If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
The only way to deal with this is to cut off funding to schools who hire and protect such professors. Berkely got something like 350 million dollars in federal funding. Schools that decline to arrest and prosecute their professors, students and anarchist agitator rioters lose funding until such time as they can demonstrate that free speech is something that they are willing to protect. I am sure that Governor Brown will be willing to take up the slack in funding thus created. Such a measure would cost the university of California billions of dollars and would probably induce all the researchers who pull in all that funding to relocated to schools who are less politically correct. Don't feed your enemies.
No, no! It was the Right that did it. Just ask Robert Reich, who provided zero proof, but got onto CNN to give his views.
Reich said throughout, "there are rumors", "I'm not saying anything factually", "We just simply don't know on both sides, it jumps to a conclusion." Whereas the woman in the center of the 3 people being shown debating, who was introduced as "a Republican strategist", said "these are left-wing vandals." So it is SHE who tries making a factual statement with no proof.
You're blaming CNN for having Reich, but they also allow this Republican strategist to try and spread her version of the truth. And it took Reich to take her to task for doing that. The host Don Lemon doesn't raise any questions about her statement.
Bring it on with your youtube videos, Tom, and I'll just continue exposing the propaganda behind them. You can continue to blame CNN, blame people like Reich, but the truth is not that simple and you are completely biased.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Your bias against truth is showing again......you are completely biased.
Hi Paul:
Interesting and complex concept: "Bias".
One can be biased because they hold an ideology that is impervious to rational debate: I refer to this as "Ideological Bias". You run into it anywhere on the spectrum: right, centre, left. The person totally and passionately believes that their "factual arguments" justifying their positions, are "true". There is no hint of immorality, of "lying".
A key feature is that the same "facts" (Which others claim to be dubious) are regularly trotted out in support of the position, as if sent down to us on the stone tablets.
There can be here, no dialogue......no presentations of "alternate possible facts" will even be considered.
Dialogue implies an openness on both sides to the possibility the other is right, and they are wrong.
If you really believe that this context is not present, that you are being faced with ideological bias, then Einstein, I believe, said not to waste your time (Don't have his exact quote at my fingertips....someone else got it?).
Bob A
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Saturday, 4th February, 2017, 02:07 PM.
There is no doubt that many of those masked people were outside agitators but we could have figured out exactly who they were if a few of them had been arrested. There are rumours that the agitators are funded by a number of Soros funded left wing groups. There are precedents from the the Obama administration for cutting off funding for schools that don't toe the line (as they threatened with the transgender bathroom issue and also with radical feminist interpretation of toxic males campus indoctrination). Cut off the funding to these left wing universities and sanctuary cities. Stop funding terrorism and rioters.
Reich said throughout, "there are rumors", "I'm not saying anything factually", "We just simply don't know on both sides, it jumps to a conclusion." Whereas the woman in the center of the 3 people being shown debating, who was introduced as "a Republican strategist", said "these are left-wing vandals." So it is SHE who tries making a factual statement with no proof.
You're blaming CNN for having Reich, but they also allow this Republican strategist to try and spread her version of the truth. And it took Reich to take her to task for doing that. The host Don Lemon doesn't raise any questions about her statement.
Bring it on with your youtube videos, Tom, and I'll just continue exposing the propaganda behind them. You can continue to blame CNN, blame people like Reich, but the truth is not that simple and you are completely biased.
Alex Jones has two guests on his program.
The first guest says that he heard rumours that the Clintons killed a whole bunch of associates in order to keep dirty secrets from getting out. Hey, a whole bunch of people are dead who know the Clintons, so just connect the dots.
The second guest says people die all the time. The Clintons know thousands of people and obviously when you know that many people some of them are going to die, perhaps a couple under "mysterious circumstances". The "mysterious circumstances" merely mean that the investigators never found with absolute 100% certainty what happened.
According to the Paul Bonham school of journalism analysis, both are equally credible claims.
Meanwhile Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.
Which seems simpler:
1) A bunch of people opposed to an ideology committed some violence to get their way.
2)There was a conspiracy involving the people on tour, the masked vigilantes and the mayor and police, who chose to make only three arrests for some reason.
Meanwhile Reich, who evidently knows the tens of thousands of students at the university by sight, says the bulk of his proof is that he didn't recognize them as students.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
According to the Paul Bonham school of journalism analysis, both are equally credible claims.
If you take out the word "equally", then you have encapsulated what I am saying. But you inserted that word, which I never used, in a blatant attempt to make my argument seem silly.
Meanwhile Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.
Which seems simpler:
1) A bunch of people opposed to an ideology committed some violence to get their way.
2)There was a conspiracy involving the people on tour, the masked vigilantes and the mayor and police, who chose to make only three arrests for some reason.
Meanwhile Reich, who evidently knows the tens of thousands of students at the university by sight, says the bulk of his proof is that he didn't recognize them as students.
Two points on that:
(1) Courts of law do not use Occam's Razor to determine guilt or innocence. Tom O'Donnell obviously does. Enough said there.
(2) Reich never used the word "proof" because he wasn't making a factual argument. Reich used his non-recognition of the violence perpertrators as evidence giving weight to his argument that they COULD HAVE BEEN anti-free speech activists from the alt right. Again, Tom displays blatant disregard for what people are actually arguing. His bias is so complete that he hears only what he wants to hear, sees only what he wants to see.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
One can be biased because they hold an ideology that is impervious to rational debate: I refer to this as "Ideological Bias". You run into it anywhere on the spectrum: right, centre, left. The person totally and passionately believes that their "factual arguments" justifying their positions, are "true". There is no hint of immorality, of "lying".
A key feature is that the same "facts" (Which others claim to be dubious) are regularly trotted out in support of the position, as if sent down to us on the stone tablets.
There can be here, no dialogue......no presentations of "alternate possible facts" will even be considered.
Dialogue implies an openness on both sides to the possibility the other is right, and they are wrong.
If you really believe that this context is not present, that you are being faced with ideological bias, then Einstein, I believe, said not to waste your time (Don't have his exact quote at my fingertips....someone else got it?).
Bob A
Hi Bob,
Yes, bias is an interesting study. I often wonder if this has ever happened: two identical twins grow up together, attend the same schools, go to all the same events, basically do everything together, maybe even take the same undergraduate studies. And yet.... one of them grows up to be very conservative, the other to be very liberal. And neither can convince the other to come over to their view.
Wouldn't that be interesting? How would psychologists explain such a result? However, I don't know if such a case has ever been documented. But the point is, do we really understand what forms people's opinions, especially when they cling fiercely to them despite evidence they are wrong? Is it possible that our sociological and political beliefs are induced by genetic or chemical processes that might be beyond our control and not influenced by outside environment?
And then there are people who are very open-minded and agnostic, preferring to study all sides of an argument and give each side the benefit of objective consideration.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
If you take out the word "equally", then you have encapsulated what I am saying. But you inserted that word, which I never used, in a blatant attempt to make my argument seem silly.
Two points on that:
(1) Courts of law do not use Occam's Razor to determine guilt or innocence. Tom O'Donnell obviously does. Enough said there.
(2) Reich never used the word "proof" because he wasn't making a factual argument. Reich used his non-recognition of the violence perpertrators as evidence giving weight to his argument that they COULD HAVE BEEN anti-free speech activists from the alt right. Again, Tom displays blatant disregard for what people are actually arguing. His bias is so complete that he hears only what he wants to hear, sees only what he wants to see.
I didn't realize CNN was a court of law. Are the guests' hearsay now evidence?
"Don, they could have been Martians. They could have been a bunch of robots. They could have been ghosts." If I were to make such a claim I would probably need something a bit more compelling than "I read in the National Enquirer that Martians live in Berkeley" or "I'm not saying they were robots but they moved a bit stiffly".
The point is that extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. Ordinary claims (e.g. that some people opposed to an ideology will become violent) are pretty ordinary.
Having said that, of course Reich could be correct. Anything is possible. CNN created fake news by giving both sides a chance to deliver theories with zero proof attached to either. Even if one theory is a lot more plausible than the other.
Last edited by Tom O'Donnell; Saturday, 4th February, 2017, 06:38 PM.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
I skipped ahead to 10:15 or thereabouts and was kind of shocked at the 'enthusiasm' that woman/professor showed - wow. I could almost predict what she was going to yell (and I am still wondering why it is that I could predict some of that...?! yikes) Anyway, interesting post and bizarre video but I don't think we have seen the last of these kind of protests. I think it will only get worse and I am afraid the violence level will simply ratchet up quickly... stay tuned world.
We have had 3 straight weekends of protests now, and I agree that we can expect to see it continue. The vast majority of these protestors are exercising their right of protest in a peaceful way. As long as Trump continues to rule in his authoritarian manner: to insult all his opponents, attack the media, to ignore the constitution, to pretend he has the support of the majority, to deny reality; the protests will continue. I hope the protests remain peaceful and that nobody gets hurt, but we should expect some level of violence.
To hold the leaders of the “left” or the “right” accountable for all acts of violence from extremists is pointless. I do expect the leaders of the “left” and the “right” to condemn acts of violence and to conduct themselves so as not to promote violence. Keep it peaceful. Do not condemn all peaceful protesters for the acts of a few extremists.
We have had 3 straight weekends of protests now, and I agree that we can expect to see it continue. The vast majority of these protestors are exercising their right of protest in a peaceful way. As long as Trump continues to rule in his authoritarian manner: to insult all his opponents, attack the media, to ignore the constitution, to pretend he has the support of the majority, to deny reality; the protests will continue. I hope the protests remain peaceful and that nobody gets hurt, but we should expect some level of violence.
To hold the leaders of the “left” or the “right” accountable for all acts of violence from extremists is pointless. I do expect the leaders of the “left” and the “right” to condemn acts of violence and to conduct themselves so as not to promote violence. Keep it peaceful. Do not condemn all peaceful protesters for the acts of a few extremists.
Hi Bob G:
I think a vain hope re peaceful, non-violent right of assembly.
I saw an article about a month ago I think (I'd have to go scroll down for a long time, and even then could miss it) - 7 USA states had bills now before them to allow municipalities, I think, to manage/limit the peaceful right of assembly (Beyond permits for road-blocking, etc.). Someone else know about this?
I think a vain hope re peaceful, non-violent right of assembly.
I saw an article about a month ago I think (I'd have to go scroll down for a long time, and even then could miss it) - 7 USA states had bills now before them to allow municipalities, I think, to manage/limit the peaceful right of assembly (Beyond permits for road-blocking, etc.). Someone else know about this?
You nailed it.....very, very scary when the whole trending of the governing issue in the USA now is the "fast-tracking" toward authoritarianism (If not Fascism itself)
Tweet
Comment