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.
Ken Dryden=Liberal hack. But a pretty smart guy, I will give you that.
Frank Mahovlich = Croation, pathological anti-Communist. Not so smart. But an artist as a hockey player. My hero as a boy. Truth.
Peter Stastny = dunno. Someone else can fill in the blanks.
Red Kelly = the originator of the NHLPA. Oh yeah. Black-listed by the owners.
..............................
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
Red Kelly = the originator of the NHLPA. Oh yeah. Black-listed by the owners.
You seem to be having problems with the quote feature. In your post you attributed the above to Garland. All Garland did was list "Red Kelly" amongst the others. You added the rest.
As for the rest, can you support this in any way?
I don't remember Kelly being the originator of the NHLPA. And I don't remember him being black-listed by the owners. I *do* remember "pyramid power". And him being replaced by Roger Neilson (aka "Captain Video"),
I don't remember Kelly being the originator of the NHLPA. And I don't remember him being black-listed by the owners.
Might have got him mixed up with Ted Lindsay and some of the other activists who were traded and/or demoted to the minor leagues when the NHL broke the union. The Wikipedia entry only mentions Lindsay but uses the plural ("players") without mentioning the names of the other players black-listed. Red Kelly was traded in 1959, not in the 1957-1958 season, so more research is needed. Certainly any talk of a union in those days earned a loud denunciation as a communist. Not much has changed.
Because Kristol and Kasparov share political views. Take a look at the recent interview of Kasparov by Kristol. But what is significant here, is the softballs that he lobs Kasparov. These are buddies. They share the aggressive and enthusiastic appetite for endless war. And Donald Trump just calls a spade a spade.
For those who don't want to wade through all the mutual love between Kristol and Kasparov, one very key political point:
Reagan's insistence on pursuing SDI ("Star Wars") was, in Kasparov's view, the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union. Just to be clear, SDI is part of the infrastructure for "first strike" nuclear war. So Kasparov cheers Reagan precisely for his insistence on preparing for World War III (against the advice of his own military planners, etc. ) .
This relates to today's politics in disturbing ways. The US, under Obama [and strong neo-con influence], has proceeded with the SDI type of arms development and is currently deploying these weapons in Romania and Poland. In the past, the US has claimed that "the Iranian threat" was the reason for this deployment. But everyone knows, especially since the recent agreements with Iran on nuclear development in that country, that this is simply a falsehood. The weapons are aimed at Russia and the US is still planning a first strike. It is still part of their official military doctrine, long after the Soviet Union came to an end (now 25 years ago), and shows, perhaps better than any other example, where this aggressive neo-con posture inevitably leads to.
Russia is simply a target. It could easily be some other country. And recent history shows the names of those targets: Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and so on.
I must confess that I found the interview interesting even if Kristol and Kasparov are so wrong on this key issue.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
Might have got him mixed up with Ted Lindsay and some of the other activists who were traded and/or demoted to the minor leagues when the NHL broke the union. The Wikipedia entry only mentions Lindsay but uses the plural ("players") without mentioning the names of the other players black-listed. Red Kelly was traded in 1959, not in the 1957-1958 season, so more research is needed. Certainly any talk of a union in those days earned a loud denunciation as a communist. Not much has changed.
So you got the player wrong, but since there was a vague reference to "other players" you think you might be correct after all somehow (but more research is needed). With that logic I can demonstrate that the "player" you were thinking about is Hugh Hefner. Or one of many bunnies. Research away.
I also think you need to look up the definition of "blacklist": both the formal and what is generally understood by the public. (i.e. "Hollywood Blacklist")
Re: "This Poor Guy," "All He Wants To Do Is Go To War And Kill People".
I don't know why I allow myself to get sucked into this stuff, but oh well ...
1) SDI itself probably had very little to do with the fall of the USSR. The USSR collapsed because economically communism could not compete. On the other hand it is probable that the arms build-up of the early 80's sped up the USSR collapse, as defence spending consumed about 25% of their economy. There is significant documentation for and against this.
2) While many of Reagan's opponents saw SDI as a first strike threat (including the USSR) that was not how Reagan envisioned it. While Reagan was initially a hawk against the "evil empire", at the same time nuclear war was abhorent to him. Reagan became a strong supporter of nuclear disarmanent, particularly in his second adminstration. The Reykjavik summit came very close to eliminating the nuclear arsenals, although Reagan devotion to SDI eventually scuttled the talks.
For interesting discussions of the time, refer of the following:
I don't know why I allow myself to get sucked into this stuff, but oh well ...
1) SDI itself probably had very little to do with the fall of the USSR. The USSR collapsed because economically communism could not compete. On the other hand it is probable that the arms build-up of the early 80's sped up the USSR collapse, as defence spending consumed about 25% of their economy. There is significant documentation for and against this.
I quoted Kasparov here while not agreeing with him. IMHO, this view of his (and his interlocutor) fits with his other views, i.e., the necessity of endless preparation for war. This is a view that he still believes in. The USSR, Russia - it makes no difference. Hence all the chatter which lumps together pre-1991 Russia with Russia of today. The enemy is the enemy ... forever. It's almost racist.
(2) While many of Reagan's opponents saw SDI as a first strike threat (including the USSR) that was not how Reagan envisioned it.... Reagan devotion to SDI eventually scuttled the talks.
SDI relates to the ABM Treaty. What we are talking about is weapons that will shoot down a retaliatory strike (a response to a first strike, by definition) or make retaliation less effective. These weapons make no sense EXCEPT as first strike weapons. If you genuinely want to reduce the risk of a nuclear attack, the much simpler approach is to reduce the quantity, size, and quality of existing nuclear weapons on all sides, down to zero if you can. [Sidebar: It's noteworthy that some non-nuclear weapons are now nearly as lethal as nuclear weapons.]
First strike is still official US military doctrine. So in that sense, the neo-cons and those who share Kasparov's views are still running the show.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
It's noteworthy that you would try to trivialize such blacklists while presuming to educate me on them.
Two mints in one?
You have a bad habit with regard to netiquette. You keep changing the subject line to advance your argument without acknowledging what the original subject was.
As for my original point. You:
a. quoted another poster and amended the quote to make it look like the original poster had made the comment.
b. stated (through your quote hijacking) that Red Kelly was "the originator of the NHLPA. Oh yeah. Black-listed by the owners.". That statement was completely false.
c. then claimed you got Red Kelly confused with Ted Lindsay, but that somehow Red Kelly still could have been either an originator of the NHLPA or blacklisted by the owners.
d. now try to evade the issue completely and choose to go ad hominem.
e. have yet to explain how even Ted Lindsay was blacklisted by the owners. (please note the plural)
Steve
P.S. In case you haven't figured it out. Your original statement was bullcrap and it was completely improper for you to deliberately, flagrantly, misquote another poster.
a. quoted another poster and amended the quote to make it look like the original poster had made the comment.
This is not much better than a spelling flame. You discredit yourself ascribing some mischievous aim to a quoting error. Grow up.
b. stated (through your quote hijacking) that Red Kelly was "the originator of the NHLPA. Oh yeah. Black-listed by the owners.". That statement was completely false.
BS. It is unproven. Apparently, I have to repeat the argument; the wiki piece notes that "players" -note the plural - were traded and/or demoted to the minors as retribution for trying to organize a PA. You DID actually READ the Wiki piece, right?
c. then claimed you got Red Kelly confused with Ted Lindsay, but that somehow Red Kelly still could have been either an originator of the NHLPA or blacklisted by the owners.
Try to get your story straight, OK? My claim is that Kelly may have been one of those "players" blacklisted. I even noted that he HAD been traded, but a year later, and if you had bothered to read the circumstances of that trade, you would have noted the spurious reasoning given for the trade. So it's still plausible.
d. now try to evade the issue completely and choose to go ad hominem.
Your quote: "Your original statement was bullcrap and it was completely improper for you to deliberately, flagrantly, misquote another poster."
Actually, I thought you were doing a great job of that all by yourself.
e. have yet to explain how even Ted Lindsay was blacklisted by the owners. (please note the plural)
OK, so you really haven't read the article and now you want me to spoon feed it to you? lol. No thanks.
Just to be clear - where do you actually stand on the right of workers - note the plural - to organize and bargain collectively? Why do I ask? Because arguing with an advocate of management thuggery is mostly a waste of time.
Have a nice day.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
Because arguing with an advocate of management thuggery is mostly a waste of time.
You originally claimed that Red Kelly was the originator of the NHLPA and that he was blacklisted as a result. I challenged you on that statement. You have then backtracked to say that your claim is "unproven". It's not my job to support your claim. It's yours.
Furthermore, you made the claim by assigning it in a quote to another poster. You haven't apologized for that, admitted any wrongdoing, and seem to feel it is nothing worse than a spelling error on your part.
And now you make the ad hominem attack quoted above.
I don't think I'm the one who needs to "grow up" here.
Tweet
Comment