

Now this alone will be enough to demolish your case, but as they state there is MORE!!

On 29-01-2004, Paul B again stated thus

"ACF decided it in this sense: George Howard told me "go ahead, small prize". George Howard effectively is the ACF for day-to-day purposes. Obviously tiny decisions like this are not going to go to a council meeting or the meetings would last three weeks instead of three hours".

Once again note that 29 january 2004 was far earlier than your 08 Feb post, and that the post by paul B specifically states in a OFFICIAL manner that George Howard told me "go ahead, small prize Once again note the singular word PRIZE notating just one prize - not teh mutliple PRIZES as you allege.

Particularly noteworthy in this very definitive and conclusive statement from our much loved, respected and wise moderator is the specification that this is the official stance - George Howard, the ACF Supreme Leader, stated "go ahead - small PRIZE". There is now official confirmation that there is a PRIZE that will be awarded to the best post 2003, and confirms the earlier statement by Paul B that kicked off the entire best post 2003 thread.

Finally even paul B, a very liberal and tolerent and free spirited moderator, who likes to adopt a hands off policy in relation to BB discussion,, feels the need to intervene to stop the disinformation that you have been spreading. He will no longer be silent and let your injustice and disinformation flourish, and allow you to lead the BB users astray and be seduced by your lies - paul, a person who has always fought for truth and fairness, knows that for evil to triumph good men need to be silent, and he will no longer be silent in the wake of your deliberate disinformation

Like a noble latter day Moses, paul B steps in and posts in a very authoritative manner, asking for teh BB users to listen to the facts and not the emotive "mistakes" and disinformation that you have told them in your campaign to spread hatred on the best post ACF 2003 award.

He says clearly and in utter and complete and comphrehensive repudiation of you - Just to put the matter in perspective, all that's been mentioned is "a very small prize".

Now either lick your wounds and admit you are WRONG (I'll even accept a "mistake" admission) and I will let bygones be bygones, or apologise to me and the rest of the BB users for not telling the truth.

So what is it going to be - do you admit to being a BB liar or "mistake" prone
BB poster? It is your move...

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2004, 11:38 PM
I will now demolish your entire case and the basis of this biased "push polling".

On 08-02-2004, 09:53 PM , you posted the poll and started the thread stating that will be ACFprizes. Your rationale for that was that the old ACF BB stated that there would be numberous prizes (even though no official decision was decided in relation to this)

Howver on 29-01-2004, 11:17 AM Paul posted this to start off the best post 2003 thread;

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

Now 29 January 2004 is much earlier than your 08 feb post. Even a stubborn person must you must admit that

Also note what Paul B states - Prize: not sure, but not much . The important word is PRIZE, in the singualr sense, not PRIZES. That indicates that rather than numerous prizes, just one prize (not much) will be awarded.

Now this alone will be enough to demolish your case, but as they state there is MORE!!

On 29-01-2004, Paul B again stated thus

"ACF decided it in this sense: George Howard told me "go ahead, small prize". George Howard effectively is the ACF for day-to-day purposes. Obviously tiny decisions like this are not going to go to a council meeting or the meetings would last three weeks instead of three hours".

Once again note that 29 january 2004 was far earlier than your 08 Feb post, and that the post by paul B specifically states in a OFFICIAL manner that George Howard told me "go ahead, small prize Once again note the singular word PRIZE notating just one prize - not teh mutliple PRIZES as you allege.

Particularly noteworthy in this very definitive and conclusive statement from our much loved, respected and wise moderator is the specification that this is the official stance - George Howard, the ACF Supreme Leader, stated "go ahead - small PRIZE". There is now official confirmation that there is a PRIZE that will be awarded to the best post 2003, and confirms the earlier statement by Paul B that kicked off the entire best post 2003 thread.

Finally even paul B, a very liberal and tolerent and free spirited moderator, who likes to adopt a hands off policy in relation to BB discussion,, feels the need to intervene to stop the disinformation that you have been spreading. He will no longer be silent and let your injustice and disinformation flourish, and allow you to lead the BB users astray and be seduced by your lies - paul, a person who has always fought for truth and fairness, knows that for evil to triumph good men need to be silent, and he will no longer be silent in the wake of your deliberate disinformation

Like a noble latter day Moses, paul B steps in and posts in a very authoritative manner, asking for teh BB users to listen to the facts and not the emotive "mistakes" and disinformation that you have told them in your campaign to spread hatred on the best post ACF 2003 award.

He says clearly and in utter and complete and comphrehensive repudiation of you - Just to put the matter in perspective, all that's been mentioned is "a very small prize".

Now either lick your wounds and admit you are WRONG (I'll even accept a "mistake" admission) and I will let bygones be bygones, or apologise to me and the rest of the BB users for not telling the truth.

So what is it going to be - do you admit to being a BB liar or "mistake" prone
BB poster? It is your move...
First of all dipstick, I am well aware of what George Howard said to Paulb back in October 2003 when he told him to go ahead with Pauls Sikes idea because I was copied on the email. The word George used was "modest" not "small".

Now based on that email the whole of the thread on the old BB contradicts it.

Why didnt paulb nip any and all speculation about multiple prizes on the old BB.
Why didnt he in his Jan 29th post did he not make it clear that unlike discussions on the old BB there was only one small prize.

As for prize/prizes pualb like many posters on this bb is always the most precise in their use of words, and his not sure not much depends on what one considers not much. Out of a $20,000 budget $100-$500 isnt much.


______________________
Love the Life you Goose
Goose the Life you Love

skip to my lou
11-02-2004, 11:44 PM
You left out the "If not now, WHEN? NEVARRRR U GOOSE" in your signature bill.

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2004, 11:54 PM
You left out the "If not now, WHEN? NEVARRRR U GOOSE" in your signature bill.
HA HA HA HA.
I love it.
But I wont totally plagarise it. :owned:

______________________
Love the Life you Goose
Goose the Life you Love

If not now, WHEN?
When Hell Freezes over you Goose

chesslover
12-02-2004, 12:06 AM
First of all dipstick, I am well aware of what George Howard said to Paulb back in October 2003 when he told him to go ahead with Pauls Sikes idea because I was copied on the email. The word George used was "modest" not "small".

Now based on that email the whole of the thread on the old BB contradicts it.

Why didnt paulb nip any and all speculation about multiple prizes on the old BB.
Why didnt he in his Jan 29th post did he not make it clear that unlike discussions on the old BB there was only one small prize.

As for prize/prizes pualb like many posters on this bb is always the most precise in their use of words, and his not sure not much depends on what one considers not much. Out of a $20,000 budget $100-$500 isnt much.

I'm starting to think you must have three heads. One up your ass, one with its nose grafted to paulb's ass and it looks like the other has been recently grafted to Georges ass.

______________________
Love the Life you Goose
Goose the Life you Love

Your own words have condemned you. It is getting worse and worse for you.A friendly tip - if you are ever in court as a defendent, for each time you speak there is more ammunition for the prosecution

I am assuming that here you are not "testing", but have made a "mistake" are WRONG!!

1. You stated that you were well aware of the fact that an email from george authorised a prize to the best post 2003 as far back as October 2003. This is an official authorisation which you were made aware of, yet you preferred to belive the specualtion from the old BB thread that stated that there were multiple prizes instead. WHY?

I would have thought that an official email from the wise George stating that there was one prize was more credible than the unofficial speculation from the BB posters

2. YOU condemned poor matt for his statement that he had posted things relevent to the ACF on this BB and no one responded to them. Yet you want such a busy, hard working man like Paul B, to address and correct every error that is posted!! Do you see the irony there?

In fact the only time in recent memory that paul B has decided to correct disinformation, was when he posted in your thread saying that it is a " very small prize" in respond to your disinformation that the ACF was awarding PRIZES to the best post 2003.

3. You are sidestepping the issue when you talk about the size of the PRIZE. The issue is you not being fair, and informing people that there are PRIZES (in the plural sense) being awarded,when in fact that there is just one PRIZE (in the singular)

The fact that there was ONE prize was known to you before you started this thread, and began your biased, flawed, unfair poll in an attempt to seduce unwary BB posters to your point of view.

WHY did you do that? I have conclusively shown that this fact that there was just ONE PRIZE being awarded was known to you, before you started this thread and the "mistake" ridden poll

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 12:38 AM
Your own words have condemned you. It is getting worse and worse for you.A friendly tip - if you are ever in court as a defendent, for each time you speak there is more ammunition for the prosecution

I am assuming that here you are not "testing", but have made a "mistake" are WRONG!!

1. You stated that you were well aware of the fact that an email from george authorised a prize to the best post 2003 as far back as October 2003. This is an official authorisation which you were made aware of, yet you preferred to belive the specualtion from the old BB thread that stated that there were multiple prizes instead. WHY?

I would have thought that an official email from the wise George stating that there was one prize was more credible than the unofficial speculation from the BB posters

2. YOU condemned poor matt for his statement that he had posted things relevent to the ACF on this BB and no one responded to them. Yet you want such a busy, hard working man like Paul B, to address and correct every error that is posted!! Do you see the irony there?

In fact the only time in recent memory that paul B has decided to correct disinformation, was when he posted in your thread saying that it is a " very small prize" in respond to your disinformation that the ACF was awarding PRIZES to the best post 2003.

3. You are sidestepping the issue when you talk about the size of the PRIZE. The issue is you not being fair, and informing people that there are PRIZES (in the plural sense) being awarded,when in fact that there is just one PRIZE (in the singular)

The fact that there was ONE prize was known to you before you started this thread, and began your biased, flawed, unfair poll in an attempt to seduce unwary BB posters to your point of view.

WHY did you do that? I have conclusively shown that this fact that there was just ONE PRIZE being awarded was known to you, before you started this thread and the "mistake" ridden poll
You have no idea what I may or may not have known you goose.

Just because I was aware of georges original email to paul does not mean I was aware of all of them.

As I stated paulb could have clarified the situation last year in the thread on the old BB.
He didn't.

chesslover
12-02-2004, 06:09 PM
You have no idea what I may or may not have known you goose.

Just because I was aware of georges original email to paul does not mean I was aware of all of them.

As I stated paulb could have clarified the situation last year in the thread on the old BB.
He didn't.

STOP trying to fudge the issue

You KNEW when you started this thread, and your baised flawed poll, that there was just ONE prize on offer for the best post 2003. That was shown in my earlier post in this thread, where I showed you Paul B addressed this - well before you started on the warpath against the best post 2003, self nomination, the prizes for best post 2003, the multiple self nomination.

You chose to ignore facts as it was convenient for you

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 07:29 PM
STOP trying to fudge the issue

You KNEW when you started this thread, and your baised flawed poll, that there was just ONE prize on offer for the best post 2003. That was shown in my earlier post in this thread, where I showed you Paul B addressed this - well before you started on the warpath against the best post 2003, self nomination, the prizes for best post 2003, the multiple self nomination.

You chose to ignore facts as it was convenient for you
There is no fudge involved.
Based on previous discussions on the old BB there was every indication that there was multiple prizes. This was even discusssed when the idea of any monies the prize winners would receive would go to nominated chess activities instead of the individuals. In fact it was agreed that this was the way to go. No prize money paid directly to the posters.

Now prior to pauls call for nominations on this board what did we know about all this from the old BB.

1) Therewere multiple prizes.
2) The total prize money wasnt excessive.
3) Everyone agreed that the winning posters wouldnt get the money but tthat the prize moneys would go to nominayed chess activities.

Now paulb did not mention 3) above in his post call for nominations.
Does that mean its no longer applicable.
Answer we dont know. You cannot assume one way or the other exceot ti say that when it was last discussed it was a goer.
Likewise in the same post paulb used the word prize. Did this really mean prize or did he leave out an "s". It was only well aftre my poll he clarified and said prize.

Therefore based on available evidence when I started the poll it was not clear that there was just 1 one prize or multiple prizes.

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

Kevin Bonham
12-02-2004, 08:34 PM
Just reply to this post with a simple Yes I accept or No I dont accept.

Any other response will be considered a rejection.

CL, apparently Bill's posted this offer in five different threads (instead of just, say, posting in one and sending a PM).

I suggest you reply Yes in two threads, No in two others and call him a goose in the fifth. :owned:

One way or t'other, this will all be over soon.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 08:49 PM
CL, apparently Bill's posted this offer in five different threads (instead of just, say, posting in one and sending a PM).

I suggest you reply Yes in two threads, No in two others and call him a goose in the fifth. :owned:

One way or t'other, this will all be over soon.
Thanks for being so helpful Kevin. ;)
I already mentioned in each of the posts that they were duplicated in a number of threads.
I did this because I didnt want him to have the excuse that he missed the post and therefore accidently cause an automatic rejection.

If he accepts or rejects in one thread then thats all thats required.
If he accepts in one thread and rejects in another then as far as I am concerned they are all rejections.

Kevin Bonham
12-02-2004, 09:20 PM
By the way, lest CL be feeling mischievous, I was definitely not calling Bill a goose in that post.