Olympic Team

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Olympic Team

Kerry is most certainly close minded.

The STFU is because at least 4 times now, he has interjected into a thread, responding to one of my posts that my dispute with Hebert is tiresome or some other such word. On those past occasions, I used logic to show him that Hebert is the one who is tiresome, because he is the one constantly slagging Canadian organizers, which prompts my responses. And I use logic to show that Hebert's arguments are false and silly. So far, Kerry hasn't debated MY LOGIC at all. That shows me that he is closed-minded, and is devoted to Hebert. I think his problem is that he sees that I am decimating Hebert in the debates (in Adam Cormier's words, Hebert was "eviscerated" by one of my posts). Kerry is upset at seeing Hebert so easily handled, and besides being closed-minded, he's a coward. He refuses to debate me on the points. He just uses the old "tiresome" argument.

There's a LOT of disputes on this board that are tiresome, you don't see Kerry interjecting those other disputes.

Now Kerry is taking the super easy way out, he's going to ignore my posts. And Mallon is helping this movement out, letting everyone know how to ignore the posts of others. I'm sure this ignoring goes on anyway, and I'm going to have to leave this board. I personally don't ignore anyone's posts, and for anyone to do so shows utter ignorance and closed-mindedness. Since everyone seems to want to ignore posts by those they don't agree with, I cannot see how this board can be a forum for debate. So I shall in the next few days leave you all to yourselves, which is what you all deserve.




Kerry IN EFFECT is trying to censor me, by saying I shouldn't say anything about Hebert, because he, Kerry, thinks it's tiresome. To which Steve responded with approval. They totally ignore the tiresomeness of Hebert's anti-organizer posts.

Come on, Peter, you're smarter than that. It is censorship they are suggesting.

Do you think they might actually like me?

You can be sure I won't interject in one of *your* threads again. I am not an apologist for Jean Hebert - I have never met him nor (as far as I know) corresponded with him (other than to subscribe to his newsletter and I think once to point out a minor issue with one of the issues...)

Every point you reply to Paul seems to require you to use Jean as an example of something - not necessarily something relevant to that topic it seems. Anyway, once it turns into STFU, you can be sure any possibility to have any sort of dialogue is long gone.

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: Olympic Team

Good news about the team coming together! I hope the tournament goes well for you.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Olympic Team

Well said. It's really frustrating to try to read what's important or interesting in between all the soap operas. I often times stop following threads because they end up going down the toilet.

Alex F.

You can all blame Kerry Liles. He decided he had to hijack this thread to make a selfish point. He's done it on several other occassions, all replying to me, saying my dispute with Hebert is tiresome. I'm not disputing that it's tiresome, but Hebert continues to post his anti-organizer posts. However, you'll all be glad to hear that I feel now I've made my points, many organizers and even non-organizers have finally broken silence and reprimanded Hebert, so I shall cease this activity.

I agree that it's hard to read what's important or interesting, there's a LOT of thread hijacking going on here, and I've probably participated in some of it. There needs to be a way to take a subthread out of a main thread and make the subthread a new main thread. Whoever started the subthread should be able to do this.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Olympic Team

I'm puzzled as to how you can say to the same person "STFU with your ranting. You don't like my posts, don't read them. I'll decide what's relevant in my posts, NOT YOU." and then say "Now Kerry is taking the super easy way out, he's going to ignore my posts." Isn't he doing exactly what you suggested?

I don't block anyone's posts, but there are people I rarely read and others I never will. Whenever I see a long back-and-forth between two people, I feel that any attempt at dialogue has long disappeared and that it now just a slagging contest. I don't usually pay them much mind.

When I see this pattern repeatedly, it simply reinforces this belief. If I can't get my message across in a couple of posts, I figure I am not doing it right. Further efforts don't strike me as worthwhile.

Another thing I don't get is the conviction with which you hold your positions and the right to express them, coupled with the equally firm stand that people who side with Jean Hébert are delusional or sycophantic. How can you insist on the right to your view while automatically criticizing those whose perspective is different?

To then state that you "have" to withdraw because people might block you seems to go against the principles you espouse. If you think you're right, don't worry about things like blocking. I wouldn't let it stop me.

Good points, Neil. There's a subtle difference between not reading someone's posts and what is referred to as "ignoring" someone's posts. When you don't read, that's a conscious choice for a single post only. When you block or ignore someone, that is saying that that person won't EVER say anything you agree with OR that that person won't EVER speak on a topic you're interested in. It's a total dismissal of that person.

If this activity becomes popular enough, it defeats the whole purpose of this board (based on what is freely allowed on this board). So that's my beef about ignoring or blocking anyone's posts.

For your other point, when I argue against anyone agreeing with Hebert, I do it on the points of contention. If it comes across as me saying they are delusional, that would only be because I've presented a more coherent or correct logic and they refuse to see it. I really do believe that some people are tied to someone's view, such as Hebert, out of respect for that person, and are blinded to a better argument. The saying "there are none so blind as those who will not see" is for these people. I don't know for sure that they are sycophants, but they are definitely what Twitter calls "followers".

Maybe I'm not flexible enough, I certaintly can't claim to be faultless. It does frustrate me when people won't see correct logic. So far I haven't seen any logic of Hebert's that I can even remotely call correct. So I have an easy time with him. His followers, maybe I need to just realize that they are followers and there's nothing to be done about it. No logic can dissuade them.

Thanks for your post.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Olympic Team

You can be sure I won't interject in one of *your* threads again. I am not an apologist for Jean Hebert - I have never met him nor (as far as I know) corresponded with him (other than to subscribe to his newsletter and I think once to point out a minor issue with one of the issues...)

Every point you reply to Paul seems to require you to use Jean as an example of something - not necessarily something relevant to that topic it seems. Anyway, once it turns into STFU, you can be sure any possibility to have any sort of dialogue is long gone.

I didn't say "my thread", I said "my post". Nice try.

Your point about my using Jean as an example of something is exaggerated. You are the only one making such a point, so maybe you need to ask yourself some questions.

But in this particular case, where you've hijacked this whole thread, you chose badly. My mentioning to Mark that I hope he doesn't get tainted with Hebert's viewpoint was VERY RELEVANT. If you don't believe it, here's the post that makes it revelant:

http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...23233#poststop

Again, the STFU was a momentary lapse of reason brought on because you repeatedly target me with this nonsense. Why not target Jean, if you're so independant of him, for his constant slagging of Canadian organizers? Those are the posts I'm responding to, and there's as many of them as there are of my responses. Doesn't that fall into your definition of tiresome?

Oh, but there I go again, presenting correct logic to someone who can't see or understand it. I guess I should stop that.

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Olympic Team

It's in the Control Panel.

http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/prof...?do=ignorelist

Sweet. Thank you, Chris!

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Olympic Team

Thanks, Chris. It would be even better if one could make his name disappear too.

[Brian Hartman]

Re: Olympic Team

Dear Mark,

I wish you and the team success in the Olympiad.

In reviewing the majority of replies from your post, it is clear you must be further frustrated. I will certainly seriously think about how I might provide some assistance to the team, however peripheral. I do this mainly from respect to you. I am completely against the CFC as any authority, and only hope there is sufficient intelligence to look passed their nose to allow well meaning people to help.

PS - I feel it a national shame that Nava Starr is not going to the Olympiad, and if she were appropriately assigned, I would provide for her expenses

Best regards,



Brian

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Olympic Team

PS - I feel it a national shame that Nava Starr is not going to the Olympiad, and if she were appropriately assigned, I would provide for her expenses

Nava was on the original selection list - I assume she declined?

[Eric Hansen]

Re: Olympic Team

Were Roozmon and Noritsyn selected based on the rating list if people declined or were they selected wildcards? I'm just asking because IM Porper is above both of them on the selection list but was not contacted about participating for the Olympiad Team. He switched his federation in 2008 so that shouldn't be an issue.

[Steve Douglas]

Re: Olympic Team

One person's noise is another's signal. You should strive to understand and acknowledge that.

I see you've now edited your verbiage. Your previous post which I (and many others) saw said "If you don't understand that you shouldn't post here in the first place." Another form of STFU. And when you edit it you STILL drag Jean Hebert's name into it. You can't even censor yourself without slagging somebody else. Geez.

Let me explain something to you. You are like a drunk who has found a way to ruin a wedding reception. You've managed to grab the microphone and nobody can get it away from you.

This forum is exactly like that reception. You have groups of people standing around chatting but then here comes Paul who is going to butt into EVERY conversation to complain about another guest. Eventually people start to move away from him. He doesn't notice. Then people politely suggest that maybe Paul should tone it down a bit. He doesn't get it. So he carries on, imposing his rant on anybody who can't run away.

Eventually several people tell him *point blank* that he is annoying the heck out of just about everybody else. So what does he do?

He first screams "CENSORSHIP!" even though nobody has suggested anything of the kind. (It's particularly ironic since you "censored" your original post.)

Then he screams "I have a right to free speech!" which is a right which I champion but sadly, particularly on the internet, is a right quickly claimed by a bully. It is also known as the "I have a right to be an arsehole!" defence. At least Godwin's Law hasn't been shown yet.

Then, when the "FREE SPEECH!" rant is falling on deaf ears, our Paul immediately calls anybody who disagrees with him "Mindless morons!" and says something to the effect that since nobody appreciates him he will go stand in a corner and hold his breath until he turns blue.

Nobody believes him and of course he is eventually "provoked" into not holding his breath any longer.

(Since we are still in the wedding recption analogy, I wish to point out that the host can still show you the door.)

Have I got this about right?

Steve

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Olympic Team

Two players do get selected by a selection committee. If anyone declines of the initial 5 (of which only 2 are by rating) then replacements are by rating.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Olympic Team

Absolutely perfect, Steve. Triple exclam!!!

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Olympic Team

... I shall in the next few days leave you all to yourselves, which is what you all deserve. ...

Why procrastinate? Leave now.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Olympic Team

Hi Chris:

When FIDE went to 5 member teams, I thought CFC passed a motion that 4 players would be by rating, and one by the selection committee.

Could Ilia, or someone, advise whether Chris or I are right on this?

Bob