< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 66 OF 66 ·
|Sep-03-18|| ||Count Wedgemore: <It wasn't the only post deleted, since all the posts in that discussion were removed, so I don't take it personally, but it seems a like an odd thing to do.>|
Hi, <optimal play>.
Yes, I agree. I admit being a bit disappointed to find my post deleted also. It's not a very nice thing to do. It comes across a little petty and rude, to be honest. But, his forum, his rules..
|Sep-03-18|| ||optimal play: <Count Wedgemore> Yes, it was beginning to look like an interesting conversation was taking shape,
but it seems one or more of the comments stepped on his toes.|
|Sep-09-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: Well, <OP>, look on the bright side. You haven't been banned!|
|Sep-09-18|| ||TheFocus: <thegoodanarchist: Well, <OP>, look on the bright side. You haven't been banned!>|
Ah, so you are still kicking!! I thought you and <Bobster> may have gotten caught in the banning. Waiting to see if <jcb> survived.
|Sep-09-18|| ||optimal play: I see from <Big Pawn>'s forum header that he has been suspended!?|
He then states that he has been "censored" permanently!?
However, I noticed a post from <chessgames.com> in the Kibitzer's Cafe:
<Sep-09-18 chessgames.com: <Nisjesram: <Richard Taylor: Are Big Pawn and company to get a sound spanking?>
Yes. <big pawn> already got permanently banned.>
Don't make too many assumptions...>
That cryptic comment from <chessgames.com ... Don't make too many assumptions ...> seems to indicate that we should not assume our good ol' mate from Massachoossess has been permanently banned.
I personally would be very surprised if the new management took any notice of a certified psycho like Mark Finan and acted on his advice to permanently ban BP or anybody.
More likely they have given our mate a short holiday to cool off and settle down, but BP's indignation may have caused him to close his forum in a huff, and left that message in a fit of bad temper.
Everybody can clearly see that convicted-criminal Mark Finan is mentally-disturbed and obsessive to the point of insanity.
His sole object as a member of chessgames is to wreck this once-fine website.
His conduct in the aftermath of Daniel's passing was atrocious, and he took full advantage of this unfortunate situation to cause as much damage as possible all over the site, and particularly on Daniel's own player's page:
optimal play chessforum (kibitz #1601)
For myself, I have always sought to adhere to the posting guidelines of this site, and make whatever contribution I could to its development and advancement, for example:
<Feb-12-13 chessgames.com chessforum chessgames.com: <optimal play> asks "Is it possible to make the Tournament Index chronologically correct?" A good point. As things stand, the Tournament table has a field called simply "year". To fix the problem is just a matter of straightforward programming work: we have to turn the year field into a full YYYY-MM-DD date and then set the dates what they are supposed to be, whenever possible. The only reason why it doesn't work that way right now is that in the past, "year" was sufficient for our purposes. Now that we have the Tournament Index we need finer granularity. Thanks for pointing that out.>
See also my game collection, of which seven were included in the Tournament Index.
In contrast, Mark Finan has contributed absolutely nothing of value to this website.
In fact, he has sought to destroy it for no other reason than that he is evil and vindictive.
He causes chaos and enmity all over this site.
Daniel Freeman (may God rest his soul) was far too lenient with this psychotic criminal.
I managed to get Finan suspended on at least one occasion, but only for 24 hours.
He had posted one of his typically vile, filthy, obnoxious posts, and when I blew the whistle on him, I noticed the post was gone within 15 minutes and Finan was absent for a whole day. He later complained about being suspended.
It's just a shame that Daniel wasn't tougher with the scumbag, and simply banished him permanently. He might still be alive today.
Of course I was never suspended or even "reprimanded".
Daniel and I didn't have a great deal of contract, but on the few occasions we spoke, I could tell he appreciated my contribution to this site.
Anyway, we'll see how things pan out.
We have the Olympiad coming up and then of course the World Championship, so depending upon how efficiently the new management uploads these matches, I may or may not stick around.
|Sep-10-18|| ||optimal play: I've been reviewing my game collection just to check how many are still "under construction".|
There's quite a few with missing games and incomplete introductions, but overall I think I've compiled a pretty good collection thus far.
I generally complete the introductions when I have all or most of the games, but I became a bit discouraged in submitting games when they took so long to be uploaded. Hopefully that situation will improve.
Anyway, I'm honoured that seven were considered important enough for inclusion in the Tournament Index Collection.
Rosenthal - Zukertort (1880)
Blackburne - Zukertort (1881)
Australian Championship (1887)
Australian Championship (1888)
Wallace - Crane (1893)
Wallace - Esling (1895)
Wallace - Hodgson (1896)
It's pleasing to be able to make a small contribution to the site.
With a few exceptions, my game collection is comprised of colonial Australian matches and tournaments, although I've included some interesting games all the way up to 1987.
|Sep-11-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: < TheFocus:
<<<thegoodanarchist: Well, <OP>, look on the bright side. You haven't been banned!>>>
Ah, so you are still kicking!! I thought you and <Bobster> may have gotten caught in the banning. Waiting to see if <jcb> survived.>
Thank you kindly for your interest in my internet welfare! I do appreciate it!
For now, I will say no more about this.
|Sep-12-18|| ||optimal play: <For now, I will say no more about this.>|
You sound like you are privy to inside information.
Anyway, I'm sure <tga> wouldn't get banned.
If that ever happened then there would be something terribly wrong.
|Sep-12-18|| ||optimal play: I just noticed my following posts were deleted from the forum of <Phony Benoni>:|
<Sep-11-18 optimal play: <offramp: ... On my recent 6-monthly visit to Rogoff I had the temerity to inquire what an "OMV" was. I was told with startling celerity to <read the @#$%* forum!!>>
Don't feel bad. Not everyone's cut out for the rough & tumble of Rogoff.
People with delicate sensibilities are advised to use "read only" mode when on that page.
Anyway, to answer your question, OMV stands for Objective Moral Values.>
<Sep-11-18 optimal play: <offramp: <optimal play: <offramp: ... On my recent 6-monthly visit to Rogoff I had the temerity to inquire what an "OMV" was. I was told with startling celerity to <read the @#$%* forum!!>> Don't feel bad. Not everyone's cut out for the rough & tumble of Rogoff.>
I just don't know much about the man, so I don't feel qualified to post. I know he was a good player, and I believe he was one of Ronald Reagan's speechwriters. I assume he also made a statement at some time about Objective Moral Values, whatever they are. Anyway, if I think of anything to say about him I shall post it there. The great thing is, I can post there whenever I want! I am not banned or anything!>
Good for you!
So the next time you post something on Rogoff, don't run away just because someone is mean to you.
Stand your ground, even if you get a bloodied nose.>
I notice the intervening post by <offramp> was also deleted.
<Phony Benoni> posted: <Sep-11-18 Phony Benoni: OK, guys, that crossed the line as far as I'm concerned. Personal attacks, no matter how mild, are not welcome here.>
That's a rather perplexing comment, and I can only assume that subsequent to my last post, <offramp> posted a personal attack which I didn't see?!
I would be very surprised at that since <offramp> certainly doesn't seem like the sort of fellow who would post a personal attack, and nothing in my two posts consisted of a personal attack, so I'm rather confused as to why they were deleted.
Of course <Phony Benoni> can delete anything he wants on his own forum without justification, and perhaps he was bored with the back and forth between myself and <offramp> and just didn't want it on his forum anymore.
Anyway, I don't take these things personally, but it seemed like an odd thing to delete such inoffensive comments on the pretext that they contained personal attacks!?
I wasn't offended by anything <offramp> posted and I'm sure he wouldn't have been offended by any of my comments.
|Sep-12-18|| ||optimal play: Just further to the above, I recall interacting with <Phony Benoni> and <offramp> very briefly on only one separate occasion each.|
With <Phony Benoni>, we shared a common interest in Abraham Kupchik and the earliest success of black playing the common Sicilian 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6
Abraham Kupchik (kibitz #22)
With <offramp>, we both enjoyed the hilarity of <HeMateMe>'s laughable attempts to analyze a Portisch-Fischer game:
Portisch vs Fischer, 1966 (kibitz #59)
So they're both good blokes and hopefully I can stay on good terms with the both of them.
|Sep-12-18|| ||offramp: NO! No! No! No! No! I didn't post anything after you!|
I'm pretty sure PB was just being cautious. There was nothing bad but he wanted his forum, quite rightly, clear of the <BP> overspill.
There are no problems whatever from me, <optimal play>!
That WAS funny, that F V Portisch game!
|Sep-12-18|| ||optimal play: <offramp> I was certain that you wouldn't have posted anything that even remotely sounded like a personal attack, since your reputation on chessgames is above reproach. But since I didn't make any personal attacks, even mild one's, I was perplexed by PB's comment.|
Anyway, I'm glad we're okay.
And maybe you should drop by Rogoff more than twice a year since your witty, insightful, knowledgeable comments would make a great addition to that forum.
And you don't even have to talk about Ken Rogoff, all you need are strong opinions and a hide as thick as a rhinoceros!
|Sep-13-18|| ||offramp: Thanks very much, <OP>. I did not know people felt like that about me! You have made me extremely happy!|
|Oct-07-18|| ||optimal play: Today (October 7th) is the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, instituted after the defeat of the Muslims at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571.|
Saint of the Day — Our Lady of the Rosary — October 7th
|Oct-07-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: For Country Music lovers, here's a good tune.... Rolling Stones style!|
And no, it isn't <Country Honk>
|Oct-07-18|| ||optimal play: Thanks for the song <tga> even though it's complete rubbish, it's a reminder the Stones should stick to rock'n'roll.|
Now for true blue dinky-di lovers of country music, you can't go past Chad Morgan:
<Chad Morgan - I'm the Sheik of Scrubby Creek>
|Oct-08-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: <OP: it's complete rubbish> |
it is one of those "novelty" songs that is supposed to be funny, like <One eyed one horned flying purple people eater>
At least, that was my assumption.
|Oct-08-18|| ||optimal play: <thegoodanarchist: ... it is one of those "novelty" songs that is supposed to be funny ...>|
Yep, I get that (you can tell just by looking at their faces), but it's still a lousy song.
Anyway, without any segue, here is my top 10 list of Australian male actors:
1. Errol Flynn
2. Peter Finch
3. Russell Crowe
4. Geoffrey Rush
5. Heath Ledger
6. Rod Taylor
7. Chips Rafferty
8. Hugh Jackman
9. Mel Gibson
|Oct-09-18|| ||Travis Bickle: You Woodie, keep your avatar, it's perfect! ; P|
|Oct-09-18|| ||diceman: <optimal play:
Anyway, without any segue, here is my top 10 list of Australian male actors:
1. Errol Flynn>
Didn't know he was Australian.
<it's still a lousy song>
Cowboy hats could have improved the vibe. :)
|Oct-09-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Anyway, without any segue,>|
Was yours stolen?
|Oct-11-18|| ||optimal play: So anyway, I was having a very interesting discussion with a Protestant Fundamentalist friend of mine on another forum until the issues I raised became too uncomfortable for him at which point he exclaimed <Okay, you can't seem to do me the courtesy of responding to me, so I will move on> and abruptly terminated our debate.|
He had initially introduced a discussion about a bible passage he raised at his local Protestant Fundamentalist church so I asked him a few questions about his church procedure.
He was happy to oblige with a description of what goes on, however when I delved into some of their beliefs, that's when he seemed to get a little irritated.
My inquiries were totally genuine but after I presented him with an apparent contradiction in his church's beliefs (specifically 1 Corinthians 14:34-40) that's when he mistakenly began to view my interest
as some sort of "Catholic attack on heresy".
Well, he really became upset when we got to the Lord's Supper and I showed him evidence that it was more than just a "nice memorial supper".
That really got him cranky!
He retorted by babbling on about the Law of Moses and not being allowed to drink blood which had nothing to do with anything!
When I presented evidence that Jesus was not bound by the Law of Moses
that's when he pulled down the shutters with an abrupt <Okay, you can't seem to do me the courtesy of responding to me, so I will move on> and that was that!
Anyway, I remain open to any further discussion or inquiry from my Protestant Fundamentalist friend or anyone else who wishes to comment on this matter.
I will of course say a prayer for my friend and his Protestant Fundamentalist church next Sunday at mass.
|Oct-13-18|| ||optimal play: Further to the above, it is interesting to examine the prohibition in the Law of Moses regarding the drinking of blood as found in Leviticus 17.|
Leviticus 17, like many OT passages, prefigures the coming of Christ, in this instance, the Last Supper, emphasising "sacrifice" and "atonement".
Jesus' language at the Last Supper of his blood being "poured out" specifically evokes the Levitical law code.
Not only does it call to mind the language of Leviticus 17, but also the fact that the blood of the sacrificial animals brought for atonement had to be "poured out" (cf. Leviticus 4).
The Last Supper is what transforms Jesus' execution into a sacrifice, so it cannot just simply be a "nice memorial supper".
It is also interesting to reflect on Hebrews chapters 9 & 10 in this regard.
Jesus was not just giving to the apostles blessed bread and wine. He was giving His very self.
|Oct-13-18|| ||optimal play: So anyway, I posted a memorable quote by my good ol' mate from Ohio on the Memorable Quotes forum, but chessgames' resident martinet showed up waving his stick around and squawking <this isn't the place for it>!|
Our resident millenial petty tyrant further squealed <as usual in any/all <OCF> quotes showing up here to settle the score, there's nothing witty, humorous, or off-beat to be found>!
But I can't quite figure out if the little tyrant was having a go at me or my mate from Ohio?!
Or maybe both of us?
I mean, chessgames' Chief Wiggum may be castigating me for posting an inappropriate quote on a forum which he considers his own domain, or possibly, he may be denigrating my Ohio mate by insinuating that nothing he ever says is witty, humorous or off-beat!?
If the latter, I would certainly take umbrage with that as I had previously posted a very funny quote by my mid-western buddy in July:
<Jul-04-18 <Trump played either rugby or Aussie rules football> Good. If those lousy Ozzies try to be World Champions in Australian Rules Football, the USA has a secret weapon.>
I got a good laugh out of that! Very memorable indeed!
So, I think it's just like my good ol' mate from Brazil opined:
<For the last time ... Spare us from your hypocrisy and buy a mirror. You <<did the same>> ... few weeks ago and got your feelings hurt when I pointed that out. Quit lecturing people about how and what to post>
Now THAT'S a memorable quote!
|Oct-14-18|| ||diceman: <Quit lecturing people about how and what to post>|
Atheists enjoy playing God with your life.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 66 OF 66 ·
Advertise on Chessgames.com