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.
Thanks, Tom. That was interesting reading. That blog reminded me of something I heard on Fox News (on Sirius) a week or ten days before the election. Trump was speaking in Michigan and Fox played the full tape of his speech - about 15 minutes or so. At the start of his remarks he engaged in some of his usual nonsense but then he settled down and started speaking coherently and, to my great surprise, intellingently about different policy issues. I'm not saying that I agreed with everything he said but it did occur to me that the point that you and others had been making was true (i.e. that biased mainstream media reporting was casting Trump in an excessively negative light by focusing on his 'jackass' comments rather than the substance of what he was saying).
"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
Thanks, Tom. That was interesting reading. That blog reminded me of something I heard on Fox News (on Sirius) a week or ten days before the election. Trump was speaking in Michigan and Fox played the full tape of his speech - about 15 minutes or so. At the start of his remarks he engaged in some of his usual nonsense but then he settled down and started speaking coherently and, to my great surprise, intellingently about different policy issues. I'm not saying that I agreed with everything he said but it did occur to me that the point that you and others had been making was true (i.e. that biased mainstream media reporting was casting Trump in an excessively negative light by focusing on his 'jackass' comments rather than the substance of what he was saying).
Agreed that Trump is not a dummy.....and he knew how to communicate and get press coverage and support by outlandish statements.
But it is his substantial policies, that he and others have thought out and hold, that is scary. They are going to implement their ideologically pretty far right agenda, since they have total control. Look at the team Trump is hand-picking - others are much more qualified, and being passed over......he is picking his ideological peers, and sharing power with them.
I fear that the 25% who elected them may in a very short while, wonder what they've done, not only to Democrats, but also themselves.......they will see things they didn't know they were voting for......and there will be no stopping the Trump team (they control not only Administration but Congress (House of Representatives and Senate).
It's funny how for some people, democracy works only if they like the result...
Yes, and it's "funny" how Donald Trump -- he who infamously said he may not accept the results of the election -- is calling the Wisconsin recount paid for by Jill Stein (Green Party) a SCAM.
Guess what Trump would be doing if he had lost the election? If you said "paying for recounts".... DING DING DING!
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Yes, and it's "funny" how Donald Trump -- he who infamously said he may not accept the results of the election -- is calling the Wisconsin recount paid for by Jill Stein (Green Party) a SCAM.
Guess what Trump would be doing if he had lost the election? If you said "paying for recounts".... DING DING DING!
I thought the Left contained much better people. Non-violent, big believers in big government, accepting of all sorts of diversity. Guess not, eh? ;-)
"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.
Yes, and it's "funny" how Donald Trump -- he who infamously said he may not accept the results of the election -- is calling the Wisconsin recount paid for by Jill Stein (Green Party) a SCAM.
Guess what Trump would be doing if he had lost the election? If you said "paying for recounts".... DING DING DING!
My statement works for Trump, his supporters and their opponents.
It's democracy. People voted in an open election in a free country and we should just acknowledge the result and move on.
Similarly it is meaningless to even contemplate an all powerful God "already knowing what he is". Or in Brad Thomson's case, talking about such a God "someday" having full self-realization.
I disagree, I do not believe that it is meaningless to talk about a God in the process of developing toward full self-realization. In fact, I think it is meaningless to talk about a God that is already all-everything. And I think that you yourself have proven this, my contention, with the arguments you present. You argue that both Time and Infinity as concepts are important to our discussion. I agree completely!
Let us suppose for the sake of discussion that God does exist as Infinite and outside of Time. What does it mean for God to exist outside of Time? Well, it means that all of Infinite Time is eternally present to God. It means that God does not have a past or a future, but only an eternal and unchanging present. It means that God does not change. It means that God by definition CANNOT change. A being that cannot produce change cannot be said to have any power. A being that cannot be said to have any power cannot be said to exist.
So, if we place God outside of Time we define Him/Her out of existence.
Therefore, if God does exist, God must have power, and be capable of change. Thus, only an evolving God, only a God that exists IN time is possible. Only a God that can be said to have a past that is no more and a future that is not yet can be said to possibly exist.
And this is not inconsistent with Christianity. Elijah asks Jehovah not to kill any more of his enemies, and Jehovah CHANGES his mind and agrees with Elijah. Of course the Bible demonstrates a God that is learning over time, that is achieving self-realization over time.
Do we not call God, FATHER TIME?
So why would we want to put Him/Her outside of Time?
I disagree, I do not believe that it is meaningless to talk about a God in the process of developing toward full self-realization. In fact, I think it is meaningless to talk about a God that is already all-everything. And I think that you yourself have proven this, my contention, with the arguments you present. You argue that both Time and Infinity as concepts are important to our discussion. I agree completely!
Let us suppose for the sake of discussion that God does exist as Infinite and outside of Time. What does it mean for God to exist outside of Time? Well, it means that all of Infinite Time is eternally present to God. It means that God does not have a past or a future, but only an eternal and unchanging present. It means that God does not change. It means that God by definition CANNOT change. A being that cannot produce change cannot be said to have any power. A being that cannot be said to have any power cannot be said to exist.
So, if we place God outside of Time we define Him/Her out of existence.
Therefore, if God does exist, God must have power, and be capable of change. Thus, only an evolving God, only a God that exists IN time is possible. Only a God that can be said to have a past that is no more and a future that is not yet can be said to possibly exist.
And this is not inconsistent with Christianity. Elijah asks Jehovah not to kill any more of his enemies, and Jehovah CHANGES his mind and agrees with Elijah. Of course the Bible demonstrates a God that is learning over time, that is achieving self-realization over time.
Do we not call God, FATHER TIME?
So why would we want to put Him/Her outside of Time?
Brad, I was not arguing that God is or ever will be outside of Time. And I agree totally that time = change and change = time. My argument was that just as we can never attach a definite static unchanging number to Infinity, we can never attach a definite, static unchanging power to God. God and Infinity are one and the same.
Where we do seem to differ is this: you wrote in a post somewhere in this thread "God, optimistically, WILL eventually get to the point of being all of the above, and when this happens we are back in Eden." So you are thinking (or you WERE thinking) that while God isn't fully powerful right now, there will come a time when S/he is fully powerful, fully self-realized.
But now in this latest post of yours, you are arguing against your prior statement. Now you are saying that if a day ever comes when God is all powerful, it means God is outside of time and by definition must no longer exist, a view with which I agree. The only conclusion is that your view has changed since that prior post.
So if we are both in agreement that God can never be all powerful, then it remains for Vlad Drkulec to defend his view that God must already be all powerful.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
......we should just acknowledge the result and move on.
I wonder if you would say that if someone were to hack into your bank account and remove your entire balance. Wouldn't you like to know that your bank could audit and find that your money disappeared because of a hack, and would restore your balance to you?
As Trump himself said throughout the campaign: "There are bad people out there, very bad people."
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
... "There are bad people out there, very bad people."
I can picture him saying that with his little hands up making those 'ok' signs he's so fond of. :)
"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 wonder if you would say that if someone were to hack into your bank account and remove your entire balance. Wouldn't you like to know that your bank could audit and find that your money disappeared because of a hack, and would restore your balance to you?
As Trump himself said throughout the campaign: "There are bad people out there, very bad people."
Well, that's just not the same. What you're describing here is a criminal act.
The US election is a very complex, decentralized system and it would be very hard to hack it.
Had Hillary won, would you believe the election has been hacked? You complain just because you don't like the result. And yes, I agree that Donald Trump would have done the same in that regard.
Well, that's just not the same. What you're describing here is a criminal act.
The US election is a very complex, decentralized system and it would be very hard to hack it.
Had Hillary won, would you believe the election has been hacked? You complain just because you don't like the result. And yes, I agree that Donald Trump would have done the same in that regard.
Uhhhh.... I think if the U.S. election were provably hacked and the hackers were caught and brought to the U.S., they would be charged with a criminal offence.
In both cases, we are talking about hacking. Banks are also supposed to be very hard to hack.
And it isn't a question of whether I or anyone else believed the election HAS been hacked. It is a question of whether it is believable that the election COULD HAVE BEEN hacked.
I am not complaining. I am commenting on 2 things: (1) the hypocrisy of Trump, and (2) apparent evidence that could point to hacking, the evidence being apparent inconsistencies where electronic voting machines were used versus where actual paper voting was done. I haven't SEEN the evidence, I'm just commenting on the reports that someone somewhere has pointed out such evidence has been found, and so yes, I believe that auditing should be done. Any electronic device that has a connected IP address can be hacked, period. There is no foolproof way to stop it, there are only ways to make it more difficult. But there are also ways to prove it happened after the fact.
Although I don't expect this to happen, it would be quite interesting if auditing was done and evidence of hacking was found in all 3 states (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan). If there is evidence found in those 3 states and nowhere else, that alone is very strong circumstantial evidence of Republican interference because those 3 states all typically go Democrat and were heavily expected to do just that in this election.
The interesting thing would be the legal ramifications if hard evidence were found. What could be done? Would those 3 states have to vote again?
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Tweet
Comment