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.
"...if you want to come across as neutral in a debate (in this case, Trump vs. Clinton), you should spell that out right from the beginning."
[This is a preposterous and insulting statement. It almost sounds like the victim is being blamed. Implicit in what Paul writes is the suggestion that I am responsible for his misinterpretation, which in turn lead to his insulting me.]
"You have to understand how easily someone, anyone, could have thought you were a Trump supporter."
[I have never expressed any difficulty understanding this. What I have difficulty with is the insults.]
You say you have no difficulty understanding how you could have been taken as a Trump supporter because of your comments. Ergo, you should be blamed. Yes, my suggestion is that you are responsible for the original misunderstanding. As you pointed out, 3 of us who were the only ones to respond all took it the same way.
As for what your hyper-emotional side takes as insults.....the next section deals with that.
"I did not accuse you of any horrible attitudes having to do with 19th century thinking, I accused that of Trump supporters. And then here's what I wrote: "From your postings, I'd say you would be in favor of such a social movement back to the 19th century. Although perhaps it's just Trump's economic ideas you support, so I'll not accuse you outright."
[Repeating his own absolutely sickening insult mitigated only slightly by the caveat.]
First of all, it's not an insult. It is a statement of fact about quite a few of Trump's supporters, such as David Duke and Stephen Bannon and all their followers. They want to take America back to the past of white supremacy, black submission and all kinds of similar divides that America used to have. Anyone who considers that an insult is someone who feels it is being applied to himself or herself and who doesn't like to hear the truth.
And second, it wasn't applied to you.
So there should be no problem.... but some people's kids just don't learn how to control their emotions, I guess. Hard to have civility when emotions are running out of control.
This is all so tedious and tiresome.......
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
And let's not forget: the Clintons attended Trump's wedding to Melania Trump in 2005. Could they have possibly colluded that far back? Could Trump have said something like... "Hillary, if you run, I'll attempt to get the Republican nomination, that way we'll shut out the real conservatives." Trump was more Democratic than Republican back then. The fix may have been in that early. Already Trump is keeping key provisions of Obamacare, and I expect more unravelling of his promises to the right as time goes on.
And the very next day after I post that, Trump's team makes Stephen Bannon the chief strategizer for the entire administration. So he zigs left with Obamacare, then zags hard right with this appointment, which makes it clear there will be a distinct direction towards fascism, towards anti-Jew, anti-Black, anti-immigrant policies. Word is that he is also considering Clare Lopez, an anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist, to serve as his deputy national security adviser. Earlier this year, Lopez suggested that the United States must return to the era of communist-hunting Joe McCarthy to prevent an Islamist infiltration. McCarthy was “spot on” about communists infiltrating America in the 1950s, she said, and America should engage in a similar plan to get rid of Muslim extremists in “the top levels of national security in our government.”
Some years ago, public intellectual Noam Chomsky warned that the political climate in the U.S. was ripe for the rise of an authoritarian figure. Now Chomsky is calling the Republican Party "the most dangerous organization in world history".
Given the sheer gravity of the situation as it is presented in the above article.... can Trump be expected to actually survive the next 4 years? I mean, survive in the literal sense.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
"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, you could certainly improve the situation if you were to be the second person to apologize.]
You say you have no difficulty understanding how you could have been taken as a Trump supporter because of your comments. Ergo, you should be blamed. Yes, my suggestion is that you are responsible for the original misunderstanding. As you pointed out, 3 of us who were the only ones to respond all took it the same way.
[This is not good logic. When someone makes a prediction there are no grounds to assume that this person wants the prediction to take place. All three of you made the mistake in logic, one of you immediately resorted to insults.]
When I called you an idiot, a moron and an imbecile, each one of these was an insult (for which I have apologized). Now, if I had said next upon any of these instances that I was just kidding, the caveat would have meant nothing. It would have been too late, because you would already have been insulted. Time only works in one direction. After a person reads an insulting comment they have been insulted, regardless of what they read next.
I might also add that since I apologized I have not resorted to any further insults, while you have continued to insult me right up to your most recent post (indeed Vlad too has jumped back on the bandwagon), despite the fact that I did apologize and despite the fact that I did stop my insulting of you.
Paul, would you care to apologize? Vlad? (Vlad, I do not recall intending to insult you but if I did I offer an apology.)
Last edited by Brad Thomson; Tuesday, 15th November, 2016, 09:16 AM.
When a person suggests that (a possibly existing) God may have had something to do with an election, this is not a brainless statement. If there is a God then maybe He/She would act this way, who knows? I certainly do not, but to dismiss the possibility entirely does not seem reasonable to me.
When someone suggests that a xenophobic serial rapist taking on the most important and probably most esteemed job on the planet might be the work of a god, they are operating in dangerously brainless territory. It's an attitude completely devoid of personal responsibility. Humans elected Trump, not God. We have free will. If and when his policies contribute to the marginalisation of oppressed groups, it won't be the fault of a god. It'll be the fault of the electorate.
Trump's VP is a god nut. He doesn't believe in global warming and evolution, and thinks homosexuality is unnatural. He also wants to legally mandate funerals for miscarried fetuses. Don't worry, though. He thinks he was appointed to office by God.
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
They should not feel any more cheated than a chess player feels cheated when he gets mated with two pieces up. The rules of the game in this case were about the electoral college, and Trump's team built a strategy around those rules. Had the election been on popular vote, I'm sure his team would have focused on closing the gap in several states that they gave basically no attention to - they clearly focussed on winning certain swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and so on, because that's how you win the election.
No.
The Democrats should not feel cheated. Clinton should not feel cheated. Members of the electorate have every right to feel cheated. We were never playing "the game." We never chose to enter a system with an electoral college. Well, I did; I'm an immigrant. But the point stands.
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
When it gets this far, then yes, I agree with you completely.
But I see nothing wrong with Vlad suggesting that God may have had an effect upon the election. If God does exist then possibly He/She did have an effect, that IS what Gods are supposed to do after all.
When I called you an idiot, a moron and an imbecile, each one of these was an insult (for which I have apologized). Now, if I had said next upon any of these instances that I was just kidding, the caveat would have meant nothing. It would have been too late, because you would already have been insulted. Time only works in one direction. After a person reads an insulting comment they have been insulted, regardless of what they read next.
I might also add that since I apologized I have not resorted to any further insults, while you have continued to insult me right up to your most recent post (indeed Vlad too has jumped back on the bandwagon), despite the fact that I did apologize and despite the fact that I did stop my insulting of you.
Paul, would you care to apologize? Vlad? (Vlad, I do not recall intending to insult you but if I did I offer an apology.)
I have to assume you mean Vlad Dobrich, not Vlad Drkulec. Both have responded to you here, so you should be specific which one it was.
Your example above where someone does insult you personally, then says "I was just kidding", isn't what happened here.
I made a statement of fact about a large swath of Trump supporters. So first of all, you need to recognize that. If you're going to call it an insult, well, your own claim that the media is biased can be seen as just such an insult. You claim it's fact about the media, and that's your opinion. I similarly claim fact about a large segment of Trump supporters, and that is my opinion.
Then I wrote I could see you being a Trump supporter (something 2 other people also wrote either explicitly or implicitly). But I added that maybe it was only Trump's economic ideas you support, in which case the stuff about racism, sexism, xenophobia didn't apply to you. I did not say "it does apply to you" and then follow that up with "I'm just kidding".
So I think it is clear that I have not lumped you in with the segment of Trump supporters I criticized. And all you had to do was respond "You are correct, I am not among those who want America to go back in time to an era of racism, sexism, etc." And that would have ended the matter.
Instead you get all emotional and jump on this bandwagon of me insulting you. If you disagree, show us all the statement where I insulted YOU. Don't include the caveat, quote the statement where I insulted YOU. You personally.
And now you're saying I continue to insult you. Quote those statements as well.
I can't apologize for something I did not do. I think it's amazing that you have made these overtures, because no one in ChessTalk history has done this, but that doesn't mean I can admit to something I did not do.
You have stated for the record that you are not a Trump supporter. So everything should be clear, what I said about certain Trump supporters does NOT apply to you.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
When it gets this far, then yes, I agree with you completely.
But I see nothing wrong with Vlad suggesting that God may have had an effect upon the election. If God does exist then possibly He/She did have an effect, that IS what Gods are supposed to do after all.
(Reaching for popcorn) "Everybody gather around! This is going to get REAL interesting!"
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Don't include the caveat, quote the statement where I insulted YOU. You personally.
First, thanks for the clarifications about Vlad and Vlad, I was not aware of this.
To quote you:
"It means let's go back to pre-civil rights movement, maybe even further back to take away women's rights including the right to vote, let's go back to the white-dominated, male-dominated America that we all read about in history books...
From your postings, I'd say you would be in favor of such a social movement back to the 19th century."
There was nothing in my postings that justified such a conclusion. I found and still find this comment to be insulting.
Do you have an opinion on world historical individuals in the sense of Hegel referring to Napoleon as one? In the 20th century we could probably put into this category names such as Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, Mao, Paul Bonham and maybe others. All of these people are in some sense destined to deeply affect History. They are not exactly sent by God, for all of them to varying degrees represent the moving power of the negative on a mass scale. There is a logic to History that is playing out, and this process is the actualization of the absolute idea, or, god reaching the point of being both in-himself and for-himself. In other words, God finally fully realizing what he/she is. Bliss and perfection then awaits.
In-a-gadda-da-vida-baby.
I have some difficulty with any idea that supposes that an all powerful God would not already know what he is. I have taken a number of religious studies courses including two which largely dealt with questions of Evil and theodicy. My professor usually reconciled Evil with the idea of much less powerful God than the one I believe in which is in turn based upon reading the Bible and a great deal of reading of Christian and Eastern writers. I kind of like the arguments of Leibnitz that this may be the best of all possible worlds given the constraints of Free Will and prophecy. If you add in the idea that perhaps this is just one of many existing parallel universes then heads can explode.
From my perspective there is a God who chooses to make himself known to those who seek him through study of scriptures or even direct experience by means described by the mystics. I use him rather than her because that fits in better with my notions but I do respect the right of people to refer to her when speaking of God as He is both him and her and neither. But, I digress.
Among the preachers I have run across were one or two that had simplified explanations of history. The theory was that the Satanic forces had to always be prepared for the end times while not knowing when they would actually be initiated so they needed to have their Alexander, Caesar, Napolean, Hitler, Stalin, Mao waiting at the ready in the wings.
Bringing up God can bring out the bigotry in people as we often see here on chesstalk. I am not ashamed of my faith. It is a large part of who I am. Evangelicals and people who believe in God turned out in large numbers to vote for Trump in large part as a reaction to the godless on the other side and their politically correct ideas and that is largely a good thing.
The media will do their best to destroy Trump even now as they pretend to wallow in their mea culpas for a moment but continue the relentless attack on a candidate which offends them at an existential level.
I would have preferred Ted Cruz but maybe Ted wouldn't have been able to survive all the racist, sexist blah blah blah blah attacks of the Democratic party and their media and continually rise from the ashes like Trump was able to do. It is what it is.
We now have a president elect who is a master of persuasion who is not taking the job to enrich himself as Hillary would have been doing. I think his first few picks have been astute and will go a long way towards making him a successful president.
I have some difficulty with any idea that supposes that an all powerful God would not already know what he is. I have taken a number of religious studies courses including two which largely dealt with questions of Evil and theodicy. My professor usually reconciled Evil with the idea of much less powerful God than the one I believe in which is in turn based upon reading the Bible and a great deal of reading of Christian and Eastern writers. I kind of like the arguments of Leibnitz that this may be the best of all possible worlds given the constraints of Free Will and prophecy. If you add in the idea that perhaps this is just one of many existing parallel universes then heads can explode.
Interesting. My own view is that the Problem of Evil arguments cannot be refuted. I think they are sound and I think they hold up. Therefore in my view, if there is a God (and I am agnostic on the subject) He/She cannot be all-good, all-knowing and all powerful. If there is a God, in my opinion, He/She must be something less than the all of the above definition. Hence, a theory where God, if He/She exists, must be understood as a less than perfect evolving organism. God, optimistically, WILL eventually get to the point of being all of the above, and when this happens we are back in Eden. So again...
Tweet
Comment