Page 51 of 52 FirstFirst ... 4149505152 LastLast
Results 751 to 765 of 776

Thread: Bullying on Chess Chat

  1. | #751
    Member Jasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    While you certainly have zero brain activity it cannot be correctly said that you are dead.

    Even if you once faked suicide in a failed attempt to incite people to blame me for a real world death - an action almost as contemptible as your constant sick Adolf-apologism.

    And you can't use "Stalin" as an insult while idolising Adolf. I'd take it as a compliment except that any favourable opinion of a sick individual like you is plainly worthless.
    Thank you.
    You make it patently clear that you have not the slightest objection to the veracity of the analogy.

  2. | #752
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasper View Post
    Thank you.
    You make it patently clear that you have not the slightest objection to the veracity of the analogy.
    You make it perfectly clear you're fifteen times stupider than I already said you were.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  3. | #753
    Siberian Chess Tiger Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    You make it perfectly clear you're fifteen times stupider than I already said you were.
    So you agree the analogy stands.
    "Don't let the snow get down the back of your pants" ~ SCT

  4. | #754
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom View Post
    So you agree the analogy stands.
    Of course I don't. Let me make this abundantly clear even to your stubbornly total absence of intellect. The following advice is permanent and uncountermandable: anyone who compares the banning of chess players from a forum where they had misbehaved to actual murder is a melodramatic twit. Their dishonour of the legacy of those murdered by Adolf and Stalin also marks them as a failed human being who should remove themselves from the internet for life for the good of all.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  5. | #755
    Siberian Chess Tiger Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hydrated View Post
    of course i don't. Let me make this abundantly clear even to your stubbornly total absence of intellect. The following advice is permanent and uncountermandable: Anyone who compares the banning of chess players from a forum where they had misbehaved to actual murder is a melodramatic twit. Their dishonour of the legacy of those murdered by adolf and stalin also marks them as a failed human being who should remove themselves from the internet for life for the good of all.


    That's why it is called an analogy!!

    as distinct from a mere comparison, you daft apeth.
    Last edited by Axiom; 13-03-18 at 11:06 PM.
    "Don't let the snow get down the back of your pants" ~ SCT

  6. | #756
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom View Post
    That's why it is called an analogy!!

    as distinct from a mere comparison,[idiocy snipped]
    You're the daft one here.

    analogy [..] 1 a way of explaining or clarifying something by comparing it to something else
    (Compact Oxford - my bold)

    Unfortunately all you've explained or clarified here is your own melodramatic idiocy. If I was really the Stalin of Australian chess I would have had you sent to a more serious gulag long ago. Clubs would have been compelled to provide information revealing your identity and you would have been life-banned from rated chess, sued for defamation, reported to the police for online identity theft and worse still outed by real name on Hawkwind fan forums as a serious embarrassment to the cause.

    I'd also have let Mr Eldritch know where you live.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  7. | #757
    Siberian Chess Tiger Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    You're the daft one here.

    analogy [..] 1 a way of explaining or clarifying something by comparing it to something else
    (Compact Oxford - my bold)
    Nice try bigboy but You're the daft one here. You purposefully omitted bolding "a way of explaining or clarifying something" Only to try and resurrect this by the following:
    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Unfortunately all you've explained or clarified here is your own melodramatic idiocy. If I was really the Stalin of Australian chess I would have had you sent to a more serious gulag long ago. Clubs would have been compelled to provide information revealing your identity and you would have been life-banned from rated chess, sued for defamation, reported to the police for online identity theft and worse still outed by real name on Hawkwind fan forums as a serious embarrassment to the cause.

    I'd also have let Mr Eldritch know where you live.
    Is not a disproportional number of deaths (life-bans) sufficient to make the analogy work?
    Would you prefer that i compare you to a serial killer revisiting the graves of his victims?
    "Don't let the snow get down the back of your pants" ~ SCT

  8. | #758
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom View Post
    Nice try bigboy but You're the daft one here.
    Might I suggest you wait until you get out of nappies before sarcastically calling others "bigboy"? Should only take you another couple of years at this rate.

    You purposefully omitted bolding "a way of explaining or clarifying something"
    Rubbish. I didn't even consider whether to bold it or not, because the only part that needed bolding was "comparing", to show that my previous use of "compare" was entirely appropriate. This is just the usual dumb Vaxiom game - when you've lost the argument, you just try to distract by moving it to something else.

    Is not a disproportional number of deaths (life-bans) sufficient to make the analogy work?
    No, you stupid little squeaking little baby, it is not. Firstly, the analogy is incapable of working on account of the vastly different scale of the items in question (life banning someone from a chess forum to murdering someone) making the analogy automatically ludicrous and offensive irrespective of the numbers and details involved. Indeed, no-one sane would consider someone comparable to Stalin if they, for example, tended to swat flies, yet fly swatting (i) actually ends the life of an invertebrate (ii) involves an arguably innocent victim (iii) involves a more intelligent being than the average Toolbox troll.

    Secondly, except in cases of legitimate defensive warfare and other even rarer scenarios nobody deserves to be murdered by the State. You cannot therefore talk about a disproportionate rate of State murder since any rate of State murder is disproportionate. But some people certainly richly deserve life-banning from a chess forum and were given more than enough chances to avoid that fate.

    Thirdly you cannot talk about a disproportionate rate of banning from a chess forum before comparing the numbers of posters on the forums and the number of problem posters. For instance, there are differing rates of arrests for crimes in different suburbs around a city, but that doesn't necessarily mean the cops in the high-arrest suburbs are overzealous. It is more likely there are simply more criminals in those suburbs.

    Would you prefer that i compare you to a serial killer revisiting the graves of his victims?
    Only if you conform with your own analogy by leaving the internet permanently. The correct analogy for you here is some kind of multiply disembodied zombie except that zombies look for brains while you run and cower from anything produced by one.

    If the "victims" shut up about me and shut up about the ACF (or at least got their facts right about it) I would have much less cause for these "revisits".
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  9. | #759
    Siberian Chess Tiger Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post

    Rubbish. I didn't even consider whether to bold it or not, because the only part that needed bolding was "comparing", to show that my previous use of "compare" was entirely appropriate. This is just the usual dumb Vaxiom game - when you've lost the argument, you just try to distract by moving it to something else.
    Look you obtuse twit, my reference to bolding was to highlight your attempted deflection trick.



    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    No, you stupid little squeaking little baby, it is not. Firstly, the analogy is incapable of working on account of the vastly different scale of the items in question (life banning someone from a chess forum to murdering someone) making the analogy automatically ludicrous and offensive irrespective of the numbers and details involved. Indeed, no-one sane would consider someone comparable to Stalin if they, for example, tended to swat flies, yet fly swatting (i) actually ends the life of an invertebrate (ii) involves an arguably innocent victim (iii) involves a more intelligent being than the average Toolbox troll.

    Secondly, except in cases of legitimate defensive warfare and other even rarer scenarios nobody deserves to be murdered by the State. You cannot therefore talk about a disproportionate rate of State murder since any rate of State murder is disproportionate. But some people certainly richly deserve life-banning from a chess forum and were given more than enough chances to avoid that fate.

    Thirdly you cannot talk about a disproportionate rate of banning from a chess forum before comparing the numbers of posters on the forums and the number of problem posters. For instance, there are differing rates of arrests for crimes in different suburbs around a city, but that doesn't necessarily mean the cops in the high-arrest suburbs are overzealous. It is more likely there are simply more criminals in those suburbs.



    .
    Again your attempt at deflection is transparent. My use of the word Disproportionate was as in disproportionate to the average/norm ie. Stalin killed far greater than the average and you life-banned far greater than the average.
    You're clutching at straws to suggest chesschat had a far higher than normal/average number of "criminals". Talk about a baseless self serving proposition! LOL
    "Don't let the snow get down the back of your pants" ~ SCT

  10. | #760
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing at Hobsons Bay chess club where the tournaments are the best value in the state!
    Posts
    3,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom View Post
    Look you obtuse twit, my reference to bolding was to highlight your attempted deflection trick.
    well said, and may I add, a crooked Stalinist fake who would rather believe his own lies then honestly discuss the truth.
    Ozchess died on the 7/4/2013- killed by Gatekeepers



  11. | #761
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom View Post
    Look you obtuse twit, my reference to bolding was to highlight your attempted deflection trick.
    There wasn't one, so now you're inventing deflection that didn't exist in order to deflect. I suggested that comparing banning misbehaving dolts to mass murder was offensive. You tried to get out of this by claiming an analogy was distinct from a "mere comparison". I pointed out that an analogy is a comparison by definition. That alone is sufficient for my point to stand.

    My use of the word Disproportionate was as in disproportionate to the average/norm ie. Stalin killed far greater than the average and you life-banned far greater than the average.
    And this again shows your cluelessness about anything to do with mathematics. You've presented no evidence that we "life-banned far greater than the average" taking into account numbers of posters on different forums and the time the forum has been going for. When I set you a challenge to show that you understood statistical significance in this regard you failed it spectacularly. It's just your baseless assertion.

    You're clutching at straws to suggest chesschat had a far higher than normal/average number of "criminals". Talk about a baseless self serving proposition! LOL
    Show me another chess forum that has as big a collection of deranged idiots determined to get themselves banned as the ones we banned then.

    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    well said, and may I add, a crooked Stalinist fake who would rather believe his own lies then honestly discuss the truth.
    Ipse dixit. You can't even apologise for making violence threats over the internet or wrongly banning someone on the false assumption they were me. You don't get to judge the moral character of other human beings since you are so bereft of it yourself. "Crooked" and "fake" from you are compliments.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  12. | #762
    Senior Member antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Byron Bay, NSW
    Posts
    4,398

    Default

    When FG was mod. how many did he bar over what period of time? What ratios?

  13. | #763
    Siberian Chess Tiger Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    There wasn't one, so now you're inventing deflection that didn't exist in order to deflect.
    Whether or not you realise you were deflecting is immaterial.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    I suggested that comparing banning misbehaving dolts to mass murder was offensive.
    Note again the weasel worded intellectual dishonesty here with the use of the word "banning" when clearly we're talking about life-banning (~death) which is central to the analogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    You tried to get out of this by claiming an analogy was distinct from a "mere comparison". I pointed out that an analogy is a comparison by definition.
    An analogy is quite distinct from a mere comparison as your provided definition clearly shows: ie."a way of explaining or clarifying something"
    !

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    That alone is sufficient for my point to stand.
    Clearly not.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    And this again shows your cluelessness about anything to do with mathematics. You've presented no evidence that we "life-banned far greater than the average" taking into account numbers of posters on different forums and the time the forum has been going for. When I set you a challenge to show that you understood statistical significance in this regard you failed it spectacularly. It's just your baseless assertion.
    My assertion is based on my research into similarly sized national online chess forums where i'm yet to find one that has life-banned more than one chess-playing member (as opposed to the random vandal)


    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Show me another chess forum that has as big a collection of deranged idiots determined to get themselves banned as the ones we banned then.
    Again you guiltily omit the critical words "Life-banned" instead reverting to self serving intellectually dishonesty by only using the word "banned".
    You are also setting an untestable challenge (ie. it is your concept of "deranged idiots determined to get themselves banned" at play here, not mine!)


    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Ipse dixit. You can't even apologise for making violence threats over the internet or wrongly banning someone on the false assumption they were me. You don't get to judge the moral character of other human beings since you are so bereft of it yourself. "Crooked" and "fake" from you are compliments.
    OzChess Boy Legend The Fire gets to judge the moral character of anyone he damn well pleases. Whether or not you take it as a compliment is i would imagine of very little concern to him.
    "Don't let the snow get down the back of your pants" ~ SCT

  14. | #764
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom View Post
    Whether or not you realise you were deflecting is immaterial.
    Since I wasn't and have shown that I wasn't, what bulldust you make up about me supposedly doing so is just your troll detritus.

    Note again the weasel worded intellectual dishonesty here with the use of the word "banning" when clearly we're talking about life-banning (~death) which is central to the analogy.
    This is more of your usual hypocritically dishonest tactic of making stuff up in order to accuse me of being like you. I gave no hint whatsoever that I was talking about temporary banning and indeed in this context, had I wished to do so I would more likely have used the term "suspension". Anyone who would read me as having done so is delusional.

    An analogy is quite distinct from a mere comparison as your provided definition clearly shows: ie."a way of explaining or clarifying something"
    !
    But I never used your concept of a "mere comparison" and its (doubtless elusive) distinction from an analogy. I simply referred to the offensiveness of comparing certain things. That applies to any level of comparison, "mere" (whatever that is) or otherwise.

    Clearly not.
    Ipse dixit.


    My assertion is based on my research into similarly sized national online chess forums where i'm yet to find one that has life-banned more than one chess-playing member (as opposed to the random vandal)
    You are yet to substantiate any such research. You are yet to provide even one example of a similarly sized chess forum going for a similar time and where you can state how many idiots have been permanently banned.

    Again you guiltily omit the critical words "Life-banned" instead reverting to self serving intellectually dishonesty by only using the word "banned".
    You'd be better off arguing this twaddle with a Sigmund Fraud obsessive rather than trying to pass it off as a plausible argument. Give the tryhard deconstruction a rest. For the avoidance of the doubt that infests your addled mentality, where I use "banned" in this discussion I refer to a permanent ban (which may be subject to conditions for release) unless specified otherwise.

    [idiotic fanboy drivel snipped] gets to judge the moral character of anyone he damn well pleases.
    No he doesn't. His own lack of moral standards and obvious obsessive hatred level shows that any claim by him to judge is a fabrication and that he is in fact incapable of the act of forming a properly considered moral judgement on these matters.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  15. | #765
    Senior Member antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Byron Bay, NSW
    Posts
    4,398

    Default

    Streuth what have I got to do to get banned here?

Page 51 of 52 FirstFirst ... 4149505152 LastLast

Members who have read this thread since 01-06-18, 10:54 PM : 1

Actions :  (View-Readers)  (Set Date)  (Clear Date)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •