Wednesday, July 18, 2007

OzChess.com.au - New Forum

I don't believe it! What can I say? Another chess forum.

Alex T. (yeah, I have to call him that because he doesn't like his surname to be mentioned) has just opened for business with www.ozchess.com.au. Playing up to his online moniker, Arrogant-One, Mr. T calls his new site "the leading Australian Chess Discussion Forum". Leading what exactly, I've got no idea.

The site is now accepting registrations.

I wish Mr T and his mates well, all the best and all that, but I've got an itchy feeling that they'll just fall over themselves busily taking pot shots at their rivals in Chess Chat. I've got one question in mind right now: who will fire off the first flame and aimed at whom? This should be fun.

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

Chesschat has no rivals apart from the local asylum and the Werribee sewerage farm.

442 said...

Hopefully Alex hasnt set this site up just to be a place to flame Kevin,Bill and Howard.

Anonymous said...

Back to sleep on the couch 442.
One persons 'flame' is another persons 'good point'.

Anonymous said...

Your question is resolved.
Plenty of trolling in the chesschat shoutbox. But no flames. Possibly lacking bright sparks.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kevin Bonham said...

Gutless anon #4 fails to note that shoutbox remarks at Toolsie's expense were as a result of attempted advertising for ozchess (both in the shoutbox and on threads) by a new and now banned account called "John Morris". IP evidence strongly suggests this was yet another in the very long line of Alex Toolsie hydras - speaking of which, between four and nine of the site's first eleven members appear to be Mr Toolsie himself!

DeNovoMeme said...

ACF Vice President Kevin Bonham euphemises:
"... remarks at Toolsie's expense ..."

You are a disgrace. You openly approve of the ACF infilrated Chess Chat dog pack, savaging non-members. As far as any of us can see, you should resign your position on the ACF because you are a giving permission to bully. Not a good look for Australian chess.

Just go.

Kevin Bonham said...

Oh dear, looks like Matthew Sweeeney (denovomeme) wants to lose another flamewar. :)

Matthew asserts that Arrogant-One is a "non-member" of chesschat. In the form of his main account AO is actually a banned member (this situation being entirely of his own doing), but since being permanently banned he has signed up so many hydra accounts that it is very unlikely we have yet found and banned quite all of them. While banning what IP evidence (and the nature of the posts) suggests was his latest attempt to post while banned this week, I found and banned two other apparent AO hydras - the total of banned accounts known or believed to be him is now into dozens. Therefore it is not at all clear that he really is a "non-member". If he stayed away from the site and desisted from attempting to bait its members elsewhere then he could expect some protection, but if he engages with the site as a person who has been banned from it then what does he expect?

While Matthew's "bullying" cliche is, as usual, total garbage, Matthew Sweeney himself recently condoned schoolyard bullying on this very blog. On that basis, if Matthew believes his own silly advice he *must* resign from the administration of ACCF, and indeed from public life in general, *immediately*.

But Matthew, being the mindlessly blatant attack-dog troll that he is, has rarely been consistent before, so I shan't expect him to have the guts to start now.

DeNovoMeme said...

ACF Vice President Kevin Bonham (ACFVPKB) appears to be using his very tired system yet again. The system that does nothing more than see him crushed inside The Pedant’s Defence. Nobody with a normal understanding of English would draw a practical difference between “non-member” and “banned-member.” The outcome is the same for the person who is in fact a no-rights member.

Instead of sneering a person for successfully breaching the walls of the Coward’s City (CC), you ought to praise them for tenacity. But no, you heap shit on people where:
1. The evidence will be lost in the aether – in the shout box.
2. On Chess Chat where that person IS NOT PERMITTED to defend themselves.

Coward City – full of bullies full of cowards like you. Nope they never venture out to ACCF, nor will they venture to OZCHESS. You will not find me “condoning” schoolyard bullying, but I certainly can understand that an arrogant outcast gets bullied. Moreover we need only see your pedantic smartarsed 50-liners to see why a pugilist-punk might take to you with glee – and be cheered on by a bunch of usually decent normals.

Here is a reply deal for your demand: I will “resign from … public life in general, *immediately*,“ if you resign from ordinary life *immediately*.

Anonymous said...

ACFVPKB...lol...you been drinking acronym juice Matt?...

Seriously Matt,if someone violates a sites rules on a regular basis how can you expect them not to be banned?

If someone was violating your boards rules all the time,wouldnt you ban them?

DeNovoMeme said...

Anon: If someone was violating your boards rules all the time,wouldnt you ban them?

DNM: No.

Kevin Bonham said...

I can hardly resign from ordinary life when my life isn't "ordinary" to begin with, but I do intend to keep stealing Sweeney's oxygen for some time yet. Somebody has to, as he's not doing anything with it but huffing and puffing himself completely silly.

Of course what's really "very tired" is yet another case of Sweeney dishing out the pedantry card when his assertions have been shown to be not just trivially but substantially inaccurate. *Obviously* the difference between someone who has never engaged with a site and someone who has engaged with it, been deservedly banned, and continued to try to sign up is a large one that affects how they can expect to be treated.

The outcome is not even the same in a posting rights sense because someone who has never been a member still has the *right* to post should they wish to. Matthew can assert what he likes about an understanding of English but his own is questionable and he has no known qualifications or professional experience in the area.

It is Arrogant-One's fault that he is unable to defend himself on chesschat. If he wishes to have that right restored he is welcome to open discussions with the site about terms for his restoration, but given that he is not trusted after violating previous agreements, I would recommend he be required to pay a deposit for good behaviour over a specified period in order to rejoin. Matthew, however, can rejoin chesschat any time he pleases simply by contacting site staff (those who have not blocked him), asking to be readmitted and agreeing that he will abide by the site rules.

As for the shoutbox, no evidence is lost there. Although it is a cumbersome process it is possible for anyone to follow and find all shouts there that have not been deleted, right back to the start of the new shoutbox early last year.

Matt claims his comments don't "condone" bullying, but this is just an evasion. Perhaps he just doesn't realise how primitive and ridiculous his attitudes really are. It is very much like if he had written "I don't condone rape, but I can understand that any woman who walks confidently through a busy city without wearing a burqa gets treated like meat by some guy with an overactive sex drive, while usually decent normals stand around and cheer him on."

DeNovoMeme said...

You have over stepped the mark. You have trivialised the horrendous crime of rape by equating it with matterial in an internet flame war.

I will not be posting on this thread again. You are sickeningly insensitive and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Good bye.

Anonymous said...

In my opinion Bonham is not getting the better of Sweeney in these 'debates'. I now suspect why Sweeney was banned from 'Chesschat'.

Kevin Bonham said...

anonymous (11:45 am) - who cares less about your unsubstantiated, anonymous and probably not even sincerely held opinion?

Matthew - well if that shut up your babble, then it was hardly a wasted effort, but your analysis is inaccurate as usual. My analogy compares the attitude to rape of a certain well-known Australian political pariah, with your exactly parallel attitude towards physical schoolyard bullying. I am not trivialising anything - simply pointing out that your comments *are* as ridiculous as al-Hilali's. Although rape is far more serious than bullying, both are forms of physical assault that should not be treated lightly. Hopefully the dramatic nature of the comparison will cause you to reconsider your caveperson attitudes.

Alex said...

Kevin Bonham stated:

I would recommend he (Alex - Arrogant-One) be required to pay a deposit for good behaviour over a specified period in order to rejoin (Chess Chat).

Kevin

Thank you for your generous offer. I am not likely to make such offer or request re-admission to Chess Chat anytime soon however.

However, you are welcome to join OzChess if you wish. I am not the sort to let my personal dislike for your moderation thuggery on Chess Chat influence my policy of encouraging all new members to OzChess.

However, be warned Dr Bonham, on OzChess you will be required to defend your opinions and positions without a moderation button. Basically, the handicap matches shall cease to exist on OzChess.

Once the shoutbox is added to OzChess (this weekend) and the pgn chess viewer, likely this month, Chess Chat will be the technologically inferior chess bulletin board. Can we agree on that point?

It will take some time for OzChess to build membership numbers, but now - for the first time ever - they have somewhere with technological parity to go besides Chess Chat.

Regards

AO

Anonymous said...

Mr Bonham, my opinion is as important as your opinion whether you like it or not. My opinion IS sincerely held.
How can you state that my opinion is not sincerely held? Go and get stuffed!

Anonymous said...

Chesschat already has a PGN viewer and a shoutbox...how can it be the technological inferior of Ozchess?

Plus they also have an arcade section. lol.

Good luck with your board anyway Alex.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous

Once OzChess gets these 2 features it will be fully superior in every respect. It already operates on a later version of Jelsoft's VBulletin and therefore has built in features that Chess Chat just doesn't have (ie. When quoting another user there is a direct link to the post being quoted) because it is an older model. Also, OzChess has 3 skins to choose from, whereas Chess Chat simply uses the default skin.

Which skin do you like best?

AO

Kevin Bonham said...

anonymous (9:08pm, assuming you are even the same one I replied to earlier), the answer to the question "How can you state that my opinion is not sincerely held?" is: actually I said "probably not even sincerely held", but thanks for confirming my suspicions. You're anonymous, and you don't substantiate your arguments - therefore I can say whatever I like in reply, because you have no reputation to damage and no displayed debating standards I could possibly fail to meet. Get a name and get some evidence or remain irrelevant and an easy target, whatever you may pretend otherwise.

Alex, I've never had the slightest problem defending my views in debate without need to resort to moderation. Moderation tends to arise when trolls become less interested in actual debate (mainly because they are losing it) and more interested in swearing, defaming, posting while banned and other such silly behaviour.

You can twiddle yourself silly about your board having some cosmetics and trivial upgrades chesschat hasn't bothered adding, but unless you get a large member (as distinct from hydra) base who are posting actively, it all means nothing. The ease of signing up will surely bring your site more "members" (and perhaps even more real members!) than ACCF but it takes more than that to run a large and successful chess forum.

And as for your comment on ACCF that I must be regretting provoking you into doing this, I'm rather too busy laughing at you spending hundreds of dollars constructing a new place where we can laugh at your argumentative incompetence.

Anonymous said...

Dear Kevin

Thank you for expressing your views. If I may I will briefly address them.

Firstly, only the naive would think that OzChess would instantly have a huge membership numbers. These things build up over time, your experience on Chess Chat (CC)demonstrates that. While I am sure some hydra's will occur, it is really unnecessary as I allow even unregistered posters to post on OzChess.

Secondly, I suspect you are frightened by the arrival of a new Australian chess site. So scared in fact that you banned the web address www.ozchess.com.au from being typed in CC without being cencored. Obviously this is to prevent the flow of chess posters currently on CC coming to OzChess and discovering the site.

No worries there mate, the word is going to get out and there is little you can do to stop that.

Thirdly, you state that you are laughing at the expense to create OzChess. Did you laugh at Karthick when he spent several times what I did in creating CC? Good sites cost money, and its a labour of love so to speak, so I am happy to have spent it.

I do not, however, want to see the flame wars that CC is famous for spilling over into OzChess.

Just as ACCF had standards of decency and respectfulness towards fellow posters, so to shall OzChess.

I wish you and CC well Kevin.

Regards,

AO

Kevin Bonham said...

Alex, don't ever take up psychology. We banned the word "ozchess" from chesschat to make it more difficult for you to effectively spam for it. As our site had already been subject to hack attempts from IPs matching those used by you, and to a 95-post flood attack the content of which was a dead giveaway (not to mention the numerous accounts known or suspected of being you and started since you were banned, and you reneging on agreements you made with the site) we simply do not trust you. Had you regained or even kept our trust from the start you would not be in this position.

The existence of your forum becoming known doesn't worry me, indeed if a chesschatter PMs me asking for directions to the site I will give them - I did the same re ACCF. However I don't believe it's appropriate for any reputable forum or body to promote your site unless there is demonstrated evidence of adequate moderation, and so far your approach to that matter remains a total mystery.

You say "These things build up over time, your experience on Chess Chat (CC)demonstrates that."

Once again you are clueless about the history of Chess Chat. In its current incarnation (with posters from the old ACF board) it did not have to build up over time as it inherited the membership of a previous forum at the start of 2004. It has built since, but did not have to build from nothing.

I have also seen many small forums start with enthusiasm then over time gradually lose critical mass and collapse away to become nothing but a receptacle for spam. The Australian chess online community is quite a large one and you *should* be able to survive with even a tiny proportion of that, but claims that ACCF would rival chesschat were hilarious failures and you shouldn't set your sights too high either. If you get 10% market share you'll be doing well, and I'm expecting you to have very little impact on our active membership numbers or post rates. Most likely ACCF will die off over time instead.

What Karthick has spent on chesschat is unknown to me and probably to you too, and doesn't concern me in the slightest. Chesschat is a highly successful forum, and is just one side of a site/business that isn't solely geared towards running a forum. It's unlikely yours will grow to anything like the same size unless it attracts stronger players and a wider range of administrators. People who wish to be there for any reason other than their reluctance or inability to post on chesschat will soon tire of the information vacuum and inconsistencies on the issue of "civility", as they did on ACCF where the regularly active posters can be counted on one's figures.

The comment "decency and respectfulness towards fellow posters" is amusing. Frankly, if your forum ever attracts even a semi-decent crowd then you won't be able to keep a lid on flaming with your current ease of admission, unless you start banning people in a fashion a zillion times harsher than ours. But in any case, the subtext is clearly that you intend ozchess to be, as you recognise ACCF is, a place where the usual suspects pay lip service to civility to others while doing little but troll and taunt those non-members who they do not like.

Anonymous said...

Tsk Tsk Kevin

You shouldn't accuse me of things without proof. Moreover, your own dishonesty in the the past has far surpassed any by myself. On this I think we should leave it at agreeing to disagree or we'll be here all day.

Thanks for the history recap of Chess Chat. Obviously Chess Chat was Australia's first genuine chess forum. As such it had no competition and was likely to grow unhampered.

Your prediction of taking 10% of the 'market share' is amusing. You should know that of all Australian chess players, less than 5% of them go to chess bulletins and even less make any posts. Of that 5%, about 85% post on Chess Chat, the remaining 15% on ACCF - which I agree with you is now likely to die off, and shift to OzChess.

In about a year I suspect that of the 5%, it will be approximately equally split between OzChess and Chess Chat.

It may even be the case that Karthick decides to save the expense of running Chess Chat with a technologically superior board already operating which is popular with Australian chess players, and thus just closes down Chess Chat.

He obviously isn't inclined to spend any money upgrading to the latest version of VBulletin. I think its fair to say that he's taken Chess Chat as far as he is prepared to, at least financially.

This week my shoutbox will be up and running and a programmer is currently working on a Chess Viewer. I note that neither you nor Karthick have offered to share the code for Chess Chat's pgn viewer (thus lending credence to my assertion that you are scared of the new site's emergence).

Also, very soon the SEO's will be set thereby opening another viable membership avenue.

The least you could say so as not to look petty is that you wish OzChess well Kevin. But then again that would be dishonest, wouldn't it?

AO

Anonymous said...

Kevin said -> However I don't believe it's appropriate for any reputable forum or body to promote your site unless there is demonstrated evidence of adequate moderation.

Kevin, the ACF endorsed Chess Chat without it having a record of controlling a rough and rowdy crowd. Chess Chat was given a fair go. Give Ozchess a fair go. It would be nicer of you to be kind rather than to put it down and predict its failure.

Anonymous said...

Ozchess now has a shoutbox. This will allow new users to converse freely with one another, and will aid the OzChess community in discussing issues that are too trivial to post (ie. What did you do today Mr Bloggs?).

I will still, however, modify the box so that shouters names are bolded or highlighted, and that times of shouts will appear right away without having to click the shoutbox.

I think the shoutbox looks best with Aquateen skin, which might well become the load up skin in the future.

I would like to thank everyone, including well wishers, for their support. Building a national chess forum is no small task, but I hope my efforts will pay off for the benefit of the entire Australian chess community.

AO

ps- Some SEO's have now been set so that OzChess now shows up on Google and Yahoo searches.

Kevin Bonham said...

anonymous, I have no intention of cutting ozchess any slack at all while it is being used in the same way as ACCF to launch inaccurate personal attacks on people who don't post there, including by the administrator. Such rubbish started before I made one dismissive comment about the forum.

Your point about the ACF endorsing chesschat is irrelevant because the "rough and rowdy crowd" initially came from an ACF-controlled board, and the moderator who had done most of the controlling there was also serving as a mod in the early days of chesschat. There has been a continued tradition of careful moderation of legally dodgy material on chesschat that has not been apparent on some other sites.

Alex, you accused me of a bunch of things in your selection post on ACCF that were not only without proof but in some cases factually wrong (concerning which you lamely palmed the blame to your supposed source rather than apologise for not bothering to check your facts), so you're hardly one to get all moralistic and complain. But I see that hasn't stopped you.

Given that you reneged on agreements with Chesschat, no one who matters will take your unsubstantiated accusation of dishonesty seriously. It is just more of the silly vacuous troll-trash Australian chess is used to from you.

Again you are wrong when you say Chesschat was Australia's first genuine chess forum. The ACF ran a quite successful forum during 2003 - in its year of operation it attracted 9914 posts on 335 threads from 160 members, and its membership was donated to chesschat at the end of the year. (The ACF also ran forums before that, but they were deplorably low-tech ones.)

As for market share, ACCF does not have 15% at all - its number of real members who have posted is less than 5% of the same for chesschat, and many of those are or were dual citizens. Its market share by postcount is about 6%.

I would propose a sizeable bet concerning your ludicrous expectation of an equal share with chesschat in about a year (on the assumption that both remain operational), except that there is nothing to stop you signing up fake accounts to ozchess and posting rubbish posts with them to meet whatever standard of measurement was agreed on, and also (based on your reneging on agreements with chesschat) no reason to believe you'd pay up when you lost. However, I'll very likely be rubbing your nose in this claim one year from now.

Your assumption concerning why Karthick has not yet bothered with the later minor upgrade is unsubstantiated and incorrect. The fact that no-one has offered to give you the code for nothing indicates nothing about fear and everything about you being a silly troll who chesschat owes no favours to.

I will wish ozchess well *if* it is moderated correctly and is not used by the administrator and his trolly pals as a place to launch nonsensical personal attacks from - but not before.

By the way, it was showing on Google several days ago.

Anonymous said...

By the way, it was showing on Google several days ago.

Yep, you enter it into google and click on the cache link to see that as of the 22nd of July it has a woeful membership of 16 and a pitiful post count of 45.

So much for it posing any problems for ChessChat ... :)

Anonymous said...

Rome wasn't built in a day. The new board seems to be growing.

Anonymous said...

Kevin Kevin Kevin

My dear Kevin. I will brielfy respond to your epileptic fit.

For starters, there have not been any personal attacks on anybody. Everything in the post you complain of was accurate:

a.) I spoke to Solomon
b.) I asked him who was on the selectors committee
c.) He told me you were
d.) I relied on this information
e.) You claim he was wrong and therefore that I should apologise for relying on the information provided.

I would agree with you IF, and please pay attention to that word (IF), I had not been upfront and transparent in naming my source from the outset.

As for your comparisons, get real. OzChess is a baby compared to Chess Chat. Only a gullible individual would think it would already have the membership base that Chess Chat has.

I suspect your little diatribe has something to do with you getting bashed up at school by that kid you spoke of with the metal ruler.

Kevin, I am not that kid. Please direct your aggression elsewhere.

Regards

AO

Kevin Bonham said...

Ah, now Alex resorts to some disingeneous twaddle about there being "no personal attacks" in his trolling post about selections on ozchess - anyone who bothered reading the original version of the post could see through that for themselves quite without my help.

On the basis of Alex's extreme unreliability on issues of fact in the past I do not believe that his account of his purported conversation with Stephen Solomon is accurate. That he names his purported source is immaterial. Indeed on account of his unreliability on issues of fact, I am not at all convinced that Solomon himself made an incorrect comment to the effect that I was a selector (not that this would be a big deal if he had as it was up to Alex to check it before repeating it publicly as part of his silly beatup).

Alex writes "Only a gullible individual would think [ozchess] would already have the membership base that Chess Chat has." Only a *really* gullible individual would think that comment was in any way relevant to anything I had said, so this is just a silly strawman from Alex, who again shows he is not paying attention to what is being said.

It is also of note that Alex has edited his selections post on receipt of corrections without (at present) leaving any sign that it has been edited. The making of corrections is commendable, the failure to note the editing is not, and the corrected post is still full of rubbish. Especially, the most hilarious howler (the inclusion of Chapman, who was not even an applicant for selection, in the list of people I am supposed to apologise to) remains. Alex's cluelessness on the issue is so extreme that he seems to believe the selectors invite people to go, when actually they choose from among those who have applied for a specific event.

What's even more amusing is that Alex's original personal attack was premised on his false assumption (which he blames Solomon for) that I was a selector. But Alex seems too clueless about the selection process to know that even had I been a selector I would not have necessarily been responsible for any particular selection anyway. The selections are based on a sum of rankings individually and usually privately supplied by each of the selectors.

Remaining lame personal drivel by Alex ignored.

Anonymous said...

Kevin stated:

"That he names his purported source is immaterial. Indeed on account of his unreliability on issues of fact, I am not at all convinced that Solomon himself made an incorrect comment to the effect that I was a selector."

Feel free to call him and ask him then. He said to me words along the lines of I think that Kevin Bonham guy from Tasmania.

As for the 'edit' you speak of, that wasn't an edit at all. It was merely an update.

The fact that selectors don't readily contact titled players to ask them to represent their country is something to be regretted. If they can't get off their tuff's and call the handful of titled players to ask them if they'd like to be considered, then they have fundamentally failed to perform their duties.

Thats all I am prepared to say on this topic. If you want to further discuss this Kevin, create an account on OzChess and come prepared to defend your views (without a moderator button for a change).

Regards

AO

The Closet Grandmaster said...

Are you serious? You really want the selectors to apologise for their decision?

- TCG

Kevin Bonham said...

Alex, I'm definitely not going to waste an International Master's time on verification of one of your beatups given your past abysmal record when it comes to issues of fact. How about if you want me (or anyone else) to accept your claim about what Solomon said, you get him to contact me? Not that it matters one iota as, once again, the onus was on you to verify before stupidly shooting your mouth off.

Who cares less whether you call it an edit or an update (nearly all people with any experience of forums would call it an edit); you still should have explicitly noted, eg by use of [EDIT] (or if you must, [UPDATE]) , that your post had been altered since its original unfortunate and undeserved publication.

If you think selectors should contact titled players to ask them to play for their country then put a formal proposal to the ACF for appropriate and stated by-law revisions to that effect. However, it definitely won't get up. The reason we have an application process rather than an invitation process is that much time and effort is wasted by all if the selectors have to rank prospective candidates several of whom don't actually have the slightest interest in going. Knowing who at least *might* go makes the process much easier for players and selectors alike. This should be obvious even to you.

I hope that is indeed all you have to say on the topic because there's been far too much of the usual clueless naive fact-averse bulldust from you as it is, and your input to serious Australian chess issues is virtually always useless at best. I don't have a moderator button on here, in case you haven't noticed. This is neutral ground, but I can flog clowns like you and Sweeney here just as easily as I do on chesschat.

Anonymous said...

With all good intentions Kevin I advise you to stop talking to people who have a different opinion to you. If you want to let all of us know how hard your job is you could stop spending time correcting this and that and get a real job or do some work for chess that will improve it. Save doing that you should stop being sucked into arguments that make you look childish.

Kevin Bonham said...

Anonymous: with all good intentions I advise you to get a name, get a clue or shut up. Your unsubstantiated, unintelligent criticism carries no weight whatsoever and is really a very dreary and inane form of pointless mindless trolling. I have no idea what the hell you are babbling about when you say "If you want to let all of us know how hard your job is" [etc] as I have not done anything of the sort here - I have simply factually disposed of some more silly nonsense spouted by Alex Toolsie. "Get a real job" is the kind of rubbish one expects from dimwitted right-wing shockjock fans, not hopefully vaguely intelligent chessplayers. (FYI I am currently in more or less fulltime employment, so you'd better find a new stereotype fast.) Do I know you from chesschat, and if so why are you too gutless to own up to exactly which silly whinger you are?

DeNovoMeme said...

Kevin the way you are talking is the same as that other net warrier Sweeney. You say

to get a name

get a clue

shut up.

unsubstantiated, unintelligent criticism

no weight whatsoever

very dreary and inane

pointless mindless trolling

you are babbling

silly nonsense spouted

kind of rubbish

dimwitted right-wing shockjock fans

too gutless

silly whinger you are


Kevin, you ask am I from chesschat. No I am not because it is a place too full of angry individuals saying the same things others you have said here to me.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

"With all good intentions Kevin I advise you to stop talking to people who have a different opinion to you."

Talking? I thought he was just being abusive like usual. Perhaps there is some truth to the old adage that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I will not engage Kevin on this issue anymore.

AO

Kevin Bonham said...

Aaaah look, here's Sweeney back on the thread after previously claiming "I will not be posting on this thread again." Once again, no resolve, no staying power, no consistency ... all among the many reasons why I shan't be losing any sleep over his recent declaration of personal animosity on ACCF. He's probably forgotten that hilarious little piece of bluster already.

Matt tries to suggest I am using similar expressions to himself. Actually there are many expressions in that list that I have never seen him use anything like, probably because he would blow away in a cloud of hypocritical dust the moment he tried. However I'll gladly plead guilty to ripping off Matt's approach to dealing with gutless anonymous trolls, as it is not only effective (fools must be right now and then by chance) but highlights the fact that many of the gutless anons are actually on his "side". Matt's comments about "angry individuals" are hilarious when he and firegoat7 are far ahead of anyone else as the angstiest personas in the Aussie online chess scene.

AO also seems to be having trouble disengaging; when he says he won't engage "on this issue anymore", which issue does he mean by that? Please clarify so I can file it with his other broken promises, oh, and by the way, how's the game viewer coming along?

DeNovoMeme said...

Yes I said good bye a week ago. I was really disgusted with your drawing an analogy between gang rape and someone pushing yourself over at school. I simply did not want to be on the same thread as that piece of crass and ugly comment - and I still don't much like it. However, I got sick of watching you rip into people in the way you expect me not to. Far from me blowing away in a clowd of hypocritical dust, you are an atomisiing miasma misathropy.

Anonymous said...

Kevin Bonham asked:

How's the game viewer coming along?

Kevin,

I am glad you asked. My choices were to:

a.) Pay a programmer to create it;

or

b.) Get a friend of mine to create it for free, albeit slowly as he is soon moving to Canberra and has some house moving issues which are going to take priority at present.

I elected for option b.)

So unfortuately, until that time you will be stuck using the one Karthick created for you.

Best Regards,

AO

Kevin Bonham said...

Matt, you would be better off targeting your inconsistently apparent capacity for disgust at yourself as a parent for having made comments effectively endorsing physical bullying and the cheering-on thereof. While such bullying is obviously not generally as extreme as rape, and was merely a significant nuisance in my case, its effects on some victims are very severe, indeed even (eg the link between bullying and teenage depression/suicidality) potentially fatal. All forms of physical assualt motivated by inadequate pretexts are disgusting, and if it takes a comparison with the comments of al-Hilali to get that through your skull then I make no apologies for doing so.

Matthew, I have no time or respect at all for either your spurious claims of online bullying, or comments that effectively endorse its far more serious offline physical equivalent. Expect me to continue comparing you to al-Hilali if you continue to refer to bullying (real or imaginary) in any way whatsoever, until you get a clue about how to do so in a way that is responsible, accurate and consistent.

As for "watching you rip into people in the way you expect me not to.", this is just more unsubstantiated trolling. Feel free at any stage to quote comments from me showing what ways I expect you to not rip into people, that even appear to be comparable to this thread. The only people I've ripped into here were two trolls who had a go at me and one or more (maybe) anonymous whingers who did likewise.

Kevin Bonham said...

Actually AO, the game viewer on chesschat is excellent and I'll be impressed if yours (if it ever exists) is anywhere near as good. People are far more interested in that than in you blathering yourself silly about how many skins they can view the forum through and how high a place you can get on Google.

Option b) sounds like a how-long-is-a-piece-of-string option. Your site would have been in a much stronger position had you deferred going live until you had a viewer.

Anonymous said...

Kevin Bonham said:

"While such bullying is obviously not generally as extreme as rape, and was merely a significant nuisance in my case, its effects on some victims are very severe, indeed even potentially fatal."

Translated into English this means that the school kid who used a metal ruler to bash Kevin up really, really made Kevin very angry. Consequently Kevin withdrew into a new identity, a Goth identity, in order to escape this abuse and become abusive himself.

AO

Anonymous said...

Kevin

I apologize for my last post above. The fact that you were bullied at school is nothing for me to make light of. I am sorry.

AO

Kevin Bonham said...

Funny thing about all this is that AO's attention span has wandered again - the "metal ruler" was actually (and still is) mine, and I used it to hit the person who tried to steal it from me (he never used it on me at all). In any case it was a very minor portion of my schoolyard experience with brain-damaged imbeciles, one that was only mentioned passingly in another thread as the only example in which I actually ended up getting injured.

Nonetheless I shall accept AO's apology on the condition that nothing like his previous comments is ever repeated by him again.