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.
Trump's lies and tendencies are far more pronounced and concerning to those who can see clearly. I was fairly neutral on Trump 4 years ago. The more I know about the man the less I like about him. It's not that important to me who wins, if it's Trump, Americans will deal with the consequences good and bad. I see no scenario where ordinary Americans are not disappointed with him in 4 years if he wins. Perhaps the same is true of Clinton.
Sid, if you really believe release of emails is a public service based on the First Amendment, then please release to the public domain immediately all your personal email as well as all your emails from your business dealings over the past many years.
It's not a question of belief. The Pentagon Papers Supreme Court decision of 1971 made it legal for a publisher (New York Times and Washington Post) to publish stolen material. Wikimedia is a publisher , they are not the thieves. I am against theft but all for publishing as long as it is true.
It's not a question of belief. The Pentagon Papers Supreme Court decision of 1971 made it legal for a publisher (New York Times and Washington Post) to publish stolen material. Wikimedia is a publisher , they are not the thieves. I am against theft but all for publishing as long as it is true.
That is like saying if someone stole your car, you'd be ok with it being sold in pieces at your local chop shop.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
.....It is evident that Trump's path to victory is remarkably unlikely......
There's lots of post-disaster analysis going on, but so far no one has mentioned one thing.... the extreme statistical unlikelihood of this happening with so many states being "toss-up".
I am now viewing this in the light of fate and destiny. And none of it is good, starting with the stock market tomorrow and slowly but assuredly escalating to the worst we can imagine.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
That is like saying if someone stole your car, you'd be ok with it being sold in pieces at your local chop shop.
That is what the law is right now. Media routinely relies on information that is not meant for public distribution, deep throat with Watergate etc etc. If my information was stolen I would go after the thieves.
There's lots of post-disaster analysis going on, but so far no one has mentioned one thing.... the extreme statistical unlikelihood of this happening with so many states being "toss-up".
I am now viewing this in the light of fate and destiny. And none of it is good, starting with the stock market tomorrow and slowly but assuredly escalating to the worst we can imagine.
Clearly you did not read the other thread on this subject where polling methodologies were discussed and why IBD and Rasmussen were among the few that were correct. They relied on both cell phone and land line surveys the other relied on land lines only which are typically old ladies in the suburbs that participated. Garbage in Garbage out! Furthermore the mainstream weighted the polls by selectively choosing who was interviewed. Similar problems with Brexit.
Clearly you did not read the other thread on this subject where polling methodologies were discussed and why IBD and Rasmussen were among the few that were correct. They relied on both cell phone and land line surveys the other relied on land lines only which are typically old ladies in the suburbs that participated. Garbage in Garbage out! Furthermore the mainstream weighted the polls by selectively choosing who was interviewed. Similar problems with Brexit.
But none of the polls had any of the battleground states in favor of one candidate or the other OUTSIDE THE MARGIN OF ERROR. Therefore each of them was literally a toss-up. Everyone was agreed on what the battleground states were and that they were toss-up.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I see the election went exactly as the pollsters and networks predicted. They are worth every penny they are paid. Assuming they are paid pennies, that is.
"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.
That is what the law is right now. Media routinely relies on information that is not meant for public distribution, deep throat with Watergate etc etc. If my information was stolen I would go after the thieves.
You would go after the thieves, BUT if you found your stolen car at a chop shop, you'd throw in the towel and say, "Ok, well, I'm not against selling of stolen car parts, so I am just going to go home and buy a new car."
Saying "that is what the law is right now" is a total cop out.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
You would go after the thieves, BUT if you found your stolen car at a chop shop, you'd throw in the towel and say, "Ok, well, I'm not against selling of stolen car parts, so I am just going to go home and buy a new car."
Saying "that is what the law is right now" is a total cop out.
Call it what you like but that is the way it is right now and I govern myself accordingly. So Trumps 1995 Tax return is stolen and published in the New York Times and that is ok but Wikileaks publishing stolen emails from John Podesta is not. That's Paul Bonham's logic??? Get off your high horse you preachy self righteous fart.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Wednesday, 9th November, 2016, 02:46 AM.
Call it what you like but that is the way it is right now and I govern myself accordingly. So Trumps 1995 Tax return is stolen and published in the New York Times and that is ok but Wikileaks publishing stolen emails from John Podesta is not. That's Paul Bonham's logic??? Get off your high horse you preachy self righteous fart.
Show me where I wrote ANYTHING -- ANYTHING AT ALL -- about the publishing of Trump's 1995 tax return. I did comment on the conclusions that were drawn from that but I did not say a word about the act itself.
I did not agree with what the NY Times did. Period. Even considering that publishing of tax returns is what is expected of Presidential candidates.
And you know why? I'll sum it up in 2 words: "ethical hacking". I've got stuff on more people you can shake a stick at, possibly including yourself (remember, I once was considering you as a potential investor in my project)..... but never, never will I use it against them outside the realm of the law of the land, and that includes doing what Wikileaks is doing.... publishing stolen property, the thing you are all in favor of, which would by logic include a chop shop selling your stolen car parts.
You are just angry because I basically blew to bits your logic re: Wikileaks. You're busted. Own it like a man.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Well, if you do not see any media bias being directed against Trump and in favour of Clinton then I am afraid I can't help you.
Brad, I have to now concede that you do have HALF a brain.
You were the only one to say that Trump should win because of the sheer numbers of people at his rallies. No one else (on this forum) saw that. Bob Armstrong predicted Trump victory, but on the basis of "secret" Trump voters. Not the same thing, and I don't think there were any significant numbers of "secret" Trump voters.
So for seeing the one indicator that we all should have paid attention to, you deserve kudos.
Unfortunately, you didn't follow that through. Instead of just leaving it at that, and in fact PREDICTING a Trump victory, you decided that media bias was going to spoil the vote for Trump. And I took you to task on that, because if the media bias didn't stop people from coming to Trump rallies, why would it stop them from voting for him? That's what you didn't see. You didn't really believe your own interpretation. You clung to the invention of media bias, and there was no media bias. There was only media reporting on racism, sexism, xenophobia. I hope you will realize that.
Kudos again on your prescient observation. Next time believe it all the way to the finish. And abandon this idea of media bias. There is FOX News, and there is MSNBC, and then there is the bulk of the media which is fair and balanced but which will report on crimes against humanity which is part of Trump's makeup.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
There's lots of post-disaster analysis going on, but so far no one has mentioned one thing.... the extreme statistical unlikelihood of this happening with so many states being "toss-up".
I am now viewing this in the light of fate and destiny. And none of it is good, starting with the stock market tomorrow and slowly but assuredly escalating to the worst we can imagine.
I see this as we get the leaders we deserve. Trump for all his buffoonery is an astute business man and master of persuasion. Hopefully he can bring that to his presidency. I thank God we didn't get Hillary and the Clinton kleptocracy. America would not have survived it. The big winner from FIDE's point of view is probably Kirsan. I don't think the new regime will maintain any of the failed policies of the Obama administration. Putin is probably a winner as well for the opportunity for a reset but I don't think he should be too happy as negotiations will be tougher than they would have been under a Hillary administration.
Another big winner is Israel. Trump does not hate their leadership as Obama seems to.
Tweet
Comment