Friday, March 02, 2007

Move your butt, somebody

That week was quick! Tomorrow is the continuation of the City of Sydney, so I kinda couldn't wait for the weekend. The tournament will finish on Sunday and to be followed immediately after by the City of Sydney Lightning. We can expect to see some big names for that faster time event. I'd love to see the likes of Smirnov, Flatow, Ghenzer, Agulto turn up.

Anyway our post from two weeks ago is still hotting up. Scroll down the bottom of the comments section and you'll see a long entry by none other than Peter Parr. I'm not sure he did himself any favours with that one: walked straight into Dr Bonham's "comedy gold"! And now even ACF veep Denis Jessop has seen it safer to come out and take pot shots at Mr Parr after a long, long silence.

I suspect now a lot of our readers are just getting all frustrated. Would somebody please just move their ass, they must be thinking. Post of the week must belong to IM Javier Gil:

Regardless of what some of us might consider red tape or not red tape, the fact remains that if Peter did fill out some of those forms, which really do not take very long, a lot of people who currently have doubts about his project (which, I must say, would be fantastic) would probably end up supporting him if he still got no answer from the NSWCA. So, please Peter, fill out those forms and see if we can pull out this event, you have the support of many of us!

I wonder what many of you are thinking. Who should move their gluteus maximus and make this championships in Sydney happen? Let's have some fun.



Have a nice weekend dear readers. Sydney folks can catch up with me for some practice blitz tonight in the Spanish Club. I'm sure the sangria will flow freely, as always. For those in the COS - all the best and hope to see you there.

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

If people in NSW are so slow to act to get a bid...then maybe another state will form one.

Either way there's still a few months for someone to organise a bid.

Anonymous said...

Why the fianchetto don't they have the Australian Championships plus the Reserves (No Open) each year at a permanent venue in Sydney (read long term sponsorship) with suitable incentives for those needing to come from long distances perhaps including formal billeting arrangements to cut down on accommodation costs? Why reinvent the wheel via a batch of uncertain bids each year for what ought to be Australia's premier chess event?

Shaun Press said...

There is something about Peters love letter to himself that I find confusing. On the one hand he implies that the ACF should be grateful for his bid, as no one else has submitted a bid ("The ACF President had in recent issues of the ACF newsletter expressed his increasing concern that none of the State Associations or any group or anyone had shown any interest in holding the championships - now less than a year away. It would indeed have been most embarrassing for the ACF if your well timed e-mail had not been received in time for the annual ACF National Conference in Canberra.") while at the same time expressing a fear that other bids exist ("My hands were tied with no option from ACF.
I was not prepared to examine all possibilities, obtain sponsorship etc and later be told the events had been allocated to another State.")
Now maybe there is a plausible explanation for these contradictory positions, but I haven't been able to find one. Can anyone else?

Anonymous said...

They say chessplayers are capable of seeing the essence of a position without worrying too much about the details.
Shaun, how about if, for a change, we too try to "simplify" and concentrate on what really matters, which is projects and ideas, rather than on people? I think that really ought to be the first step.
Most of what I've read so far has been a systematic put down of people, and what is to be gained from that? perhaps that another one throws the towel?
Do we want a tournament of this importance to be held or do we not? Will it benefit Australian Chess? if we agree on that, then I think personal matters should be put aside. If we don't, the image which is portrayed is that of a group of people who's more interested in their own egos than about chess and chess players in this country.
It all comes down to this: Anyone who is willing to spend time and energy on organizing a chess event of this magnitude will be worthy of my time and in my opinion, is worth supporting. To me, that's the essence.

I.M. Javier Gil (www.chessnia.com)

Anonymous said...

Australian championship permanently in Sydney?

GET OFF THE GRASS!

Matthew Sweeney said...

Shaun, forgive me if I sound as confused as you appear to be. There is no contradiction in those the quotes from Parr.

I will spell out the socio-political interactions, so that even an autistic robotics man can understand it [wink].

1. Parr did not want to go husselling for sponsors and venues, without having been given an *in principle agreement* from the ACF - red tape notwithstanding.
2. Parr fears the silliness that would have him submit a bid, only to see it compete with a possible NSWCA bid (or other state association.)

ANON #2: ... Australian Championships plus the Reserves (No Open) each year at a permanent venue in Sydney (read long term sponsorship)
MS: That (or anything proactive for the good of Australian chess,) will not happen while the ACF is run by self interested state bodies. That is why the vast majority of club administrators view the ACF as a laughing stock.

Anonymous said...

Sweeney, what Shaun Press says is correct. Parr is essentially just making a nuisance of himself to the NSWCA and ACF and wasting everyone's time. In recent years Parr has become all talk and no action (just like YOU, Sweeney!). I found Parr's "self written reply from the ACF" very odious and up himself (although I guess we should be thankful that at least this time he didn't compare himself to Winston Churchill, as he has done previously!).

Anonymous said...

Speaking of .... is Matthew Wweeney's forum moving its .... or is it under anaesthetic in preparation for emergency surgery?

Matthew Sweeney said...

An ANON: Parr is essentially just making a nuisance of himself to the NSWCA and ACF and wasting everyone's time.

MS: Yet another ANONYMOUS maggot dumps on someone. Put your name to your words - but only if you are anything bigger than a white grub writhing in filth.

Matthew Sweeney said...

KB [on CC]: Peter, if you wish to make a formal bid for this event, whether it is a private bid or one through the NSWCA then I am sure it would be considered favourably ...


MS: You are such a fool. He will not and cannot make a formal bid without a prior *in principle* agreement withe the ACF. Why aren't you giving him one? Is it because Bill Gletsos has you and other ACF councillors running scared?


KB (on CC): But raising niggles about communication publicly ... and engaging in trolling, self-promotion and beatups ...

MS: It is not niggling at all. It is in fact THE problem. It will remian THE problem while you continue to Ignore Parr's request for some proactive response. The chess community will also note that as the ACF VP, your prefered response is to publically belittle the only person to offer to run the next ACF Aust.Champs. Good one Kevy :-) You have nearly killed the Sydney proposal. And the NSWCA mouth, might even stop shouting at you.

Matthew Sweeney said...

Anon: is it [ACCForum] under anaesthetic in preparation for emergency surgery?

MS: No. It is in the process of reincarnation to an even higher plain. The waters have broken. Bring a gift in a few weeks.

Kevin Bonham said...

Matt, that's nonsense. Many bids have been put to the ACF in recent years without the ACF giving prior approval of any of them. In some cases two competing bids have come in around the same time for the same event. Peter Parr asked not for in-principle agreement but specifically for us to grant an option on holding the event to a state whose state association had not been adequately contacted about the proposal, let alone agreed to it.

Also, had you followed the thread you would see that Parr may not be the only person expressing potential interest! Furthermore, I'm not belittling him for making the proposal (vague and personally noncommittal as it is) at all - it may very well be a good one *if someone is willing to fashion it into a bid*. Rather, I am taking him to task for making groundless public criticisms of the ACF and the NSWCA in connection with it. Furthermore, had my responses been in my ACF capacity they would have been thusly indicated (not that there are too many cases where a Vice-President would have something to say on behalf of an organisation in that role!) You already know this, so you must, again, be trolling.

Matthew Sweeney said...

ACF VicePres Kevin Bonham:Many bids have been put to the ACF in recent years without the ACF giving prior approval of any of them. In some cases two competing bids have come in around the same time for the same event.

MS: So what? Is it the cas e that you cannot adapt, change, think?

ACF VP KB: ... [NSWCA] had not been adequately contacted about the proposal ...

MS: Demonstratable bullshit.


ACF VP KB: Furthermore, I'm not belittling him for making the proposal (vague and personally noncommittal as it is) at all ...

MS: What planet are you on. You said of him, "engaging in trolling, self-promotion and beatups." That is belittling. That is something the ACF VP ought not to do - unless they intend to resign after bringing further disrepute upon the ACF.

ACF VP KB: Furthermore, had my responses been in my ACF capacity they would have been thusly indicated ...

MS: It was thusly indicated. Your name is enough. If you wish to make a public comment about peoples characters, do not make it under the name "Kevin Bonham," because in the chess community, Kevin Bonham is the ACF VP.

Kevin Bonham said...

Matt, the adaptation or change you refer to in this case would involve granting an option for an event to a state when the state association involved had indicated no interest, no-one else had committed to preparing a bid, and it was not even known whether the bid was financially viable. This would not be adaptation or change but stupidity.

As for the so-called "demonstrable bullshit", if it was demonstrable you would have demonstrated it, but you can't. It is a fact that no letter addressed specifically or even jointly to the NSWCA existed.

Your next reply suggests you need to slow down and read more carefully. I was pointing out that I am not criticising Parr specifically for making his proposal, but rather for his public beat-ups concerning it. You interpreted this point as a general denial that I was "belittling" him when actually I had made no comment for or against your silly little loaded word, and won't be dignifying it with one. The reader (complete frothheads with no comprehension skills excepted) can judge for themselves whether my responses to Parr were reasonable.

As for your claim that "in the chess community Kevin Bonham is the ACF VP", I in fact fulfill a great many roles (many of them because no-one else was remotely interested in nominating) and am doubtless better known in many of the others (indeed after my election as VP I was still being described on this site primarily as selections co-ordinator.) Hence when I am commenting in a role I sign it in that role, and when I am not, I do not. So simple even you should be able to grasp it!

Matthew Sweeney said...

ACF Vice Pres Kevin Bonham: It is a fact that no letter addressed specifically or even jointly to the NSWCA existed.

MS: You rely on the red tape of protocol like a junky. Everyone knows that the NSWCA President, Bill Gletsos, received the Parr proposal. In any reasonable person's mind - but not yours - that fact is enough to say that the NSWCA knew of the proposal, unless of course Gletsos is keeping secrets and knifing Parr in the back - again.

ACF VP KB: You interpreted this point as a general denial that I was "belittling" him when actually I had made no comment for or against your silly little loaded word ...

MS: Let's be totally honest about this. When you say of a person, that they are "engaging in trolling, self-promotion and beatups," you are belittling them.
Definition: belittle (v) to regard or portray as less impressive or important than appearances indicate.
So, Kevin Bonham, the ACF Vice Pres now swans about, belittling the only person to offer to run the ACF's main event, the Aust.Champs. I would not blame Parr if he told the ACF to run the event itself. Crikey, wouldn't the egg be on your face.

ACF VP KB: As for your claim that "in the chess community Kevin Bonham is the ACF VP", I in fact fulfill a great many roles ... and am doubtless better known in many of the others ...

MS: Yes in deed better known - as one adept at "self promotion" as evidenced above, "trolling" at Chat Chat, and red herring monger.

Question: Why don't ***YOU*** do the right thing and ring Peter Parr and say, "Peter, go ahead and set up a meeting with XYZ and ABC. An ACF official will be there to give the go ahead."

If you cannot do that, just resign.

Anonymous said...

Howdy. My name is Bill Clinton. I used to be the President of the United States and I have a word of advice for your VP.
Y'all remember back aways when Monica blew the story on the White House blowjob that she gave me.
Well I figured I could get out of it with maybe 40 lashes from Hilary by taking off my President's hat and replacing it with my unfaithful husband's hat.

Unfortunately American public opinion didn't see it that way.
The 40 lashes was only just the beginning of my flogging.
Take care y'all.

Matthew Sweeney said...

Seems like The ACF Vice President Kevin Bonham can dish it out but cannot take it. He heeps crap on Peter Parr, but when it is pointed out to him that his own behaviour is less than expected from an ACF VP, he goes to water.

Bonham gets OWNED when he cannot ban people. Is it any wonder that he clings to Chess Chat where as Moderator, he can (and does) silence his critics by banning them. Immature, desperate, and power crazy? Bet on it!

Kevin Bonham said...

Anonymous, you clearly have no clue about American politics. There's a widespread view that despite the Lewinsky farce, had Clinton been able to run for a third term, he would have won. The attempts of certain Republicans to make the voters care about the scandal were by and large a flop, so much so that the voters almost elected Al Gore! *shudders*

Matt, Parr has in the past sprayed his open letters to rather large numbers of addressees so how is someone who happens to fulfill multiple roles supposed to know which role Parr addresses a letter in - especially if it is addressed primarily to the other organisation?

"portray as less impressive or important than appearances indicate" - actually I think I called it like it was, but the readers can judge for themselves whether Parr's woeful long post to the previous thread was *impressive*, or whether he is still as *important* as he appears to think.

Once again (just how dense are you not to have noticed?) someone other than Parr has expressed interest. And Parr himself has *not* offered to run the event whatever you may think - his letter contains no clear offer to do so. It floats a concept but commits nothing re his place in it. The way Peter has been carrying on I think the ACF would be better off running it himself *if* he won't get his act together and submit a real bid. But I do not believe it will come to that.

As for your question, I clearly have no authority to take such an action. I could *propose* such an action to the Exec, but really Peter needs to get serious about bidding instead of grandstanding if he is worth working with on this, so I have no intention of doing so.

Your last post is another beatup since I am not posting as ACF VP, so I suggest anyone with expectations of my behaviour goes and has a quiet little cry into their coffee about it all. (Or you could run against me next time! I do recall being elected unopposed! :) ) The idea that I get "owned" on forums when I cannot ban people is ridiculous. You couldn't even own me on a forum that you moderate, and many of your attempts to do so (even with me not posting there!) backfire. If I was to sign up to ACCF, I could troll it so effectively, without even being particularly abusive, that you would be forced to ban or very heavily moderate me to prevent the ethos of your site collapsing completely and what little authority you have there being exposed as an even bigger joke than it is already known to be.

No wonder you lack the guts to properly apologise for your unacceptable personal comments on UCJ and thereby create the conditions under which this fun and mayhem could occur!

Matthew Sweeney said...

ACF Vice President Kevin Bonham: … how is someone who happens to fulfill multiple roles supposed to know which role Parr addresses [?]

MS: All roles, dimwit.

ACF VP KB: …"portray as less impressive or important than appearances indicate" - actually I think I called it like it was, but the readers can judge for themselves whether Parr's woeful long post to the previous thread was *impressive*, or whether he is still as *important* as he appears to think.

MS: Keep it up KB. Keep slagging off the type people who the ACF relies upon to re its events for it. People reading this must be shaking their heads in dispare, wondering how did we ended up with this ham fisted [or should that be Bon-ham fistulated] nong as the ACF VP.


ACF VP KB; And Parr himself has *not* offered to run the event whatever you may think - his letter contains no clear offer to do so. It floats a concept but commits nothing re his place in it.

MS: Autistic people cannot read *between* the lines. It that part of the job description for ACF VP?

ACF VP KB: As for your question, I clearly have no authority to take such an action. I could *propose* such an action to the Exec …

MS: Hiding behind the “authority” ruse makes you look both, as stupid as the group and the most craven of the group. Be a man and do the right thing.

ACF VP KB:… I am not posting as ACF VP,

MS: Ho ho ho. And if I punched your lights out I would not be doing it as Matthew Sweeney, but as a generic chess player not responsible for your injuries. *WAKE UP* You are the ACF VP so behave like it or resign.

ACF VP KB: I suggest anyone with expectations of my behaviour goes and has a quiet little cry into their coffee about it all. (Or you could run against me next time! I do recall being elected unopposed! :) )

MS: Not through the NSWCA I won’t. However, the chance of me moving to Tasmania in 10 years is 50% +/- 40%.

ACF VP KB: You couldn't even own me on a forum that you moderate … If I was to sign up to ACCF, I could troll it so effectively, without even being particularly abusive …

MS: Put it on your resume, I am sure it will be a deal closer.

ACF VP KB: ... you lack the guts to properly apologise for your unacceptable personal comments on UCJ and thereby create the conditions under which [my trolling] could occur!

MS:. Since you *live by* “unacceptable personal comments,” you will have to *live with* “unacceptable personal comments.” So, up yours, Kev in Bottom.

Kevin Bonham said...

OK Matt, so please explain the relevance of Parr's email to Gletsos in his role as ACF Ratings Officer then.

As for how you ended up with me as VP, I was elected unopposed! It will be interesting to see whether people are wondering any such thing as you suggest should I recontest the position next year!

As for Peter being one of the people who "the ACF relies upon to re its events for it", so tell me Matt, when did the ACF last rely on Peter to run an event?

Matt *thinks* he can read between the lines of Parr's proposal and calls suggestions to the contrary "autistic". But had we granted Parr an option only to find Matt's assumptions to be wrong then Matt would doubtless be shellacking us for committing to such a vague deal.

Can't be bothered with the remaining violent pimpleheaded idiocy. If Matt was living down here I would whack a restraining order on him for making thinly-disguised violence threats; of course, this would very much limit his ability to play in tournaments. I'll tell Paul Lennon to secede and lock the borders before it is too late!

Anonymous said...

Gee,another Kevin vs Matt flamewar that is on the road to nowhere.

Give it up guys. Put chess first and endless personal squabbles last.

Matthew Sweeney said...

I am weery of pointing out the ACF's obvious shortcomings in not talking to a prospective Aust.Champs organiser. I am nausiated by your inability to cop it on the thin. I am sad that sparky administrators are kept out of admin by caretaker administrators. I am done with this thread, except for this:

Unopposed ACF VP Kevin Bonham: If Matt was living down here I would whack a restraining order on him for making thinly-disguised violence threats;

MS: I made no threat of violence, thinly-vailed or implied. For you to say so, is potentially a lible case since my income(s) may be effected by perception that I had a record of violence. Nevertheless, if you were to bring the matter before the court, and after it was thrown out, with costs awarded against you, I suppose you would resign from the TCA in disgrace - as the mad paranoid android.

Kevin Bonham said...

Hmmm, one moment Matt says that if you can't read between the lines (in some actually far from clear way) then you're "autistic", and the next he rejects an interpretation based on a very obvious reading between the lines (his violent language).

Anon: How about you practice what you preach and use all the time you spend reading this working for chess instead? I'm already contributing plenty, how about you?

Matthew Sweeney said...

Dear Unopposable ACF VP Kevin Bonham,

Please do not attempt to read read between the lines of anything more complicated than a one move chess variation. I know I asked you to do so in the case of Parr's letter, but it is obviously a skill you will never develop. This should have been apparent to me when you interpreted someone's phrase, "take a long walk off a short pier," as a death threat and banned them for it. [snigger]

And the following artical ought to make you think. You do not even have to read between the lines. The man is a fool, and you are just like him. (The web address is to long)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/

and add to it,

web/ministers-blog-too-much-for-some/2007/03/11/1173548089186.html

Kevin Bonham said...

Yet again a troll can't quit the debate when it says it will. In typical weak troll fashion, Matt says he is done with the debate except for (his babble in defence of his veiled violence threat) then, having failed on that score, he's back for more!

Matt, I did *not* interpret firegoat's comment as a death threat. I interpreted it as something that could be reasonably read as *wishing* another poster dead (as distinct from threatening to kill them), and I did so because I knew this to be the original (Mafia) meaning of the euphemism in question.

Blogging by politicians is increasingly common. For an Australian example that has attracted none of the flak associated with the Swedish case, see http://www.andrewbartlett.com/blog/
The only difference I discern is that one is ny a government minister while one is from a nongovernment party that will probably be representatively extinct by the end of this year.

Of course Matthew endorses attacks on unconventional means of communication by politicians, but himself expected his rants on chesschat to be considered as input by the ACF. Furthermore on this thread he endorses Peter Parr's unconventional and formally inadequate email communication methods. Once again Matthew is seen to be a movable feast of derogatory whinging - all attack, all bullshit, very little thought and absolutely no consistency.

In any case I have been absolutely clear all along about when stuff is posted on behalf of the ACF - it is so only when I explicitly say that it is.

I can't really say whether the former Prime Minister of Sweden is a fool but anyone interested in reading a now discontinued English version of his blog can do so at http://bildt.blogspot.com/ . They will immediately notice that despite English not being Bildt's first language, it is far more lucid and readable than Matthew Sweeney's incoherent frothings.

Matthew Sweeney said...

Except for one post where I thought you had slunk off, I have spoken directly to you. I have not been refering to you in the third person. Now you have adopted this rude off-hand, hands-off talk in attempt to boost your failing reputation. You are attempting to convey the *impression* that you are attacking the ball and not the man. Unfortnately for you, you are a transparent as ever. I am not affaid to attack you and say that I am doing so. I can and do attack the ball as well. In other words, you cop both barrels. Call me blunt, call me undiplomatic, but unlike you, you cannot call me a destroyer of good will toward the Tasmanian Chess Association.

If you want to look like a man, and not a dandy behave like one. Do not refer to those present, in the third person.

OK, I am over the thread - for now.

Kevin Bonham said...

Oh dear. Having dished out all kinds of lame and often irrelevantly personal insults to me over this and other threads, Matt now calls me "rude". Oooh! If the troll can't take it then it shouldn't dish out far worse.

Claiming to play both the ball and the man is a line that would never have occurred to Matt until he learnt it from me. Unfortunately like all parrot (and Parr-ot?) trolls, he can learn the line but he doesn't know what it means. While he has made some token attempts to play the ball on this thread, he has invariably missed it and kicked himself in the head. Far too much of his drivel has been devoted to unreasonable personal attacks, and that is why he is getting back what he is getting. I have never made any attempt to cover up the fact that I am flaming him, because it is what he deserves for behaving in this manner.

As for Matt's mention of the TCA, that's another red herring with absolutely no relevance to this thread.

Over this thread for now? On past form that'll last about five minutes.

And since he seems to find being referred to in the third person so distasteful (even squeaking out some lame caveman gender rubbish in response), I think I shall continue it!

Matthew Sweeney said...

Unopposed ACF VP Kevin “Trollbot” Bonham (UAVPKTB): Over this thread for now? On past form that'll last about five minutes.

MS: 42 hour hiatus actually. I s’pose being out by three orders of magnitude is nothing new for the bloke who thinks maintaining a chess body is the same as doing something good for it.

UAVPKTB:
Matt now calls me "rude". Oooh! If the troll can't take it then it shouldn't dish out far worse.

MS: So now I am to be referred to, in both the third person and as an “it.” Cut your holier than thou private school put downs and try try try to be a man. For example, it goes like this: “Bonham, you are without doubt, the most juvenile knob end in Australian chess. You have turned Chess Chat into your private mass-debatery, and shunned anyone who refuses to play with your pointy-headed ego. Please meet with a fatal misfortune – thus to be our good fortune.”

UAVPKTB: Claiming to play both the ball and the man is a line that would never have occurred to Matt until he learnt it from me.

MS: [LOL. He cannot be serious – could he? OMG, he is!]

UAVPKTB : I have never made any attempt to cover up the fact that I am flaming him, because it is what he deserves for behaving in this manner.

MS: There you have it folks. Kevin “Trollbot” Bonham, you the ACF VP. Yet you choose to represent the main public face of the ACF, as a flaming flamer. Exactly what we do not need in Australian chess is you. So, I reiterate, please meet with a fatal misfortune – thus to be our good fortune. Oh, and in case you think of distorting my proposition as a wish for your death beneath a bus, think instead, of falling upon your sword – resign.

Kevin Bonham said...

Aaaaah, Matt's back for more again, he just can't stick to it when he says he will quit. Of course, his literal interpretation of my "five minutes" is just plain silly. By his own standards it would be "autistic" times a million, but Matthew never cares about being consistent.

Matt's post in general was boring, repetitive, bereft of evidence and insane.

*yawns*

Matthew Sweeney said...

ACF Vice "Faming" President Kevin Bonham: Of course, his literal interpretation of my "five minutes" is just plain silly.

MS: What? Aren't you going to claim that I learned that techique too, from the best - you. Oh, that's right, I remember now. Your rule, "Claim the positives and redistribute the negatives," trumps honesty.

And shut your gaping yawning maw - blow flys are escaping.

Kevin Bonham said...

Matt, you claim I "Claim the positives and redistribute the negatives". I see precious little connection between that claim and the issue of your ripping off my flaming tactics, but in any case, what is your evidence for your claim? Five examples of each would be useful, together with a non-trolling explanation of why you have eliminated the possibility that my alleged attributions are correct in such cases.

Peter Parr said...

Australian Championship 2007/8
--------------------------------------------

I spoke at length in my shop in the CBD with NSWCA Councillor Richard Gastineau-Hills on Friday afternoon 9th March (Fischer's 64th birthday - 2 radio interviews today by PP) concerning the forthcoming Championship. Richard advised me on the 9th March that I should write again to all members of the NSWCA Council as there appears to be a misunderstanding amongst members of the council and after explaining everything to Richard he is in agreement that a meeting should be held with the vice-chancellor of UTS.

I list the sequence of events.

Firstly the ACF President had expressed his concern that there were no offers to hold the 2007/8 championship. Numerous players had told me in recent years that locations of national championship in remote areas made it very hard to get to, too expensive, and few facilities for a chess holiday.

I formed the firm view that it could be held in Sydney successfully as before at NSW Bridge Centre CBD, Hakoah Bondi or UTS in CBD.

When Hakoah Chess Club President IM Vladimir Feldman visited my shop in the CBD he was very keen for it to be held at Hakoah and he anticipated a low rental negotiated with management.

Time was short so I sent an email to the ACF the day before the national conference requesting an option for NSW until 31st March (with an update report on 28th February).

The ACF President acknowledged my email and confirmed once again there were no other suggestions for the championships.

I received a very positive written response from a leading academic at University of Technology, Broadway who advised me that there would be a very strong possibility of a free venue at UTS. He suggested a meeting between himself, another academic from UTS with considerable influence, the vice-chancellor and two representative with authority from the Australian Chess Federation or NSWCA.

The reason I asked the ACF for an option be given to NSW is clear. This would give NSW plenty of time to arrange a meeting with UTS. A 30 minute meeting could well give us a free venue in the Sydney CBD - all other details are easy to work out if we had a free CBD excellent venue.

The chess reps at the meeting should have the authority to agree to accept the free venue if offered.

The current situation is that ACF did not give NSW an option, the NSWCA did not support the idea of NSW having an option. The ACF and NSWCA so far are only interested in looking at a final draft of the tournament - venue, sponsorship, all details etc.

The ideal persons to meet with the vice-chancellor would be ACF Deputy President and NSWCA President Bill Gletsos and one other major office bearer from ACF or NSWCA.

A Sydney CBD free venue is an opportunity not to be missed and will greatly benefit the chess community that our office bearers represent.

I have never suggested I would make a personal bid for the championship in Sydney.

I have always suggested it must be a united effort by ACF and NSWCA.

I am available to assist in any capacity or not at all if that was the wish of the administration.

We owe it the chess players of Australia that a free high quality venue in the Sydney, CBD must be worth 30 minutes time of two leading administrators.

The largest Australian Championship adult/junior event ever was held at UTS and very successful after Cepacol agreed with my request for $10,000 sponsorship to cover the rent.

Now we may have a free venue at the same location.

Peter Parr

Ps. Hakoah are still interested - I spoke to IM Vladimir Feldman on 13th March 2007 and he is still very keen for the events to be held at Bondi.

Matthew Sweeney said...

Matt, you claim I ... your ripping off my flaming tactics, but in any case, what is your evidence for your claim? Five examples of each would be useful ...

MS: I am not sure if you are addressing me as Matthew Sweeney the ACF and NSWCA heckler, or Matthew Sweeney the private person. In any case, when you send your request to me, along with the proper forms, I will concider it at my next reveiw of goals and objectives.

Matthew Sweeney said...

Peter Parr: ... there appears to be a misunderstanding amongst members of the council ...

MS: Well, AR, I wonder why that would be.

It is clear that there is an information blocking system opperating in the NSWCA. Furthermore, it is being used by someone who is no good for NSW chess or Australian chess. I surge you to persue this matter.

Kevin Bonham said...

Matt, I am addressing you as Matthew Sweeney the incompetent online troll.

As for responding to my request, I couldn't care less if you do or not. If you fail to respond you will simply fail to demonstrate your case, again!

Matthew Sweeney said...

ACF Vice Presidente "Flaming" K. Bonham:
... you as Matthew Sweeney the incompetent online troll.

MS: Compared to you, all other trolls are incompetent.

ACF Vice Presidente "Flaming" K. Bonham: As for responding to my request, I couldn't care less if you do or not.

MS: Then don't make the request in the first place, Simply STFU, time waster.

Kevin Bonham said...

You just don't get it, Matt. The purpose of my question was, of course, to expose your inability to answer it coherently and therefore your lack of a case.

I don't deny the odd spot of *counter*-trolling, trolling the trolls so to speak, but that doesn't make me a troll! Better luck next time. :)

Anonymous said...

Actually Kevin,it makes you a Mini-Troll.

Kevin Bonham said...

Just one problem with your theory anon. You don't explain why despite doing it far more rarely than they do, I am better at it than them ;)

Matthew Sweeney said...

ACF VP: ... therefore your lack of a case.

MS: The only thing I lack is competition. Whydon't you take some lessons from the NSWCA President and ACF Ratings Officer Bill Gletsos. He is doing his best to provide a role model for juniors. Currently he is calling PD a "dill" on Chess Chat.

What is it about the NSWCA and TCA topdogs that make them so , so, ummm, so good at making chess administrators look like arseholes. And why are such arseholes accumulating inthe ACF. It might be where childless social misfits go when they realise that the only love they get is from their powerful selves.

Kevin Bonham said...

Matt, compared with your views on what makes for being a good role model for juniors, surely encouraging them to call a dill a dill is relatively minor by comparison!

You only think we're "arseholes" because you have no self-reflection whatsoever and fail to realise the obvious extent to which you and a few other jokers bring the treatment they get upon themselves. And have you actually met any other TCA "topdogs"?

Matthew Sweeney said...

Kevin "Toe-Jam" Bonham: Matt, compared with your views ... to call a dill a dill is relatively minor by comparison!

MS: When you have your own kids, I will give your opinions on such, more than the current 0.0 mg. ie never.

TJB:You only think we're "arseholes" because you have no self-reflection ...

MS: Correction. I *know* you are arseholes because I have a mirror and thee only time it looks like you, is when I stand over it.

TJ: And have you actually met any other TCA "topdogs"?

MS: Nope, I don't think so. But so what, I am only bagging a total of two topdogs from a total of two states. Logic would lead you to the fact that you stand alone as the only TCA officer to be being bagged as a sphinctering foot soldier for Stinkville.

Kevin Bonham said...

I see Matt's playing the "parent card". *yawn* Another debate forfeited on the spot by Matthew Sweeney.

As for the mirror Matt, I've seen you and there is no way you could see a mirror if you were standing over it, so that's the end of that one.

Acting as a puppet for vindictive personal trolling by the notoriously unreliable and defamatory Mr Donnelly does nothing to advance your cause or your nonexistent credibility. Funny how the games alleged to have been played by my opponents show so little sign of the alleged distraction.

Matthew Sweeney said...

ACF Vice Pres Bonham: I see Matt's playing the "parent card". *yawn*

MS: WOW. Is it courage or stupidity that allows you to down play parents' experiance with children. Every parent reading this is laughing their tits off at you. You are truely ignorant of that part of life, and nor will you generate any life.

ACF Abuse Officer and VP : As for the mirror Matt, I've seen you and there is no way you could see a mirror if you were standing over it, so that's the end of that one.

You must have seen me with another body cluched in front of me obscuring my view of your excreting face.

ACF Loose Cannon KB: ... [the] notoriously unreliable and defamatory Mr Donnelly ...

MS: Thats sounds defamatory to me. I wonder what the ACF would say if your flames, put downs, and ridicule of decent people, landed a writ on their in-tray.

The Closet Grandmaster said...

Boys, please...

- TCG

Kevin Bonham said...

OK AR - I've got nothing more to say on this one, but if you keep publishing posts by Matthew containing completely irrelevant stuff about my non-breeding status and other such trolling then you cannot blame me for responding to them in kind. If you really want to get serious about keeping that sort of stuff off then you should reject, in its entirity, any post containing any of it. Over and out (for this thread.)

Matthew Sweeney said...

Looks like the ref has called it off. So be it. Someone had to save the ACF from further damage inflicted me, and self-inflicted by the ACF Vice Pres and Flaming Officer. ;-)

Anonymous said...

You know,if you took out the flaming between Kevin and Matt there would only be about 20 comments here.

Flaming between these 2 individuals should be killed off ,it achieves nothing.

If you two want to have endless senseless arguments then set up a bb just for flaming!

Matthew Sweeney said...

If thine eyes offend thee, pluck them out.

BTW anon, no part of your post was among the 20. So thanks for nothing. :P