Member Comments on Moderation

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Why wouldn't this place exist in a year or so Kevin?

I can think of at least two possible reasons why it might not (although I think it probably will). How about you show your mindreading skills and tell the crowd what they are?

I regard Phil as an equal.

That's actually a more damning insult to Phil than anything I've ever said about him; at the same time, it's probably not all that inaccurate.

However you regard Phil, it is clear that you occupy a position of servility towards him in that you very frequently do as he suggests even when (as is usually the case) his proposal is totally meritless.

Its not a non sequitur at all. It does logically follow that the reason you needed to bludge free lifts to free meals (as you have admitted doing in the past) is because of financial limitations you had at the time.

*sigh*

Firstly, on the "Civil War" thread I completely debunked your pathetic misuse of the term "bludging".

Secondly, if you're looking for a reason why I might have now and then in the distant past accepted an offered (not bludged) free lift to a free meal, then that reason is already staring you in the face: it's not poverty, it's that I don't drive!

Thirdly, while my finances have sometimes been precarious in the past, there have been other times when they have not been. Because I work in specialised but often relatively well-paying fields, my financial status can be very up and down.

I can say that there has only been one time in my life when I have been too poor to afford my own meals, and that lasted for less than one full day when I was an undergraduate student. Rather than make the slightest attempt to "bludge" food off anyone else, I simply skipped lunch and dinner.

Much of what I say is correct, hopefully you will remember that.

I shall remember it as another of your very many errors.

The fact is Adam was a suspected hydra of a user in good standing, something you say is allowed at CC, and yet when he asked a few uncomfortable questions you decided to ban Adam despite no CC rules having been broken.

Actually Adam was dealt with under the following:

We reserve the right to ban anonymous accounts that are suspected of being operated by banned users, or any account that misrepresents the nature of the person operating it (eg adult posters pretending to be juniors.) (my bold for emphasis of relevant section)

It was considered that "Adam" was using various items of false profile info to throw readers off the scent of who he was. Given that the account had been used to post inane rubbish posts followed by trolling, and given that "Adam" did not respond to our PMs, we decided a ban was appropriate.

Furthermore, hydras for accounts in good standing are not necessarily allowed on chesschat: "Multiple accounts for a single poster are at the mercy of the admins."

Finally even if Adam had broken no rules you would be in no position to complain. Various hydras have been banned here without breaking any rules. Indeed you can't even get banned for breaking the rules here if you want to, since there still aren't any rules to break!

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

The NON-autistic one.

Yet again you're trolling about psychiatry but showing no signs whatsoever of understanding it. Autism has very little to do with whether or not one can poke holes in someone else's failed attempts to poke holes in one's grammar. (It's true that some autistic savants develop prodigious interests in narrow fields, but if an autistic savant developed such an interest in grammar, theirs would soon become immensely better than mine!)

Pfft. Your feigned poor grammah to mix it with the big boy is pathetic, if not plain sychophantic.

Firstly you're evading the question, so I'll ask it again: Which previous statements that you took on face value led you to falsely conclude my age was at least 40?

Secondly, you're reading waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much into it, in your usual tryhard tickets-on-yourself fashion, by suggesting I had some tactical motive in using that piece of deliberately incorrect grammar ("that'll learn"). It's an expression that I've used rather often for quite a few years. Chesschat has four previous examples, and none of them have anything to do with you or grammar-flaming.

Nor do I cry doom and gloom.

I'm not so sure about that. Since you're so fond of unsubstantiated psychobabble, I'm entitled to promote the hypothesis that both you and Phil (and I know Phil is sooky about the impacts of age on his memory) are humiliated by being repeatedly flogged in debates by someone who is significantly younger than yourselves. It's a truth you cannot cope with and therefore you pretend I am closer to your own age than I am.

But I am not so socially disconnected that I would play the role of the resident wet blanket to poo-poo the 40 years mile-stone.

If people want to celebrate their 18ths, 21sts, 30ths, 40ths, 50ths and 60ths that's fine and I have no problem celebrating those with them (along the generally accepted lines of (almost) any excuse for a party). However, I personally disregard such mile/millstones as I reach them; they mean no more or less to me than any other birthday.

But it *mostly* downhill from 30 mentally and physically.

That's a very simplistic picture. There are certain declines in mental abilities starting much earlier than 30 but an individual can often overcome these by the use of experience and memory; thus the median age for a world chess champion at the time of their first win of the title is around 33, and Glickman has suggested 35-45 as the peak age range for chessplayers.

As for physical declines, I have already noticed that men my age tend to get encouraged to retire from international cricket but I am not losing any great amount of sleep over that!

[Arrogant-One]

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

I can think of at least two possible reasons why it might not (although I think it probably will).

I think OzChess will outlast CC actually, and would see no reason why it wouldn't exists for years to come. Everytime I check our SEO is doing better and better. Even if I did decide to sell it, I would probably sell it to a party that is not a CC favourite son.

How about you show your mindreading skills and tell the crowd what they are?

I am not going to try and explain your ridiculous comment, you made it so you'll just have to explain it yourself.

That's actually a more damning insult to Phil than anything I've ever said about him; at the same time, it's probably not all that inaccurate.

The concept of equality is one you seem to really struggle with.

However you regard Phil, it is clear that you occupy a position of servility towards him in that you very frequently do as he suggests even when (as is usually the case) his proposal is totally meritless.

Actually, I banned Phil once for being uncivil. That shows your theories of servility are pure nonsense, like most of what you babble on about.

Firstly, on the "Civil War" thread I completely debunked your pathetic misuse of the term "bludging".

Oh God, here we go again. Well, I am getting off this merry go round. You can stay on and go in circles all by your merry self.

Secondly, if you're looking for a reason why I might have now and then in the distant past accepted an offered (not bludged) free lift to a free meal, then that reason is already staring you in the face: it's not poverty, it's that I don't drive!

Why are you introducing the word 'poverty' to this debate? Anyway, you stay on the merry go round. I am not coming along for that ride, nor would I pay for a ticket.

Thirdly, while my finances have sometimes been precarious in the past, there have been other times when they have not been.

Why do you think I care? Why do you think anybody cares?

Because I work in specialised but often relatively well-paying fields, my financial status can be very up and down.

Why do you think I care? Why do you think anybody cares?

I can say that there has only been one time in my life when I have been too poor to afford my own meals,

Why do you think I care? Why do you think anybody cares?

Rather than make the slightest attempt to "bludge" food off anyone else, I simply skipped lunch and dinner.

Have very noble of you.

Best Regards,

AO

[Arrogant-One]

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

Actually Adam was dealt with under the following:

[i]We reserve the right to ban anonymous accounts that are suspected of being operated by banned users,

Okay, well Adam wasn't suspected of being a hydra of a banned user, so the first limb is inapplicable.

... or any account that misrepresents the nature of the person operating it

Presumably this is the relevent branch of the rule Adam was banned under. Now my question is this: How did he misrepresent the nature of his identity?

From the look of things, a reasonable fair minded individual would assume he was banned because he asked some uncomfortable questions from certain CC posters who then probably requested his ban via PM's sent to you, and that you simply used this so-called rule as a pretext to surpress dialogue and free speech.

Best Regards,

AO

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

[font="Georgia"]Okay, well Adam wasn't suspected of being a hydra of a banned user, so the first limb is inapplicable.

I did helpfully use bold to explain which section was relevant, and note that I had done so.

Now my question is this: How did he misrepresent the nature of his identity?

False DOB, false name, possibly false location as well. The whole thing appeared set up to throw people off the scent of who he was.

From the look of things, a reasonable fair minded individual would assume he was banned because he asked some uncomfortable questions from certain CC posters who then probably requested his ban via PM's sent to you, and that you simply used this so-called rule as a pretext to surpress dialogue and free speech.

You would have no idea what a reasonable fair minded individual would assume.

I did not receive any request from a member for Adam to be banned (and as for "dialogue and free speech" it is clear that that member's MO involves dropping a particular hydra once posters start trying to expose it, so there would not have been any further activity from the account anyway.)

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

[font="Georgia"]I think OzChess will outlast CC actually, and would see no reason why it wouldn't exists for years to come. Everytime I check our SEO is doing better and better. Even if I did decide to sell it, I would probably sell it to a party that is not a CC favourite son.

I am not going to try and explain your ridiculous comment, you made it so you'll just have to explain it yourself.

Well actually you have already given one of the two explanations, namely that you might offload it to someone else. The other one is that you might be sued for defamation by one of the many people who have been defamed, and agree to shut down the site in exchange for the cessation of legal action against you. (I suppose since Matt's UCJ was killed by a hacker that is a third possibility that should be mentioned.)

The concept of equality is one you seem to really struggle with.

This is coming from someone who presides over some of the most blatantly unequal pseudo-moderation I have ever encountered. All I'm saying is that if you consider Phil an equal, that means you don't consider him any better than you. And that's got to be pretty damning! (He's a better chessplayer, for starters.)

Actually, I banned Phil once for being uncivil. That shows your theories of servility are pure nonsense, like most of what you babble on about.

Actually that action further entrenched your servility as you banned him with his agreement. Had you not been servile you would have banned him without his agreement in those circumstances, in the interests of the equality you refer to hopelessly above.

Oh God, here we go again. Well, I am getting off this merry go round.

Good to see you will not be repeating your false claim then.

Why are you introducing the word 'poverty' to this debate?

Because you wanted to talk about "financial limitations".

Why do you think I care? Why do you think anybody cares?

I think you care because you continue to prattle hypothetically and with great fascination about my past financial state, my past dining habits, and anything else you find out about me. It is possible you don't care and are just trolling, but if so you are an insincere time-waster. So do you care or don't you?

Ditto to the remainder. If you want to bring up rubbish from old threads to troll me then you must expect I will disabuse that rubbish with the facts. If you really don't care then just shut up about everything to do with my life; it's not like you can actually get much of it right anyway.

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

Autism has very little to do with whether or not one can poke holes in someone else's failed attempts to poke holes in one's grammar. [bold by icono]

True, but having a "touch of the Aspies" will make you want to poke holes.

Which previous statements that you took on face value led you to falsely conclude my age was at least 40?

I am not your research assistant.

It's an expression that I've used rather often for quite a few years. Chesschat has four previous examples, and none of them have anything to do with you or grammar-flaming.

SEE! You are your own research assistant. And you have unlimited time to trawl for inconsequential utterances from the deep past, to buoy your claim not to be imitating my superior writing textures.

It's a truth you cannot cope with and therefore you pretend I am closer to your own age than I am.

I need not pretend any such thing. I only treat you like the brat you are - albeit with pubes and a lifestyle usually associated with people decades younger than you.

Grow up

That's a very simplistic picture. There are certain declines ...

Do not attempt to inveigle me into a debate about how my generalising statement fails in this or that particular instance. I am well read in the matter and intimately au fait with with the declines - and all without your faux mature (and ironic) attempt at upwards pedagogy.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

True, but having a "touch of the Aspies" will make you want to poke holes.

Clueless armchair psych-hacks love bringing up Asperger's because it's so novel and trendy to do so (like AD(H)D was a bit earlier on) but they generally don't even go close to understanding it. You're no exception; Asperger's does not involve any particular tendency to needle others although it does involve a range of absences in normal social functioning.

Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to talk about a "touch" of a disorder. If a person only meets a small minority of criteria then they simply do not have the disorder in question.

I am not your research assistant.

SEE! You are your own research assistant. And you have unlimited time to trawl for inconsequential utterances from the deep past, to buoy your claim not to be imitating my superior writing textures.

A lame attempt accompanied by the usual unsubstantiated chest-beating. I can very quickly find whether I have used a specific text string ("that'll learn") on a given site but I have no quick way to search for where someone might have made a certain claim concerning my age.

The only time I remember anyone claiming I was past 40 was Phil doing so on this site in his deeply ridiculous "slugger" post. Therefore barring further evidence from you I will assume that either (i) you took Phil's word for it or (ii) you are trying to cover up your own ignorance. Both equally foolish really.

a lifestyle usually associated with people decades younger than you.

In what way?

Grow up

A maturity flame from you, what a joke!

Do not attempt to inveigle me into a debate about how my generalising statement fails in this or that particular instance. I am well read in the matter and intimately au fait with with the declines - and all without your faux mature (and ironic) attempt at upwards pedagogy.

Can't be bothered dealing with all your baseless aspersions here except to say that I doubt that you are well read (and truly understanding what you've read) in anything except for your own primary field of qualification and expertise. Oh, have you finished that PhD yet?

[Arrogant-One]

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

Well actually you have already given one of the two explanations, namely that you might offload it to someone else.

I have mused about that in the past, but I am surprised your banking the farm on it.

The other one is that you might be sued for defamation by one of the many people who have been defamed,

Nobody, yourself included, has been defamed on OzChess. We set the standard for civility and decorum here.

... and agree to shut down the site in exchange for the cessation of legal action against you. (I suppose since Matt's UCJ was killed by a hacker that is a third possibility that should be mentioned.)

See above.

This is coming from someone who presides over some of the most blatantly unequal pseudo-moderation I have ever encountered.

The moderation on this site is excellent.

All I'm saying is that if you consider Phil an equal, that means you don't consider him any better than you. And that's got to be pretty damning! (He's a better chessplayer, for starters.)

Your lamb attempts to drive a wedge between Phil and I are pathetic. He's a great guy and I would be happy to shout him a few beers if I ever meet him in person. I consider him a better chess player than yourself, and also believe he has served the average Tasmanian chess player better than you have.

Actually that action further entrenched your servility as you banned him with his agreement. Had you not been servile you would have banned him without his agreement in those circumstances, in the interests of the equality you refer to hopelessly above.

See above.

Good to see you will not be repeating your false claim then.

The only false claims are the one's you seem to be peddling.

Because you wanted to talk about "financial limitations".

No, YOU admitted bludging free lifts to free meals, possibly due to your financial limitations at the time. That had nothing at all to do with me.

So do you care or don't you?

About you? Not a great deal, but that doesn't stop me from belting your ridiculous comments around the ears whenever you make them.

If you really don't care then just shut up about everything to do with my life; it's not like you can actually get much of it right anyway.

Then stop treating this place as your official biographer, and also stop revealing so much of your personal life here and on CC. If you do so, then those become genuine topics of discussion.

Best Regards,

AO

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

Clueless armchair psych-hacks ... Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to talk about a "touch" of a disorder.

You aren't that good on understanding nuance are you, poor dear. Must be a touch of the Apsies.

I will assume that either (i) you took Phil's word for it or (ii) you are trying to cover up your own ignorance. Both equally foolish really.

In your 30'S 40'S 50's. Give it a rest. Nobody but you cares past the first comment. You are clearly immature for anyone over 20.

Oh, have you finished that PhD yet?

Nope. I have let it slip and moved on. Oh, and have you proved yourself not a Darwinian dead end yet?

[Firegoat7]

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Oh, and have you proved yourself not a Darwinian dead end yet?

Funny on so many levels.

cheers Fg7

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

[font="Georgia"]I have mused about that in the past, but I am surprised your banking the farm on it.

Not banking the farm on anything, simply pointing out it is theoretically possible this site won't exist a year from now for various reasons.

Nobody, yourself included, has been defamed on OzChess. We set the standard for civility and decorum here.

The moderation on this site is excellent.

The above three sentences are trolling and absolute rubbish. Again, have you considered working at the lower end of the advertising market?

Your lamb attempts to drive a wedge between Phil and I are pathetic.

Only baby sheep round here is you; you've pulled the wool over your own eyes so many times.

Driving a wedge between Phil and any sycophant of him is as easy as driving a wedge between Phil and Phil. He's another one of these all-attack types who seems incapable of reflecting on the constant inconsistency of his statements.

I consider him a better chess player than yourself, and also believe he has served the average Tasmanian chess player better than you have.

I don't think you believe the first (more trolling) and you don't have a clue about the second.

The only false claims are the one's you seem to be peddling.

If they were false you could demonstrate it, instead you assert without evidence and repeat discredited nonsense.

No, YOU admitted bludging free lifts to free meals, possibly due to your financial limitations at the time.

I explicitly disagreed with and refuted the "bludging" rubbish here. If you state that I admitted bludging again, then you are a liar.

About you? Not a great deal, but that doesn't stop me from belting your [..] comments around the ears whenever you make them.

A number of other things do stop you however. To name but a few:

* your lack of a clue about virtually anything
* your persistent repetition of discredited nonsense
* your extreme gullibility when it comes to statements made by your allies
* your personal biases
* your hopeless lack of memory
* your complete lack of defensive technique in flaming

Then stop treating this place as your official biographer, and also stop revealing so much of your personal life here and on CC. If you do so, then those become genuine topics of discussion.

They do not become genuine topics of fibbing, misunderstanding and repetition of discredited nonsense (all of which was going on in large volumes before it was known that I was posting here). You are the wannabe biographers who can barely seem to get a single fact straight and I am simply correcting the record. If you stop talking trash about me here then I will have no nonsense here to reply to.

You aren't that good on understanding nuance are you, poor dear.

Your attempts at it fail so abysmally they are generally unrecognisable as such.

In your 30'S 40'S 50's. Give it a rest. Nobody but you cares past the first comment. You are clearly immature for anyone over 20.

You are not qualified to judge maturity in any way. Your disgraceful efforts on UCJ and elsewhere proved you were clearly immature for anyone over 3 at the time. Your failure to apologise for same suggests you've only gone backwards since.

Nope. I have let it slip and moved on.

Yet another Sweeney false start. How much time did you waste getting nowhere on that?

[Arrogant-One]

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

Not banking the farm on anything, simply pointing out it is theoretically possible this site won't exist a year from now for various reasons.

That can be said about any website in the world, even Google. Who knows what will happen in a year or two. The only thing that is certain is that the lights will stay on until July 09 because everything is paid up until then.

Driving a wedge between Phil and any sycophant of him is as easy as driving a wedge between Phil and Phil. He's another one of these all-attack types who seems incapable of reflecting on the constant inconsistency of his statements.

Whatever. You're failure to be friends with Phil is possibly the result of your chronic social interaction difficulties which likely stem from your self confessed years of being bullied at school.

If they were false you could demonstrate it, instead you assert without evidence and repeat discredited nonsense.

I don't even know what topic you are referring to with that sentence.

I explicitly disagreed with and refuted the "bludging" rubbish here.

Yes, yes, yes. We are all well aware that TO YOU, bludging does not occur if something is unrequested and freely offered and freely accepted. In the rest of the world, whether something is freely offered is not the definitive test. Rather the test is mere acceptance. For instance, the Centrelink dole is freely offered to all Australians. Yet only those who accept dole benefits are considered bludgers. Comprende Vous?

As such your admitted acceptance of free meals to free lifts, using the 'mere acceptance' test, places you in the category of bludger.

Best Regards,

AO

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

Yet another Sweeney false start. How much time did you waste getting nowhere on that?

Nowhere? I authored several papers in international journal. That in itself is cheap research - at the postgrad rates of a scholarship. That I did not bother stapling them together into a thesis does not lessen my contribution.

A lot of people need badges and honours from society to confirm their floundering sense of self worth. I am not one of them.

Are you sterile?