Friday, September 01, 2006

Yet Another Banning

What a week that was? Last week's post on the Forum Wars was a real hit. Thirty-eight comments! It's always nice to see Chess Chat spokesman Kevin Bonham slug it out against nemesis Matthew Sweeney.

But post of the week in Forum Wars goes to user "Phild707" - a member of both Chess Chat and Matt Sweeney's rival bulletin board. The following was originally posted on CC, later removed, then reappeared on the rival board.

The two dominant moderators have exposed themselves as little more than a deeply insecure couple. Although not siamese in the traditional sense of being joined at the hip, their perfectly choreographed responses are clear evidence of a fusion of the frontal lobes.

You ask a question of one, and the other responds. With their black attire and control freak mentality they cast a shadow, in stark relief, of two comic-tragic characters; the darth vader and obiwankenobi of the Australian Chess scene.

And surprise hit TCG when my friend Nicholas Kordahi, apparently a keen reader of the Daily Telegraph's gossip pages, rang yours truly to relay news about Arianne Caoili's latest career aspirations. If you missed it, she'll appear on Channel 7's Dancing with the Stars program. Yes, yes, we all have questions to ask, and TCG did ask: like, who's the partner? But the 19-year old has remained tight lipped.

There was also this report from India claiming that Australia's GM Ian Rogers will compete in the 2006 Commonwealth Championships. We have since learned that Australia's number one will, in fact, be playing elsewhere.

Finally, Australian chess saw another banning. CAQ's former VP got himself booted out of the Chess Association of Queensland "for conduct considered to be prejudicial to the interests of the Association, notably the tenor of multiple posts on the Australian Chess Chat Forum and Canadian Chess Forum." We have Matt Sweeney's bulletin board to thank for a copy of that letter (signed by CAQ secretary Ian Murray).

Note that this letter makes no mention of specific offences. It only says "tenor of multiple posts". Current CAQ boss Howard Duggan, in what was clearly a preemptive move, several days ago immediately clarified the CAQ's intention. This was the first paragraph of his posting on Chess Chat:

[AT] has been expelled from the CAQ until 31st December, 2006. The reason for his expulsion was the public [global] posting of a privileged e-mail which he recieved while in a privileged position; viz as a CAQ councillor.

To which [AT] responded with: "The ban has everything to do with personal conflict between myself and Howard and has no genuine basis whatsoever."

TCG's view is that [AT] was clearly at fault for having released privileged information. It was quite unwelcome to see Queensland dirty laundry appear on a Canadian forum. The Canadians must have been thinking, "We don't care!"

On the other hand, the CAQ ought to have been clearer. What is with "tenor of multiple posts"? How about avatars featuring a muppet appearing to be in a comprimising positon (I think that's how Kevin Bonham phrased it) with a blonde woman? For such an avatar, CAQ president Howard Duggan suffered a ban from Chess Chat. His language on Chess Chat has also come under scrutiny by Kevin Bonham.

Double Standard?

Oh, one more thing. It's so good to know that my most favourite painting of all time has been recovered. Also, Sydneysiders are advised that the 2006 Spanish Festival will be on this Sunday. That is always an enjoyable event.

30 comments:

Kevin Bonham said...

*sigh*

Amiel, in this case I request that you edit your blog entry to note that both Bill Gletsos and I dispute that the text posted by Phil ever appeared on chesschat in the first place.

The text which Phil Donnelly claims was deleted from his post was what even he later called only a rough reconstruction and not the exact deleted text. In fact, it was nowhere near the exact text. I noted this in a post on chesschat which you (Amiel) must have seen since you quoted it in a response. I know that you have confessed to being unwilling to wade through very long debates to get to the facts but if Phil writes "The unsnipped (ie uncensored) version of my previous post has been posted on another Forum not far away for anyone interested." and I quote that and respond "
Oh no it hasn't. Not even close." I would hope the latter would be concise enough even for you! I even signed it in my formal capacity as moderator.

The precise reason why some of Phil's post was deleted is as follows. When Phil started the thread accusing Bill Gletsos of being a serial verbal abuser (SVA) he stated that when the thread was over "if that allegation is in fact, not supported by the bulletin boarders in general then I will pull my head in, bow out gracefully and make no further statements on the matter." The allegation was, in fact, overwhelmingly not supported by chesschat members who voted on the thread, but far from bowing out gracefully, Phil responded by chestbeating about his thread's supposed accomplishments on another thread several days later. I decided to teach him a lesson by deleting the relevant material from his post - he clearly needs help sticking to his public commitments. It's quite amusing that the fact that Phil's edited post rehashed the Gletsos/SVA saga (the sole reason why material was deleted from it) in the meantime vanished from Phil's memory.

The Darth Vader and Obi Wan Kenobi references did appear in Phil's original post. Most of the remainder didn't. It reminds me of Alekhine doctoring the finishes to his games, except that Alekhine succeeded in making them look brilliant by doing so. All Phil succeeds in doing with his doctored flame is completely destroying his credibility when it comes to complaining about abuse, and placing himself offside even with some of those he would have expected to support him on ACCF.

442 said...

The Alex Toolsie banning saga is a bit like Star Wars where Han Solo gets frozen.

The Sith of australian chess think they are on the right track...but the rebel forces will regroup.

Just remember...there is another Skywalker.

Matthew Sweeney said...

Firstly could ACF official Kevin Bonham please just STFU. I mean, can't the boy let this or that flame go. Can't he simply move on. Can't he stop himself from using this blog over and over and over and over, to pinch petty points for his bot debating team.

Secondly, Phil707 needs nobody to defend him in his crusade against ACF serial varbal abusers and control freaks, when his quarry gives him all the flaming WMDs he needs. Exhibite #1

ACF official Kevin Bonham: " I decided to teach him a lesson by deleting the relevant material from his post [because] he clearly needs help sticking to his public commitments."

Chess Chat is all the more degraded for KB's imolation or CC by immoderate moderation.

Over at http://p067.ezboard.com/baustralianchessclub , every member is a fire extinguisher.

Kevin Bonham said...

Matthew, while people continue making false and misleading statements I will continue correcting them - though not in an ACF capacity of course. If you can't deal with me posting then you are not required by law to read my posts.

As for your waffle about my moderation of PhilD's rubbish, since shortly after his return to Chesschat, Phil has been absolutely nothing but a troll. Do you seriously think I would have done something that cheeky to a genuine poster? Or even you? :)

Matthew Sweeney said...

KB said: "Phil has been absolutely nothing but a troll."

Goodwin's Law is an amusing albeit limited postulate, that is not without merrit, concerning the use of the descriptor "Nazi." I have been concidering launching and promoting my own site called Sweeney's Law. It runs in parallel with Goodwin's Law. My law states:

Where a regular poster is belatedly accused of being a troll or engaging in trolling behaviour, the accuser shall be deemed to be one or more of the following
i) a Billy-Goat Gruff without the right stuff.
ii) unable to refute the arguments of the "troll."
iii) bereft of adjectives pertaining to trollishly insightful quips.
iv) cornered like a shithouse rat.
v) unable to muster the intelectual energy to achieve escape velocity from Uranus.

Anonymous said...

if anyone about is interested in sponsoring chess in australia could they please have a good look (or whiff) at the effluent emanating from certain australian chess information orifices then decide if it is really worth the investmEnt.

From mod to mod. said...

Kevin
Care to comment on the slow moderation of the chesschat post "Bring back the death penalty" from one poster to another this week.
Your comments might address, whether the offending poster received a comparable penalty to previous similar examples. Why it was missed by the Mod. who reads all. Why there is a distinct lack of visibility of this infraction in the thread itself or the moderator decisions thread.

I am just trying to come to terms with this even-handedness of treatment.

Anonymous said...

Note to ACCF admin: I've noticed quite a few posts are hard to read as the text is not wrapping within the page but extending a long way past ... Might want to fix this up. Also, the new members function seems to have gone... it was an interesting part of the site.
:-)

Anonymous said...

Dont you realise,Bergil is a protected species at chesschat and can get away with such utterances.

Other users saying"Bring back the death penalty"when referring to another poster would at the very least have that post deleted and possibly be asked to serve a short ban.

Chesschat=double standard forum.

Kevin Bonham said...

Matthew, you can make up homespun laws about belated trolling calls all you like, but actually I first raised the question of whether Phil was a serial troll on Chesschat on 9 August. In any case, your silly claims won't be taken seriously by more than a handful of people, whereas Godwin's Law is very well known because invalid and hysterical Nazi comparisons are genuinely widespread, an obstacle to good debate, and an indictment on the intelligence, imagination and attitude of those making them.

"from mod to mod" (I'm assuming that to be starter/MexicanOZ) enquires about the deletion of a post which said "Bring back the death penalty" (in reference to the Arrogant-One banning by CAQ). Chesschat rules do not allow posts that can be interpreted as wishing another poster dead, not even as jokes (which this one clearly was).

Concerning "whether the offending poster received a comparable penalty to previous similar examples" the answer is that the response (deletion of the post concerned) was the same as in all previous cases except for one in which the offender was on a zero tolerance policy for rules breaches with escalating bans as a result of his very bad track record.

Concerning "Why it was missed by the Mod. who reads all." I can only speak for myself here and say that I do not have time to read all posts on chesschat, and even though I had responded to some posts on the same thread I had actually not noticed the post in question until a complaint was made. Posters should not assume that any moderator always has time to read every post on the board.

Concerning "Why there is a distinct lack of visibility of this infraction in the thread itself or the moderator decisions thread." the answer is that routine deletions are generally not logged, including on the moderation decisions thread - the latter is typically used for "details of decisions made about moderation standards - may also include details of reasons for any further bannings or deletions for non-obvious reasons" and also for cases in which a spate of inappropriate posting by several posters requires a general comment.

Anonymous said...

anonymous knows "Dont you realise, Bergil is a protected species at chesschat. " haha

Abbott & Costello were happy bachelors too.

Matthew Sweeney said...

KB: ... the offender was on a zero tolerance policy for rules breaches with escalating bans as a result of his very bad track record.

MS: There are a few other posters whose "track record" is worse than mine. Duggan, Bergil, AC, et al. They are not and never will be on "zero tolerance" because they stroke the egos of the SVAs, as in the want of these psychaphants, thus ensuring continued protection - a bit like gaol.

BTW, drop dead Fred.

Kevin Bonham said...

Matthew must be either deluded or completely missing the point to pretend that any poster on chesschat has a worse record in terms of breaches of the site rules than him. Indeed he has probably overstepped the mark more than all other posters (excluding spammers and hackers) combined, which is why he is now permanently banned.

Matthew was placed on zero tolerance after breaching site rules at least a dozen times in four and a half months at the end of 2005. During this time he frequently employed very crude abuse against other posters and reserved his worst conduct for new posters who had done absolutely nothing to deserve it.

The conduct of other posters mentioned by Matthew is not comparable to this, and the fact that two of them have been suspended from the board at times disproves the notion that anyone stroking anyone's ego leads to preferential let alone "protected species" treatment. As if we would be stupid enough to take apparent fawning from antichrist seriously anyway ...

Matthew Sweeney said...

KB: Indeed he [MS} has probably overstepped the mark more than all other posters (excluding spammers and hackers) combined, which is why he is now permanently banned.

MS: Prove it.
Prove that "the mark"(s) were:
1. Objective - not open to cultural interpretation.
2. Clearly spelled out at all times - not ammended post hoc to suit circumstances.
3. Applied consistantly - not on a whim, not differently for different people at dierent times.

KB: Matthew was placed on zero tolerance after breaching site rules at least a dozen times in four and a half months at the end of 2005.

MS:Then prove that the number of "breaches" by me was graeter than the all others put together. Provide numbers and or records of any kind. Cannot do any of that, KB - because there are no records to show it. It is all claims based on you perception. Then

Everone at CC knows the mods are inconsistant, bias VSAs and they protect their alcolytes.

KB: During this time he frequently employed very crude abuse against other posters and reserved his worst conduct for new posters who had done absolutely nothing to deserve it.

MS: Rubbish. 95% of abuse I made was toward The Bot Team. The remainer went to quasi-anonymous types.

You officials, Bonham (ACF and TasCA), Gletsos (ACF and NSWCA) and Duggon (QldCA) are a bloody disgrace. The way you behave on Chess Chat refects so badly on all other decent officials, I think there is a chance that one fine day you will find yourselves with an ACF direction to never post on CC.

Kevin Bonham said...

To disprove Matthew's case 3 it would be necessary to examine every post made on chesschat in its entire history, which is clearly impractical unless Matthew is hiring me at $100/hour or more. Matthew, the onus is on you to demonstrate irregularities of the type you assert, without evidence, might have happened.

It is true that we have no way of wheeling out all the several dozen cases in which Matthew was moderated on Chesschat. Hence I only stated it as a probability based on my experience as a moderator, rather than doing a tally and informing readers of a certainty! However the moderation thread started in mid-2005 does record seven different cases of moderation of Matthew leading up to his being placed on zero tolerance. Given that many of these included multiple offences (such as repeatedly vulgarising the username of new posters despite warnings) and given that not all Matt's behaviour found its way into the log, my estimate of a dozen breaches in four and a half months was far too conservative - I suspect the real number exceeded 20.

Matthew seems to think that the anonymity of a poster plus them posting in a fashion that he (of all people) finds suss justifies breaking the site rules repeatedly in response to them. It doesn't. Furthermore, in using estimates of where his abuse was directed, Matt ignores my point, which was about severity of abuse and not quantity.

It is amusing that Matthew pretends that "Everone [sic] at CC knows the mods are inconsistant [sic], bias [sic] VSAs [sic]" when actually a proposition that Bill Gletsos is an SVA was crushingly rejected by those voting on it.

Matt's final spray accuses Bill, Howard and I of being a "bloody disgrace" but advances no evidence for this claim. As for the chance of the event Matthew mentions happening, who knows what may be possible in the future, but I suggest Matthew worry about more likely events - for instance that an invisible rhinoceros will materialise in Matthew's bedroom, give him a 15-minute lecture on the value of not multiplying entities needlessly, drink all his grog and then vanish.

Matthew Sweeney said...

KB: Everone [sic] ... inconsistant [sic] ... bias [sic] ... VSAs [sic].

MS: You appear to be more worried about the straightness of the teeth in a person's mouth than the words that come out of it. Your placing of four "[sic]" for typos, in a single sentance quote is transparently ad hominem. You diminish yourself more than me.


KB: Matt's final spray accuses Bill, Howard and I of being a "bloody disgrace" but advances no evidence for this claim.

MS: You would ask me to provide evidence that John Howard is a liar. Tsk tsk. OK, I invite you (and all of Chessingdom) to go to Chess Chat and use the search facility to find posts by "Bill Gletsos" containing any of the words: moron; cretin; clueless; fool, idiot.

Anonymous said...

MS:
OK, I invite you (and all of Chessingdom) to go to Chess Chat and use the search facility to find posts by "Bill Gletsos" containing any of the words: moron; cretin; clueless; fool, idiot.

YT:

were i to do that the result would most likely be ...

sorry, the profile kept by bill gletsos on permanently banned ex member matt sweeney is privileged and classifiEd information

:)

Kevin Bonham said...

No Matt, I am simply indicating that the two typos and two spelling and grammar errors (not all typos as you incorrectly assert) are yours and not mine. Standard practice when quoting anything that is incorrectly spelled. As you know I am averse to unprovoked spelling flames.

As for the list of words you complain about, firstly doesn't your frequent use of significantly harsher abuse (including while you have held officebearer positions) show you to be a "bloody disgrace" on your own terms and suggest you should clean up your own act before criticising others?

Secondly where is your argument that the use of such insults to denounce those who have themselves employed harsher personal insults, or who have repeatedly posted false material even after being corrected, is unwarranted let alone a "disgrace"? How about you single out one particular example in which you reckon Bill's use of a word was disgraceful so we can discuss that example in context?

Thirdly where is your argument to the same effect concerning me?

Matthew Sweeney said...

KB: [using [sic] is] Standard practice when quoting anything that is incorrectly spelled.

True of documents, not true of blogs/moos/BBs. You must be *trying* to look like a pedantic, narcistic, knackered, intelectual bully-boy. Nobody could be so gauche by accident.

KB: ... doesn't your frequent use of significantly harsher abuse (including while you have held officebearer positions) show you to be a "bloody disgrace" on your own terms and suggest you should clean up your own act before criticising others?

MS: I do not deny my behaviour on CC was poor. However, it was no worse than the SVAs. Furthermore, long-term and current chess administrators (Bonham, Gletsos, Duggan) are still "a bloody disgrace." Being ACF and State officers and heads, means that they are chronic embarrassments to all Australian Chess. As for me "cleaning up [my] own act," try exhibit #1 ACCForum.

KB: How about you single out one particular example in which you reckon Bill's use of a word was disgraceful so we can discuss that example in context?

MS: You banned me, so, I cannot search on the CC site. You look like the dickhead you are when you suggest I do what you have prevented me from doing.

KB: Thirdly where is your argument to the same effect concerning me?

Sorry that you feel left out - it must be a bit of a blow to your ego. The trouble is that it is a bit too easy, like shooting fish in a barrel and thus not fair sport. Besides that, your hide is not worth the effort.

Kevin Bonham said...

Matt, I just don't draw the same distinctions between different forums of written public comment that you do.

ACCF may show you can go somewhere near cleaning up your act when on a site you own and on which you are not dealing with opponents you are particularly hostile to, but exhibits 2 (this blog), 3 (Chesschat) and others suggest you can only clean up your act in such restricted circumstances.

Are you sure banned users cannot search on Chesschat? Suspended users can certainly log in, and have often done so. In any case, if your banning has deprived you of the ability to strengthen your case by presenting evidence concerning Chesschat then that is your fault for getting yourself banned; you don't deserve any sympathy and will just have to suffer being unable to argue your point effectively.

Your final comments are a typical gutless evasion. You know that you have nothing that will stick, and that I will defend my conduct credibly against any criticism that you ever care to make. That's not to say everything I ever do is defensible - just that you are nowhere near up to proving otherwise. ;)

Matthew Sweeney said...

KB: ACCF may show you can go somewhere near cleaning up your act when on a site you own and on which you are not dealing with opponents you are particularly hostile to, but exhibits 2 (this blog), 3 (Chesschat) and others suggest you can only clean up your act in such restricted circumstances.

First. ACF shows a 100% clean up
Second. This shows that I CAN cleanup whenever I CHOOSE to.
Third. You are a one trick pony - ever a brat with a severe over estimation of your correctness.

KB: ... if your banning has deprived you of the ability to strengthen your case by presenting evidence concerning Chesschat then that is your fault for getting yourself banned; you don't deserve any sympathy and will just have to suffer being unable to argue your point effectively.

MS: Worthy of sympathy or not, it is something a sociopath like you cannot deliver. Your black and white rules driven robtic responses are devoid of humanity. Your black clothes merely draw attention away from the fact that you have no clothes.

KB: Your final comments are a typical gutless evasion. You know that you have nothing that will stick, and that I will defend my conduct credibly against any criticism that you ever care to make. ... you are nowhere near up to proving otherwise.

MS: Gutless? Me?
LOL
No one could ever call me gutless, but you are boring. Same debating tricks ad infinitum. Nothing of substance comes out of a silicon chip, Bot-Boy. I am loath to enter any serious discusion with you because you turn it into a silly debate with circular arguments - bugs in your firmware. The crazy arguments you have used with Belthasar, FG7 and SP leads me to say "thanks but no thanks." You cannot behave yourself. You appear to take pride in conceling intellectually dishonest methods such as: redefining words outside their usual meaning; refusing to state your position as practical or theorietical; and drawing spirious conclusions of absolutes, from general observations.

Kevin Bonham said...

Matt, you're still missing my point about the nature of ACCF. Your cleaning up your act (relatively) on a forum which you own and on which you have no opponent you are antagonistic towards proves nothing about your ability to clean up your act elsewhere if you wanted to. If you want to prove you can clean up your act *anywhere* if you want to, you may as well start by doing it here.

Your second para of hack-psychology babble is unsubstantiated rubbish. Just because I don't have sympathy for those who place themselves in situations where they manifestly don't deserve it, does not make me a sociopath. As for "black and white rules", *you* complained at a certain early point that we were not invariably policing your breaches of the rules, so we decided to start doing so.

You write "No one could ever call me gutless". Well I have, and in this case you were. Your final spray is an unsubstantiated pile of debating-hack stereotypes. If I have used any of those techniques you should give some claimed specific examples to try to prove that I have done so. Of course, such efforts would end in failure, but at least you would be trying!

Matthew Sweeney said...

KB: If you want to prove you can clean up your act *anywhere* if you want to, you may as well start by doing it here.

MS: Your suggestion that I should "prove" something here, can reside firmly in your bowel. You don't tell me what to do here or anywhere. Even at CC you cannot compel me to do as you say. For a power-tripper like you, that's gotta hurt. LOL

KB: Just because I don't have sympathy for those who place themselves in situations where they manifestly don't deserve it, does not make me a sociopath.

MS: Yes it does.

KB: You write "No one could ever call me gutless". Well I have, and in this case you were. Your final spray is an unsubstantiated pile of debating-hack stereotypes.

MS: If the shoe fits ... You are absolutely only here/there/anywhere for the argument. You rarely explore a subject, you only ever claim to own the map, deeds and keys. You are not interested in progress, only conflict.

KB: If I have used any of those techniques you should give some claimed specific examples to try to prove that I have done so. Of course, such efforts would end in failure ...

MS: Don't lock me out of the library then tell me to borrow a book - it makes you look stupid. Suffice to say, you are bunging on your best behaviour right now - a tactic so arcane I would be surprised if anyone has not spotted it.

Anonymous said...

Time for some positive suggestions.
Constrain Howie to the Coffee Lounge only at ChessChat. Hopefully that will take him out of sight of the younguns and the harm that is currently being done.
Two. Track down who banned him from their when he first went feral.

Kevin Bonham said...

Matt, no need to get all defensive over nothing. I'm not telling you what *to* do, I'm telling you what action, as a matter of fact, would be effective in proving your claim that you can clean up your act whenever you want to. If you don't want to prove your claim and would rather that it be obviously nonsense to every rational being reading this blog, that's your problem.

The remainder of your post is generally yet more flat-out unsubstantiated garbage. You write "Don't lock me out of the library then tell me to borrow a book - it makes you look stupid." - you are not locked out of *this* library and if I use any suss techniques frequently you should be able to find plenty of examples on here to discuss. Your choice Matt - more gutless aggro uncivil handwaving or the courage to prove your claims with evidence.

Matthew Sweeney said...

KB: ... you are not locked out of *this* library and if I use any suss techniques frequently you should be able to find plenty of examples on here to discuss.

Santa Claus: Ho Ho Ho. Now little boy, have you been nice in the TCM blog. I think you have :-) So here is your present - a Janus faced mask. Look, it has a smiley ACF face on one side, and a frowny ACF face on the other.

KB: ... more gutless aggro uncivil handwaving or the courage to prove your claims with evidence.

MS: No, more gutsy avago and a warrented V..

You are obviously trying to inveigle me into a stupid spat over what is or isn't proof, is or isn't evidence, what is or its valid blah blah blah with a heavy dose of pedantry. I have better things to do than pretend to be interested in limiting your narrow minded pointscoring crusade.

Kevin Bonham said...

No Matt, my debating style on here is much the same as it is on chesschat and anyone who reads both can see that. Furthermore some of your complaints about me (eg comments about my debating style) clearly relate to content posted here so you should substantiate them with evidence posted here.

A "spat" about what constitutes "proof" might or might not include stupid comments from you, but would be worth going into just to show yet again that your standards of evidence are deplorably lax. Your pedant call also falls into this category as all your previous attempts to prove me to be a pedant have failed miserably. If you really have better things to do than this, then just stop replying! (Oh no, Matthew will consider that I am ordering him about and need six week's trauma counselling if I say that. So terribly terribly sorry. :) )

Matthew Sweeney said...

Look, Bonham. This is a blog, not a forum for either of us to spend point scoring. Everyone can see you are desperately seeking to engage me - you are like a puppy dropping a ball at my feet. (Here fella, fetch this stick of lit dynamite.) You might want this nonsence to to revolve around YOU, and how perfect YOU are, and how wrong I am, but I can assure you that this is my last post to you on this thread. If you want to sink your teeth into something meaty, eg "What drives consumerism?" or "Do dogs love?" You are welcome to do so at ACCForum. http://p067.ezboard.com/baustralianchessclub

I don't expect to see you there because you are so bloody precious, and such a snob, and way to proud, and frightened to step out off your turf.

Kevin Bonham said...

Matt, I am far from desperate to engage you and would not be worried at all if you never exchanged another word with me in public again. On this thread I responded to some incorrect reporting of the facts re the Phil Donnelly post edit, you then engaged with me even though the matter did not directly concern you, and you continued to spout aggressive unsubstantiated nonsense in your many subsequent replies. What I have done is refute the nonsense you have continued to spout.

That I post here shows that I have no problems stepping onto turf I don't control. Indeed most forums I post on are such. Once again, I have no interest in stepping into your particular internet telephone-box because you have failed to prove yourself an acceptable forum administrator by adequately apologising for your failings in that capacity on your previous board UCJ. It seems that you are the one here who has the problem with admitting to having been wrong.

That may be your last post on this thread, but I'm sure you'll be back with the same old nonsense on another one.

The Closet Grandmaster said...

THanks to all participants. And apologies for the clunky experience such as the absence of fancy "quoting" capabilities.

- TCG