Elections - June to December 2011 - Page 10 - OzChess

**MOZ** · 10-12-2011, 08:43 PM

My post #133 brought on this response >

Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham

MOZ now says he considers that he has caused me to recover from a supposed condition in which the putative sufferer provides an alternative wording supposed to carry the same meaning as opposed to an exact quote.

MOZ suggests that the reader will determine that my least elderly contributions to this merged collection of posts on Australia's premier chess forum no longer display said habit, which he strangely considers to be destructive or ruinous.

Clearly MOZ is guilty of premature triumphalism and obviously that disease has been contracted by excessive close contact with AC. His therapy is to explain in what way (if any) the above paraphrase fails to correctly interpret his comments. :lol:

Alanis also advises me that firegoat7 has written "I think the sooner we make this site not about Kevin Bonham's delusions the better." while continuing to make the site about my so-called delusions by continuing to froth about me - just as Sweeney keeps telling others to not feed the supposed troll but is incapable of practicing what he preaches. The site will become even more about me should firegoat be elected as a mod and ban me as he keeps threatening to do. :lol:

KB's post #1099 will not be included in the LIST.
The challenge to list more 20 examples, of posts KB has substantively distorted when paraphrasing them, has been completed.

There were quite a few KB 'paraphrasing MOZ' posts between #1 and #1099 that were not included in the LIST. The last one I seriously evaluated to include/not_include in the LIST was #959

**antichrist** · 10-12-2011, 11:42 PM

what are you whinging about, my masterpieces just get deleted including the papal poll starring Shane Warne, Pauline Hanson and Lloyd Fell and Shirty

**antichrist** · 10-12-2011, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

a/c, I think I have cured KB of paraphrasing. You will notice that his recent posts in the composite thread on chesschat have been cleared of the pernicious paraphrasing. He is now in R&R.

KB reakons I stuffed it and that he was paraphrasing your claims about him - so now I am confused but one of you is a putative sufferer and serves them right. But when KB and Bill hands out the penalties to me there are malignant stutters and even forget where they are up to - I will be back there in about 2021 unless I can travel faster than speed of light and go backwards

**MOZ** · 11-05-2011, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham

MOZ responds and shows his usual ability to completely miss the point. Even when he quotes the full text of what he replies to he still manages to distort the meaning in commenting on that text, so I suppose the only value in him doing so instead of paraphrasing is that at least people can see that he is doing it.

What is ambit is the claim that any item on it is relevant, let alone all. It is simply a list of posts (I have not bothered checking whether complete or partial, but in the early stages it wasn't skipping any) where I have paraphrased you on this thread.

In that case the "failed to represent my intent" shifts from being a non sequitur (ie a claim for which the substantiating argument doesn't follow) to being a claim for which no substantiating argument even exists.

That is not clear at all and indeed would be a rather unusual reading of the post. The natural reading is that MOZ is asserting the general practice of quoting a small section instead of paraphrasing creates a risk of which my #1093 was a specific supposed instance. Indeed MOZ then contradicts himself by confirming the natural reading when he claims "If any post on ******* (by any author) is partially lifted and paraphrased then there is a risk of distortion. "

No evidence has been provided that there was any distortion in any of them.

False, for a reason I have already pointed out. The original accusation was abridging and distortion of posts, not abridging and distortion of the intent of the author. The two are only the same if the posts always correctly express the author's intent, which in MOZ's case probably happens about two times out of ten. (colour edit by MOZ*).

Indeed we have seen just in the post that I am replying to that a single clear intent often cannot be attributed to a MOZ post, since the post may be contradictory. Beyond the intention to obfuscate and grotesquely prolong the lost debate, of course. :lol:

Feel free to reformat them yourself and pay me a carrier-pigeon fee of eight very second-hand chess clocks if the non-appearance of the post numbers here is a serious issue to you. :owned:

Deep within the toing and froing on the list of 20 paraphrased (or abridged posts) is this (see coloured text above) perplexing claim by KB.
From my reading he says only 2 out of every 10 posts I write represent my intent. While I must admit to be initially excited to see metrics introduced to demonstrate a point how can this metric by KB be correct.

In my view, after careful crafting of my posts I think my post represents my intent very nearly 10 times out of every 10. Not 2 out of 10.
I think only a handful of posts over 10,000 on chesschat and Ozchess have I had to retract anything of significance because 'the post did not match my intent'.
It is because I take care to have my posts match my intent that I get put out when a crafted posted gets paraphrased or abridged (almost exclusively by KB) and fails to match my intent.

The sole judge of whether a paraphrased version of my post is close to meaning the same as the original post is surely best by the author of the original, me.

Paraphrasing a post is a low act at the best of times. Poor paraphrasing is lower still. But calling on the original author to debate whether the paraphrasing is accurate or not is the lowest of the low.

There is a simple honest practice that should be followed in a rigourous debate> ...stamp out all papraphrasing.

**The Seeing** · 11-05-2011, 07:49 PM

Paraphrasing is surely more likely to alter the original author's intent more than the author's original work itself !
Or is KB saying he knows Moz's intent more than Moz himself does ? LOL

**Just2Good** · 11-06-2011, 01:35 AM

Originally Posted by MOZ

Paraphrasing a post is a low act at the best of times. Poor paraphrasing is lower still. But calling on the original author to debate whether the paraphrasing is accurate or not is the lowest of the low.

This website will help Kevin to greatly improve his paraphrasing skills:

UNE - Academic Writing - Paraphrasing authors

Understanding is key to paraphrasing, and it seems this is where Kevin has a disconnect. He just doesn't understand MOZ's posts, or the subtle messages ingrained in them.

Don't worry Kevin. With practice you should be able to improve your paraphrasing skills. Until then, please try just to quote people using the quote button so there won't anymore inaccuracies on your part.

**antichrist** · 11-06-2011, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by Just2Good

This website will help Kevin to greatly improve his paraphrasing skills:

UNE - Academic Writing - Paraphrasing authors

Understanding is key to paraphrasing, and it seems this is where Kevin has a disconnect. He just doesn't understand MOZ's posts, or the subtle messages ingrained in them.

Don't worry Kevin. With practice you should be able to improve your paraphrasing skills. Until then, please try just to quote people using the quote button so there won't anymore inaccuracies on your part.

I am accused of not being able to quote properly so we all have our weakspots you know - Matts was flying off the handle at my misquoting, yours was quoting the wrong things about people, Starters was refusing to produce the link for his quote and FG's was refusing to quote Up Israel's Arse

View Poll Results: Should OzChess Keep The Current 3 Elected Moderators or Hold Fresh Elections?
Keep Them	4	44.44%
Fresh Elections	5	55.56%
Don't Know / Refuse to Answer	0	0%
Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

10-12-2011, 08:43 PM	#136 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,541	My post #133 brought on this response > Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham MOZ now says he considers that he has caused me to recover from a supposed condition in which the putative sufferer provides an alternative wording supposed to carry the same meaning as opposed to an exact quote. MOZ suggests that the reader will determine that my least elderly contributions to this merged collection of posts on Australia's premier chess forum no longer display said habit, which he strangely considers to be destructive or ruinous. Clearly MOZ is guilty of premature triumphalism and obviously that disease has been contracted by excessive close contact with AC. His therapy is to explain in what way (if any) the above paraphrase fails to correctly interpret his comments. :lol: Alanis also advises me that firegoat7 has written "I think the sooner we make this site not about Kevin Bonham's delusions the better." while continuing to make the site about my so-called delusions by continuing to froth about me - just as Sweeney keeps telling others to not feed the supposed troll but is incapable of practicing what he preaches. The site will become even more about me should firegoat be elected as a mod and ban me as he keeps threatening to do. :lol: KB's post #1099 will not be included in the LIST. The challenge to list more 20 examples, of posts KB has substantively distorted when paraphrasing them, has been completed. There were quite a few KB 'paraphrasing MOZ' posts between #1 and #1099 that were not included in the LIST. The last one I seriously evaluated to include/not_include in the LIST was #959 __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

10-12-2011, 11:53 PM	#138 (permalink)
antichrist Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Byron Bay, NSW Posts: 2,821	Originally Posted by MOZ a/c, I think I have cured KB of paraphrasing. You will notice that his recent posts in the composite thread on chesschat have been cleared of the pernicious paraphrasing. He is now in R&R. KB reakons I stuffed it and that he was paraphrasing your claims about him - so now I am confused but one of you is a putative sufferer and serves them right. But when KB and Bill hands out the penalties to me there are malignant stutters and even forget where they are up to - I will be back there in about 2021 unless I can travel faster than speed of light and go backwards

11-05-2011, 07:22 PM	#139 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,541	Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham MOZ responds and shows his usual ability to completely miss the point. Even when he quotes the full text of what he replies to he still manages to distort the meaning in commenting on that text, so I suppose the only value in him doing so instead of paraphrasing is that at least people can see that he is doing it. What is ambit is the claim that any item on it is relevant, let alone all. It is simply a list of posts (I have not bothered checking whether complete or partial, but in the early stages it wasn't skipping any) where I have paraphrased you on this thread. In that case the "failed to represent my intent" shifts from being a non sequitur (ie a claim for which the substantiating argument doesn't follow) to being a claim for which no substantiating argument even exists. That is not clear at all and indeed would be a rather unusual reading of the post. The natural reading is that MOZ is asserting the general practice of quoting a small section instead of paraphrasing creates a risk of which my #1093 was a specific supposed instance. Indeed MOZ then contradicts himself by confirming the natural reading when he claims "If any post on ***** (by any author) is partially lifted and paraphrased then there is a risk of distortion. " No evidence has been provided that there was any distortion in any of them. False, for a reason I have already pointed out. The original accusation was abridging and distortion of posts*, not abridging and distortion of the intent of the author. The two are only the same if the posts always correctly express the author's intent, which in MOZ's case probably happens about two times out of ten. (colour edit by MOZ). Indeed we have seen just in the post that I am replying to that a single clear intent often cannot be attributed to a MOZ post, since the post may be contradictory. Beyond the intention to obfuscate and grotesquely prolong the lost debate, of course. :lol: Feel free to reformat them yourself and pay me a carrier-pigeon fee of eight very second-hand chess clocks if the non-appearance of the post numbers here is a serious issue to you. :owned: Deep within the toing and froing on the list of 20 paraphrased (or abridged posts) is this (see coloured text above) perplexing claim by KB. From my reading he says only 2 out of every 10 posts I write represent my intent. While I must admit to be initially excited to see metrics introduced to demonstrate a point how can this metric by KB be correct. In my view, after careful crafting of my posts I think my post represents my intent very nearly 10 times out of every 10. Not 2 out of 10. I think only a handful of posts over 10,000 on chesschat and Ozchess have I had to retract anything of significance because 'the post did not match my intent'. It is because I take care to have my posts match my intent that I get put out when a crafted posted gets paraphrased or abridged (almost exclusively by KB) and fails to match my intent. The sole judge of whether a paraphrased version of my post is close to meaning the same as the original post is surely best by the author of the original, me. Paraphrasing a post is a low act at the best of times. Poor paraphrasing is lower still. But calling on the original author to debate whether the paraphrasing is accurate or not is the lowest of the low. There is a simple honest practice that should be followed in a rigourous debate> ...stamp out all papraphrasing. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

11-05-2011, 07:49 PM	#140 (permalink)
The Seeing Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 263	Kb You Clown ! Paraphrasing is surely more likely to alter the original author's intent more than the author's original work itself ! Or is KB saying he knows Moz's intent more than Moz himself does ? LOL Last edited by The Seeing : 11-05-2011 at 11:22 PM

10-12-2011, 11:42 PM	#137 (permalink)
antichrist Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Byron Bay, NSW Posts: 2,821	what are you whinging about, my masterpieces just get deleted including the papal poll starring Shane Warne, Pauline Hanson and Lloyd Fell and Shirty

11-06-2011, 01:35 AM	#141 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by MOZ Paraphrasing a post is a low act at the best of times. Poor paraphrasing is lower still. But calling on the original author to debate whether the paraphrasing is accurate or not is the lowest of the low. This website will help Kevin to greatly improve his paraphrasing skills: UNE - Academic Writing - Paraphrasing authors Understanding is key to paraphrasing, and it seems this is where Kevin has a disconnect. He just doesn't understand MOZ's posts, or the subtle messages ingrained in them. Don't worry Kevin. With practice you should be able to improve your paraphrasing skills. Until then, please try just to quote people using the quote button so there won't anymore inaccuracies on your part. __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

11-06-2011, 03:51 AM	#142 (permalink)
antichrist Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Byron Bay, NSW Posts: 2,821	Originally Posted by Just2Good This website will help Kevin to greatly improve his paraphrasing skills: UNE - Academic Writing - Paraphrasing authors Understanding is key to paraphrasing, and it seems this is where Kevin has a disconnect. He just doesn't understand MOZ's posts, or the subtle messages ingrained in them. Don't worry Kevin. With practice you should be able to improve your paraphrasing skills. Until then, please try just to quote people using the quote button so there won't anymore inaccuracies on your part. I am accused of not being able to quote properly so we all have our weakspots you know - Matts was flying off the handle at my misquoting, yours was quoting the wrong things about people, Starters was refusing to produce the link for his quote and FG's was refusing to quote Up Israel's Arse

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