Consistent Moderation and of course Complaints

[Carl Hibbard]

I personally think that David Robertson is a poster of worth and this forum would be much poorer (close to worthless) without him.

I do agree but not with the worthless point

Please keep to the point people

[Paul McKeown]

and certainly hasn't laid out his academic credentials to carry weight in favour of his arguments

In fact, if my memory serves me right, it's Ernie Lazenby that continually refers to David Robertson as Professor, as if it were an insult. Frankly, inverted snobbery is usually a poor substitute for good arguments. I would be very proud to be found worthy of the title by any British university; I'm sure most other users of the forum would too.

[Carl Hibbard]

Paul/ Carl. I have never, repeat never ,insulted David at any time, abused him or ridiculed him in any way; I have however given back as good he has dished out when he has been abusive to me. Being called dense stupid, thick is personal abuse even when it comes from someone who occupies a higher interlectual plane.

Yes I am sorry - agreed so I have changed my previous comment to remove any names references now

I am keen to make sure we don't all descend into the silly name calling that seems to have become more popular recently

[Sean Hewitt]

Liverpool John Moores University I believe. According to the The Complete University Guide they are ranked in 100th position in their national comparison of universities. Out of 113.

Shame on you Sean Hewitt and Ernie Lazenby.

Paul, I think you have taken this completely out of context. Matthew Turner asked the question:-

I assume judging by the eloquence of professor's Robertson's postings he must represent a much more esteemed establishment. [than Stranraer]

I answered factually with the name of the establishment. I do not claim to be qualified to offer an opinion as to how esteemed that University is (it didn't exist when I went to University!) so I googled it and posted an independent source's view of it, together with a link. I'm not sure what the shame is in answering Matthews question in this manner, but apologies if it offended you - it wasn't the intention.

David Robertson is not shy at throwing insults around (often a sign of someone who has already lost the argument, the plot or both). I try, despite his intense provocation, not to come down to that level.

[JustinHorton]

and certainly hasn't laid out his academic credentials to carry weight in favour of his arguments

In fact, if my memory serves me right, it's Ernie Lazenby that continually refers to David Robertson as Professor,

It's probably me, though not as an insult: I use it as a form of formal address, as one might use "Mister", or "Doctor".

[Charles W. Wood]

Look people please stop picking on poor David Robertson, he is a bloke who has tried to do the best he can from his small corner of the world. Liverpool 2008 is a great place in the world at this moment and we have had some of the best Tournaments in THE European City of Culture thanks to this man and the committee that supports him. I would like to remind you all, we all live in a small corner somewhere. I know DR's first reaction is to question someone intelligence when posting against him but thats just a defence mechanism.

Carl does a great job on this forum, I hate the fact it is not the forum linked to the ECF and said so on many occasions to the ECF Board. I have complained about Ernie and DR before today but I do see where these "Reformers" come from and I wish them both well.

From my small corner in this huge ECF world I would love to see people who don't agree in the same forum/committee/room as that is one of the main ways to make sure that the membership and non-membership understands each other. This is a "power to us all" call is based.

I have been accused of being a Gerry Walsh Supporter but I was a Martin Regan supporter before that and he didn't do anything, I still don't understand what he did do? So give me some-one else to support. As there is no-one else to vote for I'll vote for the only people who get the job continued until they die or some-one better comes along.

Carl Hibbard you have my full support and I thank him for pointing out where I stepped over the line. Well done for being the person who tells people off. Viva La Forum

[Matthew Turner]

Professor Robertson has consistently accused people of being slow, stupid, thick and dim-witted. This topic (in some ways initiated by David) is considering the topic of 'moderation' and in it Professor Robertson has accused someone of being a snide and sneering parasite; I hardly think this classes as academic comment. It seems to me perfectly appropriate to point out that Professor Robertson doesn't so much pass judgment from his ivory tower as his redbrick tower block.

[Matthew Turner]

How fortunate we are to have his words of wisdom, thinly disguised as random abuse, before he is whisked off by Harvard or Yale.

[Mark Howitt]

It seems to me perfectly appropriate to point out that Professor Robertson doesn't so much pass judgment from his ivory tower as his redbrick tower block.
.

Matthew,

I think you'll find that in is own field, he is about the standard that a 2700 chess player would be in his.

World Class in fact.

Long may he post

Martin- I think he's an interesting and sometimes provocative poster... (if snobbish and sometimes abusive as well) but if he really was a 2700 academic would he be at Liverpool John Moores University? I've seen it (and some of its students) and it would be like a 2700 player playing in the second or third division of the 4NCL.

[Carl Hibbard]

Can we PLEASE draw a line under this one now

[JustinHorton]

I can't be the only poster who had a quick look at the 4NCL site to see if there were any 2700 players playing in division 2 on the final weekend last season. (Alas no.)

Perhaps I can just say that I don't think it entirely appropriate to judge a poster on the basis of their education, employment or playing strength at chess: the only really important criteria is the standard of their argument. But I also don't like persistent personal abuse, from whatever quarter it comes. Everybody slips up sometimes but abuse as a deliberate or persistent tactic is destructive behaviour. An internet discussion is not unlike a conversation in a pub: on the internet, individual remoteness from other posters often serves much the same function as drink does in a pub, and unless debates are to be dominated by loudest voices and quieter (and perhaps more thoughtful) people driven away, there does have to be a strong bias towards reasonable civility. No?

[Charles W. Wood]

I do find it somewhat of a contradiction that not so many months ago David e mailed privately asking my advice on a legal matter Later in seperate posts he calls me dense, dim witted thick and the rest.

Seems I have my uses when it suits; that sort of behaviour is not what one expects of the highly educated, or is it?

I have the greatest repect for his chess efforts in Liverpool, for only a fool would think otherwise, but his continued use of abuse directed towards those who dont agree with him is tiresome to say the least. Its the less inteligent use of the english language that Carl should be moderating. Mature debate with adults is fine but lets leave the rest out please.

Here Here, well put my fine debating friend. I feel a little jumped on sometimes (I know this happens a lot) but nearly (if not all) the people who advise me or help me do not agree with everything I say; in fact challenge me. Debate is the way forward, Especially at the ECF board level, league level and junior academy level.

[TomChivers]

Mm. I for one don't post at the Atticus forum because my registration was refused!

Comparing chess achievement with academic levels is interesting. I would guess there are a similar number of Nobel prize winning academics alive as there are Grandmasters alive? As to the ratio of Professors to IMs, or IMs+FMs, or IMs+FMs+female titles . . . I have no idea. But then again, there are probably many less pure chess professionals (ie those who earn money from playing and don't have to coach or write) than pure research academics (ie those who don't have to teach or do any uni admin.) Probably any comparisons make no sense.

[Paul McKeown]

[quote="Tom Chivers"]would guess there are a similar number of Nobel prize winning academics alive as there are Grandmasters alive?[/quote]

It was many dark years ago that the 1000th FIDE Grandmaster title was awarded. And I'm sure they have lowered the standard further since then. I would doubt that there are 1000 living Nobel laureates - there must surely be many more than 1000 living GM's.

[TomChivers]

would guess there are a similar number of Nobel prize winning academics alive as there are Grandmasters alive?

It was many dark years ago that the 1000th FIDE Grandmaster title was awarded. And I'm sure they have lowered the standard further since then. I would doubt that there are 1000 living Nobel laureates - there must surely be many more than 1000 living GM's.

Mm, apparently not. See http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5094 .

1158 GMs, and getting (relatively) rarer.