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.
A retraction of your characterization of people who choose to have larger than average families would be nice. How do you feel about people who decide to adopt several children?
if you are unable to properly evaluate claims about the aggregate population without taking personal offense, then maybe you should just stay out of such discussions. The data on the relationship between family size and women's educational levels is well established. It's global data. However, aggregate data and trends doesn't say anything about a particular family. Maybe you should take an intro Sociology course.
In any case, your 'attitude' doesn't entitle you to being abusive. Not that I'm surprised.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
You figure your characterization of religious fundamentalism and Nazis isn't personal? You're not making an argument. It's a rant. Probably you really believe what you're writing. Not that I'm surprised.
This business of running out of resources is just that, a big business. With a very few exceptions such as water and the oxygen in our air most resources are not an absolute necessity in and of themselves. There will be substitutes. If a resource becomes too scarce and expensive it will be replaced with something that is less scarce and less expensive.
Instead of focusing on carbon dioxide why don't they go after the companies that are polluting our waters or our air with poisons? The answer is that there is no money in that.
Vlad, I find this cavalier attitude towards natural resources quite alarming. Sure, often substitutes can be found when we exhaust a resource, but that can be carried too far. We need to keep in mind that our species is part of the earth biosphere and dependent upon it for our survival. We play God at our own peril. I applaud you for your concern over pollution. But can you not see that changing the dynamics of our environment, for instance the chemical composition of the air or plundering to exhaustion some resources, could be just as dangerous?
I find the claim that climate change is this hoax perpetuated by a global conspiracy of evil climate scientists amusing. Is it not more probable than the science is compelling and the climate scientists are trying to save us? I think so. If a few of them are paid well and have generous budgets to work with, great.
You figure your characterization of religious fundamentalism and Nazis isn't personal? You're not making an argument. It's a rant. Probably you really believe what you're writing. Not that I'm surprised.
It is politically correct to attack religious people for their beliefs here unless you attack the Church of the Impending Global Warming Disaster or its religious icons The Sacred Computer Models which demonstrate the Global Warming Disaster.
Vlad, I find this cavalier attitude towards natural resources quite alarming.
Why? I don't think that natural resources should be wasted but they are resources which can be used. I do not believe that we will run out of resources in any time frame which is relevant to us or our descendants because there will always be substitutes. It is in the interest of the doomsayers to convince us that we live in a limited and declining world because it will induce panic and people will be willing to drink the poisoned koolaid along with buying whatever snake oil they are selling.
Sure, often substitutes can be found when we exhaust a resource, but that can be carried too far.
Define too far.
We need to keep in mind that our species is part of the earth biosphere and dependent upon it for our survival.
I don't see what this has to do with sending billions of dollars to Russia so that they can spend it on their military and refurbishing their nuclear arsenal. This is what the Kyoto treaty would have required. This money would not have done one thing to help the environment but the drafters of the Kyoto treaty convinced Russia to join by setting their carbon baselines at the levels that they were outputting before the collapse of communism. We would have spent billions without committing one penny to actually doing anything about pollution either real or imagined. That is why the Conservatives ditched the agreement. Can we agree that sending money to Russia would have been a bad idea from Canada's point of view?
We play God at our own peril.
I agree with this statement.
I applaud you for your concern over pollution. But can you not see that changing the dynamics of our environment, for instance the chemical composition of the air or plundering to exhaustion some resources, could be just as dangerous?
It could be but you will have to talk specifics as making general support of motherhood statements will not get us very far. What resources in particular do you think are being plundered to exhaustion?
I find the claim that climate change is this hoax perpetuated by a global conspiracy of evil climate scientists amusing.
Follow the money. They are not necessarily evil beyond their intended effects on everyone and everything. They are operating in their own self interest, presenting us with fantasy scenarios that have no resemblance to reality based on false models with flawed assumptions.
Is it not more probable than the science is compelling and the climate scientists are trying to save us?
Why does their trying to save us always require shuffling large amounts of money, capital and resources around in ways that benefit them without actually doing anything real about pollution or even carbon dioxide levels which is the bogey man we are supposed to be afraid of?
I think so. If a few of them are paid well and have generous budgets to work with, great.
If it turns out that they are wrong and global warming is not man made, their models are flawed and have no resemblance to reality, should those budgets be taken away?
if you are unable to properly evaluate claims about the aggregate population without taking personal offense, then maybe you should just stay out of such discussions. The data on the relationship between family size and women's educational levels is well established. It's global data. However, aggregate data and trends doesn't say anything about a particular family. Maybe you should take an intro Sociology course.
In any case, your 'attitude' doesn't entitle you to being abusive. Not that I'm surprised.
You violated Godwin's law in the post to which Gary so strongly objected. It should not surprise you that people should object to being equated to Nazis just because they don't wish to subscribe to your pet social engineering schemes based on rather flimsy evidence. I am sure that there are many reading this who lost family members to the Nazis or to fighting the Nazis.
I do understand that educated women tend to postpone childbearing in relation to uneducated women. In certain parts of the world it is deemed acceptable to shoot in the head or throw acid in the faces of young girls that engage in the "crime" of obtaining a basic education. That has nothing to do with the people here who refuse to accept the conventional "wisdom" on global warming. Your laughable wish that we suffer some kind of personal consequences for our willingness to stand up against tyranny and oppression which the warmists seek to impose paints an unflattering picture of you although it does not surprise me. You share more with the Taliban than you would like to admit, the chief belief being that unbelievers deserve to be punished for their lack of faith.
Stop wishing for that apocalypse to happen. It is very unlikely that things will work out the way that you planned if it does happen. They are not going to rearrange the rules to reward the good little puppets for their favourable public pronouncements on chesstalk. Joining the herd will not gain you any points. The herd is not there for your benefit. It is there to organize you for the slaughter for the benefit of the owners of the herd.
You really should ask yourself why you are so upset by any dissent to your apocalyptic scenarios. If I am wrong, it will soon be obvious that I am wrong. Stop giving me ammunition by posting obvious lies from unqualified sources. If the search for truth is the aim then there is no reason to attempt to use lies to further your aims. The end does not justify the means. "You can't seek to obtain a good position by passing through a bad one." (Viktor Gavrikov) We have had quite a few years since this global warming industry was hatched and so far there has been little validation of the worst case scenarios.
My task here is simply to keep things real and point out the obvious flaws in your reasoning and to call you on any demonstrable lies or misleading statements. One person standing up will lead to another and another and the dictators of groupthink can no longer take hold. I am a gadfly, a devils advocate who destroys the illusion of consensus. This is what makes you and some others so angry. Your house of illusion is so fragile because all it takes is one person not accepting the demonstrably false story that you are trying to peddle. I don't dislike you. I feel sorry for you and hope that someday, in a fleeting moment of honest self reflection, the little nagging voice in your head will say, I was wrong on all this climate change stuff. I don't know if you have the degree of self awareness to come to such a realization or not. If not, I will not be angry at you or wish you harm, I will hope that you somehow find the enlightenment that you require. Unlike the climate change religion and industry there is nothing that I desire from you. You can neither disappoint nor delight me in this arena except perhaps by beginning to make posts that make more sense.
You figure your characterization of religious fundamentalism and Nazis isn't personal? You're not making an argument. It's a rant. Probably you really believe what you're writing. Not that I'm surprised.
I tried to get that point across to Nigel without saying as much, thinking he might've temporarily lost his judgement.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Tuesday, 25th March, 2014, 05:30 PM.
Reason: Grammar
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Some of the perceived facts concerning a number of topics being discussed in this thread may be affected by the large number of leftist professors and universities nowadays, at least in North America. This may affect the legitimacy of everything being taught, from sociology to climate science:
Some of the perceived facts concerning a number of topics being discussed in this thread may be affected by the large number of leftist professors and universities nowadays, at least in North America. This may affect the legitimacy of everything being taught, from sociology to climate science:
Went back to re-read Nigel's post, and I see where people are coming from. Just because societies with educated women tend to have smaller families, one cannot conclude that having large familes equal oppression of said women. A friend of mine has six children, ages 5 to 25, and freely admits that she loves motherhood. She is thankful to be in a relationship where her husband earns enough that she can devote her time to being a full time mother. I'm not saying this is true for women in general, but it shows that women do not necessarily consider childbearing a form of oppression.
In our "advanced" civilization most families need to have both parents working, and you will be very hard pressed to find one family with 2 working parents that did not regret being unable to spend more time with their children. Today families can't afford to have children. 100 years ago the opposite was true.
There's plenty of data for those who actually care about the facts. Mind you, in a climate change denial thread, all bets are off.
I missed the implication of this statement which is that the skeptics were winning over the warmist alarmists in this climate change debate thread. Ownage!
It is in the interest of the doomsayers to convince us that we live in a limited and declining world because it will induce panic and people will be willing to drink the poisoned koolaid along with buying whatever snake oil they are selling.
Wow, that's quite the statement. Clearly I won't be convincing you otherwise anytime soon. I have better things to do, so I'll just leave you with this thought: I am right, you are wrong. :) LOL
We should just agree to disagree.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Wednesday, 26th March, 2014, 01:59 AM.
I do not believe that we will run out of resources in any time frame which is relevant to us or our descendants because there will always be substitutes. It is in the interest of the doomsayers to convince us that we live in a limited and declining world because it will induce panic and people will be willing to drink the poisoned koolaid along with buying whatever snake oil they are selling.
Wow, that's quite the statement. Clearly I won't be convincing you otherwise anytime soon. I have better things to do, so I'll just leave you with this thought: I am right, you are wrong. :) LOL
While we are just starting now to see the effects of climate change, you ain't seen nothing yet. The effects will intensify over the coming decades and centuries. The sooner we address the problem, the easier it will be to solve.
Tweet
Comment