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.
I said to my circle of friends before the election that I would look forward to a Trump victory just to see him and his party fail in all their endeavors. And that's what I expect to see over the next 4 years.
If the bad guys had Trump bought and paid for they wouldn't have tried so hard to stop him.
Maybe they just pretended to. Maybe they realized that even bad publicity is good publicity. Maybe they actually wanted Trump to win all along.
I am not saying this IS the case, just that I think it to be possible.
So, why would they do this? Simple, to make us suppose that maybe they have lost control and we do not need to worry so much about them any more.
A standard philosophy of great deceivers throughout the ages is to create the problem and then offer the people the solution. We can debate this all we want, but if we wait and see what Trump does we will have our answers,
I said to my circle of friends before the election that I would look forward to a Trump victory just to see him and his party fail in all their endeavors.
I never voted for Stephen Harper, but every time he won I hoped for his success.
Maybe they just pretended to. Maybe they realized that even bad publicity is good publicity. Maybe they actually wanted Trump to win all along.
I am not saying this IS the case, just that I think it to be possible.
So, why would they do this? Simple, to make us suppose that maybe they have lost control and we do not need to worry so much about them any more.
A standard philosophy of great deceivers throughout the ages is to create the problem and then offer the people the solution. We can debate this all we want, but if we wait and see what Trump does we will have our answers,
Everything will be revealed in the passage of time. I'm not sure what we have here but it is something new.
Just because someone is a flawed candidate, doesn't mean that they aren't sent by God. The Apostle Paul's resume included the murder of early Christians before he had his moment on the road to Damascus. If Hillary had won, she also would have been sent by God...
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.
Paul, please, I will be absolutely civil this time. You are very wrong about this, with respect to me at least.
I initially made a comment on this thread that you, and several others completely misinterpreted. You and Vlad, and I think at least one other, assumed that I was a Trump supporter and responded with this false assumption in mind. But Vlad and anyone else only made the mistake for a short period of time and once they realized their misinterpretation they stopped and moved on in the conversation.
But your false interpretation was quite vicious. You accused me of many horrible attitudes to do with 19th century thinking, and kept on and on.
Perhaps I overreacted, in fact, yes I did. So I now offer you a full apology for some of the things I said.
But Paul, really. Look in the mirror man. Stop jumping to such horrible, illogical conclusions about people you have not even met (at least to my knowledge). If you are not sure about the meaning of what a person writes, ask for clarification. Do not automatically assume horrible things. Further, if you are going to put anything in "quotes" you have absolutely got to make sure the person you are accusing said it.
This is a first on ChessTalk: a poster going from name-calling to wanting to be civil. And even offering an apology for the name-calling.
So ok, let's look at all this again. I'll address your suggestion in a moment, Brad, but I have one for you: 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.
Brad, I think I gave you plenty of room to come back and make your position known. I'll be glad to have a civil discussion with you. Do you see the contradiction in thinking that a media bias (if it exists, which I don't believe it does for most of the media excepting MSNBC and FOX News) would distort the vote when it wasn't distorting rally attendance?
You have to understand how easily someone, anyone, could have thought you were a Trump supporter. You agreed totally with media bias, which is something only Trump supporters are alleging. And you wrote "Trump is a True-Blue American, he is the American Dream, he loves mom's apple pie and worships Uncle Sam. His arrogant, blowhard, redneck nature is utterly and completely American." You aren't quoting someone else's viewpoint, so it is your own. And it speaks to ignoring more than half of America, which is something a Trump supporter would easily do. And then you write: "Landslide unless it is fixed, and it IS being fixed already." Again, only the Trump side was alleging a fixed election.
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."
All you had to do was say "No I'm not in favor of any social movement back to the 19th century." And that would have been that.
And then the final thing was that I gave you kudos for being the only one to figure out that attendance at Trump rallies was the key indicator to who would win the election. But I pointed out that you didn't take that and go all the way to predicting a Trump win based on that, instead you said media bias might ruin it.
So Ed Seedhouse pointed out the contradiction in that, and I put it into more detail. I gave you the chance to answer the question, if media bias wasn't affecting attendance at Trump rallies, why would it affect actual vote?
And on media bias in general, do you consider media reporting on racism, sexism, xenophobia to be fair play for the media? The whole thing about media bias and election being rigged was a false Trump narrative, playing very cleverly to the gullible nature of the uneducated white males he was appealing to.
Now, I see in another post that you are presenting the idea that the Democrats actually wanted Trump to be their opponent. In other words, they were thinking along the lines of "it it's not Hillary, then Trump is the next best thing". I see some real possibility in that, and you are very smart to point that out.
I can tell you that Trump was being goaded way back in 2011 by Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC to run for President. O'Donnell is a former Democratic Senator or Governor or something like that, so he knows the political system. And he knows how Donald is like a child in that if you say "I dare you to do such-and-such", Trump will do it just because he's being dared. So O'Donnell even made the provocative statement right on his prime time MSNBC show that "Donald Trump.... will never..... run for President." It was definite and deliberate goading. From that point on, I thought the Democrats actually wanted Trump to run. And just this week, when the results were known... both Hillary and Obama were very gracious and in fact nice to Trump, and seemed perfectly fine with everything. He is, to them, much much better than Ted Cruz or even Jeb Bush.
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.
So finally, Brad, I appreciate your apology and I will also say I'm sorry if I appeared to accuse you of something, but let's be clear that I did not actually accuse you of it. I did give you the benefit of the doubt.
I hope you will lose this idea about media bias and election rigging. There is some media bias, but not nearly the pervasive kind that Trump was whining about and the mainstream networks are actually pretty straight and narrow. Newspapers, sure, most of them have a bias which is evident in their editorial pages, much as the cable channels show it in their op-ed shows.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Paul, I began reading your last post but will not finish it.
It is clear to me that part of your motivation here is to try to get an emotional reaction out of the other posters. And I must confess to you that you have succeeded in my case.
Never in my life have I ever felt a greater sense of pity than I do for you now.
Paul, I began reading your last post but will not finish it.
It is clear to me that part of your motivation here is to try to get an emotional reaction out of the other posters. And I must confess to you that you have succeeded in my case.
Never in my life have I ever felt a greater sense of pity than I do for you now.
I saw nothing in Paul Bonham's post which suggests that he is trying for an emotional reaction. In other words it's not a trolling post.
He tried to reach out to you in a courteous, well reasoned dialog.
Your response is totally irrational. In other words you were trolling.
Troll be gone!
I have been looking for an update on the popular vote results.
Most sites show numbers for Clinton and Trump only. I want to see totals for all condidates.
I found a site a few days ago, but I can't locate it now.
If anyone can find it, please post a link here. Much appreciate it.
I have been looking for an update on the popular vote results.
Most sites show numbers for Clinton and Trump only. I want to see totals for all condidates.
I found a site a few days ago, but I can't locate it now.
If anyone can find it, please post a link here. Much appreciate it.
They might still be counting, Bob (expat ballots, overseas military ballots, disputed results, etc.). However, here's a link to an organization that 'looks' official where you can sign up to be notified by email when the final tally is available: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/electionresults.shtml
"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
I have been looking for an update on the popular vote results.
Most sites show numbers for Clinton and Trump only. I want to see totals for all condidates.
I found a site a few days ago, but I can't locate it now.
If anyone can find it, please post a link here. Much appreciate it.
I saw nothing in Paul Bonham's post which suggests that he is trying for an emotional reaction. In other words it's not a trolling post.
He tried to reach out to you in a courteous, well reasoned dialog.
Your response is totally irrational. In other words you were trolling.
Troll be gone!
Vlad, here is what Paul wrote, I will place my comments in square brackets:
"This is a first on ChessTalk: a poster going from name-calling to wanting to be civil. And even offering an apology for the name-calling."
[A sad commentary on ChessTalk.]
"...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.]
"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.]
I did not continue reading last time, nor this time.
Tweet
Comment