Originally posted by MrHandSome of us don't care about chess issues - but dolt issues are more important.
Crowley and Ice Cold criticizing others for arguing on the site? At least there argument is about chess rather than what a dolt you think the other fellow is as most of your arguments seem to be about.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySeriously, go see a doctor ASAP. That stick is really getting up there now.
"Worst thread of the month" seems less of an opinion than a greenhorn forum moderator presuming to make an evaluation.
If you don't understand a little humour wrapped in sarcasm, maybe Internet forums aren't for you?
Originally posted by CrowleyFact: Ice Cold (1783) - Crowley (1204) = 579 reasons for Crowley's disinterest in and negative criticism of the topic of Ice Cold's thread.
Seriously, go see a doctor ASAP. That stick is really getting up there now.
If you don't understand a little humour wrapped in sarcasm, maybe Internet forums aren't for you?
If you wish to buy off on the humour/sarcasm (typical "I was only kidding" retreat) jumbo sandwich now being served, there's MasterCard.
Originally posted by MrHandI didn't mean to sound critical, quite to the contrary. I find the arguments quite high brow, on topic, and pretty humourous for the most part.
Crowley and Ice Cold criticizing others for arguing on the site? At least there argument is about chess rather than what a dolt you think the other fellow is as most of your arguments seem to be about.
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyFact: I enjoy chess like some people enjoy walks. My rating means nothing to me. It's a time waster when I need to switch my brain off a little. A hobby, if you will.
Fact: Ice Cold (1783) - Crowley (1204) = 579 reasons for Crowley's disinterest in and negative criticism of the topic of Ice Cold's thread.
If you wish to buy off on the humour/sarcasm (typical "I was only kidding" retreat) jumbo sandwich now being served, there's MasterCard.
Fact: I find the chess forum boring and fights about tactics etc. even more so. Me saying "worst thread ever" is my opinion - which I'm entitled to.
Fact: You are WRONG to bring my mod 'status' into your little senile rant. Even the volunteers are entitled to an opinion on every subject in these forums as you are.
Fact: It was a sarcastic jab at a topic I find boring, and holds just as much weight as someone like you saying "Wow! Korch is soooo interesting. I wonder what he's wearing?". If you can't see it for what it is, don't try to make assumptions about my agenda.
You've just been SERVED a BIG can of FACT, buddy. Don't eat it all at once, or it will give ya a tummy ache.
BTW, I've successfully ignored your asinine posts for months, so I'm falling back onto that strategy again...I really must get around to that IgnoreGB greasemonkey script...
Originally posted by CrowleyYou finally make some good points, Crowley. Clearly your most thoughtful post in this thread.
Fact: I enjoy chess like some people enjoy walks. My rating means nothing to me. It's a time waster when I need to switch my brain off a little. A hobby, if you will.
Fact: I find the chess forum boring and fights about tactics etc. even more so. Me saying "worst thread ever" is my opinion - which I'm entitled to.
Fact: You are WRONG to bring my mod 'statu ...[text shortened]... strategy again...I really must get around to that IgnoreGB greasemonkey script...
Here is how dictionary.com defines moderate:
to reduce the excessiveness of; make less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous: to moderate the sharpness of one's words.
Mocking an informative thread, regardless of your personal reasons (which you have called facts), does not strike me as consistent with this definition. This is my opinion. You could also say that it is a fact that I stated my opinion.
2 edits
Originally posted by MrHandSpot on and crystal clear, Josh. You've raised the general forum (rational without illusion) bar once again, as you have many times in the past.
Here is how dictionary.com defines moderate:
to reduce the excessiveness of; make less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous: to moderate the sharpness of one's words.
Mocking an informative thread, regardless of your personal reasons (which you have called facts), does not strike me as consistent with this definition. This is my opinion. You could also say that it is a fact that I stated my opinion.
Originally posted by MrHandI'm a paid-up subscriber, just like you. Mocking a boring thread is my 'right' to do. As I was not actually doing it in the thread, which would constitute 'trolling', I don't see what the problem is?
Here is how dictionary.com defines moderate:
to reduce the excessiveness of; make less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous: to moderate the sharpness of one's words.
Mocking an informative thread, regardless of your personal reasons (which you have called facts), does not strike me as consistent with this definition. This is my opinion. You could also say that it is a fact that I stated my opinion.
"moderate" and Internet Forum Moderator with a fixed set of criteria are not quite the same thing.
1 edit
Originally posted by CrowleyAn overplayed simplistic notion of "My rights" seems to be in a deadheat horserace with 'orifice fixation' to finish first in many of your posts.
I'm a paid-up subscriber, just like you. Mocking a boring thread is my 'right' to do. As I was not actually doing it in the thread, which would constitute 'trolling', I don't see what the problem is?
"moderate" and Internet Forum Moderator with a fixed set of criteria are not quite the same thing.
The benefits of membership represent a revokable privilige (not some God given right). The responsibility ethic is still the coin of the realm.