Saturday, June 16, 2007

From The Twilight Zone

I don't know what to make of this. Waiting for me in my inbox this evening was this email from a "community administrator" of the Australian Chess Club Forum, wannabe rival to Australia's most popular chess bulletin board, Chess Chat. I quote the crucial paragraph without any changes.

I am reminding you all that you need to keep exercising you right to free speech. Since ACCF is the only place in Australin chess where you can escape the tyrany of the Gletsos-Bonham House of Pain, I would ask that you revisit the ACCF and post something that you would not like to have to defend against the Chess Chat bullies. Please remember, dear posters, that we try hard to be civil and decent at at times on ACCF. So, play nice.

Gletsos-Bonham refers to Bill Gletsos, current ACF deputy president and NSWCA president, and Kevin Bonham, one of two serving ACF veeps.

I'm like, wow! So those two tyrants have not only bullied me but apparently also eroded my rights to free speech? I'm just like, wow! I didn't even know that. That's a worry.


Anonymous said...

You do have free speech, of course you do.
Here on your own BLOG.

Test whether the same material can be posted on chesschat under the userid arosar.
Take care that you have permission to post a private mail.
Take care that you are not posting on behalf of a banned poster.

Best of British luck.

Anonymous said...

That was rather awkwardly worded, wasn't it?

"I would ask that you revisit the ACCF and post something that you would not like to have to defend against the Chess Chat bullies."

So, does this mean post something to tweak the noses of chess chat bullies, or post something that won't tweak the nose of chess chat bullies? Bullies are going to be bullies regardless of what you post, defensible or not, so how do you post something "that you would not like to defend...etc". And how many people like having to defend themselves when attacked even if what they say is very polite, circumspect and true? In this case, it could be saying, "don't post anything".

Sorry, just too early in the morning to deal with poor sentence structure. Bet the poster is a bureaucrat of some type.

Daniel J. Andrews

Anonymous said...

Dear Daniel, the quoted paragraph was perfectly clear to TCG, the first anonymous and me. Do you have mild autism?

You pop up out of the wood work to nitpick the wording] and yet, make no reference to the actual subject of the paragraph - chess-official bullies and free speach. Interesting.

Having been abused by Bill and Kevin and other nasty incidents chesschat lost me as a poster.

Anonymous said...

What the ACCF needs is more actual chess coverage,and less endless ranting about the negatives of chesschat.

Going on and on and on about Kevin and Bill is about as exciting as watching paint dry.

The current use of ACCF makes it look like it was only set up to bag Kevin and Bill,and not to promote chess in Australia.

Shaun Press said...

I agree with you Daniel. When I recieved the initial post, I read it as an attempt to re-ignite debate on ACCF, but only as an "up yours" to Chess Chat. So for the moment I'll leave my posting habits unchanged.

Kevin Bonham said...

The anonymous author of the third comment, if they are not simply fibbing, should state what their username was on chesschat rather than making gutless accusations that are not only unsubstantiated but also, even if true, tell only one side of the story. Over time there have been a few posters who have used intemperate language in picking lost fights with the mods. This behaviour, when repeated often enough, has been treated with the contempt it deserves and sometimes the perpetrators have gone whinging off with their tails between their legs, blaming those who criticised their abuse and pretending that the other side started it. Frankly, when that's their attitude, I couldn't care less if they leave.

Matt's latest post-boosting drive for the failing online telephone box, harmless and silly as it is, does contain a few amusing slips. The first one is "something that you would not like to have to defend". Well, of course, if you were spouting intemperate fact-averse nonsense you would not like to defend it on chesschat where it would quickly get refuted and made to look extremely silly. You would prefer to post it on ACCF where either no-one will know why it is wrong, or those who do will just backpat the offender for trying and thus permit the delusion to continue. There are (very rare) exceptions, but in general ACCF is an embarrassing vacuum when it comes to factual information about issues.

The second slip is "we try hard to be civil and decent at at[sic] times on ACCF." Only "at times" is damn straight - ACCF is a den of blatant double standards on civility, with a veneer of it maintained between most members but dropped completely when dealing with certain outsiders.

That, plus the low-tech nature of the forum, plus the constant focus on whinging about chesschat (correctly noted by anonymous poster of 4th comment), isn't exactly packing in the masses. In the past month, only eight of the 30 members have posted on ACCF. Of those eight, three are site staff, one is permanently banned from chesschat, and one has only posted once. Perhaps my noting that alone will cause one ACCF lurker to post again in an attempt to stop me using their inactivity there to score points, but anyway, in that time, 92 chesschatters have posted. That's not including the shoutbox - if the shoutbox was included it would be well into three figures. Chesschat continues to attract new members (not just spammers!) at what appears to be an accelerating rate. We're much better off without the yahoos and if people want to act the goat, they know where to find the door.

I could go on but I'm far too busy laughing about them actually making firegoat a mod!

DeNovoMeme said...

KB: The anonymous author of the third comment, if they are not simply fibbing, should state what their username was on chesschat rather than making gutless accusations that are not only unsubstantiated but also, even if true, tell only one side of the story.

DNM: It was me. It was an accident that I was not logged on when I lodged the reply and thus it came up as Anonymous. No big deal, because I am not the only one in that position. If you want to read my reply to your diatribe, you can find it here ->

Kevin Bonham said...

Well Matt (denovomeme) if it was you then everyone knows the real reason you left chesschat is you got yourself permanently banned - long after you would have been banned on many other forums. And you are a prime case of exactly what I was talking about as you are probably the most abusive poster chesschat has ever had and yet you are still whinging about the way people responded to you.

As for your reply on ACCF:

* Drawing attention to my other position is a transparent trolling tactic and a total waste of energy. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

* The "clear and present danger" (this expression was used tongue in cheek of course) was that ACCF posters would annoy chesschat posters with emails/PMs for ACCF. ACCF itself is mainly a danger to its occupants.

* The reason I mention the low-tech nature of ACCF, besides the fact that it deters prospective members, is that one poor pathetic soul on ACCF, having burnt his bridges elsewhere, seemed to genuinely believe Almighty Matt would promptly bring him a new PGN viewer. Hopefully by now he is learning that promises of future action from Matthew Sweeney are not at all reliable and that his assumptions about his new environment were foolish.

* The reason I posted details of the low use rate of ACCF was just to make it clear to what extent ACCF is presently failing as an alternative, despite some bluster there incorrectly suggesting chesschat is in decline. ACCF will never have "real discussion" because real discussion requires people who have access to the facts and few of them will ever go there.

The rest is all just the usual unsubstantiated, irrelevant, boring bluster (not to say that those points I have picked out are any better) and isn't worth the time of day. Of course your bothering to write such a reply on ACCF rather than here just deepens the malaise that the anonymous author of comment #4 referred to.

Anonymous said...

To the poster who asked if I had mild autism. LOL. Actually I do. :-) Very mild though.

Please bear in mind that criticism of an unclear point made by person A about person B is not support of person B, as you seem to think. Isn't criticism of those we support part of free speech?

I made no actual reference to the subject of the paragraph (as you said) because I wasn't sure I understood the subject of the paragraph. My post wasn't just nitpicking, it was also looking for clarification of what seemed like an important point that was in danger of being lost due to poor sentence structure. Incidentally, I have absolutely no vested interest in what is happening down under since I live in the northern hemisphere. I just like TCG's blog so read it for fun.

If I were to sum things up as I see them though:
chess bullies = bad.
free speech = usually good.
good points obscured by poor sentence structure = bad.
mild autism that allows me a different perspective = good for me, bad for someone who sees only one perspective.
TGM's blog = good

Daniel J. Andrews

DeNovoMeme said...

Daniel Andrews, I like your last post. It seems you have a much beter self-understanding than many "normals." I believe that we probably are in agreement on matters here. :-)

Anonymous said...

If it makes you all feel better, both Gletsos and Bonham are nobodies in the real world.
99% of chess addicts are nobodies in the real world, thats why they play chess in the first place.

DeNovoMeme said...

ACF VP KB, I do not intend continuing to waste the space on this great blog, defending the ACCF from your negativity. I will post my reply on ACCF

DeNovoMeme said...

Bill Gletsos says "Over on ACCF [PD] criticise KB for his language in a comment on Amiel's blog yet take[s] no issue at all with the ACCF owner suggesting that the poster Daniel there is autistic."

Bill Glestsos thinks the word autistic is a term of abuse. Will he next say "paraplegic," "schizophrenic," or "old" is an abusive term. The fact is, I guessed correctly and Daniel does have a little autism - he says so himself (see above.)

And now a correction to Gletsos' statement: I am NOT the owner of ACCF. It is owned wholey by EzBoard. I only run the board.

The Closet Grandmaster said...

Very rarely do I make a ref's call but here I do it. Your use of "autism" in that specific context above was clearly "abusive".

As for your last paragraph Mr Sweeney, well my friend - can you pronounce, "Pontius Pilate"? You don't have to spell that you know.


Anonymous said...

TCG wrote:
"Your use of "autism" in that specific context above was clearly "abusive". "

Look who's taking the high moral ground now! Clearly abusive, you must be joking. Autisim is not an abusive word, nor is mild. Wasn't Sweeney asking a question?
MS wrote:
"Do you have mild autism?"
You can interpret words any way you like, but I thought it was a question.

Kevin Bonham said...

Anonymous nobody (5:00PM) - if pushing bits of plastic around a board fairly ineptly was all I did you might be able to mount a case that I was a nobody. Unfortunately for you it is only one of many strings in my bow. I may not have the ugliness, stupidity and worthlessness required to be as famous as Paris Hilton (who I shall take to be your idea of "being somebody" until you show a glimmer of intelligence that indicates otherwise), but I have a life or several beyond chess (to which I am not at all addicted), whereas you most likely have no life at all. Feel free to tell us (with proof) what you do with your time if you wish to demonstrate otherwise.

Now, as for Mr Sweeney ... Matt, you are more than welcome to continue posting responses on ACCF where they will continue to further foul the air and drive away those disinterested in your petty gripes. I shall continue responding to them on such open forums as you have referred to them on, while I am able to do so and can be bothered.

Your claim that you were banned under poster-specific regulations is nonsense. Your permanent banning was a result of an accumulation of literally dozens of offences, most of which would much faster have earned you a ban on countless other forums - such as vulgar abuse, blatant trolling, posting while banned etc. It is true we placed you on poster-specific zero tolerance but this was an act of extreme lenience as many other forums would have banned you permanently well before that. Indeed on your first visit to the forum when the pre-existing admins doubled as mods you were banned within a day and we had to put a lot of effort in to save your sorry posterior. It would have been better to leave you there, and I might have been inclined to do so had we not had AR to fish out of the slop as well.

Referring to the percentage of abuse that was towards Bill and myself is irrelevant because you were never banned for abuse towards me, and it was largely abuse towards new posters and regulars other than Bill that led you up the slippery slope. I don't think anywhere near 95% of your abuse was towards us (maybe 75%?) and even if it was, that in no way diminishes (or excuses) the massive amount left over that was towards others.

There is no ACF bulletin board and I am not "bullying" anyone so put your puerile cliches away for the day when you find someone fool enough to credit them. My performance as Vice-President is a matter for those who elected me, and I am not interested in your irrelevant view on it. As for the Aus Champs, you have no idea what I personally am or am not doing about that, and I intend keeping it that way because intemperate yahoos like you are not worth giving information to.

We did indeed seek to protect our members from being spammed with ads for a site that any who wanted to visit must surely have found (and mostly quickly left) long ago. For looking after our members' interests we make no apologies whatsoever. Do you write to ISPs flaming them for implementing spam protection?

Remaining unsubstantiated drivel disregarded as usual. :)

1st ANON said...

So TCG you decided not to take on the test of freedom proposed in the first item of this list.
Post Mr Sweeney's PM on chesschat

The Closet Grandmaster said...

What PM?


simon said...

Kevin,Paris Hilton is only ugly in the sense she is vain and shallow.

Can we clear up one thing though,is Denovomeme the alter ego of Matt Sweeney?

And if so,why?

Kevin Bonham said...

I see that Sweeney has had another limp serve on ACCF. At the time of writing he hasn't posted a link to it, and in future generally I won't bother using this blog to respond to what is said on ACCF where no link is posted or the material isn't quoted or referred to. From time to time I may do so but generally it's not worth the bother. Suffice to say that the reader should assume all claims of fact made concerning myself, Chesschat or the ACF on ACCF to be false unless they are discussed and confirmed on a reputable site (which ACCF is not).

As it happens Matt's latest post there is an evidence-free zone full of all the usual total nonsense. The only point I can be bothered commenting on is the claim that I was not elected because I was elected unopposed. This claim is false; anyone wishing to contest the position had ample opportunity to run for it and stop me from getting it unopposed, and if enough were of that mind they could have stopped me getting it at all.

Anonymous said...

One last post here. For what it is worth, rightly or wrongly I didn't take the question, "Are you mildly autistic? as an insult. There is enough blatant nastiness out there so why go looking for it where it may or may not exist. Some people may find the question insulting or tactless but I was not one of them. I was genuinely amused.

Thanks to TCG for stepping in though. That was thoughtful of you.

Incidentally, it is only now (as in 30 seconds ago) that I am beginning to understand what has been transpiring here. Oops. Apologies to all sides from this outsider. I didn't mean to butt in on such a hot topic.

Daniel J. Andrews

DeNovoMeme said...

Kevin "Glass Jaw" Bonham said
"The only point I can be bothered commenting on is the claim that I was not elected because I was elected unopposed. This claim is false;"

DNM: Actually I said, "Weren’t you “elected” unopposed? That is tantamount to being non-elected." Got it? The word is "tantamount." It means equivalent, as in value, force, effect, or signification.
If readers wish to see Kevin Bonham get owned, it is all at ACCF where KB, in a typical bully manner, is too gutless to go. See ->

peter said...

Matt.didnt you set up your board so Kevin COULDNT post there?

Now you are claiming he is too gutless to join your board? lol.

Matt,I think you occassionally make some valid points,but claiming Kevin is too gutless to join your board when you patently dont want him to join is just plain silly!

Kevin Bonham said...

Matt, I'm one of the very few people willing to *go* to your pitiful excuse for a forum - I just refuse to post there until the site staff demonstrate a commitment to even remotely competent moderation, especially of material that is defamatory.

You can say what you like about the meaning of "tantamount" but the fact is that the two thingsreferred to (being elected unopposed and being unelected) are not equivalent, not even close, as my reply already demonstrated. Curiously you frequently accuse opponents of nitpicking and missing the essentials of an argument (and usually in your charming hack fashion imply that they have some psychological disorder as a result) but here you are doing exactly that. Like most trolls your first response to a tactic you see used by an opponent is to flame it and your second is to attempt, unsuccessfully, to appropriate it.

If readers want to see Kevin Bonham get owned by any inmate of ACCF they will be waiting a long, long time. I suggest they lower their expectations and wait instead for proof that the Loch Ness Monster is a living plesiosaur, Matthew Sweeney's rating to hit 2345 ACF, or Godot to put in an appearance at their dinner table.

DeNovoMeme said...

Peter, no I did not set up the board so KB BG et al could not post. In fact, I have consistantly invited them to do so. They are both too gutless to join. I think that they think I would be as much of a bully as they are on Chess Chat. Of cause they have to have an excuse. Kevins is that he won't join the board because I abused his manhood. Bill won't join because he hates me for being in his face about the parless sate of NSW chess.

As history has shown, ACCF is a place where we all can disagree vigorously but civily. There is no Jeer Squad, no whinging backstabbers, no bannings. ACCF and CC are chalk and cheese.

DeNovoMeme said...

A reply to ACF VP Bonham's slagging off of the little forum is on the little forum which is to frightened to post on ->

Anonymous said...

In your Blog leader you said
Waiting for me in my inbox this evening was this email from a "community administrator" of the Australian Chess Club Forum, ..

That private mail from a poster banned on chesschat.
Post the PM on chesschat; see if you get banned or moderated.
Post the material from Sweeney; see if you get banned or moderated.

Two tests of the freedom you assert.

Kevin Bonham said...

Matthew misrepresents my reasons for not joining his board, which is contemptible and lazy, since they were emailed to him a few months ago.

There are actually two reasons.

The first is that Matthew has not yet apologised for irrelevant personal comments he made on his old site Uber Chess Jehad. Matthew's claims about why I require an apology are false, and the real reason has been explained to him. It is not that he "abused my manhood" (I couldn't care less about such ridiculous macho games) but that he insulted *his own* intellect by not even managing to get basic facts about me (and my personal indifference to the institution of marriage) right in his claim. That error was symptomatic of a general sloppiness of intellect which in my view makes Matthew unsuitable to control an internet forum, or anything much else, until he starts owning up to it.

The second (and far more important) reason is that ACCF has not adopted proper procedures for removing defamatory material.

With a few honourable exceptions, ACCF is one big Jeer Squad that exists largely to insult chesschat. (The ACCFer who coined the term Jeer Squad is actually one of the worst when it comes to cheeky poking masquerading as "debate"). If the more hotheaded members are not "whinging backstabbers" it is only because their whinging is too frothy and upfront for them to be able to conceal their weapons. But Matthew's use of "backstabbers" with reference to some chesschat posters just shows the extent to which he, like many other "misunderstood" lost souls, imagines that others owe him loyalty simply because they have failed to persistently insult him upfront.

As for bannings, there are some posters on chesschat who deserve to be banned from every forum they appear on until they learn not to defame others, and hence their unbanned state is a negative for the forum. Anyone visiting the forum can see that its claims to civility are an inconsistently apparent sham, but frankly, I wouldn't bother. More neutral observers than me have found the whole thing stupefyingly dull. :)

Anonymous said...

Actually, for all that have complained about 'how things are' on chesschat, isn't the simple solution to just stop posting there? A lot of people have, the % of average daily posts is probably about 10% of what it was in 2004 - it's pretty much dead there anyway so why visit? I'm sure there are better uses of your time.

Kevin Bonham said...

Some anon claims the % of average daily posts is "probably about 10% of what it was in 2004".

That's nonsense. There's no easy way of telling the exact post rate at particular times, but I can say that the average post rate for 2004-5 was at most 107.5 posts per day, while the post rate for the first half of 2007, even without some noted flamewar-starters, has been 122.4 ppd.

Some people have stopped posting. Others have started or resumed. These things happen on any forum over time.

Anonymous said...

Average amount of posts dropping at chesschat?

You must be kidding. lol.
Howard Duggan's volume of posts easily makes up for the others who have left. They are not the same quality mind you.

Come back Belthasar!

Kevin Bonham said...

I notice that Matthew Sweeney has reproduced an email from me on ACCF in a failed attempt to defend himself.

This email was sent on 23 March (after midnight and in an unusually generous/forgetful mood after a night out on the town). After Sweeney failed to accept the condition it was quickly replaced with the current two conditions in an email sent on 27 March, the relevant portion of which read:

[..] you didn't accept my overly generous offer to join
ACCF on just a single condition (although I did appreciate the politeness of
your refusal), and I've remembered that there really should be two. So my
conditions for joining ACCF are now:


1. That site owner Matthew Sweeney meets my idea of a proper person to
administer an online forum by apologising for irrelevant and incorrect
comments he made concerning my personal life on his now defunct "Uber Chess
Jehad" forum, and undertaking never again to make false comments about my
personal life.

2. That ACCF ceases to permit defamatory material about any person (member
or not) to remain upon the board, including the overdue retrospective
removal of all defamatory material about which any complaint has been made
to either the current administrator or moderator. In the event
that the site admins and mods are not sure (for whatever reason) whether a
comment about which a complaint has been made is
defamatory, they shall remove it without requiring a court finding or
solicitor's letter. For the purposes of this condition, "defamatory
material" means anything that is defamatory in any state or territory of

Additionally while these conditions are offered in a personal capacity only,
I will never, in
any capacity, support any linking to ACCF or any other forum run
or moderated by either Matthew Sweeney or Trevor Stanning, unless they agree
to the second condition above and implement it, or otherwise demonstrate, by
both words and
actions, a satisfactory willingness to remove defamatory material.

These conditions have been made available for publication if desired but no
request to publish them has been made.

- (Dr) Kevin Bonham, 27 March 2007

Because Matthew Sweeney has in his usual trolling fashion published the 23 March email without my consent I have now blocked him from emailing me until he removes it from his site. As he cannot be trusted to keep negotiations confidential I may in future send any complaints about his site to one of his moderators, or to ezboard. I shall also consider Mr Sweeney's expectation of confidentiality void with regards all emails he has sent to me in the past - not that there is anything in any of them worth releasing that I can think of offhand. :)

His failure to acknowledge the 27 March change of conditions confirms all the points I had previously made about him. Anyone bored enough to read the 23 March email will note that even the reasons contained therein do not support Sweeney's "manhood" rubbish.

It is also notable that Trevor Stanning (MexicanOZ) writes "Read by one of the moderators here" in response to Sweeney's post. As with many of Stanning's ambiguous warblings I have no idea what (if anything) he means to convey by saying that, but in any case, I PMd Stanning the current requirements on 27 May.

DeNovoMeme said...

ACF VP KB said,
"Because Matthew Sweeney has ... published the 23 March email without my consent I have now blocked him from emailing me until he removes it from his site. As he cannot be trusted to keep negotiations confidential I may in future send any complaints about his site to one of his moderators, or to ezboard."

DNM (Matthew Sweeney): You publically said I misrepresented you. That is calling my honesty into question. When you publically call someone a liar - which is what you did - you fortfeit any right to the privacy that would normally be expected AND granted, with reguard to emails on the matter.

It is clear to all that:
1. I said you were a person most likely to be cuckholded.
2. I said it precisely to insult you.
3. You took umbrage.
4. When ACCF started, you refused to join unless I said sorry and would not insult you again.
5. I refused because I am not sorry for the insult and you will be insulted again by me.
6. For my impudent stand against you, you added another hoop for me to jump through.
7. All together you have deliberately painted yourself into a corner.

Why did you burn your bridges? Because you never really intended to post at ACCF, where you do not have moderator powers.

You have been exposed as a coward and a word twisting power-tripper. (A chess politician ? ! ? ! ? ! ? )

As much as I think you deserve a serve or ten more on this issue, to keep pointing to the spot on your hand is too cruel for my liking. So, that is all I have to say on the matter of your avoidence of ACCF, ya cuckhold gunna be.

Kevin Bonham said...

But Matthew dear, you *did* misrepresent me. The email you quoted had been explicitly superceded by mine of 27 March, but you gave no indication of this in falsely claiming that it contradicted my claims here. (Indeed, that is exactly the sort of word-twisting you falsely and without evidence accuse me of.)

Furthermore nothing in it supports your "manhood" rubbish anyway, as the email was quite clear that my objection to your comment was simply that it suggested I would get married at all! It's an absurdity thing, not an offence thing - like, if you *must* try trolling in the gutter, then what sort of lame troll are you if you can't even do your research and get your facts about your target straight? ;)

If I had been offended by your comment in the way you cluelessly suggest, I would have taken similar umbrage at far more extreme comments you made around the same time (along the same speculative lines but without the factually inaccurate suggestion that I would be likely to get married).

Of your supposedly "clear to all" (there's your John Howard-like propensity for claiming to speak for all again) chronology:

3. is false. I simply decided the comment demonstrated you were a joke and that you should be hammered on it (as I do likewise with similar points and other jokers) until you either fessed up to your error or else were driven to do something really stupid (like violating ezboard rules while quoting a private email). You are now continuing to repeat the comment in the failed belief that it is hurtful (so much for your opposition to what you consider "bullying") but it is just making you look an even bigger dunce than before.

4. is false. You are free to insult me if you accept my conditions - they only limit the nature of such insults.

5. Oooh, I care. Look, really, I do. ;)

6. Not at all. The second hoop was added as a result of you failing to remove defamatory material from ACCF. It has been there at other times too; there was just one overgenerous email where I forgot about it.

7. Complete non sequitur.

I have no mod powers here and I post here just fine, so where does this idea that I wouldn't post at ACCF on account of having no mod powers come from?

Of course there is an easy way for your theory to be tested! Accept and implement my conditions (one of which should be trivially easy to accept and the other of which is your legal obligation anyway) and I guarantee you I will post on ACCF - and do so civilly so long as other posters are civil towards me.

You know that I would do that, and that is why you won't agree to my conditions. Whatever invitations you might issue, you really do not want me there. You just don't want me not being there to look like it's your fault!

As for the rubbish at the end, once again we can see that Matthew Sweeney's commitment to civility collapses and he resorts to crude and irrelevantly personal trolling when errors in his arguments are exposed. What's amazing is that he actually imagines it is hurtful when the real reaction is "zzzzzzzzzz... oh no, a yappy little hand puppet is trying to flog me again!" Maybe it's not the real Matt and he just gets Arrogant-One to write his posts for him these days.

DeNovoMeme said...


Kevin Bonham said...

Is that all you've got left, Matt? I see you have been moderated! "snigger", indeed! :)

The Closet Grandmaster said...

Actually, he wasn't - as in not edited. The moderation tool on blogger only allows "publish" or "reject".

As I'm disappearing now for the next few hours, your posts guys will not appear til tomorrow morning.


DeNovoMeme said...

[another snigger]

Kevin Bonham said...

Sorry Matt, your second snigger is also wrong (you should have thought about it before jumping in like the tryhard you are on AR's understandable misunderstanding of my comment!) The moderation was not here but on ACCF where your breach of Ezboard rules in quoting my full email address was appreciably modded by your deputy MexicanOZ!

So right back at ya, yappy hand puppet:

SNIGGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

DeNovoMeme said...

Yep, an error on my part. My copy-all and paste included both our email addresses. I should have checked. A mistake/error/typo, whatever you call it, it was fixed by our ACCF system. Yet you are taking glee in such trivia. I s'pose that when you have been bitch slapped for being a cowardly bully too low to post on ACCF.

Oh dear, here I go again kiching your head in after I just stopped myself from a cruely to animals charge. Stuff it, have some more steel cap.

You say:
"There are actually two reasons.

The first is that Matthew has not yet apologised for irrelevant personal comments he made on his old site Uber Chess Jehad.
The second (and far more important) reason is that ACCF has not adopted proper procedures for removing defamatory material."

Dealing with the second reason first: Wheather or not ACCF proceedures meet wit your approval cannot be logically connected to your not posting at ACCF. There is no legal or moral danger for you. There is no practical reason that the rules of the site *prevents* you from posting, You are only using it as a contrived excuse to register a boycot protest.

Second the first reason: Boo hoo, I won't appologise. What a sook. No wonder kids bashed you up at school. No wonder readers take such delight in seeing you suffer third degree burns on this blog.

You are piss-weak. You ban me from Chess Chat, and then you ban anyone who quotes me on Chess Chat, yet you cannot even come to ACCF to defend yourself. You prefer to vomit it here where you can continue to be as vile as you are at Chess Chat - ACCF has standards of civility that you simply cannot uphold because you have only one layer - a cowardly bully through and through.

Libby said...

"As I'm disappearing now for the next few hours, your posts guys will not appear til tomorrow morning."

Could you just make them disappear altogether?

Far, far too much time on their hands. Think how many letters to potential sponsors or bid documents for the Australian Championship that could have been written in the time taken ;0)

The only good thing I guess, is that we're all so used to it that we can skip the content (yawn) and just have our own "snigger" at the way the comments multiply.


Kevin Bonham said...

Matt, given the incredible reluctance of your moderator to directly mod anything, even the tiniest morsel in that direction comes across as a quite severe criticism of your irresponsible actions indeed. I have resisted the temptation to forward you my spam load for the month.

Your supposed refutation of my main reason for not posting on ACCF is just a gigantic non sequitur. My reason for wanting ACCF to moderate defamatory material effectively is simply that I do not wish to be defamed anywhere, and I do not wish others who are doing good work to be defamed anywhere either. As I will not personally knowingly defame people, I am hardly going to debate in an environment where I exercise that restraint but others are not obliged to - especially not when several of them have form in that regard.

I was not "bashed up" at school, for your precious irrelevant information. I did endure years of irritating teasing/pushing/shoving/baiting and so on, but in all that time was only actually injured once (and that quite mildly - and after whacking a moronic thug with the sharp end of the metal ruler he kept stealing from me). In any case, while *you* may not have experienced any character development since childhood, some of us actually change, and assuming that we are now what we were is plainly silly.

Furthermore, your reply (completely disgusting stuff really coming from a parent!) is a flat-out endorsement of bullying of anyone who stands up to someone who does the wrong thing, and shows that if you really think that I'm a bully then you can only possibly mean it as a compliment.

But it's one I wouldn't take, because again you're missing the point, no matter how clearly it's explained to you.

So once again: the reason I want you to apologise is because I want you to improve as a person and take responsibility for your intellectual sloppiness. If it was a sook attack on my part there would be *hundreds* of insults from you over the years I could be far far sookier about than that, but I am not. It is not about your comment being offensive to me; it is about it being ludicrous, feeble and pathetic, and the purpose of the condition is to see whether you can lift yourself above your risible factual error and admit that you were wrong. :)

*remaining blather disregarded*

simon said...

Kevin and Matt to organise this years australian championship,I would pay to see that! haha!

Kevin Bonham said...

Furthermore, Matthew's quoting of an email from me has now been entirely removed by ezboard legal department! I hope this is a warning to Matthew that if inappropriate behaviour of this kind continues, I will continue to make such complaints, with the ultimate intention if necessary of having his site shut down.

The Closet Grandmaster said...

This comment was posted by Kevin Bonham. Apologies that it's in the wrong order.


Libby, alas your post is just another stock-standard internet-hippy post from you. If it makes you feel better writing it, then good for you, but the reality is that I spend plenty of time helping Australian chess voluntarily as it is. I am around the limit of what I currently wish to invest in this regard (to the point that I generally cannot take a new commitment on without resigning an existing one), many people are happy with my various contributions, and I am entitled to spend as much as I bloody well like of the rest of my time having fun at the expense of obstructive whingers who are contributing too little while complaining far too much.

You could have written a few words towards one of those letters yourself instead of wasting time writing that utterly pointless post - and I'm sure you would have actually written something far more useful than I would have done. Different people involved with chess administration have different skills and I, personally, am no good at buttering up sponsors or anything else marketing-related. Also I am not in any position to commit myself personally to serious involvement in any Aus Champs bid at this point of time - though I do hope to be involved in bringing some major event to Tasmania at some stage when my employment situation is settled enough to make a long-term commitment to doing so. There's no point one person getting crucially involved in such a thing if they end up having to walk away for employment reasons half-way through and there is nobody else to pass things onto.

Perhaps it would help you if you considered all my posts on this board to be a part of my life that is a separate recreational interest to chess. Which in a certain way is true; posting on online forums is one of my many recreational interests, and chess just happens to be the subject matter in this case. As far as I'm concerned, you're saying I should take time out of one legitimate interest that I enjoy, and spend more of it on another. Nobody involved with any of my other interests ever does that (generally people respect that I have many interests and do my best to find enough time for all of them) and I find the implied presumption involved quite extraordinary. It's almost how I would feel if you criticised me for going out to see bands when I could have just as easily sat at home each night whispering soothing electronic nothings into the inbox of Peter Parr in the hope of talking him into making a bid. So please Libby, no more hippy posts, I have quite had enough of them, thankyou! ;)


Libby said...

WOW. Now I know you have too much time on your hands to make such a long post refuting a comment that came with a ;0)

I know people on the ACF are busy little beavers. Utterly impossible to send us a simple invoice so we can wrap the accounts (properly) for the Aus Juniors.

Kevin Bonham said...

At my posting speed a "long" post like that actually doesn't take very long (maybe 15 minutes) and I figure if it saves me having to say the same things another ten times in future then it's worth it.

Accounts are not my department, for which I am thankful, having seen how much work is involved.

Libby said...

I mistakenly thought the ACF might actaully want a cheque both for the rating fees and (if we have an accurate figure for those) 50% of the tournament profit.

Feel free to tell me otherwise.


Kevin Bonham said...

Again, accounts are not my department. I know it sometimes takes a while for invoices to be sent but I suggest you take it up with the treasurer. If you've already done so via email I suggest try another medium, as Norm does use email but isn't the heaviest of email users.

Libby said...

I know you're not the accounts person.

Both myself and the event's Treasurer have made enquiries (more than once) but not to worry - we'll just go for best reasonable guess. Stuff doing it "proper."

It hadn't been my intention to raise this in a public domain - however frustrating the lack of response has been (although this technique has proved more effective in the past when seeking to actually get a response to something sent many weeks/months earlier through "proper" channels). Nor - actually - was I specifically having a go at you with my tongue-in-cheek comment earlier. That was more directed to Matt who is oft bemoaning the lack of action by others. I will admit to intending to needle you a little on the volume of to-and-fro responses that any ACCF reference generates.

I hardly think I was being a "hippy." I really don't bother reading what is even being said. It draws the eye however, when a average note on the blog draws one or two comments, but one like this can go from 5 to 10 to 40+. Seemingly overnight - however I'm not here every day so perhaps I overstate the rate at which things multiply.

Kevin Bonham said...

Libby, I've been advised that although you have not been sent an invoice, you have nonetheless been advised of the correct amount owing by another officebearer in mid-May - which would hopefully make the process of estimating you refer to somewhat easier.

Fifty posts is nothing - debates on chesschat have sometimes run to several hundred posts (in rare cases, a hundred will spring up in a 24 hour period), and on an electoral analysis blog I frequent a thread attracting only fifty posts would be considered a quiet day at the office, despite the specialised nature of the subject matter.

You can determine the rate at which things multiply for yourself quite easily by checking the date stamp below each post. This particular thread has been going for twelve days now. The most posts to it on any one day has been eight. The reason most threads here only attract one or two comments is obvious: most threads here are simply "newsy" in nature rather than contentious in a way that is likely to attract debate or spark a flamewar. A few (typically those concerning the NSWCA, ACCF or chesschat) tend to spark much longer exchanges because there are differences of opinion about the matters being discussed.

Oh, for anyone who may somehow (a) care and (b) have missed it, I have posted a lengthy discussion of freedom of speech issues (not) raised by my successful complaint to Ezboard at with followups on other posts. Although it is a minor matter I am particularly keen in this case that some of the nonsense put about on ACCF about all this not stay unmolested by the truth.

Libby said...

Thanks Kev :0)

An invoice arrived today. Yes we did have a figure from Bill (who, like you, is not responsible for accounts). Yes, it even tallied with our own estimate. But just like the ACF likes a "real" bid, we like the idea of a "real" invoice to go with a "real" set of accounts.

But along the way I have discovered a "real" lack of interest in doing things this way.

Guess that makes both of us happy that I won't be administering any more chess events!

Ever yours (as we bump over 50 "comments")


Anonymous said...

This Kevin-Matthew thing is a joke, right? Are these two different people or just one person having fun trolling by writing immature posts?

For example (and there are LOTS of examples on both sides), Matthew says Kevin was bashed up as a child which explains his behaviour now, and Kevin, instead of ignoring such a ridiculous insult and concentrating on only the relevant, writes a paragraph defending himself saying he wasn't bashed up at school, and ends it with his own equally childish insult. Come on, who over the age of 18 would even bother replying to those types of comments? [You were bashed. Was not. Were so. Was not. Were so. Was not. Were so.]

So, this must be a joke. I mean, what are the chances that two equally regressed adults(?)/teens(?) would end up on opposite sides and fighting like this? Can anyone vouch that they're two different people?

If this isn't a joke, then guys, ignore the other persons' insults [My dad can beat up your dad. Can not. Can too] as no-one cares about your snappy comebacks. What they do care about are the actual issues. How can they trust anything either of you say when you seem incapable of distinguishing between serious issues and silliness and respond to both with equal fervour.

Kevin you would have come across as the voice of reason against Matthew's posts if only you'd completely ignored silly name-calling and stuck to the relevant issues (and whether or not you were bashed at school is not a relevant issue). Matthew would have destroyed his own credibility with his own words. And Matthew, same to you. If you stay away from insults, Kevin will ramble away and dig his own hole.

Instead both of you respond the exact same way to each other [Whoever smelt it dwelt it. I'm rubber you're glue anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you. Nyah! Oh yeah, nyah-nyah! Snigger. Double snigger. Back at ya, ya yappy sock-puppet. I'm not a sock-puppet but you are. Am not. Are so. Am not...] siiighhhhhhh Reminds me of my Grade 4 teaching days.

--Drew, who lives in Canada and, if you're really two people, doesn't care about who is right and who is wrong and if these posts are an example of the way you approach a contentious issue, then I'm not going to bother reading anything either of you write.

The Closet Grandmaster said...

They really are two different people.


DeNovoMeme said...

Actually, Drew, I am a person, but he dose not qualify for human rights.


Kevin Bonham said...

Thanks for the advice Drew, but exactly where do I start yawning?

I'll start with this absolute non sequitur of yours: "How can they trust anything either of you say when you seem incapable of distinguishing between serious issues and silliness and respond to both with equal fervour." Obviously I respond seriously to serious issues and with flames to silly flaming (it's really not rocket science to tell the two apart), but in any case even if my responses to everything were completely serious/factual then that would make it *easier* to trust what I was saying.

Your claim that if Matthew sticks to issues I will "ramble away and dig my own hole" is really quite inane itself and rather destroys your credibility when it comes to a maturity flame against anyone else. Had you bothered to investigate other output by the two(!!) of us you would have soon found that when Matthew sticks to issues, I stick to issues too, and his claims end up debunked quite comprehensively. That's one reason why he doesn't stick to issues.

I debunked Matt's claims about me being "bashed up" at school because there are certain stereotypes about me that Matt has always liked to spread. I like to make it clear that these are untrue and that anyone wanting to dismiss my views so lightly will need to find something better. At other times I will ignore his irrelevant personal claims, but there's no reason I should have to.

I'm puzzled if you thought my comments after that were "childish" - because I'd hope you would agree with me both that parents should not endorse schoolyard bullying (even as a joke) and that that is quite a serious matter, and also that assuming people are the same as adults as they were as children is silly.

Actual issues - hmmm, the actual issue here is that the proprietor of a sad excuse for an online forum which has a regular posting audience of around eight posters has sent out messages asking his posters to misbehave themselves. Worth a note as a curiosity in a blog like this, sure, but an issue anyone actually *cares* about all that vitally? I doubt it.

Lastly, as for your threat to stop reading anything we write: if this is the poor level of comprehension and ability to tell serious points from flames you're going to display, go right ahead! No loss to me if you never read a word I write again! :)