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.
According to some of the betting sites, Trump has around 18% chances to win. Interestingly, before the BREXIT, they gave similar odds: 16% for the exit, 84% for remain.
538 gives Trump around 32%. I would agree more with this number.
I'm annoyed at VISA because it wouldn't let me make an online bet. As of Sunday night you could get 4:1 on Trump win... 8:1 at sites (like PaddyPower) which are illegal to use in Canada.
BTW, re: another set of posts: predicting rain doesn't mean you like rain.
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, our definition of media bias may be different. I am appalled at the media coverage as well, but my criticism is that the mainstream media basically gave Trump a free ride: lots of free coverage, a shocking lack of tough questions, all in the pursuit of ratings and profits.
Tough questions and calling Trump and his surrogates out on their obvious bullshit does not equal media bias. They are just doing their jobs. I am sure most of them are indeed voting for Clinton, that is not bias, just good judgement.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Tuesday, 8th November, 2016, 10:29 AM.
Brad, our definition of media bias may be different.....They are just doing their jobs. I am sure most of them are indeed voting for Clinton, that is not bias, just good judgement.
A most excellent point, Bob.
Brad, think of it this way. If you are a heavy smoker and you go to several doctors and they all tell you to stop smoking or you'll die within a year from the effects, are you going to accuse the medical profession of being biased against tobacco companies? Would you side with protestors who are with the tobacco companies, all of them saying it's all a hoax, smoking doesn't cause any health issues?
There are some policies, especially economic and foreign policy ones, that are hard to pin down exactly what effect they would have, good or bad. But racism, sexism, xenophobia are known to be bad to the health of a nation. And those are the things that the media has come down on Trump for. That's why I (for one) say that if anyone continues to hold the position that the media is biased, then that someone must be a Trump supporter.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Brad, our definition of media bias may be different. I am appalled at the media coverage as well, but my criticism is that the mainstream media basically gave Trump a free ride: lots of free coverage, a shocking lack of tough questions, all in the pursuit of ratings and profits.
Ah, now we are getting somewhere! One could plausibly argue that the media was in a sense biased for Trump. He certainly received more coverage, a lot more in fact. And if bad coverage is better than none, and therefore still good, maybe the media knew this all along and their apparent bias against Trump was actually intended to serve him.
Now, I am not saying that this is or is not the case. But you have raised a very interesting thought!!
Ah, now we are getting somewhere! One could plausibly argue that the media was in a sense biased for Trump. He certainly received more coverage, a lot more in fact. And if bad coverage is better than none, and therefore still good, maybe the media knew this all along and their apparent bias against Trump was actually intended to serve him.
Now, I am not saying that this is or is not the case. But you have raised a very interesting thought!!
The media was acting in their own interest when they were giving intense coverage of the Trump circus. Just like they were giving intense coverage of the Toronto Mayor Rob Ford lunacy. The media always does what gets them the most rating points. People can't tear their eyes away from a train wreck. And in this case Donald Trump is the train wreck.
I would point out as evidence the clear and obvious media
That's not evidence, that's your bias. The actual evidence is to the contrary, but I won't bore you with the evidence since you aren't interested in it. You could find it for yourself by exercising the most simple web searching skills. But you won't.
What evidence do you have, and I mean credible evidence, that Hillary is wining this election legitimately? Nothing the media tells us is credible!
You don't get to demand evidence from me until you show the ability to provide some yourself. Or rather, you do get to demand it (you just did) but I have no reason to obey your desires. Anyone with a lick of sense can find the evidence.
The real evidence will be seen later today, but you will of course claim that these results are "illegitimate", and then go back to your comforting alternate reality with Fox news.
The media was acting in their own interest when they were giving intense coverage of the Trump circus. Just like they were giving intense coverage of the Toronto Mayor Rob Ford lunacy. The media always does what gets them the most rating points. People can't tear their eyes away from a train wreck. And in this case Donald Trump is the train wreck.
I would agree, except that I'd modify "in their own interest" to "what they perceive as their own interests". In actual fact they were acting against their own real interests, at least if they actually want to have a free press. Admittedly that is likely not true of a large part of America's "free" press who really just want to be "free" of competition.
Last edited by Ed Seedhouse; Tuesday, 8th November, 2016, 01:32 PM.
Ah, now we are getting somewhere! One could plausibly argue that the media was in a sense biased for Trump. He certainly received more coverage, a lot more in fact. And if bad coverage is better than none, and therefore still good, maybe the media knew this all along and their apparent bias against Trump was actually intended to serve him.
Now, I am not saying that this is or is not the case. But you have raised a very interesting thought!!
Well, this is the first inkling that you at least have an open mind and are willing to consider opposing views.
If that is the case, can you answer one question: if there really is media bias against Trump, why would it prevent him from getting more votes than Clinton but at the same time NOT prevent him from getting more people to his rallies?
And the reason I ask is because you are the one who wrote that in a "fair" election, Trump would win because he gets far more people at his rallies.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
That's not evidence, that's your bias. The actual evidence is to the contrary, but I won't bore you with the evidence since you aren't interested in it. You could find it for yourself by exercising the most simple web searching skills. But you won't.
You don't get to demand evidence from me until you show the ability to provide some yourself. Or rather, you do get to demand it (you just did) but I have no reason to obey your desires. Anyone with a lick of sense can find the evidence.
The real evidence will be seen later today, but you will of course claim that these results are "illegitimate", and then go back to your comforting alternate reality with Fox news.
A lot of the Trump supporters don't seem to understand that the "bad press" is earned when a candidate continually lies ( and doesn't care ), pushes for economic policies that almost every objective economist on the planet considers unrealistic, and treats women and certain minority groups with little or no respect. However, it's Americans who will feel the full impact of whatever Trump's policies are if he wins ( I remain convinced he'll lose ). Any trade policies or "closed border" policies he tries to invoke with Canada will either be watered down or blocked by other politicians. Even Trump should realize that trade deals with Canada are highly advantageous to the US ( if he doesn't realized this, a lot of Americans and Canadians will lose jobs ).
So in some ways who wins isn't that important to Canadians. Trump might even be an entertaining fail as a President with some decent shake up of American politics longer term. I think he'll be a short term disaster for Americans but by failing he might open up some eyes and they start dealing with their problems properly. I don't think grassroots Americans fully understand what is happening to them since 2008. Many had a comfortable existence for decades and can't deal with the adversity.
Last edited by Duncan Smith; Tuesday, 8th November, 2016, 03:49 PM.
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.
......
Yeah. I didn't think so.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Tweet
Comment