IGS "double-ban"
Fu, Ren-Li
"-" <jazze...@coolmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f4653b6....@news.cis.dfn.de...
>
> You are/were player "kungfu." You do/did remove the live stone
> groups of your opponent during the counting phase. This is
documented.
it is? In which of my 2,000 games on IGS did I remove live stone groups?
> I did not even suggest that you were an "escaper." Again,
documented.
> Better yet, I -recommended- that IGS "administratively block" (ban)
you.
> Obviously they might do so if not already, or put you into
double-ban.
Oh no.. double ban!
Now I'm really in trouble.. I'm not just banned once.. nay.. I'm banned
TWICE!
I'll let you know when I stop laughing, jb.
-frl
robert
finds that ethical... :-)
Fu, Ren-Li
news:3e185525.0308...@posting.google.com...
> NOW you can buy 2 of those "Banned from IGS" T-Shirts. At least if jb
> finds that ethical... :-)
Maybe I'll just buy 3 in advance, for when I'm caught wearing them.
-frl
PhysicsGenius
4, now that you are having this conversation.
@qualityassistant.com Neil Stevens
> Oh no.. double ban!
>
> Now I'm really in trouble.. I'm not just banned once.. nay.. I'm banned
> TWICE!
>
> I'll let you know when I stop laughing, jb.
Be nice and maybe they'll let you off with double-secret probation.
--
Neil Stevens - neil @qualityassistant.com
"I'll believe it when I see it." -- George Walker Bush
-
>>> finds that ethical... :-)
No conclusive findings were pronounced, concerning the -question-
of ethics posed concerning T.Mark Hall's wearing of a "Banned from IGS"
T-Shirt at the Houston, Texas U.S. Go Congress, for the situation where
T.Mark Hall was -NOT- currently "banned from IGS." However I am still
asking the question, and would prefer that readers offer their answer(s).
> Fu, Ren-Li wrote:
>> Maybe I'll just buy 3 in advance, for when I'm caught wearing them.
You'd need to wear all 3, because you said you'd be wearing them.
PhysicsGenius <physics...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 4, now that you are having this conversation.
You'd need to wear all 4, then. I heard that Houston, Texas was hot.
- regards
- jb
Brent Locher
IGS? IF so for what reason? To state that he is not "currently" banned
does not answer the question of whether he got blocked for offline behavior
at any point in time.
IGS has historically blocked individual's ISP's and turned them back on.
Does turning them back on at some further point in time make the blocking
action simply go away. If McDonalds told someone today that they could not
buy a burger because they ate at Burger King, but tomorrow they let them buy
a burger, does that make McDonalds prior action ok?
I think not.
IGS is a private server. They have every right to block anyone for any
reason, just as I have every right to warn users that IGS has historically,
and still continues to block users based upon their off-server behavior. If
IGS were operating in good faith they would state what off - server behavior
can get users blocked. They have never stated what off-server behavior is
unacceptable, because blocking off-server behavior is hard to openly defend.
"-" <jazze...@coolmail.com> wrote in message
news:m2dfkvotcsim5ngn4...@4ax.com...
-
"Brent Locher" <brl...@core.com> wrote:
> Has T. Mark Hall ever been blocked/banned/deregistered/ disconnected
> from IGS? IF so for what reason? To state that he is not "currently" banned
> does not answer the question of whether he got blocked for offline behavior
> at any point in time.
Yes, T.Mark Hall was, in the past, blocked, banned, deregistered
and/or disconnected. It is preferable to allow T.Mark Hall to state his
own reasons why, since there is no policy of intention to slander others.
If T.Mark Hall declines to offer comment, then "reasons why" are moot.
Briefly put, the items for discussion are in the July 1995 "fair play"
policy letter that you have not yet read, nor thoroughly digested.
> IGS has historically blocked individual's ISP's and turned them back on.
> Does turning them back on at some further point in time make the blocking
> action simply go away. If McDonalds told someone today that they could
> not buy a burger because they ate at Burger King, but tomorrow they let
> them buy a burger, does that make McDonalds prior action ok?
Er ... I think we are -NOT- talking "fast food" here, so get real.
> I think not.
Try "thinking", instead of "thinking not."
> IGS is a private server. They have every right to block anyone for any
> reason, just as I have every right to warn users that IGS has historically,
> and still continues to block users based upon their off-server behavior. If
> IGS were operating in good faith they would state what off - server behavior
> can get users blocked. They have never stated what off-server behavior is
> unacceptable, because blocking off-server behavior is hard to openly defend.
Certain statements were placed into the July 1995 "fair play" policy
letter. You have been advised to read it several times. Formerly you
were looking silly, but now you are starting to look stupid. Eventually
you will look inane, incompetent, drooling from both sides of the mouth.
Satan has a grip on your soul, and he is already claiming your life.
- regards
- jb
T Mark Hall
<jazze...@coolmail.com> writes
>
>>> "robert" <rver...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> NOW you can buy 2 of those "Banned from IGS" T-Shirts. At least if jb
>>>> finds that ethical... :-)
>
>
> No conclusive findings were pronounced, concerning the -question-
> of ethics posed concerning T.Mark Hall's wearing of a "Banned from IGS"
> T-Shirt at the Houston, Texas U.S. Go Congress, for the situation where
> T.Mark Hall was -NOT- currently "banned from IGS." However I am still
> asking the question, and would prefer that readers offer their answer(s).
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - jb
>
I had hoped that no-one would continue replying to the tape-worm, but it
is I suppose human nature.
According to the question of ethics, it would not be "ethical" to ever
wear a t-shirt from any Congress one has ever attended, after that
Congress has ended. I have been to 19 European Congresses and 1 US
Congress, and the majority have had t-shirts for sale. I also have ones
from British, Isle of Man and London Open Congresses. The "ethical"
question you raise exists only in your fevered imagination.
Since I have been banned in the past I consider that wearing the t-shirt
was my privilege. The right of freedom of speech and freedom of
association is, I believe, a feature of US law, but it appears
punishable by IGS.
Best wishes.
--
T Mark Hall
http://www.gogod.demon.co.uk
James
"banned" is passed tense.
"T Mark Hall" <tm...@gogod.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GKanEKED18R$Ew...@gogod.demon.co.uk...
Michael
> Certain statements were placed into the July 1995 "fair
> play" policy letter. You have been advised to read it several
> times. Formerly you were looking silly, but now you are
> starting to look stupid. Eventually you will look inane,
> incompetent, drooling from both sides of the mouth. Satan has a
> grip on your soul, and he is already claiming your life.
At least he isn't looking like a complete ass like yourself.
Is everyone on IGS a prick?
Michael
-
> "-" wrote:
>> Certain statements were placed into the July 1995 "fair
>> play" policy letter. You have been advised to read it several
>> times. Formerly you were looking silly, but now you are
>> starting to look stupid. Eventually you will look inane,
>> incompetent, drooling from both sides of the mouth. Satan
>> has a grip on your soul, and he is already claiming your life.
Michael <mixtim...@taco.mixtim.ispwest.com>
> At least he isn't looking like a complete ass like yourself.
I'm more concerned with getting out the message than
wasting time worrying over how anybody "looks." This
particular point has been bandied about since July 1995,
with everybody concluding that IGS has -every- right to
impose their policy, and most agreeing that it was justified.
Those who fail to comprehend corporate/personal freedoms
are being counted among the group that denies freedoms.
And one of the most -pernicious- infringements of freedom
occurs through the disreputable devices of peer pressure.
> Is everyone on IGS a prick?
I've thought about this for some time, but have concluded
that even God has a prick (though He doesn't normally use it).
- regards
- jb
-
> "T Mark Hall" <tm...@gogod.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> I had hoped that no-one would continue replying to the tape-worm,
>> but it is I suppose human nature.
Indeed. Were it not for the ceaseless bickering and quibbling
from some of those posters you should count as "friends" the point
concerning your infraction of Terri-Shit website rules would be moot.
>> According to the question of ethics, it would not be "ethical" to ever
>> wear a t-shirt from any Congress one has ever attended, after that
>> Congress has ended. I have been to 19 European Congresses and 1 US
>> Congress, and the majority have had t-shirts for sale. I also have ones
>> from British, Isle of Man and London Open Congresses. The "ethical"
>> question you raise exists only in your fevered imagination.
Ethical questions persist, with or without one's imagination and
irrespective of whether an imagination can be labelled as "fevered"
or not. Now I had not portended to -answer- the ethical question,
because I regard "premature answers" as unethical. Furthermore I
regard confusion of opinion with judgment as unethical. You have
here done both already. Most T-Shirts from former/previous Congresses
devoted to Go do not offer -statements- therein, but are simply names
and places, i.e. a nomenclature of nominalism and not a "statement."
They do not generally contain/display any verbs.
>> Since I have been banned in the past I consider that wearing the t-shirt
>> was my privilege. The right of freedom of speech and freedom of
>> association is, I believe, a feature of US law, but it appears
>> punishable by IGS.
Conversely, it seems to be the "right and freedom of speech and
freedom of association" on the part of IGS/PandaNet to employ the
Richard Mullens interpretation of the Terri-Shit phrase to mean "I will
be `Banned from IGS'" and thereby deploy the appropriate remedies.
Apparently you did not consider such action to be a punishment, since
you were proudly presenting evidence of the misfeasance/misbehavior.
"James" <JSR...@bxcom.com> wrote:
> Ignore him. He clearly does not understand English well enough
> to know that "banned" is passed tense.
James clearly does not understand English well enough to know that
there are several types of past tenses, present tenses & future tenses.
In particular, the Terri-Shit website advises Terri-Shit wearers to mean
"have been banned", not "had been banned (but later reinstated)."
- regards
- jb
Brent Locher
that it states that if you associate with other servers, if you write things
on rgg or create web pages about go, then IGS has a right to ban you.
I completely agree that IGS has a legal right to ban people for any reason
they want. It says so in the registration letter. The registration letter
could also say that every time someone criticizes IGS on rgg that they will
shut the server down to punish the entire go community. IGS has a right to
do pretty much what ever they want to do. I just happen to think that new
users to IGS should have it spelt out to them very clearly what is
unacceptable off-server behavior. To my knowledge, IGS is the only go
server that monitors the off server behavior as part of the registration
agreement. I think that there are many go players that would find this
alarming. It is my humble mission (until I get bored of this mission) to
serve the go community at large by pointing out that IGS monitors off-server
behavior.
KGS and NNGS has never punished anyone for their behavior while they are off
of the server.
-
Brent Locher" <brl...@core.com> wrote:
> I just happen to think that new users to IGS should have it spelt
> out to them very clearly what is unacceptable off-server behavior.
IGS has made no attempt to hide the terms of the July 1995
"fair play" policy letter. Indeed, Tweet made the original posting
of it, and it has been reposted several times. However, one could
observer that Brent Locher has attempted to keep those terms of
the July 1995 "fair play" policy letter secret, because Brent Locher
has not posted the entirety of it, AFAIK, without editing, and without
misrepresentation. When Brent Locher demonstrates that he wishes
to have the "new users" read the July 1995 "fair play" policy letter, as
"spelt out to them very clearly", then Brent Locher would be believed.
> To my knowledge, IGS is the only go server that monitors the off server
> behavior as part of the registration agreement. I think that there are many
> go players that would find this alarming. It is my humble mission (until I get
> bored of this mission) to serve the go community at large by pointing out
> that IGS monitors off-server behavior.
The "alarmingness" of monitoring off-server behavior (in context of
the July 1995 "fair play" policy letter, and other normative terms such
common sense and good judgment with regards to slander/libel issues)
is no more "alarming" than Brent Locher's infatuation with editorializing
on its terms through devices of second-hand hearsay rather than having
the exact wording "spelt out to them very clearly", as says the original.
> KGS and NNGS has never punished anyone for their behavior while
> they are off of the server.
This was not true. Admins have departed from KGS (and NNGS?) owing
to abusive remarks from low-life creeps who invoke Godwin's Law at almost
every opportunity, especially without cause where it was not warranted.
Fact is, Bill Shubert has created "honey pot Admins" at KGS who do not
have any real Admin Powers, and are even unaware of what other Admins
can do in the course of usual Admin Duties. They were Admins in name
only, but not in terms of -genuine- Admin Function. KGS also keeps its
communications protocol secret, because Bill Shubert owns a fiefdom.
- regards
- jb
T Mark Hall
<jazze...@coolmail.com> writes
>
>> "T Mark Hall" <tm...@gogod.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I had hoped that no-one would continue replying to the tape-worm,
>>> but it is I suppose human nature.
>
>
> Indeed. Were it not for the ceaseless bickering and quibbling
> from some of those posters you should count as "friends" the point
> concerning your infraction of Terri-Shit website rules would be moot.
>
>
insulting and sometimes obscene references to any woman who plays Go.
Sexist, are you? I already know that you are intellectually and
emotionally subnormal, so it would fit.
>
>
>>> According to the question of ethics, it would not be "ethical" to ever
>>> wear a t-shirt from any Congress one has ever attended, after that
>>> Congress has ended. I have been to 19 European Congresses and 1 US
>>> Congress, and the majority have had t-shirts for sale. I also have ones
>>> from British, Isle of Man and London Open Congresses. The "ethical"
>>> question you raise exists only in your fevered imagination.
>
>
> Ethical questions persist, with or without one's imagination and
> irrespective of whether an imagination can be labelled as "fevered"
> or not. Now I had not portended to -answer- the ethical question,
> because I regard "premature answers" as unethical. Furthermore I
> regard confusion of opinion with judgment as unethical. You have
> here done both already. Most T-Shirts from former/previous Congresses
> devoted to Go do not offer -statements- therein, but are simply names
> and places, i.e. a nomenclature of nominalism and not a "statement."
> They do not generally contain/display any verbs.
>
>
Every t-shirt offers a statement, that I attended (note the past tense)
that Congress and was sufficiently happy with it to continue wearing the
t-shirt at later events. I wore Terri Shurter's t-shirt to say that I
had been banned from IGS. I had worn it at many European events without
comment, but I suppose that your spies don't get out from under the
rocks to travel that far.
>
>
>>> Since I have been banned in the past I consider that wearing the t-shirt
>>> was my privilege. The right of freedom of speech and freedom of
>>> association is, I believe, a feature of US law, but it appears
>>> punishable by IGS.
>
>
> Conversely, it seems to be the "right and freedom of speech and
> freedom of association" on the part of IGS/PandaNet to employ the
> Richard Mullens interpretation of the Terri-Shit phrase to mean "I will
> be `Banned from IGS'" and thereby deploy the appropriate remedies.
> Apparently you did not consider such action to be a punishment, since
> you were proudly presenting evidence of the misfeasance/misbehavior.
>
IGS is one of the best plays to play and study Go online. There are
always players to play and games to watch and I am grateful for the
provision of the facilities. I continue to use it and I do recommend
others to use it. However, they seem to condone and accept you and your
efforts to poison the atmosphere here and drive out any reasoned and
rational discussion of on-line servers. You do more disservice to IGS
and to this Newsgroup than can be believed and it appears that it is
deliberate policy of IGS to encourage this.
>
>
>
>"James" <JSR...@bxcom.com> wrote:
>> Ignore him. He clearly does not understand English well enough
>> to know that "banned" is passed tense.
>
>
> James clearly does not understand English well enough to know that
> there are several types of past tenses, present tenses & future tenses.
> In particular, the Terri-Shit website advises Terri-Shit wearers to mean
> "have been banned", not "had been banned (but later reinstated)."
>
>
Have I been reinstated? When and by whom and for what reason?
>
>
> - regards
> - jb
-
>>> "T Mark Hall" <tm...@gogod.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I had hoped that no-one would continue replying to the tape-worm,
>>>> but it is I suppose human nature.
> "-" <jazze...@coolmail.com> writes:
>> Indeed. Were it not for the ceaseless bickering and quibbling
>> from some of those posters you should count as "friends" the point
>> concerning your infraction of Terri-Shit website rules would be moot.
T Mark Hall <tm...@gogod.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> One ethical question that could also be raised is your abusive,
> insulting and sometimes obscene references to any woman who plays
> Go. Sexist, are you?
I'm gladdened that your attentions have been drawn to ethical
questions, even prematurely (inferior) attempts at answering them
yourself, all by your lonesome without any consultations. I hadn't
paid much attention to the sex/gender issues of Go Players, unlike
yourself apparently. Neither special favors, nor discrimination on
some basis of exemption from criticism, apply here. Most certainly
not any placing of either sex on some "pedestal" above the other(s).
Terri Shurter announced herself as "The Goddess of Go" (or another
version of "The Go Goddess") so has arrogated the magnetism which
incurs all wrath & vengeance of those under her dominion, apparently.
Others have preferred to label her "The Hag of Go", though none of
those labels have been my personal cup-of-tea, thankyou very much.
Previously I had announced that Go is "gender-neutral" ---
> From: "-" (jum...@earthlink.net) Date: 2002-04-29
>> "The observation of `gender neutral' qualities for Go has been
>> made at least six times to this newsgroup, yours truly the author."
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=88chtj%242au%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fas_epq%3Dgender%2520neutral%26safe%3Dimages%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26as_ugroup%3Drec.games.go%26lr%3D%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=7a4g6a%24nd3%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fas_epq%3Dgender%2520neutral%26safe%3Dimages%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26as_ugroup%3Drec.games.go%26lr%3D%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=3bcb50b2.25266301%40news.cis.dfn.de&rnum=4&prev=/groups%3Fas_epq%3Dgender%2520neutral%26safe%3Dimages%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26as_ugroup%3Drec.games.go%26lr%3D%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=3b66fc78.92846936%40news.cis.dfn.de&rnum=5&prev=/groups%3Fas_epq%3Dgender%2520neutral%26safe%3Dimages%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26as_ugroup%3Drec.games.go%26lr%3D%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=tcasey.893441923%40shell11.ba.best.com&rnum=6&prev=/groups%3Fas_epq%3Dgender%2520neutral%26safe%3Dimages%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26as_ugroup%3Drec.games.go%26lr%3D%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den
So, by now, this -probably- strikes you as "newsworthy."
> I already know that you are intellectually and
> emotionally subnormal, so it would fit.
Your standards of obtaining "knowledge" are defective. What were
your techniques and methodologies? As I said earlier, and is again
cited by the following, and again below in the main body of the text:
> "-" <jazze...@coolmail.com> writes:
>> I regard confusion of opinion with judgment as unethical.
>>>> According to the question of ethics, it would not be "ethical" to ever
>>>> wear a t-shirt from any Congress one has ever attended, after that
>>>> Congress has ended. I have been to 19 European Congresses and 1 US
>>>> Congress, and the majority have had t-shirts for sale. I also have ones
>>>> from British, Isle of Man and London Open Congresses. The "ethical"
>>>> question you raise exists only in your fevered imagination.
>> Ethical questions persist, with or without one's imagination and
>> irrespective of whether an imagination can be labelled as "fevered"
>> or not. Now I had not portended to -answer- the ethical question,
>> because I regard "premature answers" as unethical. Furthermore I
>> regard confusion of opinion with judgment as unethical. You have
>> here done both already. Most T-Shirts from former/previous Congresses
>> devoted to Go do not offer -statements- therein, but are simply names
>> and places, i.e. a nomenclature of nominalism and not a "statement."
>> They do not generally contain/display any verbs.
> Every t-shirt offers a statement, that I attended (note the past tense)
> that Congress and was sufficiently happy with it to continue wearing the
> t-shirt at later events. I wore Terri Shurter's t-shirt to say that I
> had been banned from IGS.
However the Terri-Shit Website says "have been banned," not
"had been banned", so you were NOT -following- the advertisements.
This again is as much a component of the ethical question being posed.
Most statements involve verbs, because a completed proper sentence
in the English language should have -both- a subject and a predicate.
There's no reason why you should be "happy" to wear a T-Shirt at the
Go Congress, a public event, yet not have the matter discussed here.
If, as you say, the T-Shirt is a "statement", then you chose provocation.
> I had worn it at many European events without comment, but I suppose
> that your spies don't get out from under the rocks to travel that far.
Eh? Where's Europe? :-)
>>>> Since I have been banned in the past I consider that wearing the t-shirt
>>>> was my privilege. The right of freedom of speech and freedom of
>>>> association is, I believe, a feature of US law, but it appears
>>>> punishable by IGS.
>> Conversely, it seems to be the "right and freedom of speech and
>> freedom of association" on the part of IGS/PandaNet to employ the
>> Richard Mullens interpretation of the Terri-Shit phrase to mean "I will
>> be `Banned from IGS'" and thereby deploy the appropriate remedies.
>> Apparently you did not consider such action to be a punishment, since
>> you were proudly presenting evidence of the misfeasance/misbehavior.
> IGS is one of the best plays to play and study Go online. There are
> always players to play and games to watch and I am grateful for the
> provision of the facilities. I continue to use it and I do recommend
> others to use it. However, they seem to condone and accept you and your
> efforts to poison the atmosphere here and drive out any reasoned and
> rational discussion of on-line servers. You do more disservice to IGS
> and to this Newsgroup than can be believed and it appears that it is
> deliberate policy of IGS to encourage this.
I understand now that you were -advertising- IGS, to promote it, and
to recommend its use by others, when you wore "Banned from IGS."
This is what you would call the lack of disservice to IGS, and exemplary
of some actions taken to minimize the poisoned atmosphere you decry.
With regards to your "free speech issue" from further above, the point
not mentioned, of course, is that IGS/PandaNet has pursued -no- legal
action to halt that "trademark-infringing" sale of Terri-Shits, nor any
prevention of those privileges to smear Terri-Shit on your hairy chest.
Why would you suppose it comprises "punishment" to ban, in fact,
someone who wears a -placard- announcing "Banned from IGS"?
Of course the topic here concerns "your" misbehavior, not that of
my -observations- concerning "your" misbehavior, as you seek to
twist and turn in the wind. This issue concerns the message, not
the messenger. The ethical question here concerns the wearing of
a T-Shirt, displaying a false message, not who wears it or who points
out the wearer of that message-displaying T-Shirt. Of course, it has
also been previously documented on this newsgroup that the British
encounter severe difficulty whenever engaging with issue-oriented
discourse, since for Brits everything is ad_hominem vs. ad_hominem.
>>"James" <JSR...@bxcom.com> wrote:
>>> Ignore him. He clearly does not understand English well enough
>>> to know that "banned" is passed tense.
> "-" <jazze...@coolmail.com> writes:
>> James clearly does not understand English well enough to know that
>> there are several types of past tenses, present tenses & future tenses.
>> In particular, the Terri-Shit website advises Terri-Shit wearers to mean
>> "have been banned", not "had been banned (but later reinstated)."
T Mark Hall <tm...@gogod.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Have I been reinstated? When and by whom and for what reason?
I don't have the time, energy, inclination or interest, to follow
the "latest and greatest" with regards to your rapidly-changing status
at IGS, or whether another ban follows reinstatement, or whether yet
another reinstatement follows yet another ban. I'm fairly confident,
however, that you'll continue to keep us -informed- by wearing the
appropriate T-Shirts at appropriate Go Congressional Conferences,
and that way newsgroup readers will also become apprised of your
current IGS status. Wasn't that behind the original intent, anyway?
- regards
- jb
Bob the Younger
Why don't we start rec.games.go.politics? Or maybe
rec.games.go.bitch.about.online.go.servers?
It's not that I don't find some of this amusing, but really the IGS/anti-IGS
people bashing each other here is getting a bit old.
"Fu, Ren-Li" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:aJu1b.249661$hOa....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Trunk
though I find the IGS - anti IGS very amusing, and that's handled
very professionaly, since I never see any swear words :)
"Bob the Younger" <rabidbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bifolb$9tj$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Fu, Ren-Li
Until jb started acting like a big jerk.
-frl
"Bob the Younger" <rabidbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bifolb$9tj$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
-
"Fu, Ren-Li" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Funny thing is, I used to be an IGS person.
>
> Until jb started acting like a big jerk.
Excuse me, but I had nothing to do with the fact that during the
scoring phase of a game you would proceed to remove the live
stones of your opponent, even repeatedly after the opponent tried
to conduct "undo", and that there were -MANY- complaints of this
as several Admins watched their emails and messages pile up,
concerning reports of your misbehaviors.
Secondly, I had nothing to do with the fact that you did not access
your account for the 60-day time-out period, a period which you had
acknowledged as being 60-days, since you had corrected my 30-day
claim. You were knowledgeable beforehand that your account would
expire in 60-days. Once it did, automatically, you blamed people for it.
My recommendations had -nothing- to do with your 60-day time-out.
I'd say, overall, that you are a pathological liar, even a danger to
yourself and a danger to others. Perhaps you should not drive a car.
- regards
- jb
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> "-" <jazze...@coolmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> You are/were player "kungfu." You do/did remove the live stone
>>>> groups of your opponent during the counting phase. This is documented.
>>>>
Fu, Ren-Li
>
> "Fu, Ren-Li" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote:
> > Funny thing is, I used to be an IGS person.
> >
> > Until jb started acting like a big jerk.
>
>
> Excuse me, but I had nothing to do with the fact that during the
> scoring phase of a game you would proceed to remove the live
> stones of your opponent, even repeatedly after the opponent tried
> to conduct "undo", and that there were -MANY- complaints of this
> as several Admins watched their emails and messages pile up,
> concerning reports of your misbehaviors.
You're right, you had nothing to do with it, and neither did I. Oh sorry, I
should correct that - you DID have something to do with it. You accused me
of doing it.
> Secondly, I had nothing to do with the fact that you did not
access
> your account for the 60-day time-out period, a period which you had
> acknowledged as being 60-days, since you had corrected my 30-day
> claim. You were knowledgeable beforehand that your account would
> expire in 60-days. Once it did, automatically, you blamed people for
it.
> My recommendations had -nothing- to do with your 60-day time-out.
You're right, you had nothing to do with me not using IGS because I found
other servers to be "better".
> I'd say, overall, that you are a pathological liar, even a
danger to
> yourself and a danger to others. Perhaps you should not drive a car.
Funny.. jb calling ME a pathological liar. Hahaha.. That's almost as funny
as jb letting me know I could/will/have been placed into "double-ban".
-frl
-
>> "Fu, Ren-Li" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>> Funny thing is, I used to be an IGS person.
>>>
>>> Until jb started acting like a big jerk.
> "-" <jazze...@coolmail.com> wrote in message
>> Excuse me, but I had nothing to do with the fact that during the
>> scoring phase of a game you would proceed to remove the live
>> stones of your opponent, even repeatedly after the opponent tried
>> to conduct "undo", and that there were -MANY- complaints of this
>> as several Admins watched their emails and messages pile up,
>> concerning reports of your misbehaviors.
"Fu, Ren-Li" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote:
> You're right, you had nothing to do with it, and neither did I.
> Oh sorry, I should correct that - you DID have something to do with it.
> You accused me of doing it.
No, actually I heard of the report(s) from none other than Tweet.
I was simply -relaying- the down & dirty info for the benefit of players.
>> Secondly, I had nothing to do with the fact that you did not access
>> your account for the 60-day time-out period, a period which you had
>> acknowledged as being 60-days, since you had corrected my 30-day
>> claim. You were knowledgeable beforehand that your account would
>> expire in 60-days. Once it did, automatically, you blamed people for it.
>> My recommendations had -nothing- to do with your 60-day time-out.
> You're right, you had nothing to do with me not using IGS because
> I found other servers to be "better".
Looks like everybody reached an agreement: it was also "better"
that you found other servers.
>> I'd say, overall, that you are a pathological liar, even a danger to
>> yourself and a danger to others. Perhaps you should not drive a car.
> Funny.. jb calling ME a pathological liar. Hahaha.. That's almost as funny
> as jb letting me know I could/will/have been placed into "double-ban".
People can serve multiple life sentences; it's not so far-fetched.
- regards
- jb
Fu, Ren-Li
>
> No, actually I heard of the report(s) from none other than
Tweet.
> I was simply -relaying- the down & dirty info for the benefit of
players.
>
So when are you going to answer my question and dicsuss in which of the
2,000 finished games I have on IGS that I was a remover of live stone
groups?
> > Funny.. jb calling ME a pathological liar. Hahaha.. That's almost as
funny
> > as jb letting me know I could/will/have been placed into "double-ban".
>
> People can serve multiple life sentences; it's not so
far-fetched.
If you're banned, you're banned. What do I have to fear from a "double" ban?
It doesen't MEAN anything.
-frl
-
"Fu, Ren-Li" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote:
> So when are you going to answer my question and dicsuss in
> which of the 2,000 finished games I have on IGS that I was a
> remover of live stone groups?
In "some" of them. No idea whether it was "most" or "a few."
Not -all- of your misbehaviors was documented. Enough sufficed.
>> People can serve multiple life sentences; it's not so far-fetched.
> If you're banned, you're banned. What do I have to fear from a
> "double" ban? It doesen't MEAN anything.
Since you prefer "other servers" it doesn't MEAN anything.
- regards
- jb