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.
Sorry Peter if you don't know how to use google or simple search features on wikileaks or twitter that is your problem. Fox News using wikileaks as their source gives countless examples found on wikileaks emails of CNN giving debate questions in advance, politico asking for approval by the Clinton campaign, CNBC and the New York Times working hand in hand with Hillary Clinton etc. I am not going to waste several hours of my life combing through wikileaks and showing you the numerous emails that clearly demonstrate this. I am not your research assistant.
Not to mention the apparent revelation that people were paid to violently disrupt the Trump meeting in Chicago. I hear crickets chirping. If the shoe was on the other foot it would be all over the news.
Democrats busing in people from out of state to vote, paid agitators from the DNC, illegal connections from PACs connected directly to the DNC. Wonderful.
Sid, isn't it more likely that the one poll is an outlier?
Nevertheless, it does concern me.
One thing I have heard is that the non response rate for many polls is very very high. This puts the statistical foundation of surveys on shakey ground. If you think I am worried that Trump may still win, you are absolutely correct.
Well no it is not an outlier, Rasmussen simply uses a different methodology. Here is another poll that uses non traditional methodology that is considered the poll with the best track record of accurately predicting elections as as stated by Nate Silver of Five Thirty eight fame. Today it shows Trump leading(!) by 1 %. http://www.investors.com/politics/ib...idential-poll/
Democrats busing in people from out of state to vote, paid agitators from the DNC, illegal connections from PACs connected directly to the DNC. Wonderful.
I think it is just business as usual for both parties in the good ol' USA.
Sorry Peter if you don't know how to use google or simple search features on wikileaks or twitter that is your problem. Fox News using wikileaks as their source gives countless examples found on wikileaks emails of CNN giving debate questions in advance, politico asking for approval by the Clinton campaign, CNBC and the New York Times working hand in hand with Hillary Clinton etc. I am not going to waste several hours of my life combing through wikileaks and showing you the numerous emails that clearly demonstrate this. I am not your research assistant.
Sid, I wasn't asking you to write an essay. I simply asked you to name the mainstream news organizations you considered corrupt. Surely that request wasn't that hard to deal with - I mean how many can there be? As to the "why", I was interested in your particular point of view. You're a successful business person; you're well-connected; you've served on the board of directors of a major Canadian bank; you have been an important patron of Canadian chess; etc. I thought it would be interesting to hear YOUR "why." After all, if I had wanted the points of view of experienced political analysts I wouldn't have wasted my time coming to ChessTalk.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Well no it is not an outlier, Rasmussen simply uses a different methodology. Here is another poll that uses non traditional methodology that is considered the poll with the best track record of accurately predicting elections as as stated by Nate Silver of Five Thirty eight fame. Today it shows Trump leading(!) by 1 %. http://www.investors.com/politics/ib...idential-poll/
Sid, thanks for the link. I listened to the 7 minute video with Terry Jones explaining why the IBD/TIPP tracking poll is superior with a good track record for the last 3 presidential elections. True/false?, I don’t know!, with the state of US politics, everyone just believes what they want anyway, screw the facts. One fact that I firmly believe: They both lie, but Trump lies more than Clinton! Full stop! But in Trump’s defense, I don’t think he understands what a lie is! It’s all just a sales pitch to him.
The video really didn’t explain the differences in methodology, other than to claim that they capture cell phone users better. But that is a good point. I was grinning all through the explanation that they correct for sample biases and then they massage the final numbers using their own “secret sauce”. This is all totally acceptable when you acknowledge the fact that any raw data can contain errors and biases which is basic to the “art and science” of statistics and sampling theory. The hilarious irony here is that when the climate scientists do the same, it must be some global conspiracy. Groan, relax Vlad. Just remember what Gary Johnson said. In 2 billion years, the sun will expand and envelope the earth, and then it won’t really matter who was correct about global warming.
Anyway, I think the election is still up for grabs. I could only stomach a few minutes of the debate last night. No doubt the SNL version will be much more entertaining.
Yes that is what the articles analysis claims that in itself is subject to debate. You still have not shown any reference where Trump himself specifically proposed what you claimed earlier in this thread.
Well, if that's the published Republican Party tax platform what are you implying? Are you saying that Trump has his *own* tax platform that he can't put into words except in his vague, hard-to-follow speeches? Is there a secret audio tape of his "locker room" tax talk?
And I'm not sure that ballooning the US. Federal debt to 180% of GDP in the next 20 years is a "plan" I'm comfortable with until somebody can say where the spending cuts are going to be.
And I'm not sure that ballooning the US. Federal debt to 180% of GDP in the next 20 years is a "plan" I'm comfortable with until somebody can say where the spending cuts are going to be.
A government that can create it's own money out of basically thin air is somehow going to run out of it?
Of course you will talk about "Zimbabwe" and "Weimar Republic" but that only accepts my previous statement as true. The government of the United States can create as much money as it wishes to, when it wishes to. That doesn't mean it is necessarily a good idea, but it's a fact nevertheless.
The Federal Reserve in the USA tripled the base money supply over a few years and no significant inflation has occurred, and it fact the Fed's main problem right now is that they want inflation at or above 2% and they can't get it to happen by printing money. The reason is simple, of course, it's not printing that causes inflation it's spending. Printing money that gets put in bank accounts and never spent cannot cause a general increase in prices.
And by simple arithmetic every dollar in the public "deficit" is exactly equal to an extra dollar in the hands of the private sector. So in asking the Federal government to reduce it's "deficit" you are asking them to take money out of your own pocket.
Well, if that's the published Republican Party tax platform what are you implying?
The published party tax platform does not include analysis or conjecture. As I already pointed out the published Republican party tax platform is consistent with Donald Trump's statements and does not coincide with what Gordon Ritchie originally claimed in this thread.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Sid, I wasn't asking you to write an essay. I simply asked you to name the mainstream news organizations you considered corrupt. Surely that request wasn't that hard to deal with - I mean how many can there be? As to the "why", I was interested in your particular point of view. You're a successful business person; you're well-connected; you've served on the board of directors of a major Canadian bank; you have been an important patron of Canadian chess; etc. I thought it would be interesting to hear YOUR "why." After all, if I had wanted the points of view of experienced political analysts I wouldn't have wasted my time coming to ChessTalk.
I have watched for the last few weeks as the Democrats bitterly complain that the wikileaks Podesta emails was probably obtained by the Russians who stole them and used Wikileaks as their conduit to publish them. Assuming this is true does not mean that the content has been altered as has been put forward as an argument by the democrats.
In fact no proof has been offered that even a single email out of thousands published has been a forgery. A single counter example would suffice! It really is not hard to have an independent technical auditor look at a date stamped email in the "sent file" area of a server that for the users are immutable and compare it to the emails that have ben published.
This leads to the exchanges below between the chairwoman of the DNC and a reporter asking her about an email she sent where it shows she gave a question in advance to Hillary Clinton in one of the primary debates on CNN.
The DNC chairwoman's defense that the email is a forgery without offering any substantiation is an insult to the intelligence of the American people.
Here is one journalist's reporting of the whole thing. I agree with this journalist entirely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BveshV9zKIw
Dear Sid,
I would like to ask you a couple of serious questions.
I agree that both sides in the US act the same way to get elected, but I think Trump is a total clown because of his total inability to do what is best for him to actually win.
I am a not sold on the Trickle down economics of cutting taxes on the rich, especially when a rich person tells me it will work as they will directly benefit from it. Also, from what I hear, economists are out on the theory and think Trump's plans will do more to hurt the debt than Hillary. Question: is there not a point in which rich people like Rex (or yourself, but I do not care to know your net worth) will not open more businesses and hire more people as they already have so much money they do not need to? Especially since they will make more with the Trump cut? Would it not be better to get other people up and off the ground in terms of owning and running businesses?
Secondly, I have read many times you are not a fan of Putin. How do you square that with Trump seemingly being a fan? Or at least not recognizing that he is the enemy? Does making more money (Trump tax cuts) trump (bad pun) the need to keep Putin down? If it does, how can we trust that people like Rex are honest people? When given the choice, make a tonne of more money, more than he can ever spend, or keep Putin down and he goes for the cash, how can he be trusted? If the Rex's out there ask us to pay more taxes but won't take a personal hit to put up a leader that will oppose him, I see a conflict.
Thanks for answering.
Last edited by Brian Profit; Friday, 21st October, 2016, 03:20 PM.
Reason: spelling is not my strength
Tweet
Comment