Dear Members
Chess Chat is moving to Australian servers effective immediately. Please use the following web address when accessing Chess Chat in the future.
[Domain name deleted]
Basically the only change is adding a dot au at the end of the current address. As a result of the migration to Australian servers, some members may have to re-register but you should be able to do this in a mere 60 seconds. Also, all members who re-register will be entitled to the benefits of premium membership for 3 months for their inconvenience.
Sincerely Yours
Chess Chat
The whole thing is a lie. Chess Chat has not moved; the site remains exactly where it has always been. Just to be sure it is www.chesschat.org.
Now I don't know for a fact as to who exactly sent the false notice, but it seems to be a totally wasted attempt at misdirecting users to a rival web site. Wasted because it really won't take long for anyone to realise that they are, in fact, looking at a completely different bulletin board.
We have no particular allegiance to this or that site, but such practices as the false notice above deserve nothing but our total condemnation. Spamming and misdirection are a no-no.
13 comments:
What a complete tool!
I have investigated the matter in detail and found very strong evidence that the attacks were indeed perpetrated (either entirely or in large part) by Alex Toolsie, aka Arrogant-One, the founder of the OzChess forum. This evidence, with the exception (for now) of the specific email addresses and IP addresses involved, has been posted at http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=190458&postcount=4
I think Alex has raised some interesting points showing some of the conclusions you reached in your post aren't fully 100% Kevin.
Out of curiosity, is there any plan by chess chat to now register some ozchess domains?
Alex's replies have not undermined a single point that I made, but have simply shown his inability to understand the points made against him, and his willingness to straw-man the opposing case with his usual misrepresentations of what is being claimed.
I have continued to demolish his nonsensical arguments and bogus memories of past trolling glories in further posts to the same thread on Chesschat.
Well, that wasn't the way I read it.
In fact I thought a number of the points he made maybe didn't exonerate him but certainly cast doubt on many of your conclusions.
But nevertheless I am more interested in the other question, namely whether chess chat will now register some ozchess domains?
Nothing can or will exonerate him.
Which conclusions that I drew (please quote them) do you think specific points of his (please state which points) cast doubt upon, and why?
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.
Alright, if you want to be a fuckwit and try and harrass me and assume I am Alex then go right ahead. Did it ever occur to you that not everyone sees the world exactly as you do Kevin?
Yes, it does occur to me that some people don't see the word exactly the same as I do. Given the number of totally clueless people I encounter on a regular basis, it would be very hard to avoid noticing it. And sometimes, someone else considers a matter intelligently and in detail and reaches a different and sometimes even superior conclusion to mine. However, on the matter of Toolsie's guilt for the attacks on Chesschat, this is clearly quite impossible, as the evidence is more than overwhelming.
However, if someone cannot articulate their reasons for disagreeing on a specific issue then their opinion is unlikely to be anywhere near valid, so I don't care about it, and nor should anyone else. It also occurs to me, from experience, that some people sometimes fake or overstate disagreement with my views for the purposes of trolling. Which it is in this case, I don't know.
It is noteworthy that apart from these anonymous posts here, nobody apart from Toolsie himself has taken Toolsie's side on the issue of fact of whether he made the attacks since I posted the evidence proving far beyond reasonable doubt that he did. Possibly this post will provoke some lame attempt at closing of ranks from a few Ozchess diehards in this direction, but thus far the silence has been admirably deafening. Of course, Phil Donnelly abused the issue as a pretext for his usual flat old spray at various chesschatters who failed to take his side in his ongoing (in his head at least) beef with me, but he made no comment on Toolsie's guilt, most likely because even he knows which way the wind is blowing on that score.
I am not assuming you are or are not Alex (I don't know), but I am not surprised that someone else suspected that you were, and considered it well worth mentioning. If you are not him, perhaps you will think about the way you come across when making such anonymous posts. My point to you is simply that if you want credibility rather than suspicion when making such claims (with such a lack of evidence) and prying into chesschat business intentions, then you need to be upfront about who you are.
Indeed, after asking about our business intentions after I'd already declined to answer your question once, it is more than a little rich for you to be making up nonsense about harrassment!
So, where were we? Since you're big on asking questions repeatedly, we were here: I had asked you the following:
"Which conclusions that I drew (please quote them) do you think specific points of his (please state which points) cast doubt upon, and why?"
I await, with vivid interest, your reply. :)
"Of course, Phil Donnelly abused the issue as a pretext for his usual flat old spray at various chesschatters who failed to take his side in his ongoing (in his head at least) beef with me, but he made no comment on Toolsie's guilt, most likely because even he knows which way the wind is blowing on that score."
He made no comment on Alex' guilt or otherwise because he knows almost nothing about the facts of this incident.
Phil Donnelly
Phil Donnelly says that knowing almost nothing about the facts of a situation has caused him not to comment on it.
It has all too often not been an impedement to him doing so before.
spelling correction: impediment :)
Kevin, after misrepresenting Phil Donnelly, and getting caught out again, then tries to respond to Phil's clarification with simply abusiveness! Astonishing, or it should be, but we all know Kevin Bonham's history too well by now.
Kevin, here are some facts for you:
1.) Phil has done far more for chess in Burnie than you;
2.) Phil has done far more for chess in Tasmania than you; and
3.) Phil Donnelly has far more credibility and integrity than yourself.
That's something to think about the next time you are about to misrepresent people.
Best
AO
Alex, you are also no stranger to commenting on situations you know nothing about - indeed you seldom seem to comment on anything else - and in view of Phil's past history of public comment (including his recent empty personal slurs on your forum) I am standing by my comments on Phil's motives as a legitimate and in my view likely hypothesis - even if Phil now rushes to your defence on the issue of your guilt for your proven attacks on chesschat (which he so far hasn't done).
Indeed if you had, for once in your wasted life, paid attention, you would notice that far from misrepresenting the content of Phil's comments, I summarised them accurately by pointing out that he had not discussed your evident guilt. I then speculated as to why that was the case.
Concerning your three claimed "facts" (I strongly advise you to never again use this word to describe *anything* said by yourself) :
1) is true (on balance) - however Phil has been one of several who have worked for chess in Burnie over many years and should not be given too large a slice of the credit. It is also irrelevant given that I do not live in Burnie, and given that what contribution Phil has or has not made is irrelevant to the issue of the meaning of his comments on this matter.
2) is unsubstantiated, and would probably be found to be false by most if not all relevant objective measures - and in any case you would know nothing about it anyway. It is also irrelevant in any case for the second reason given in replying to 1).
3) is utter bollocks typical of a blatant troll (yourself) who has absolute zero of either.
And as for that "Best" at the end, I suppose that really is the "Best" you are capable of - but that just underlines what a pathetic online poster you are.
Post a Comment