By the way, it has been suggested to me that you are probably Alex Toolsie. If this is not the case and you wish me to take your claims seriously then I strongly suggest that you explain who you are and why you are so persistently interested in a matter (the registration question you have now asked twice) that is none of the business of any random anonymous poster.
It should be noted that the suggestion mentioned by Dr Bonham was not made by TCG. This blog respects the anonymity and privacy of its readers and posters and we do not share IP addresses with other parties. In any case, it is not possible for me to pinpoint accurately IP addresses to specific users.
TCG does make the request that readers, when making a comment, maintain some degree of control on their emotions and finger tips.
13 comments:
I only check this Blog out about once a week, but no sooner than I had checked it out today, I find that Kevin is engaged in a new debacle claiming Rosario (The Closet Grandmaster) had 'suggested' to him that some anonymous poster was myself!
Rosario has denied this implication of Kevin's, thereby further undermining Kevin Bonham's credibility. But the question now arises, what extent will Kevin stoop to to try and claim that hydra's and anonymous posters are me?
I guess time will tell. In the meantime Kevin, please try to rebuild your damaged credibility by telling the truth for a change!
Best
AO
Also, I would like to commend The Closet Grandmaster on distancing himself from Kevin's implication/suggestion.
Naturally, I believe that those who post as anonymous posters have every right to their privacy, and am fully encouraged and reassured by Rosario's comments today that such privacy will be respected and maintained (contrary to Dr. Kevin Bonham's implication otherwise).
Best
AO
Mr Toolsie -
That is ridiculous. You've completely twisted mine and Bonham's words as well as the overall situation.
Just so we're all clear: I did not believe that Bonham's post in any way implied that it was myself who made the suggestion regarding the anon poster's identity. I simply wrote this post to absolutely avoid anyone thinking just that.
Now I suggest that you be extremely careful with your next post because, too bad for you, the sequence of your emails to myself and their messages are way heavily on my side.
- TCG
Rosario Posted:
I did not believe that Bonham's post in any way implied that it was myself who made the suggestion regarding the anon poster's identity.
I see your point and completely apologise to you for the confusion I caused Rosario.
I never meant to suggest that you agreed with my view 'that Kevin had implied you were the suggestor'. I was too loose with my words there, and am sorry about that.
My point was only that others might have construed his post as I did, that the suggestor was a person 'in the know' so to speak, or otherwise associated with TCG.
And you have now cleared that up for everyone's benefit. Thank you,
Best
AO
Yes, just for the record, the person who suggested that Toolsie was probably the author of the anon posts in question wasn't AR. If I'd even anticipated that anyone would falsely claim I'd suggested AR was the source of the speculation in question, I would have made it clear that he wasn't in my initial post.
Of course, as usual, all Toolsie's baseless attacks on my credibility and truthfulness are completely undone by the fictitious nature of his basic factual claims. He would be better off repairing his own credibility (if he had any to begin with), but it would take him most of the rest of his life to do so.
Speculation that suspicious anonymous posters might be Toolsie is hardly stooping given that Toolsie has signed up at least 48 known or suspected (in several cases known) hydras on chesschat, and has even (very belatedly) publicly admitted to having hydras there recently.
Alex Toolsie's claimed support for privacy is completely laughable given that just today, on his own site, he offered Matthew Sweeney permission to republish an email from me, even though he knows that I had previously asserted the privacy of that email by having the owners of Sweeney's now-dormant ACCF forum remove it when Sweeney published it before.
Kev Baby,
1. You were so owned by me when I outed you as a fibber on ACCF. You slander me in public and say different things in private. You were so owed that you had to call the legals to save your ugly mug.
2. You said elsewhere, "Given the number of totally clueless people I encounter on a regular basis, ..." Tell us the approximate number (or rate) of "clueless" and then out them as your prey. Now, toughen up and name names, you two faced bully boy. Won't do it? You are by far the most arrogant little back stabber I have ever had the misfortune to have crossed paths with. I may not be saintly and far from perfect, but you aren't fit to wipe my shoes.
Kevin Bonham Stated:
"Alex ... offered Matthew Sweeney permission to republish an email from me, even though he knows that I had previously asserted the privacy of that email by having the owners of Sweeney's now-dormant ACCF forum remove it when Sweeney published it before.
You are a complete knuckle head Kevin. The substance of that email has itself been revealed by YOU on TCG ages ago! Can't have it both ways mate ... unless your name is Howard.
Also, I do not for a moment believe that your being bullied at school by a thug with a metal ruler gives you the right to now be a bully on Chess Chat.
Best,
AO
ps- Matt is right, he completely owned you in that debate :)
Matt, you were actually eventually the one "owned" (to quote your personally anachronistic tryhard-cool terminology) when I had your shameful and petulant behaviour struck down by EZBoard Legal, an action that seemed to cause you no end of rage that I note with some amusement continues to this day. I was actually surprised and pleased how effective the complaint was; I was initially only expecting them to remove my email address.
And we have been through this before - you did not succeed in outing me as anything, as the email you quoted had been superceded by a later one, and hence was irrelevant to your claim. You finally coughed up on your silly misrepresentations on 30 June 2007, by publishing my second email on your board. That email, of course, vindicated my claim concerning the facts of the matter (that I had two *current* conditions for joining your manure-heap, not one as had very briefly been the case), that you had unsuccessfully tried to expose as a fib. A longer account of this riveting saga (for those who really care!) may be found at http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=159248&postcount=144
Oh, and as for total cluelessness, the approximate number of very clueless people I encounter on a regular basis in all walks of life combined would surely be a few if not several dozen, and to be certain I had missed none from the list could take me hours! I have to go out shortly so I've only got time to list two right now (and what a worthy two they are): Alex Toolsie and Matthew Sweeney!
Once we have *all* agreed that those two are indeed extremely clueless, we can move onto the next level of Matt's exciting new game!
As for whether I am fit to wipe your shoes, Matt, you are so far below me it would do me an injury to even try to reach down to your head.
The ACF Vice President Kevin Bonham says: I have to go out shortly so I've only got time to list two right now ... Alex Toolsie and Matthew Sweeney ...
those two are indeed extremely clueless.
DNM: Good on ya Kev. You are the kind of bridge building diplomat Australian chess needs. Keep up the good work mate. Now, how about you add a half dozen more names to the list. Lets see you give us the full strength Kev-O-Spray. Someone with your level of hyperhubris to say "Given the number of totally clueless people I encounter on a regular basis, ..." ought to name names other than AO and me. Come on, sharpen your pencil, go for it.
Of course, I know who you think are clueless, so if you don't name them, I might have to name them for you. Then you can explain to them why you think that they are clueless and why you are such a back stabber.
AO, while I have certainly discussed the substance of the superceded email you refer to, that is not the same thing as giving someone else permission to quote it verbatim while falsely representing it as current.
Your fascination with the metal-ruler anecdote is quite amazing, but you still can't get the basic facts of the situation right even despite me PMing them to you. You're like a very dumb little yappy dog with a very old bone over this one. Your cluelessness about virtually everything you discuss is such that if you said someone owned me in a debate, everyone knows it is the other way around. So why do you bother further making me look good?
Matt, if you want to play this silly game you have to play it by the rules! The rules are that when everyone (sincerely, irrevocably and for the permanent record of course) agrees the two people I have named are totally clueless, then I name two more. You see, if you're going to invoke your stupid "name names" ritual in a situation where no-one's reputation is actually being personally tarnished by my comments (after all, who doesn't encounter their fair share of clueless people on a regular basis?) then I get to determine how we do it. If you don't like that, don't play. Or if you want to name some for me, go right ahead, but if you get any wrong you will be sent to the corner of the room for the rest of the day, and we will find a little tinfoil hat for you to wear.
Once again you use this pointless trolling tactic of mentioning my position even though all my comments are made in a personal capacity only unless stated otherwise and everyone knows that. It's totally harmless, no one who matters cares, so I don't know why you bother ... but at least you have shown more persistence with that, useless as it is, than you have with many other things.
As for bridge-building diplomacy, if either you or Toolsie want any bridges to be built to you, you have a heck of a lot of cleaning up and apologising for your act to do first.
As for "back-stabber", I'm puzzled at what on earth (bar desperation) would make you think that label would stick when I am continually upfront about my views about jokes like you and Toolsie (so much so that you try to flame me for being undiplomatic - make up your mind!)
I could point out how much "back-stabbing" I could have very easily inflicted on you but haven't, except that given your fondness for trolling you would probably be stupid enough to try to interpret that as a threat.
Matt,
Is it the case that Kevin said things in this mysterious email that were directly at odds with comments he has made publicly? Uh oh, no doubt Kevin desperately seeks to surpress publication of this email!
Best
AO
ACF VP KB: You see, if you're going to invoke your stupid "name names" ritual in a situation where no-one's reputation is actually being personally tarnished by my comments …
DNM: Actually I don’t really won’t you to name names do I. I am, however, using your own words to show what a hubristic elitist (pseudo) intellectual-bully-boy you really are. With your arrogant Narcissistic personality, naming names would be a cinch – you would merely toss in the local telephone book.
ACF VP KB: Once again you use this pointless trolling tactic of mentioning my position even though all my comments are made in a personal capacity only unless stated otherwise and everyone knows that.
DNM: You simply don’t get it, Mr ACF Vice President. You have ***NO*** personal liberty to publicly slag off people when you hold office. You have a 100% proven inability to behave in a manner inappropriate for a person holding office.
ACF VP KB: As for bridge-building diplomacy, [if you] want any bridges to be built to you, you have a heck of a lot of cleaning up and apologising for your act to do first.
DNM: Not to you or Gletsos – and you know it.
ACF VP KB: I could point out how much "back-stabbing" I could have very easily inflicted on you but haven't, except that given your fondness for trolling you would probably be stupid enough to try to interpret that as a threat.
DNM: That is a hopelessly hackneyed attempt at preemptive defense and thus, it remains a patently transparent threat. Try it and you will find that your reputation can fall even lower than its present level, that of an on-line prima donna thug.
Alex, of course it isn't the case, but I doubt that will stop you from continuing to make false statements about this as you do about pretty much everything else we discuss. I sent Matt an email at a particular point saying I was willing to join his pointless online cesspool (quite why I was willing to join it at the time I don't recall) if he accepted one condition. He rejected that condition and four days later I decided to amend the offer to require two conditions. Had he accepted the first offer I would of course have been bound to join his site on only that condition, but it happens that he did not do that.
Sweeney trots out the usual stale cliches. In many walks of life I am fortunate to meet and work with some remarkably cluey individuals, so I certainly don't think everyone around me is clueless. Looks like now that he realises he loses his stupid "names" game if he plays it, he just doesn't want to play it any more.
Matthew writes: "You have a 100% proven inability to behave in a manner inappropriate for a person holding office." He was so busy trolling he failed to notice that his use of a double negative had mistakenly resulted in a true statement! :)
I most certainly do have the liberty to make the comments I do in a personal capacity, as there is neither any actual restraint, nor any valid argument for a para-moral one, on me doing so. Matthew himself had no compunctions about carrying on in pretty much his usual fashion online while at the same time occupying an ACF position in late 2003; I remember shadow-modding him for it several times. And, having been a long-standing and active incumbent of a range of positions in chess and other public life, I'm hardly going to take lessons on how I conduct myself from the sort of person who gets thrown off councils for missing meetings without apologising.
Matthew writes "Not to you or Gletsos – and you know it." This kind of tough talk where he blames the other side for his numerous defects as a public citizen is hardly compatible with his (doubtless spurious) interest in "bridge-building".
After trotting out all his usual broken-record cliches (back-stabbing, narcissism, bully-boy etc) all of which he's said a heap of times without making any of them stick, Matt's hardly one to say that an opposing tactic is "hackneyed", or at least, coming from him it must be a compliment!
As for Matt's claim of a threat, this is of course more tinfoil hat material from him, and further proves that his trolling responses are exactly of the sort I already mentioned. His logic's not too sharp either (it never was), since to argue that something being a failed preemptive defence would make it a threat, is just another clueless non sequitur.
Post a Comment