28 Jun 16
Originally posted by SuzianneCriteria for fast baning(my private opinion only):
One post can be spam?
Person posting evident spam without even bothering to move once to establish something as being interested in chess.
Creating a thread with a post linking to a rip-off site. (anybody)
Creating a thread with suggested Commercial personal interest without bothering to post anywhere else.
28 Jun 16
Originally posted by PonderableWell, let me be clear, my beef isn't that he was banned. It's that so many others who deserve to be banned aren't.
Criteria for fast baning(my private opinion only):
Person posting evident spam without even bothering to move once to establish something as being interested in chess.
Creating a thread with a post linking to a rip-off site. (anybody)
Creating a thread with suggested Commercial personal interest without bothering to post anywhere else.
28 Jun 16
Originally posted by Ponderableviz. link removed
Criteria for fast baning(my private opinion only):
Person posting evident spam without even bothering to move once to establish something as being interested in chess.
Creating a thread with a post linking to a rip-off site. (anybody)
Creating a thread with suggested Commercial personal interest without bothering to post anywhere else.
Originally posted by divegeesterI have found, apparently inexplicably, that those who claim to know more than everyone else also ask the most questions. It can't be because they seek knowledge, but instead because they seek to control others by putting them 'on the spot'.
Don't change the subject.
Who do you think is actively engaged in running RHP into the ground?
That you pretend to not know of whom I speak shows not, as some might say, how ignorant you are, but rather how much you seek to control those on an internet forum who don't share your views.
29 Jun 16
Originally posted by SuzianneThe only thing I'm seeking is to understand from you, is who you think is "running RHP into the ground". I suspect no one.
I have found, apparently inexplicably, that those who claim to know more than everyone else also ask the most questions. It can't be because they seek knowledge, but instead because they seek to control others by putting them 'on the spot'.
That you pretend to not know of whom I speak shows not, as some might say, how ignorant you are, but rather how much you seek to control those on an internet forum who don't share your views.
I suspect this is just another example of you jumping into a thread and using it as an opportunity to swipe at a few of your detractors. Perhaps you think those people who disagree with you are, by doing so, are running the site into the ground and should be banned. Is that it?
Originally posted by divegeesterIt's a good thing no one has to have their day ruined by what you "suspect".
The only thing I'm seeking is to understand from you, is who you think is "running RHP into the ground". I suspect no one.
I suspect this is just another example of you jumping into a thread and using it as an opportunity to swipe at a few of your detractors. Perhaps you think those people who disagree with you are, by doing so, are running the site into the ground and should be banned. Is that it?
Oh, wait. Except the rest of your country.
(And no, that's not it. It hardly ever is.)
29 Jun 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI got a chuckle from this...
Yes.
From the website dictionary.com:
"Word Origin and History for Spam
spam
n.
proprietary name registered by Geo. A. Hormel & Co. in U.S., 1937; probably a conflation of spiced ham. Soon extended to other kinds of canned meat. In the sense of "Internet junk mail" it was coined by Usenet users after March 31, 1993, when Usenet administrator Richard Depew inadvertently posted the same message 200 times to a discussion group. The term had been used in online text games, and it was from the comedy routine in British TV show "Monty Python's Flying Circus" (beloved by many intellectual geeks) where a restaurant's menu items all devolve into spam."