PDA

View Full Version : multiple self nominations a farce



Bill Gletsos
08-02-2004, 08:55 PM
Lets see what everyone feels about this.

WBA
08-02-2004, 11:03 PM
I think more to the point that if there is a prize for best post, why would 5 nomintions be allowed. Okay if there are 2 prizes, allow 2 nominations etc, I do not care whether they or self nominations, or praising the thoughts of your peers, just cut down how many people can nominate, or it starts to appears as spam.

skip to my lou
08-02-2004, 11:25 PM
Bill stop creating these shitty voting threads. Seriously, the prize is probably not worth the effort. Just buy CL a copy of "The idiots guide to Chess" and say its his "prize" - End Story

Ian Rout
09-02-2004, 08:17 AM
Bill stop creating these shitty voting threads. Seriously, the prize is probably not worth the effort. Just buy CL a copy of "The idiots guide to Chess" and say its his "prize" - End Story
I think it would be useful to have a facility to flag threads to be ignored, in the same way as users can be flagged. Items such as the numerous 2003 Best Post threads, which are now bordering on spam, could then be happily continued by the six people who care without irritating those who don't.

skip to my lou
09-02-2004, 12:34 PM
Yes you can ignore threads - just dont read it or open it!

PHAT
09-02-2004, 02:22 PM
Yes you can ignore threads - just dont read it or open it!

Jeo is correct - even if he thinks ignoring specific posters should be a one of the bells and whistles.

Frankly, this whole self-nomination fracas is plain boring. Bill, shut up; CL, shut up; and, as we all know, "One dog barks and the rest start barking." So, everyone else shut up too. :rolleyes:

Thunk
09-02-2004, 02:39 PM
Jeo is correct - even if he thinks ignoring specific posters should be a one of the bells and whistles.

Frankly, this whole self-nomination fracas is plain boring. Bill, shut up; CL, shut up; and, as we all know, "One dog barks and the rest start barking." So, everyone else shut up too. :rolleyes:


mr swEEnEy


i think what you arE looking for is zymotic


;) :cool: thE HUNK :cool: ;)

chesslover
09-02-2004, 06:33 PM
Bill stop creating these shitty voting threads. Seriously, the prize is probably not worth the effort. Just buy CL a copy of "The idiots guide to Chess" and say its his "prize" - End Story

thank you arosar :)

but since you have to nominate the prize to a chess activity, I will give the book to maybe the NSWJCL to teach juniors

chesslover
09-02-2004, 06:50 PM
Bill, given the fact that a massive MASSIVE 80% of those who cared about the best BB post 2003, have supported my position and rebuffed and repudiated you, will you now give up the inquisition against the multiple posts,and admit that you have made a VERY BIG 'MISTAKE' and move on?

This massive endorsement is depite your cunning "push polling"to have a leading quwstion in an attempt to make people say yes - shame shame shame Bill, but the BB posters are more smarter than you give them credit for. yetanother "mistake" supreme leader

And finally even the wise, thoughtful, respected, beloved, admired and knowlegable Paul B, has endorsed my position on multiple posts - going so far as to implicitly state that even 10 multiple posts would be no problem.

So game over ? at least learn from this "mistake"okay, and rule over us wisely from this point on :p (that is sarcasm by the way)

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 07:52 PM
Bill, given the fact that a massive MASSIVE 80% of those who cared about the best BB post 2003, have supported my position and rebuffed and repudiated you, will you now give up the inquisition against the multiple posts,and admit that you have made a VERY BIG 'MISTAKE' and move on?
Firstly you have 8 votes thats 61.54% not 80%. On that basis I doubt you will ever get a job as a poll counter except maybe in Florida.


This massive endorsement is depite your cunning "push polling"to have a leading quwstion in an attempt to make people say yes - shame shame shame Bill, but the BB posters are more smarter than you give them credit for. yetanother "mistake" supreme leader
You must be joking 13 votes out of the Bb membership is insignificant.


And finally even the wise, thoughtful, respected, beloved, admired and knowlegable Paul B, has endorsed my position on multiple posts - going so far as to implicitly state that even 10 multiple posts would be no problem.
Paulb's opinion is just that his opinion.
If he thinks 10 self nominations are ok then I'm sorry hes a goose.

Kevin Bonham
09-02-2004, 08:13 PM
I am surprised by these results, I would have thought that with the question of allowing self-nomination at all evenly split, the question of whether multiple self-nomination is farcical could be expected to record a yes vote. It will be interesting to see if this turns around with more voting, if not, it would appear that this thread has backfired. :eek: A few more "no" votes and chesslover will be insufferable. :silenced:

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 08:21 PM
I am surprised by these results, I would have thought that with the question of allowing self-nomination at all evenly split, the question of whether multiple self-nomination is farcical could be expected to record a yes vote. It will be interesting to see if this turns around with more voting, if not, it would appear that this thread has backfired. :eek: A few more "no" votes and chesslover will be insufferable. :silenced:
I'm guessing that some of those who voted no in the self nomination poll have either not voted in this poll or have voted that it is stupid.

chesslover
09-02-2004, 08:26 PM
Firstly you have 8 votes thats 61.54% not 80%. On that basis I doubt you will ever get a job as a poll counter except maybe in Florida.


You must be joking 13 votes out of the Bb membership is insignificant.


Paulb's opinion is just that his opinion.
If he thinks 10 self nominations are ok then I'm sorry hes a goose.

oh dear...you scertainly seem to be "mistake" prone these last couple of days huh?

I said "80% of those who cared about the best BB post 2003" voted for me and not you - that excludes teh ones who did not care about the BB. I most certainly hope your maths skills in deriving the ratings have less "mistakes" than counting up the numbers of a simple poll like this!

13 BB members voting in a poll is a lot in terms of BB polls. Most BB polls struggle to reach double digits

Paul B as one of the most loved, admired, respected, knwoledgable and wisest persons in the BB has a lot of credibility, and is an "influence maker". His endorsement and backing carries a lot of significant weight among the denizens of this BB. For you to call him a goose, is a serious "mistake"

Since every time you post, you seem to be making more and more "mistakes", why dont you take a break from this whole self nomination saga as clearly you have been outthought and outwitted, and just call it a day, admit you are WRONG ( I will even accept an admission of "mistake" and let it go at that ok?) and just move on to another topic?

80% of the people who care have voted, and I think it is time you respected BB demoracy, and people power!!! This is depsite your hysterical witchhunt agansit self nomination (which failed) and now against multiple posts(which is clearly failing).

Oh dear

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 08:39 PM
oh dear...you scertainly seem to be "mistake" prone these last couple of days huh?

I said "80% of those who cared about the best BB post 2003" voted for me and not you - that excludes teh ones who did not care about the BB. I most certainly hope your maths skills in deriving the ratings have less "mistakes" than counting up the numbers of a simple poll like this!

13 BB members voting in a poll is a lot in terms of BB polls. Most BB polls struggle to reach double digits
Well then CL if 13 is significant then 17 is more significant poll.
And the majority of those 17 think that self nomination should NOT be permitted.
This therefore is in direct contrast to this poll.

What this can only mean is that although it appears that the majority dont believe your multiple posts are a farce the majority do believe that self nominations should not be allowed at all.




Paul B as one of the most loved, admired, respected, knwoledgable and wisest persons in the BB has a lot of credibility, and is an "influence maker". His endorsement and backing carries a lot of significant weight among the denizens of this BB. For you to call him a goose, is a serious "mistake"
Well currently the majority of believe there should be no self nominations at all. Therefore his endorsement doesnt seem to carry that much weight.
Mind you if he isnt careful hes going to have to go to hospital to have your nose surgically removed from his ass.


Since every time you post, you seem to be making more and more "mistakes", why dont you take a break from this whole self nomination saga as clearly you have been outthought and outwitted, and just call it a day, admit you are WRONG ( I will even accept an admission of "mistake" and let it go at that ok?) and just move on to another topic?
The only person continually making mistakes is you CL.


80% of the people who care have voted, and I think it is time you respected BB demoracy, and people power!!! This is depsite your hysterical witchhunt agansit self nomination (which failed) and now against multiple posts(which is clearly failing).
If I am to respect democracy then according to the poll of allowing self nominations at all, the majority believes they shouldnt be allowed.

chesslover
09-02-2004, 08:42 PM
I am surprised by these results, I would have thought that with the question of allowing self-nomination at all evenly split, the question of whether multiple self-nomination is farcical could be expected to record a yes vote. It will be interesting to see if this turns around with more voting, if not, it would appear that this thread has backfired. :eek: A few more "no" votes and chesslover will be insufferable. :silenced:

As a person who closely follows US Presidential poltics, I can make some points that will explain this 80% repudiation of Bill's stance;

1. The majority of people are evenly split on self nomination - that is true, and in normal circumstances you would expect that the multiple post poll to be at least slightly against multiple posts

2. However our Supreme Leader turned it into a nasty fight by personalising it - he said if I had turned it into a farce by posting numerous times. This charcter attack, has resulted in some sympathy votes coming to me

3. Supreme Leader, then tried to make it a leading question by expanding on the Yes answer. However the BB voters were sick of being talked down to, and were too smart to be taken by his version of "push polling". In retaliation they voted against him.

4. Finally they see this as an attempt by Supreme Leader to push his views on others, especially when someone stands up to him. From the best post 2003 thread, to the waffle on best post 2003 thread, to how to nominate the best post 2003 thread, to should self nomination be allowed thread, to the best prize of 2003 thread to this multiple post 2003 thread, Supreme Leader has tried to crush all dissent to his views that self nomination should not be allowed.

This has backfired, and this poll vote is ominious indication that the BB masses are revolting against what they see as the heavy handed authoritarian tactics of Bill

5. The powerful and influential endorsement of the wise and much loved paul B, has also turned the tide against Bill.

6. Bill has been in a constant state of denial and defeat like Howard dean in this issue. First he fought against the entire best post 2003 prize and lost. Then he fought against self nomination and lost. Then he fought for an appeal right to the self nomination ruling and lost. Now he is fighting agsint the mutliple self nomination, and as the BB people have stated so far clearly, is currently losing.

This is Bill's last fight on this issue. Vote against him, and Vote No, and this will be the end of Bill. Like Dean, he will have to face reality and quit.

Vote Yes, and he will then try to step by step reclaim the battles he has lost - appeal against self nomination, no self nomination allowed and no prize for best post 2003

BB people have a chance to end this once and for all. Vote No in this poll and this whole "mistake" ridden saga will be over. Evil Bill will be overthrown!! :p

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 08:53 PM
As a person who closely follows US Presidential poltics, I can make some points that will explain this 80% repudiation of Bill's stance;

1. The majority of people are evenly split on self nomination - that is true, and in normal circumstances you would expect that the multiple post poll to be at least slightly against multiple posts

2. However our Supreme Leader turned it into a nasty fight by personalising it - he said if I had turned it into a farce by posting numerous times. This charcter attack, has resulted in some sympathy votes coming to me

3. Supreme Leader, then tried to make it a leading question by expanding on the Yes answer. However the BB voters were sick of being talked down to, and were too smart to be taken by his version of "push polling". In retaliation they voted against him.

4. Finally they see this as an attempt by Supreme Leader to push his views on others, especially when someone stands up to him. From the best post 2003 thread, to the waffle on best post 2003 thread, to how to nominate the best post 2003 thread, to should self nomination be allowed thread, to the best prize of 2003 thread to this multiple post 2003 thread, Supreme Leader has tried to crush all dissent to his views that self nomination should not be allowed.

This has backfired, and this poll vote is ominious indication that the BB masses are revolting against what they see as the heavy handed authoritarian tactics of Bill

5. The powerful and influential endorsement of the wise and much loved paul B, has also turned the tide against Bill.
What a load of crap.
All they saw was you exposed as a liar in the best bb post of 2003 thread when you claimed paulb never threatened to ban you, even though you yourself claimed as much in an earlier post.



6. Bill has been in a constant state of denial and defeat like Howard dean in this issue. First he fought against the entire best post 2003 prize and lost.
Strange that poll is currently 63.64% in favour of their being no BB prizes.
Oh thats a majority guess I won that one.


Then he fought against self nomination and lost.
Oh a majority of 52.94% believe self nomination should not be allowed.
Oh guess what another majority. Looks like I won that one also.



Then he fought for an appeal right to the self nomination ruling and lost.
There was no poll taken on this so thats a false statement.
All I did there was show you up as a hypocrite.


Now he is fighting agsint the mutliple self nomination, and as the BB people have stated so far clearly, is currently losing.
Ah finally you got something correct. Guess you had to eventually.
However the critical word here is currently.


This is Bill's last fight on this issue. Vote against him, and Vote No, and this will be the end of Bill. Like Dean, he will have to face reality and quit.
Now who is push polling.
I'm like the f...ing energiser bunny, I never give up.


Vote Yes, and he will then try to step by step reclaim the battles he has lost - appeal against self nomination, no self nomination allowed and no prize for best post 2003
As I showed above I won those polls. You lost.


BB people have a chance to end this once and for all. Vote No in this poll and this whole "mistake" ridden saga will be over. Evil Bill will be overthrown!! :p
In your dreams moron.

PHAT
09-02-2004, 09:05 PM
And finally even the wise, thoughtful, respected, beloved, admired and knowlegable Paul B, has endorsed my position on multiple posts ...

FMD! I reckon Paul Bruekenhousensomething is CL's BROTHER!!!. Wow, man. Bill Gletsos must have realy been laying some pipeline in his day.

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 09:20 PM
FMD! I reckon Paul Bruekenhousensomething is CL's BROTHER!!!. Wow, man. Bill Gletsos must have realy been laying some pipeline in his day.
:lol: :lol:
I keep telling you CL and I are not related.

The thing is you and I are definately not related yet CL has seen fit to over praise you at times. :whistle:

chesslover
09-02-2004, 09:34 PM
What a load of crap.
All they saw was you exposed as a liar in the best bb post of 2003 thread when you claimed paulb never threatened to ban you, even though you yourself claimed as much in an earlier post.

Strange that poll is currently 63.64% in favour of their being no BB prizes.
Oh thats a majority guess I won that one.

Oh a majority of 52.94% believe self nomination should not be allowed.
Oh guess what another majority. Looks like I won that one also.

There was no poll taken on this so thats a false statement.
All I did there was show you up as a hypocrite.

Ah finally you got something correct. Guess you had to eventually.
However the critical word here is currently.

Now who is push polling.
I'm like the f...ing energiser bunny, I never give up.

As I showed above I won those polls. You lost.

In your dreams moron.


You are the moron who has made "mistake" after "mistake" after "mistake" in this whole best post 2003 saga

As has been conclusively demonstrated your polls are flawed, use unfair emotive options ("waste of money") to push your own options, use wrong statements ("prizes" when there are no multiple prizes for best post 2003) and does not use correct factual statements (only 'a very small prize" will be given to best post 2003)

Given that this is not meet the criterion for a "free and fair" election the polls that you have "won" are invlaid, and does not support your views at all. Given all the unfair advantages you have accrued by posting polls that are biased and designed to support you, the fact that the self nomination poll is so close, as is the best prize poll is a bitter and stark and comphrehensive defeat fot you, and reveals how "mistaken" you are

As for the word "currently" my understanding is that all these 3 polls are still "current". For you to claim victory on 2 of these 3 polls with the margin so slim and which is still current and able to be voted upon, and then state that the poll in this thread (where a massive 80% have rejected your view despite flawed methodology) is still current and does not count as it is over, shows the height of arrogance and hypocracy.

Even the Florida Supreme Court would be shocked and horrified by the way you declare close polls that are current but where you are leading, the way you declare polls open despite having a 80% rejection of your views, your flawed methodology, teh emotive terms you use to gain votes for your poll options, and your ignorance of facts in the polls.

If Gore had you in his side he never would have lost 2000 would he? You are truely the master poll manipulator!!

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 09:41 PM
You are the moron who has made "mistake" after "mistake" after "mistake" in this whole best post 2003 saga

As has been conclusively demonstrated your polls are flawed, use unfair emotive options ("waste of money") to push your own options, use wrong statements ("prizes" when there are no multiple prizes for best post 2003) and does not use correct factual statements (only 'a very small prize" will be given to best post 2003)

Given that this is not meet the criterion for a "free and fair" election the polls that you have "won" are invlaid, and does not support your views at all. Given all the unfair advantages you have accrued by posting polls that are biased and designed to support you, the fact that the self nomination poll is so close, as is the best prize poll is a bitter and stark and comphrehensive defeat fot you, and reveals how "mistaken" you are

As for the word "currently" my understanding is that all these 3 polls are still "current". For you to claim victory on 2 of these 3 polls with the margin so slim and which is still current and able to be voted upon, and then state that the poll in this thread (where a massive 80% have rejected your view despite flawed methodology) is still current and does not count as it is over, shows the height of arrogance and hypocracy.

Even the Florida Supreme Court would be shocked and horrified by the way you declare close polls that are current but where you are leading, the way you declare polls open despite having a 80% rejection of your views, your flawed methodology, teh emotive terms you use to gain votes for your poll options, and your ignorance of facts in the polls.

If Gore had you in his side he never would have lost 2000 would he? You are truely the master poll manipulator!!
You cretin.

You were the one who claimed I had lost those polls.
For you to be able to make that claim then you clearly believed they were closed.
Unfortunately I won those polls.
Now you are arguing they arent closed or that I deemed them closed.

Your a total moron.

chesslover
09-02-2004, 10:02 PM
You cretin.

You were the one who claimed I had lost those polls.
For you to be able to make that claim then you clearly believed they were closed.
Unfortunately I won those polls.
Now you are arguing they arent closed or that I deemed them closed.

Your a total moron.

I only meant that you lost the fight to have no prizes for the best post 2003 (there is), the fight against self nomination (self nomination is allowed states the wise and noble paul B, the organiser), the fight to appeal Paul B's self nomination ruling (using your "sarcasm defence" to backtrack) and the fight against multiple self nominations (it is allowed and the thoghtful and correct paul B has no problems with this). This meant that you had been bested in this whole best post 2003 saga in an outcome based sense

defeated and unable to bear the fact that you were wrong (or "mistaken" as you love to call it) you then tried to turn to the court of public BB opinion to force the wise paul B to backtrack. To this you employed flawed poll methodology, used emotive statements, "push polled" and surpressed facts to get an overwhelming majority that you could use as a mandate to fight the correct edicts from the hard working and dedicated paul b.

Yet despite all of these you are just barely ahead in 2 of these 3 polls, and
have been comphrehensively routed on the multiple thread poll.

And you cannot state that I have "won these polls" when the margin is still slender, and when you consider that you have misled the voters of these polls and have effectively disfranchised them by not stating what the true poll options are.

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 10:06 PM
I only meant that you lost the fight to have no prizes for the best post 2003 (there is), the fight against self nomination (self nomination is allowed states the wise and noble paul B, the organiser), the fight to appeal Paul B's self nomination ruling (using your "sarcasm defence" to backtrack) and the fight against multiple self nominations (it is allowed and the thoghtful and correct paul B has no problems with this). This meant that you had been bested in this whole best post 2003 saga in an outcome based sense

defeated and unable to bear the fact that you were wrong (or "mistaken" as you love to call it) you then tried to turn to the court of public BB opinion to force the wise paul B to backtrack. To this you employed flawed poll methodology, used emotive statements, "push polled" and surpressed facts to get an overwhelming majority that you could use as a mandate to fight the correct edicts from the hard working and dedicated paul b.

Yet despite all of these you are just barely ahead in 2 of these 3 polls, and
have been comphrehensively routed on the multiple thread poll.

And you cannot state that I have "won these polls" when the margin is still slender, and when you consider that you have misled the voters of these polls and have effectively disfranchised them by not stating what the true poll options are.
Sounds like the plaintive cries of a loser to me.

skip to my lou
09-02-2004, 10:40 PM
thank you arosar :)

but since you have to nominate the prize to a chess activity, I will give the book to maybe the NSWJCL to teach juniors

What the hell?

skip to my lou
09-02-2004, 10:44 PM
but since you have to nominate the prize to a chess activity, I will give the book to maybe the NSWJCL to teach juniors

Going to have to choose a different book then. The book I suggested is only suitable for you.

chesslover
11-02-2004, 07:32 PM
Bill given that a massive 9 of the 11 who voted for this issue have stated No, will you concede that you were wrong and have lost this poll?

In an election, as soon as it is obvious that a candidate cannot win, the loser concedes

Will you be gracious enough to concede here?

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2004, 09:15 PM
Bill given that a massive 9 of the 11 who voted for this issue have stated No, will you concede that you were wrong and have lost this poll?

In an election, as soon as it is obvious that a candidate cannot win, the loser concedes

Will you be gracious enough to concede here?
Dont be a goose.
You have 9 out of 17 which is just over 52%.

As I said above you cannot selectively dismiss 6 votes.

Garvinator
11-02-2004, 09:35 PM
I think the poll is flawed anyway. There should have been only two options, yes or no. If there were to be three options, two of the options should not have been as similar as they are.

But since we are talking about the three presented options, it is clear that No has won if you use the first past the post system. But if you were to take option 1 and 3 as basically being the same, then its tied and a tie is not good enough to change the status quo, sorry bill.

But the question remains, what is the status quo :p

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2004, 09:49 PM
I think the poll is flawed anyway. There should have been only two options, yes or no. If there were to be three options, two of the options should not have been as similar as they are.

But since we are talking about the three presented options, it is clear that No has won if you use the first past the post system. But if you were to take option 1 and 3 as basically being the same, then its tied and a tie is not good enough to change the status quo, sorry bill.

But the question remains, what is the status quo :p
Perhaps there should have been 4 options.
1) Yes, he is a goose and opened the whole thing up to ridicule.
2) No, but he is still a goose
3) No
4) I dont care, the whole idea of BB prizes is stupid

Garvinator
11-02-2004, 09:55 PM
Perhaps there should have been 4 options.
1) Yes, he is a goose and opened the whole thing up to ridicule.
2) No, but he is still a goose
3) No
4) I dont care, the whole idea of BB prizes is stupid

but you werent to know that cl is a real goose back then :p

chesslover
11-02-2004, 10:27 PM
Dont be a goose.
You have 9 out of 17 which is just over 52%.

As I said above you cannot selectively dismiss 6 votes.

Are you nuts??

You have the hide to call yourself the ACF ratings officer, when you cannot even do basic maths

There are just 12 respondents who bothered to answer the questions - the rest do not care, and are equivalent to a spoiled vote

Thus from the 11 votes who bothered to vote - 9 said yes - a BIG win for teh NO vote.

Also note again your biased flawed "push polling" methodology which in any case would have rendered any "win" invalid. In your case it was a "lose-lose" scenario

chesslover
11-02-2004, 10:33 PM
has won if you use the first past the post system. But if you were to take option 1 and 3 as basically being the same, then its tied and a tie is not good enough to change the status quo, sorry bill.


WHY is option 1 and 3 the same. That is not true

Option 1 under Bill's flawed poll, is basically an agreement that multiple post has brought the entire best post 2003 to ridicule, whilst Option 2 is the opposite of that. Option 3 is a neither statement, specifying that the whole idea is stupid. Thus it is incorrect to state that option 1 and 3 are teh same, for the same arguement can be applied to option 2 and option 3 being the same. The people who think that the whole idea of best BB post is stupid, are probably more likely to vote for option 2 than 1.

However not that the poll qestions, and the options are biased, flawed and this unfair poll methodology is a transparent unfair attempt to influence votes, but the BB voters have put paid to his transparent tactics to influence the vote!!

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2004, 10:34 PM
Are you nuts??

You have the hide to call yourself the ACF ratings officer, when you cannot even do basic maths

There are just 12 respondents who bothered to answer the questions - the rest do not care, and are equivalent to a spoiled vote

Thus from the 11 votes who bothered to vote - 9 said yes - a BIG win for teh NO vote.

Also note again your biased flawed "push polling" methodology which in any case would have rendered any "win" invalid. In your case it was a "lose-lose" scenario
The plaintive cries of a losing goose.

They are not informal votes you moron they count.

You have 50%. No more no less.

chesslover
11-02-2004, 10:35 PM
but you werent to know that cl is a real goose back then :p

I AM NOT A GOOSE :mad: :mad:

chesslover
11-02-2004, 10:39 PM
The plaintive cries of a losing goose.

They are not informal votes you moron they count.

You have 50%. No more no less.

for once in this issue, try to engage the thing between your ears that is called a brain :mad:

the vote is for yes or no - not the ones who stated that they do not care.

Thus when NO has 9 of 11 votes of those who voted, it is clear that most disagree with you - despite your biased, flawed and unethical poll

Can you comphrehend that simple fact?

Garvinator
11-02-2004, 10:43 PM
WHY is option 1 and 3 the same. That is not true

Option 1 under Bill's flawed poll, is basically an agreement that multiple post has brought the entire best post 2003 to ridicule, whilst Option 2 is the opposite of that. Option 3 is a neither statement, specifying that the whole idea is stupid. Thus it is incorrect to state that option 1 and 3 are teh same, for the same arguement can be applied to option 2 and option 3 being the same. The people who think that the whole idea of best BB post is stupid, are probably more likely to vote for option 2 than 1.

However not that the poll qestions, and the options are biased, flawed and this unfair poll methodology is a transparent unfair attempt to influence votes, but the BB voters have put paid to his transparent tactics to influence the vote!!
do you deliberately miss words from ppls posts to help your argument, the word that was crucial was BASICALLY THE SAME. i did not say that were EXACTLY the same.

dont misquote me again or miss words on my posts again :mad:

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2004, 10:47 PM
for once in this issue, try to engage the thing between your ears that is called a brain :mad:
Why dont you stop behaving like a self practicing prooctologist and get your head out of your ass.


the vote is for yes or no - not the ones who stated that they do not care.
No dipstick there are 3 options not 2.


Thus when NO has 9 of 11 votes of those who voted, it is clear that most disagree with you - despite your biased, flawed and unethical poll
Still cant count. You have 9 out of 18.



Can you comphrehend that simple fact?
The only simple fact Im comprehending is that you are a goose and that the more try to prove you arent the more you prove you are. :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2004, 10:50 PM
do you deliberately miss words from ppls posts to help your argument, the word that was crucial was BASICALLY THE SAME. i did not say that were EXACTLY the same.

dont misquote me again or miss words on my posts again :mad:
How could he appreciate the word BASICALLY when he is BASICALLY a goose.

______________________
Love the Life you Goose
Goose the Life you Love

Garvinator
11-02-2004, 10:55 PM
How could he appreciate the word BASICALLY when he is BASICALLY a goose.
______________________
Love the Life you Goose
Goose the Life you Love

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Kevin Bonham
12-02-2004, 02:02 AM
I see that "no" has now slipped to below 50%.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 11:03 AM
I see that "no" has now slipped to below 50%.
Expect a post from the goose explaining to you why you cannot count and are WRONG (sorry "mistaken") and that he has 10/15 not 10/21. :whistle:

Garvinator
12-02-2004, 11:54 AM
Expect a post from the goose explaining to you why you cannot count and are WRONG (sorry "mistaken") and that he has 10/15 not 10/21. :whistle:
but will it be a basic explaination :p :doh:

PHAT
12-02-2004, 02:03 PM
I am feeling uncomfortable with all this.

CL has, as we all do, some faults.
CL may have Asperger's - that is why he does not get jokes.
CL has Faith - but so do a lot of smart people.
CL displays an obsessive streak - alternatively we could call it tenacity.

I have on occations said he was the most stupid person I had ever come across. I now think that I was in error to do so. Notwithstanding the characteristics above, I think while CL can be extremely frustating because of these characteristics. He is not a goose, moron, cretin, et cetera. He should not be ridiculed as to his lack of inteligence because, although he isn't completely right on all his points, he has nevertheless, landed some powerful hits on BG. This bullying has gone too far.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 02:22 PM
I am feeling uncomfortable with all this.

CL has, as we all do, some faults.
CL may have Asperger's - that is why he does not get jokes.
CL has Faith - but so do a lot of smart people.
CL displays an obsessive streak - alternatively we could call it tenacity.

I have on occations said he was the most stupid person I had ever come across. I now think that I was in error to do so. Notwithstanding the characteristics above, I think while CL can be extremely frustating because of these characteristics. He is not a goose, moron, cretin, et cetera. He should not be ridiculed as to his lack of inteligence because, although he isn't completely right on all his points, he has nevertheless, landed some powerful hits on BG. This bullying has gone too far.
Originally I just called Cl's behaviour farcical, it was actually Kevin who was the first to imply CL was a goose.
I just drew attention to the implication.
Unfortunately CL decided to try and argue that Kevin did not call him a goose.
And only proved kevins point.
I offered him an out last night.
So far he has failed to take it.

chesslover
12-02-2004, 06:25 PM
I am feeling uncomfortable with all this.

CL has, as we all do, some faults.
CL may have Asperger's - that is why he does not get jokes.
CL has Faith - but so do a lot of smart people.
CL displays an obsessive streak - alternatively we could call it tenacity.

I have on occations said he was the most stupid person I had ever come across. I now think that I was in error to do so. Notwithstanding the characteristics above, I think while CL can be extremely frustating because of these characteristics. He is not a goose, moron, cretin, et cetera. He should not be ridiculed as to his lack of inteligence because, although he isn't completely right on all his points, he has nevertheless, landed some powerful hits on BG. This bullying has gone too far.

Thank you.

As you stated, our Supreme Leader has been landed "some powerful hits" in relation to the entire best post 2003 issue

He has been defeated when the ACF decided to go ahead with Paul S's brilliant idea to go with the best post 2003 comp, and award a prize.

When Bill then tried to go on a witchhunt, and incite unrest by whipping up hatred for the best post 2003, by stating that mutiple PRIZES were going to be awarded - he was exposed when I showed him that he was aware of paul B's statement that it was a single PRIZE, and that these mutiple posts were known to Bill before he started on this error riddent withchunt

Then our Supreme Leader, went berserk and tried to post lies, knowing full well that they were lies - as witnessed in teh post where he full well knew that Paul B edited the NECG appeal complaint post, but tried to feign ignorance of this.

Supreme Leader then tried to run multiple posts, to whip up hatred and discontent against self nomination, when Paul B overuled him against self nomination of the best post 2003. He then started putting emotive, flawed, biased words in poll in an attempt to claim a mandate from the BB users to prove his point

He puts words into other people's mouths - stating that Kevin called me a goose when he never did, stating that "crass" and "conseited" are the same, and the word "otherwise" means the same as the word"obviously".

Supreme Leader has said that he is "never wrong", but has refused to admit that he even makes "mistakes" and when caught out states that he was just "testing"!!

Now that he has had some "powerful blows" against him, he then resorts to name calling in an attempt to intimidate. Supreme leader just cannot accept defeat, and admit he was WRONG

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 07:41 PM
Thank you.
Ha ha ha.
This is just beautiful.
I cannot wait for your grasping at Matt's support to come back and bite you at some stage in the future.


As you stated, our Supreme Leader has been landed "some powerful hits" in relation to the entire best post 2003 issue
In your dreams.


He has been defeated when the ACF decided to go ahead with Paul S's brilliant idea to go with the best post 2003 comp, and award a prize.
Be explict here. No one was defeated by the ACF. The ACF President decided to give Paul' Sikes idea a go, NOT the ACF.


When Bill then tried to go on a witchhunt, and incite unrest by whipping up hatred for the best post 2003, by stating that mutiple PRIZES were going to be awarded - he was exposed when I showed him that he was aware of paul B's statement that it was a single PRIZE, and that these mutiple posts were known to Bill before he started on this error riddent withchunt
Seemed more like a goose hunt to me. :owned:


Then our Supreme Leader, went berserk and tried to post lies, knowing full well that they were lies - as witnessed in teh post where he full well knew that Paul B edited the NECG appeal complaint post, but tried to feign ignorance of this.
I never tried to feign ignorance at all.
I chose to ignore the fact I was aware of it to see how much you were paying attention.
I will admit you suprised me that you noticed.


Supreme Leader then tried to run multiple posts, to whip up hatred and discontent against self nomination, when Paul B overuled him against self nomination of the best post 2003. He then started putting emotive, flawed, biased words in poll in an attempt to claim a mandate from the BB users to prove his point
The plaintive cries of a loser.
There were simply multiple polls to cover the multiple questions.


He puts words into other people's mouths - stating that Kevin called me a goose when he never did, stating that "crass" and "conseited" are the same, and the word "otherwise" means the same as the word"obviously".
The more you deny Kevin called you a goose the more you prove it.


Supreme Leader has said that he is "never wrong", but has refused to admit that he even makes "mistakes" and when caught out states that he was just "testing"!!

Now that he has had some "powerful blows" against him, he then resorts to name calling in an attempt to intimidate. Supreme leader just cannot accept defeat, and admit he was WRONG
Actually you have beat up this whole issue more than I could have ever hoped to have acheived.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 08:03 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, 08:08 PM
CL may have Asperger's - that is why he does not get jokes.

Actually, you malign him unjustly there. On one of the Telstra threads in the offtopic area, and at other times as well, he has showed that he can be very witty.

chesslover
12-02-2004, 10:47 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.

I accept your offer. Let us call it a draw

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 10:50 PM
I accept your offer. Let us call it a draw
At least we both didnt get double forfeited by the moderators. :lol:

PHAT
12-02-2004, 10:56 PM
P.ss weak! A draw. Wimps. I want my money back.

Paul S
12-02-2004, 11:03 PM
At least we both didnt get double forfeited by the moderators. :lol:

After reading all the recent garbage about gooses etc from Bill and Chesslover in recent days, I would have double forfeited them in this "debate" a long time ago if I was a Moderator (arbiter).

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 11:04 PM
After reading all the recent garbage about gooses etc from Bill and Chesslover in recent days, I would have double forfeited them in this "debate" a long time ago if I was a Moderator (arbiter).
I guess we can therefore be thankful that you arnt. :whistle:

skip to my lou
12-02-2004, 11:06 PM
After reading all the recent garbage about gooses etc from Bill and Chesslover in recent days, I would have double forfeited them in this "debate" a long time ago if I was a Moderator (arbiter).

And then they would have threatened to create a new BB and go there. As if anyone cares. :rolleyes: :hand: :hand: :hand:

chesslover
12-02-2004, 11:19 PM
P.ss weak! A draw. Wimps. I want my money back.

If you feel so strongly, then YOU challenge Supreme Leader. Like Kasparove he may be foolish enough to accept, and you like Kramnik could win!!

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2004, 11:21 PM
If you feel so strongly, then YOU challenge Supreme Leader. Like Kasparove he may be foolish enough to accept, and you like Kramnik could win!!
You should have just pointed out to him that he paid no money in the first place. Therefore he is not entiltled to anything. :lol:

chesslover
12-02-2004, 11:32 PM
You should have just pointed out to him that he paid no money in the first place. Therefore he is not entiltled to anything. :lol:

but even if he did not pay, Matt as a spectator is still entitled to see a good game of chess?

Rincewind
12-02-2004, 11:46 PM
After reading all the recent garbage about gooses etc from Bill and Chesslover in recent days, I would have double forfeited them in this "debate" a long time ago if I was a Moderator (arbiter).

For the record, there were discussions about possible containment strategies. However, the situation appears to have resolved itself without the need for intervention. This is, I think, for the best.

Kevin Bonham
13-02-2004, 12:16 AM
P.ss weak! A draw. Wimps. I want my money back.

Let's see how you feel about draws if you get a fleeting chance to force one in game 7 of your match against Jeo. :lol:

:clap: :clap: :clap: to Bill and CL for calling it off.

Rincewind
13-02-2004, 01:09 AM
Let's see how you feel about draws if you get a fleeting chance to force one in game 7 of your match against Jeo. :lol:

Good point.

$100 donated by Matt to the Olympiad Fund (:D) if Jeo beats him 7:0 and by Jeo otherwise, wasn't it?

skip to my lou
13-02-2004, 01:13 AM
Who said it goes to the Olympiad Fund? :hmm: :)

Maybe it can go towards the prize for best post in 2004.

chesslover
13-02-2004, 03:29 PM
Who said it goes to the Olympiad Fund? :hmm: :)

Maybe it can go towards the prize for best post in 2004.

good one!!

i personally think that the best chess activity that the winner can donate that best prize 2003 money, will be to this BB

PHAT
13-02-2004, 07:13 PM
Let's see how you feel about draws if you get a fleeting chance to force one in game 7 of your match against Jeo.

If only it was! This was just a quick half hearted 30 minute game that was over in half that. Our managers are trying to agree on conditions. And yes $100 donation sounds good.

skip to my lou
13-02-2004, 07:16 PM
good one!!

i personally think that the best chess activity that the winner can donate that best prize 2003 money, will be to this BB

It was a joke dude.

Wait, what do you mean 2003 bb prize money back to this bb?? :confused: :eh:

PHAT
13-02-2004, 07:22 PM
not necessarily, just to a good chessic cause.

chesslover
14-02-2004, 08:35 AM
It was a joke dude.

Wait, what do you mean 2003 bb prize money back to this bb?? :confused: :eh:

Yes.

Paul S said that whoever wins the best post 2003 post, cannot keep the money - but must give it to a aust chess cause.

If I ever win, which is unlikely and Bill will be instigating a full blown campaign againt me, I will give it to this BB website.

The winner may have their own pet aust chess cause (the state association/local club/juniors/olympiad etc) but given that this is the best BB post prize, I think that it is appropriate the prize goes to the ACF website/BB. At least that is what I would do

Bill Gletsos
14-02-2004, 11:36 AM
If I ever win, which is unlikely and Bill will be instigating a full blown campaign againt me, I will give it to this BB website.
You are starting to sound paranoid.
You have no basis to claim I will be intigating a full blown campaign against you.
I argued about your self nominations etc.
I think enough has been said about it.
I'll leave it up to those that want to vote to make up their own mind.

skip to my lou
14-02-2004, 12:20 PM
This isn't the ACF BB.... :hmm:

Anyway if it did cover the cost of this BB then that would be good, but I dont think anyone cares for the BB anyway.