RD's & Bill Gletsos Obstinate Attitude - Page 2 - OzChess

**Iconoclast** · 08-29-2007, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by blank frank

3. The ratings officer is free to alter the ratings at will and is unaccountable. Transparency would expose the extent to which the ratings are being massaged.

I do not know if they ARE being massaged regularly, but the problem is, that if they were, then nobody would know!

The word is "accountability."

**Iconoclast** · 08-29-2007, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Was it Mr. Parr?

I thought he made that representation to Mr Lyons. Please clarify Iconoclast.

Oh yes! Gletsos made the undertaking in front of several people including Parr. Parr is on record about it all. Gletsos says he did not say that he wouldn't run.

**Egor** · 08-30-2007, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Oh yes! Gletsos made the undertaking in front of several people including Parr. Parr is on record about it all. Gletsos says he did not say that he wouldn't run.

At this time it's Parr's word verses Gletsos. I know who you believe, but I have no reason to call either a lier so I cannot say.

**Iconoclast** · 08-30-2007, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Egor

At this time it's Parr's word verses Gletsos. I know who you believe, but I have no reason to call either a lier so I cannot say.

Nope, it is not one word against one other. There were a few people right there and part of the conversation, who know what was said about running for President.

**Fischer-Fan** · 08-30-2007, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Nope, it is not one word against one other. There were a few people right there and part of the conversation, who know what was said about running for President.

Its immaterial either way.

So Bill maybe said he wouldn't run and then did. If he didn't get enough votes then he wouldn't be president anyway. What stopped Mr Parr from running for president himself if he wanted the job?

**Gendo Ikari** · 08-30-2007, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Fischer-Fan

Its immaterial either way.

So Bill maybe said he wouldn't run and then did. If he didn't get enough votes then he wouldn't be president anyway. What stopped Mr Parr from running for president himself if he wanted the job?

I think this covers the basics: http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.co...dishonour.html

**Iconoclast** · 08-30-2007, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by Fischer-Fan

What stopped Mr Parr from running for president himself if he wanted the job?

Jason Lyons was going to run for President. Parr was behind him to give a big helping hand in the duties. The "deal" was that Gletsos would not go for President. On the day, of the AGM, Lyons was "manuvoured by agents" away from the registration table and thereby from registering as a NSWCA member. On the dot of the starting time (10am?) Gletsos immeadiately called the AGM and pronounced that since Lyons had not registered, he (Gletsos) would run for President. He was elected unopposed. At no time did Gletsos see that Lyons was registered before the dot of 10am, even though he knew that Lyons was not yet registered as an NSWCA member.

Smelly, very smelly

**Egor** · 08-31-2007, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Nope, it is not one word against one other. There were a few people right there and part of the conversation, who know what was said about running for President.

...and with all these people there, it's still a disputed issue. Have any of them stated, for the public record, that Bill said, "I will not run."?
Far to often people hear what they want to hear, rather than what was actually said.
I suspect, of course I have no proof, that Mr Parr and Mr Lyons were so convinced within themselves that Bill would step aside for them, that they read more into the conversation than was there.
Now that you have my theory, can you prove it wrong?

**Egor** · 08-31-2007, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

On the day, of the AGM, Lyons was "manuvoured by agents" away from the registration table and thereby from registering as a NSWCA member. On the dot of the starting time (10am?) Gletsos immeadiately called the AGM and pronounced that since Lyons had not registered, he (Gletsos) would run for President. He was elected unopposed. At no time did Gletsos see that Lyons was registered before the dot of 10am, even though he knew that Lyons was not yet registered as an NSWCA member.

Smelly, very smelly

I'd be interested to know where you got this version of the events, seeing that you were not there?
I wasn't there either, but have spoken to a number of people who were. Although they all tell it slightly differently, no of the accounts I have heard come anywhere near the version you have posted here.
But of caurse they were all Bill's agents!:rolleyes:

**Iconoclast** · 09-01-2007, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Egor

Now that you have my theory, can you prove it wrong?

ehem, ehem. .........

I put a version to you that I believe to be the truth because of what people have told me. You might call my version a theory, but it is the only theroy that fits the facts as I know them.

Now you have put forward a "theory" that starts with "...I suspect, of course I have no proof, that Mr Parr and Mr Lyons were so convinced within themselves..." Then you ask me to "prove [you] wrong." Maaaate, get a grip.

You need to show that my version of events is incorrect, first.

... have spoken to a number of people who were [there].

Good for you, Egor. So were the people I spoke to - Lyons and Parr. You need to name names too - or STFU.

The people you say you spoke to were, as you sarcastically say, Gletsos controlled agents. It appears now that you too are one of the controlled.:eek:

**Egor** · 09-01-2007, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

I put a version to you that I believe to be the truth because of what people have told me. You might call my version a theory, but it is the only theroy that fits the facts as I know them.

The big problem is that your "facts" are completely based on the subjective account given to you by one side of the arguement, so they are not "facts", but hearsay.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Now you have put forward a "theory" that starts with "...I suspect, of course I have no proof, that Mr Parr and Mr Lyons were so convinced within themselves..." Then you ask me to "prove [you] wrong." Maaaate, get a grip.

That is because how things stand right now my theory fits with, and takes into account the versions put forward by both sides. Therefor it has at least as much (or even more)credibility as yours. So if you cannot porve my theory wrong you cannot present your version as the only true and righteous one.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

You need to show that my version of events is incorrect, first.

No, I just have to show reasonable doubt, and I have.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Good for you, Egor. So were the people I spoke to - Lyons and Parr. You need to name names too - or STFU.

That is a fair response (minus the "STFU". I don't know it means, but I'm fairly sure it's rude.

) and I should. Being that it was a while ago, my memory is not great. I'm sure that Bill has given me his version of events, I'm also sure I talked to Norm. Others I'm fairly sure I have heard comment on it are Keith F, Shane B & Peter C, apart from that I've read pretty much all that has been posted on the internet about it.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

The people you say you spoke to were, as you sarcastically say, Gletsos controlled agents. It appears now that you too are one of the controlled.

Are you big on conspiracy theorys?:rolleyes:

**Iconoclast** · 09-01-2007, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by Egor

The big problem is that your "facts" are completely based on the subjective account given to you by one side of the arguement, so they are not "facts", but hearsay.

In the context of verbal evidence there is nothing other than "subjective account." Take that evience out of court/investigation and there is nothing left. Therefore your criticism is proposterous.

Furthermore, you have a misconception of what hearsay is:
hearsay (n) information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge.

Therefore the evidence I give to you is hearsay with regard to you. But a direct report to me, by one of the parties about what they actually did/saqw/experianced is not hearsay. Thus their version is a fact for me - not hearsay - upon which I am entilted to form an opinion.

So if you cannot prove my theory wrong you cannot present your version as the only true and righteous one.

I cannot prove that there has never been a blue whale in the Federal Parliament Building. However, I could be excused for calling your elephant in the FPB less rightous than mine. You, Egor, cannot put your hand on the Bible and say that Gletsos was saintly.

I'm sure that Bill has given me his version ...
I'm also sure I talked to Norm. ...
I'm fairly sure I have heard comment on it [from] Keith F, Shane B & Peter C, ...

The word "sure" is not as firm as the word "did." Are you saying that you "did" get versions from these controlled individuals. Or are you saying you recall that they said something, somewhere at some time.

Are you big on conspiracy theorys?:rolleyes:

No. :rolleyes: I am big on doing the "right thing," being fair dinkum with others, and keeping true to yourself.

**Egor** · 09-02-2007, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Therefore the evidence I give to you is hearsay with regard to you. But a direct report to me, by one of the parties about what they actually did/saqw/experianced is not hearsay. Thus their version is a fact for me - not hearsay - upon which I am entilted to form an opinion.

Matt, it is simply a gross mistake to regard the account given by one side of two opposing parties as fact. I is basically impossible for those persons (I am including persons on both sides in this) to give a objective account.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

I cannot prove that there has never been a blue whale in the Federal Parliament Building. However, I could be excused for calling your elephant in the FPB less rightous than mine.

This rubbish is just avoidance.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

You, Egor, cannot put your hand on the Bible and say that Gletsos was saintly.

Nor would I ever want to!:p Who's to say that Bill wasn't quietly pleased with Peter and Jason misunderstanding what he didn't say. (Only, of caurse, if he didn't say it.

)

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

The word "sure" is not as firm as the word "did." Are you saying that you "did" get versions from these controlled individuals. Or are you saying you recall that they said something, somewhere at some time.

I'm sorry that I wasn't precise enough for you. I most definity did not get anything from any "controlled individuals". You can repace "sure" with "did" for Bill and norm. The others fall into your second sentance above. I did read pretty much everything posted about it on the internet. If I needed to more at the time I did not realise it. Have you ever consindered checking with more than just two people?

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

No. I am big on doing the "right thing," being fair dinkum with others, and keeping true to yourself.

If you were really interested in doing the "right thing" you would do more than just blindly believe, and champion, one side of a situation. If you care about being "fair dinkum" you would not heap condemation a person just because it suits you to believe they deserve it.

You're to biase to see straight.

Just to set one thing straight, I am posting this to defend Bill. It's not my place, nor am I inclind towards doing so. I do not see Bill as some innocent bystander.

**Comeback Kid** · 09-06-2007, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by Egor

You're to biased to see straight.

But this criticism is also one that could be levelled at Mr Gletsos, could it not?

**Egor** · 09-08-2007, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

But this criticism is also one that could be levelled at Mr Gletsos, could it not?

In regards to what specifically?

08-29-2007, 08:17 PM	#16 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 1,617	Originally Posted by blank frank 3. The ratings officer is free to alter the ratings at will and is unaccountable. Transparency would expose the extent to which the ratings are being massaged. I do not know if they ARE being massaged regularly, but the problem is, that if they were, then nobody would know! The word is "accountability."

08-29-2007, 08:22 PM	#17 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 1,617	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One Was it Mr. Parr? I thought he made that representation to Mr Lyons. Please clarify Iconoclast. Oh yes! Gletsos made the undertaking in front of several people including Parr. Parr is on record about it all. Gletsos says he did not say that he wouldn't run.

08-30-2007, 12:19 PM	#18 (permalink)
Egor Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 49	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Oh yes! Gletsos made the undertaking in front of several people including Parr. Parr is on record about it all. Gletsos says he did not say that he wouldn't run. At this time it's Parr's word verses Gletsos. I know who you believe, but I have no reason to call either a lier so I cannot say.

08-30-2007, 05:36 PM	#19 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 1,617	Originally Posted by Egor At this time it's Parr's word verses Gletsos. I know who you believe, but I have no reason to call either a lier so I cannot say. Nope, it is not one word against one other. There were a few people right there and part of the conversation, who know what was said about running for President.

08-30-2007, 07:52 PM	#20 (permalink)
Fischer-Fan Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Perth Posts: 153	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Nope, it is not one word against one other. There were a few people right there and part of the conversation, who know what was said about running for President. Its immaterial either way. So Bill maybe said he wouldn't run and then did. If he didn't get enough votes then he wouldn't be president anyway. What stopped Mr Parr from running for president himself if he wanted the job? __________________ Patzer see check, patzer give check! - Bobby Fischer

08-30-2007, 08:43 PM	#21 (permalink)
Gendo Ikari Director Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 100	Originally Posted by Fischer-Fan Its immaterial either way. So Bill maybe said he wouldn't run and then did. If he didn't get enough votes then he wouldn't be president anyway. What stopped Mr Parr from running for president himself if he wanted the job? I think this covers the basics: http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.co...dishonour.html

08-30-2007, 09:47 PM	#22 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 1,617	Originally Posted by Fischer-Fan What stopped Mr Parr from running for president himself if he wanted the job? Jason Lyons was going to run for President. Parr was behind him to give a big helping hand in the duties. The "deal" was that Gletsos would not go for President. On the day, of the AGM, Lyons was "manuvoured by agents" away from the registration table and thereby from registering as a NSWCA member. On the dot of the starting time (10am?) Gletsos immeadiately called the AGM and pronounced that since Lyons had not registered, he (Gletsos) would run for President. He was elected unopposed. At no time did Gletsos see that Lyons was registered before the dot of 10am, even though he knew that Lyons was not yet registered as an NSWCA member. Smelly, very smelly

08-31-2007, 10:50 PM	#23 (permalink)
Egor Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 49	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Nope, it is not one word against one other. There were a few people right there and part of the conversation, who know what was said about running for President. ...and with all these people there, it's still a disputed issue. Have any of them stated, for the public record, that Bill said, "I will not run."? Far to often people hear what they want to hear, rather than what was actually said. I suspect, of course I have no proof, that Mr Parr and Mr Lyons were so convinced within themselves that Bill would step aside for them, that they read more into the conversation than was there. Now that you have my theory, can you prove it wrong?

08-31-2007, 11:07 PM	#24 (permalink)
Egor Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 49	Originally Posted by Iconoclast On the day, of the AGM, Lyons was "manuvoured by agents" away from the registration table and thereby from registering as a NSWCA member. On the dot of the starting time (10am?) Gletsos immeadiately called the AGM and pronounced that since Lyons had not registered, he (Gletsos) would run for President. He was elected unopposed. At no time did Gletsos see that Lyons was registered before the dot of 10am, even though he knew that Lyons was not yet registered as an NSWCA member. Smelly, very smelly I'd be interested to know where you got this version of the events, seeing that you were not there? I wasn't there either, but have spoken to a number of people who were. Although they all tell it slightly differently, no of the accounts I have heard come anywhere near the version you have posted here. But of caurse they were all Bill's agents!:rolleyes:

09-01-2007, 04:20 PM	#25 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 1,617	Originally Posted by Egor Now that you have my theory, can you prove it wrong? ehem, ehem. ......... I put a version to you that I believe to be the truth because of what people have told me. You might call my version a theory, but it is the only theroy that fits the facts as I know them. Now you have put forward a "theory" that starts with "...I suspect, of course I have no proof, that Mr Parr and Mr Lyons were so convinced within themselves..." Then you ask me to "prove [you] wrong." Maaaate, get a grip. You need to show that my version of events is incorrect, first. ... have spoken to a number of people who were [there]. Good for you, Egor. So were the people I spoke to - Lyons and Parr. You need to name names too - or STFU. The people you say you spoke to were, as you sarcastically say, Gletsos controlled agents. It appears now that you too are one of the controlled.:eek:

09-01-2007, 06:38 PM	#26 (permalink)
Egor Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 49	Originally Posted by Iconoclast I put a version to you that I believe to be the truth because of what people have told me. You might call my version a theory, but it is the only theroy that fits the facts as I know them. The big problem is that your "facts" are completely based on the subjective account given to you by one side of the arguement, so they are not "facts", but hearsay. Originally Posted by Iconoclast Now you have put forward a "theory" that starts with "...I suspect, of course I have no proof, that Mr Parr and Mr Lyons were so convinced within themselves..." Then you ask me to "prove [you] wrong." Maaaate, get a grip. That is because how things stand right now my theory fits with, and takes into account the versions put forward by both sides. Therefor it has at least as much (or even more)credibility as yours. So if you cannot porve my theory wrong you cannot present your version as the only true and righteous one. Originally Posted by Iconoclast You need to show that my version of events is incorrect, first. No, I just have to show reasonable doubt, and I have. Originally Posted by Iconoclast Good for you, Egor. So were the people I spoke to - Lyons and Parr. You need to name names too - or STFU. That is a fair response (minus the "STFU". I don't know it means, but I'm fairly sure it's rude.) and I should. Being that it was a while ago, my memory is not great. I'm sure that Bill has given me his version of events, I'm also sure I talked to Norm. Others I'm fairly sure I have heard comment on it are Keith F, Shane B & Peter C, apart from that I've read pretty much all that has been posted on the internet about it. Originally Posted by Iconoclast The people you say you spoke to were, as you sarcastically say, Gletsos controlled agents. It appears now that you too are one of the controlled. Are you big on conspiracy theorys?:rolleyes:

09-01-2007, 10:19 PM	#27 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 1,617	Originally Posted by Egor The big problem is that your "facts" are completely based on the subjective account given to you by one side of the arguement, so they are not "facts", but hearsay. In the context of verbal evidence there is nothing other than "subjective account." Take that evience out of court/investigation and there is nothing left. Therefore your criticism is proposterous. Furthermore, you have a misconception of what hearsay is: hearsay (n) information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge. Therefore the evidence I give to you is hearsay with regard to you. But a direct report to me, by one of the parties about what they actually did/saqw/experianced is not hearsay. Thus their version is a fact for me - not hearsay - upon which I am entilted to form an opinion. So if you cannot prove my theory wrong you cannot present your version as the only true and righteous one. I cannot prove that there has never been a blue whale in the Federal Parliament Building. However, I could be excused for calling your elephant in the FPB less rightous than mine. You, Egor, cannot put your hand on the Bible and say that Gletsos was saintly. I'm sure that Bill has given me his version ... I'm also sure I talked to Norm. ... I'm fairly sure I have heard comment on it [from] Keith F, Shane B & Peter C, ... The word "sure" is not as firm as the word "did." Are you saying that you "did" get versions from these controlled individuals. Or are you saying you recall that they said something, somewhere at some time. Are you big on conspiracy theorys?:rolleyes: No. :rolleyes: I am big on doing the "right thing," being fair dinkum with others, and keeping true to yourself.

09-02-2007, 12:59 AM	#28 (permalink)
Egor Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 49	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Therefore the evidence I give to you is hearsay with regard to you. But a direct report to me, by one of the parties about what they actually did/saqw/experianced is not hearsay. Thus their version is a fact for me - not hearsay - upon which I am entilted to form an opinion. Matt, it is simply a gross mistake to regard the account given by one side of two opposing parties as fact. I is basically impossible for those persons (I am including persons on both sides in this) to give a objective account. Originally Posted by Iconoclast I cannot prove that there has never been a blue whale in the Federal Parliament Building. However, I could be excused for calling your elephant in the FPB less rightous than mine. This rubbish is just avoidance. Originally Posted by Iconoclast You, Egor, cannot put your hand on the Bible and say that Gletsos was saintly. Nor would I ever want to!:p Who's to say that Bill wasn't quietly pleased with Peter and Jason misunderstanding what he didn't say. (Only, of caurse, if he didn't say it.) Originally Posted by Iconoclast The word "sure" is not as firm as the word "did." Are you saying that you "did" get versions from these controlled individuals. Or are you saying you recall that they said something, somewhere at some time. I'm sorry that I wasn't precise enough for you. I most definity did not get anything from any "controlled individuals". You can repace "sure" with "did" for Bill and norm. The others fall into your second sentance above. I did read pretty much everything posted about it on the internet. If I needed to more at the time I did not realise it. Have you ever consindered checking with more than just two people? Originally Posted by Iconoclast No. I am big on doing the "right thing," being fair dinkum with others, and keeping true to yourself. If you were really interested in doing the "right thing" you would do more than just blindly believe, and champion, one side of a situation. If you care about being "fair dinkum" you would not heap condemation a person just because it suits you to believe they deserve it. You're to biase to see straight. Just to set one thing straight, I am posting this to defend Bill. It's not my place, nor am I inclind towards doing so. I do not see Bill as some innocent bystander.

09-06-2007, 11:01 PM	#29 (permalink)
Comeback Kid Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 4,743 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Egor You're to biased to see straight. But this criticism is also one that could be levelled at Mr Gletsos, could it not? __________________ . "He was a man, take him for all in all. I shall not look upon his like again." ~ Hamlet ~

09-08-2007, 10:46 PM	#30 (permalink)
Egor Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 49	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One But this criticism is also one that could be levelled at Mr Gletsos, could it not? In regards to what specifically?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: