< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 46 OF 61 ·
|Mar-24-12|| ||brankat: But, we still <must be strong for Magnus>? Why? He's not strong enough himself? Needs a babysitter? Doesn't have the makings of a Champ? Thought So.|
|Mar-24-12|| ||quantum.conscious: <MarkFinan: <quantum.concious>.. Well i never!! That would be excellent if you could do that, by keeping those conversations to a minimum, if not zero?>|
for clarity, what are those kind of conversations ? i have a special name for those - <frogbertian nonsense>
except that frogbert and his allies (especially rogge ) indulge in frogbertian nonsense without any integrity and honesty whereas i show a lot of integrity and honesty while i engage in frogbertian nonsense.
<ocf> recently pointed out to <frogbert> how frogbert is so devoted to keep argument going and that is why <ocf> had a negative view of frogbert.
rogge is the worst because he has as little of integrity and honesty as frogbert but it is compounded by his lack of intelligence.
for example , recently , rogge and i participated in <frogbertian nonsense>, as usual, i with integrity and honesty and he without integrity.
so, he said things like - 'quantum, you are just a lonely, miserable indian boy in canada. it is time to get some sleep" he kept repeating that till i kind of demonstrated to him that i was in india not in canada.
now i may get disgusted by his lack of class and intelligence and integrity and may say - "so, rogge , i am in india but rest of what you are saying is true. i am lonely , miserable"
the guy will get so overjoyed at this that any time i catch him breaking rules, calling somone names , he would flash this , "quantum, i hurt you last time , i will hurt you again. never forget this, never forget this and this and this. i am putting it in my bio profile and will take it out only if you decide to leave me alone when i call names to someone. we know who is stronger and i can hurt you very badly if i want"
at this i would say , "rogge, you are a clown".
now, i don't call names . but if someone says that by calling rogge clown i am resorting to name calling , then someone please help me how do i describe all this . some one please suggest some alternate way of communicating in this scenario(english is not my first language)
ofcourse, one solution is to not participate in <frogbertian nonsesnse> altogether and then i don't need some alternate way to tell rogge that he is a clown :)
|Mar-24-12|| ||quantum.conscious: one more thing for clarity and completion - even though i indulge in <frogbertian nosense> at times (almost always with frogbert's allies especially rogge. domdaniel also played <frogbertian nonsense> with me recently in defence of frogbert but to be honest , domdaniel just initiated it after that he was not so keen to play but i did not let him escape so easily. whereas , with rogge, he plays <frogbertian nonsense > with me with a lot of relish and vigour)- i am just an amateur.|
to see an example of how experts play <frogbertian nonsense> , see the conversation of frogbert with <rilkefan> at nakamura page (it took place a month or two ago , perhaps)
|Mar-25-12|| ||Bureaucrat: <take his insults as a compliment!!>|
<MarkFinan> You are right! That's a very good piece of advice! Thanks. :-)
<tpstar> Good luck with the name calling over at brankat's and elsewhere. Those derogatory code names you put on certain users are well deserved, no doubt about that. For example "Nefarious Rubbish Guy". Charming indeed. Clearly, when <you> do such a thing as naming people by childish code names instead of their actual handles, it amounts to <zero personal attacks>. Thank you very much for honouring me with such an ugly code name. I take it as a compliment.
|Mar-25-12|| ||quantum.conscious: <bureaucrat: "Nefarious Rubbish Guy". Charming indeed. >|
this 'rubbish guy' kept crowing 'site patrol' so frequently that my ear started aching . however, that ache was from repetitions, not for a moment i considered 'site patrol' name as an attack.
but if 'site patrol' is not an attack how on earth 'nafarious rubbish guy' is an attack?
now this is becoming really, really , really, really ridiculous or a load of rubbish if you prefer :) .
|Mar-25-12|| ||voratco: <Thanks to my outstanding leadership skills, I won a hard-earned entry into the Barangay Wesley where I can really help them make things better for Wesley So and his page.>|
Who did you lead? Wannabe, brankat and kkderek? Isn't this a true portrait of praising ourselves when there is no credit due? Lift your chair higher, will you please? It appears to me somebody really needs loving. I don't think BW is ready for you. Some might but don't count your chicks just yet. Balut!!! LOL. Art00 said it so and I believe him so. So what's up, doc?
|Mar-25-12|| ||KKDEREK: <voratco> Whats your problem? You did write my name 3 times on your last 5 posts..Do you think I care for you or bradah or else? Even on Nyzhnyk forum.. Stop addressing me. I'm on your mind as I am on <bradah>'s? Go enjoy the site and put me on ignore..The BW wars is over..You and your pal are the only left looking for trouble..|
|Mar-25-12|| ||MarkFinan: Okay, now i have a serious question for <tpstar> concening the *notorious* tale of the Big Bad Wolf, and the Three Little Pigs!!|
Exactly who is to blame?
Did the <TLP>'s provoke <TBBW>??
Was the <TBBW> just a notorious unrepentant rule breaker??
Did <TTLP>'s really used to go under the name of <The3little piglets>??
Was the <BBW> "stalking" <TTLP>'s ??
So many unanswered questions, and i for one would like them answered.. ;)
|Mar-26-12|| ||tpstar: <ps! if you want to "complain" about this "cyberstalking incident" (which it's not, of course - i'm talking directly to you after you talked <about me>, *again*, using my full, real name in order to cause harm), then you must leave this post here - untouched. and note: this is a relatively safe place to keep my complaints about you. there are far worse places such a complaint might end up if you don't soon come to your senses wrt your stalking of people on cg.com, employing various "tricks of your trade" in an attempt to cause maximum damage to your victims.>|
This is cyberstalking by definition: using the Internet to attack and bully and harass and threaten.
You have some nerve posting such threatening messages in my chessforum - just like January 2012 - and then expecting the Administrators to help arbitrate your damage. No deal.
Stop pretending we are on the same level. I've had the goods on you for years, while the only thing you have on me is that I have the goods on you.
When the time is right, I will take you down myself.
|Mar-27-12|| ||frogbert: <Stop pretending we are on the same level.>|
Tony Palmer, you and i are *not* on the same level. i've only made myself guilty of the occasional, minor breach of the posting guidelines here, with <much more than 99,99% of my posts> being not anywhere near what's considered to be against the posting guidelines here. i've never ever been put on kibitzing probation or otherwise been warned by cg.com administrators, for instance.
you, on the other hand, have been actively stalking numerous people on this site for years, and me in particular, pretending to be an all-knowing, ever-present authority on the only correct interpretation of what's "right" and "wrong", collecting "evidence" - a.k.a. "the goods" in stalker and blackmale terminology - to be used by your own little stasi organization. this amounts to <real> cyberstalking, and cyberstalking is a criminal offence in several us states. in comparison, an occasional snappy remark to a random kibitzer means <nothing> in legal terms.
so no, we're certainly not on the same level.
<I've had the goods on you for years, while the only thing you have on me is that I have the goods on you.>
you are correct that <"for years"> is right; it describes the period you've been following me all over this place, trying to collect evidence of my "evil nature" and my "bad intentions" and the "damage" i do.
you are *not* right about "having the goods" is the only you're guilty of - although your collection of "evidence" in order to cause harm is, in fact, <stalking> per se. you have also been <relentlessing repeating accusations, lies and manipulated bits of information> in order to harass and defame me. the combination of collecting information and using it for defamation, mixing in lies and obvious misinterpretations, is <more or less the working definition of cyberstalking>.
and you just admitted that you've been doing this for years. please keep this post of yours (and mine) around.
<When the time is right, I will take you down myself.>
Tony Palmer, you are collecting the evidence of <your own downfall>, if anything. now, take this piece of advice: listen to what Daniel Freeman proposes to you, take your time, consider it thoroughly. cg.com is apparently very important to you, and clearly much more decisive to your well-being than it is to mine - i simply want to have a good time here, discussing chess and sometimes providing information that few others have. don't mess this up for yourself - you're entering an arena where your knowledge of psychology does *not* make you the field expert.
the difference between me and you, that any ruling instance will easily see, is this:
1) i simply want you to leave me alone
2) you want to <take me down>
thank you very much, Palmer.
|Mar-28-12|| ||tpstar: <frogbert>/ Hans Arild Runde You finally got the "dialogue" you wanted, but you won't get the result you wanted.|
You are collecting the evidence of your own downfall, and your last three posts here remove any reasonable doubt. You are an unrepentant rulebreaker who has made hundreds of personal attacks - yes I said hundreds - along with cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and now this <tpstalker> bit which is a clear violation of the rules. If you really wanted to be left alone, you wouldn't talk about me all the time - not just now, but 178 & 179 & 180 of your player page goes on and on ("paragraph after paragraph") about me. Your coordinated efforts off site failed spectacularly, and it won't work next time either. Moreover, your pathetic entreaties to the Administrators failed spectacularly, and it won't work next time either. I will hold your posting history against you indefinitely, because I can.
I remember when User: TheGladiator was attacked and bullied on the Carlsen page, and User: TheGladiator left the site. If only User: TheGladiator was around, then User: TheGladiator could tell us how it felt to be attacked and bullied. Maybe User: bukkerogtakker could contact User: TheGladiator and find ways to prevent people from using the Internet to attack and bully and harass and threaten over several years. Maybe someday we will see a formal apology for the smear campaign.
You have become a giant liability for Team Carlsen. I figured that out long ago.
No more "dialogue" until you follow the rules.
|Mar-28-12|| ||tpstar: T-S (Livery 3/27/12): 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. ed cd 4. c4 e6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Nf3 Opening Explorer Nbd7 7. cd ed (7 ... Nxd5 M Erwich vs K Petropoulos, 2001 ) 8. Bd3 Be7 9. 0-0 0-0 10. Re1 Re8 11. Bg5 h6 12. Bh4 b6 13. Rc1 Bb7 14. Bb5 Rc8 15. Ne5 Rc7?! (15 ... Rf8)|
click for larger view
16. Bxf6 Bxf6 17. Nxd7 Rxd7 18. Rxe8+ Qxe8 19. Bxd7 Qxd7 20. Qd3 and White won (1-0).
PIN M W
|Mar-28-12|| ||MarkFinan: Tony Palmer..
The things you come out with are just so *pathetic*, my 10yr old Niece would probably have a good giggle with you...
Please don't make subliminal/outright comments about me and my Father...AGAIN! NEVER AGAIN! Not even funny..
Iv'e no intention of ever having any kind of conversation with you, as if i wanted that type of chat id just take my niece's offer of "will you come play <insert childs game> with me Uncle Mark???
I dont know if you have real, genuine "problems", but if you do i will apologise for this post...
If you don't, please remind me how old you are, and that you're actually a decent chess player, again??
And remember *you* told me the rules, what 18 month ago now?? (well you have followed me around all that time reminding me those rules yourself since then!!)
If you'd like me to quote you, WORD FOR WORD, let me know in my forum and il show you to be the childish, strange, interfering, and downright trouble causing hypocrite you really are??
Iv'e made promises to certain people here, that i intend to keep, so i *have* to stay away from people like you and LMAJ... So please don't carry on inciting trouble with people who i consider friends, and quit all that BS psychobabble nonsense...
This is plain English im speaking to you in Tony, not "code words", no outright <insert stronger word for RUBBISH>.....
Delete this if you wish, i'll repost in my forum...
And don't ever mention my dad on this site again, freak...
|Mar-28-12|| ||tpstar: T-M (SJL 3/28/12):
click for larger view
RTG W E
M-T (SJL 3/28/12):
click for larger view
MATE B M
|Mar-29-12|| ||moronovich: Dear <tpstar>
Couldnt you please stop this fight with frogbert.
Try to leave the past behind you and move on.
Nobody here cares what have been said and done, but some do care how we behave in this global village and I do remember how often you have treated newcommers so well on this site and in other ways have given valuable inspiration to others and I dont wont you to end up in a corner were many member have lost their initial respect about you.
Smile Tony ! I am shure you can still manage, put your verbal gun aside and realise we dont live in a westernmovie but we are all here in flesh and blood as behind every avatar there is a human with feelings just like your self.
I am not asking you to marry frogbert, just leave him alone or perhaps take his offer about contacting him via e-mail.I am shure you also know as a doctor that it is communication that solves the problems and not running away with the head in the clouds.
I can almost guarentee you that you will feel pride if you swallow your pride/anger or whatever and take the more peacefull road.Same pride as someone who quits the cigarettes,gambling and the like.
It is actually easy to create enemypictures but letting them go is actually something ells.But it can be done.And the choice is yours.Do you wanna be a bra or a star ;).
If it is too difficult to do on your own I could easy imagine frogbert would be willing to let someone mediate e.g. user <once> who has professionel skills in this department.
That was all for today Tony,and remember I am not taking side in the story between you and frogbert but I am only talking as a member of this site who wants it to work as well as possible.
So let us focus on the now and move on
and smile :)
And if any questions and for a friendly visit you are always welcome at my cafe.
All the best - moro - .
|Mar-29-12|| ||tpstar: <moronovich> Thank you for your interest in making things better and not worse.|
Your friend is an unrepentant rulebreaker who has used the Internet to attack and bully and harass and threaten over several years. He wants me to forget his previous damage so he can do it all again to other people. Past behavior is the best predictor for future behavior, so no deal. The site awards were only two months ago, yet he caused so much hassle that now someone else gets to do it. Moreover, it was only two months ago that he cyberstalked my chessforum, and then again just now, so your admonition to "leave him alone" is pretty hollow. You and your group may Blame the Victim all you want but nobody is buying it.
I will do what I think is right.
|Mar-29-12|| ||moronovich: <tpstar> Thanks for reading.|
There is no group.I am acting as a member on my own.
Do what you think is right,but try to listen to others.
E.g. I dont like to see you comming closer to the point were people dont take you serious any longer.
So I take your answer as you dont want to mediate !?
|Mar-29-12|| ||tpstar: <moronovich> I do listen to others, and I made up my mind long ago. People may read these posts for themselves and make up their own minds.|
This was all a coordinated effort off site, and it failed. Spectacularly. And it won't work next time either.
|Mar-30-12|| ||quantum.conscious: <moronovich: There is no group.I am acting as a member on my own.
i would like to believe you, <moro> , but many other would be sceptical , i would imagine.
if you ask frogbert to apologize to tpstar for threatening tpstar in tpstar forum in a very belligerent fashion, the situation will be ameliorated and it would also be easier to believe that you are not in any group, <moro>.
|Mar-30-12|| ||tpstar: <quantum.conscious> Happy Good News Friday!|
Thank you for improving your profile. That was a great way to make things better and not worse.
The person you are addressing was trying to help, although I disagree with the presumption that myself and you-know-who are two halves of the problem. That guy is the problem, and everybody can see it for themselves.
Respect the R's! ;>D
|Mar-30-12|| ||quantum.conscious: <tpstar: although I disagree with the presumption that myself and you-know-who are two halves of the problem. That guy is the problem, and everybody can see it for themselves.>|
i think so.
<tpstar: Respect the R's!>
|Mar-31-12|| ||Shams: Jing-a-ling-a-ling:
|Mar-31-12|| ||Check It Out: Don't give in, <Shams>.|
Waaaait a minute, that bride's about 8 months pregnant at the wedding...
|Mar-31-12|| ||quantum.conscious: "A few years later, the site gave Moderating control to all players with their own page, fixing the temptation for NN to take shots at name players. There are set restrictions due to a name player who would visit while intoxicated and delete posts en masse. (If you don't know who that is, then you don't know who that is. :P) Therefore each person gets to Moderate their own player page as they see fit. In this case, the site responded to a very bad suggestion about removing "non-chess content" related to a flame war because a certain someone who posted terrible feedback comments off site (even naming the Webmaster) continues to expect special treatment.|
And that is how you get your points across without breaking the rules.
|Mar-31-12|| ||OhioChessFan: You are correct in your example of posts that are not personal attacks against others. It seems to have disappeared, but you were correct. I belong to an organization that has a strict prohibition against personal attacks when at the microphone at conventions. Every time, it has to be explained to people that comments like "The previous speaker is an idiot" or "The delegate from Michigan is out of his mind" are quite within the rules. By definition, a "personal" attack is in fact naming them. If Chessgames.com has the same understanding, then the only prohibition would be to name them or use their kibitzer name when discussing them. (FWIW I think quoting a person without referencing their name and responding would amount to the same thing as naming them but recognize that's a bit of a gray area) That is the generally understood meaning. If it isn't what Chessgames.com has in mind, it's incumbent on them to say so.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 46 OF 61 ·
Take the Premium Membership Tour