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.
This was not a choice between Trump and someone who was perfect. It was a choice between Trump and Clinton.
All of your problems with Clinton relate to the international sphere. In what bizarre world does that take precedence over literally all of domestic policy?
And so she's a warmonger. You even acknowledge that there may be a great chance that Trump will be one, too. ("I am certainly not suggesting there is zero chance (or even a great chance) that Trump won't continue the seemingly neverending attempts to 'spread democracy' or whatever they call it, and destabilise countries." - TO)
Again, he is an unknown, and could be influenced by a warmonger like McCain or someone more peaceable like Rand Paul or even Tulsi Gabbard.
Well, so far he's been influenced by the religiously extremist and at times white supremacist faction of the Republican Party on every issue, so, yeah man, sounds like he's a total unknown. I wonder where he's gonna fall on relations with the Islamic world when his core is a bunch of racist Christian supremacists screaming, "Deus Vult!"
This is the most ironic thing I've ever read on this board. Trump, and the Republican Party as a whole, are notoriously bad at working with the other. It's truly the party of straight, white males.
Well, maybe not a screeching halt, BUT inflation would soon reach unacceptable levels. Already, with ICE increasing deportations and less Mexicans coming across the border since Trump took office, the California agricultural community is reeling. Production is down 10% this summer, farmers cannot find the workers to hand-pick the crops and having to leave them rot in the fields. Food inflation will be picking up as a result.
As I stated at the beginning of this year, "America First" once it fully gets rolling will result in very high inflation for Americans. Couple that with rising interest rates and suddenly that $19 trillion U.S. foreign debt becomes an albatross around the neck of the economy and everything starts to come unraveled.
Tom O'Donnell: "In chess terms, Clinton is a move that loses a piece."
Tom O'Donnell
(in response to a statement from Ben Daswani that "Trump has committed sexual assault"): "I encourage you to take Trump to court and charge him with sexual assault."
Now, there's the definition of double standard. Hillary Clinton comes out of the Benghazi commission investigation, survives 11 hours of questioning, and not a charge is laid. She goes through a thorough months-long FBI investigation into her emails, and not a charge is laid. But nevertheless she's "a move that loses a piece".
Meanwhile, Trump admits to, even brags about, committing sexual assault, and yet because no one can prove it in court (maybe because sexual assault cases often end up blaming the victim), he's as clean as a whistle.
Sorry Tom, you lose all credibility with that double standard. Oh, but you're going to say the FBI was in on a fix (maybe you got that from FIX News?) and the Benghazi commission too. Yes, true, they are being directed by the alien Grays from their base deep under the Antarctic ice shield (from the Tom O'Donnell school of "I have THE explanation for everything").
The real story is, you Tom do not care about crimes of sexual assault. Your much bigger concern is the possibility of war somewhere in the world. So you would put a sexual assault criminal in the White House if it prevented war somewhere in the world. That's ok, you are allowed that viewpoint. It's just that.... well, if your wife ever became the victim of sexual assault (and I'm assuming you love your wife), maybe your view would change?
Just saw a story yesterday: the CEO of health insurer Aetna in the U.S. has had a total change of heart and is now saying single-payer health insurance should be discussed as the future of health care in the U.S. What made him do a 180 on that? Oh, well, his son had some sort of life-threatening illness, and then this guy himself had something similar due to a recent accident. And he found out that his own company didn't want anything to do with covering any activity that would help either his son or himself to RECOVER from their afflictions and become productive again, such as therapy and mental recuperation.
Funny how experience can turn people's opinions around.... but Tom, I wish no ill on your wife. I would prefer instead that you just continue to not care about how safe she is against sexual assault.
Why would I hold her responsible for Benghazi? Did I mention Benghazi? I only recently got a TV - my wife wanted one - after about five years without it. I couldn't tell you which channel is Fox on our cable package.
No, my reason has nothing to do with Benghazi. It has to do with a number of factors including, but not limited to:
"... Mrs. Clinton declined to be interviewed. But in public, she has said it is "too soon to tell" how things will turn out in Libya and has called for a more interventionist approach to Syria. ..."
I am certainly not suggesting there is zero chance (or even a great chance) that Trump won't continue the seemingly neverending attempts to "spread democracy" or whatever they call it, and destabilise countries. Again, he is an unknown, and could be influenced by a warmonger like McCain or someone more peaceable like Rand Paul or even Tulsi Gabbard. His tendencies with respect to this were (and even to some extent are still) unknown.
In contrast, Clinton is just a bad move. To my mind, she has learned nothing and appears to want to double-down on her mistakes.
On this issue, I would choose Sanders over Clinton. I dislike almost everything else about Sanders, but anyway he was not a choice in the general election.
Compare this to Obama announcing the death of Osama bin Laden.
I am inferring that you believe that I consider Trump some sort of great man. I don't. This was not a choice between Trump and someone who was perfect. It was a choice between Trump and Clinton.
Last edited by Tom O'Donnell; Thursday, 27th July, 2017, 07:28 AM.
Trump is now attacking Jeff Sessions, his attorney general. His most loyal supporter and early endorser in the election campaign.
Republican Senators who have enabled Trump are finally starting to speak up against Trump but only after one of their own is attached.
1) The US would not come to a screeching halt without ILLEGAL immigrants. Sure, the wealthy would have to pay more to have their lawns cared for and their children privately watched. Meanwhile, working-class people, currently unemployed, would have opportunity to not have to compete with illegal labour.
Well, maybe not a screeching halt, BUT inflation would soon reach unacceptable levels. Already, with ICE increasing deportations and less Mexicans coming across the border since Trump took office, the California agricultural community is reeling. Production is down 10% this summer, farmers cannot find the workers to hand-pick the crops and having to leave them rot in the fields. Food inflation will be picking up as a result.
As I stated at the beginning of this year, "America First" once it fully gets rolling will result in very high inflation for Americans. Couple that with rising interest rates and suddenly that $19 trillion U.S. foreign debt becomes an albatross around the neck of the economy and everything starts to come unraveled.
Tom O'Donnell: "In chess terms, Clinton is a move that loses a piece."
Tom O'Donnell
(in response to a statement from Ben Daswani that "Trump has committed sexual assault"): "I encourage you to take Trump to court and charge him with sexual assault."
Now, there's the definition of double standard. Hillary Clinton comes out of the Benghazi commission investigation, survives 11 hours of questioning, and not a charge is laid. She goes through a thorough months-long FBI investigation into her emails, and not a charge is laid. But nevertheless she's "a move that loses a piece".
Meanwhile, Trump admits to, even brags about, committing sexual assault, and yet because no one can prove it in court (maybe because sexual assault cases often end up blaming the victim), he's as clean as a whistle.
Sorry Tom, you lose all credibility with that double standard. Oh, but you're going to say the FBI was in on a fix (maybe you got that from FIX News?) and the Benghazi commission too. Yes, true, they are being directed by the alien Grays from their base deep under the Antarctic ice shield (from the Tom O'Donnell school of "I have THE explanation for everything").
The real story is, you Tom do not care about crimes of sexual assault. Your much bigger concern is the possibility of war somewhere in the world. So you would put a sexual assault criminal in the White House if it prevented war somewhere in the world. That's ok, you are allowed that viewpoint. It's just that.... well, if your wife ever became the victim of sexual assault (and I'm assuming you love your wife), maybe your view would change?
Just saw a story yesterday: the CEO of health insurer Aetna in the U.S. has had a total change of heart and is now saying single-payer health insurance should be discussed as the future of health care in the U.S. What made him do a 180 on that? Oh, well, his son had some sort of life-threatening illness, and then this guy himself had something similar due to a recent accident. And he found out that his own company didn't want anything to do with covering any activity that would help either his son or himself to RECOVER from their afflictions and become productive again, such as therapy and mental recuperation.
Funny how experience can turn people's opinions around.... but Tom, I wish no ill on your wife. I would prefer instead that you just continue to not care about how safe she is against sexual assault.
Garland it is an interesting article. The author excuses the numerous antisemetic passages of the Quran with all kinds of theories including suggesting that other religions such as Christianity have similar passages. These are interesting theories but as you know in science you normally want theories backed up with reproducible evidence. In short in science we like to see the world as it is, not, as we would like it to be. The actual history of the Jews of the Arabian peninusula being wiped out by the "Prophet" Muhammad and his gang speaks far louder then any words in the Quran or the Hadiths. This is the way the world is not subject to interpretation other then trying to invalidate historical evidence and records.
I will say that a major source of guidance for Islam beside the Quran are Hadiths that have some of the more direct dictates then the quran to wipe out the Jews as cited below.
In the case of Quran we have two key time periods The first is the initial phase of the birth of Islam took place in Mecca under Mohamed during a peaceful period where the religion was more like a peaceful cult that did not attack others. During this period the language is relatively peaceful and the passages are more peaceful then the Medina Period. After Mohamed migrated to Medina and they started killing those that would not submit to their beliefs we see most of the Jews of the Arabian Penisula were wiped out. Here is a link to the history of the Jews in Arabia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_tribes_of_Arabia We have seen 15 centuries of violence against the Jews and almost anyone else that would not submit to this religion.
The history suggests a very different picture then the somewhat rosey interpretation the author of the article states with no tangible evidence that contradicts the actual history of what happened. The Quran is not in chronological order which complicates the interpretation considering the law of abrogation in the Quran that makes it clear that the Medina period overrides any passages during the earlier peaceful Mecca period. Here are two examples of recent clerics promoting wiping out the Jews including one visiting cleric in Montreal. They both quote the same hadith to justify this. Given the history I cited above that continues to this day the authors interpretation you cite is nothing but fanciful thinking.
"In the video, the imam recites in Arabic the verse: "O Muslim, O servant of Allah, O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."
CBC independently verified the speech and its translation.
The controversial verse comes from a religious text known as a hadith, which interprets the words and actions by the Prophet Muhammad.
The hadith in question deals with end times and tells how stones and trees will ask Muslims to come and kill Jews hiding behind them."
You're peddling racially based stereotypes. Like I said, you know nothing about America. You could at least read up on the matter before posting about it, though.
Another racially charged myth coming from you. Read up.
How dumb can you get? Sexual assault is notoriously hard to prove. Just because something can't be proven in a court doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Trump has obviously committed sexual assault. He's fucking bragged about doing it. If you seriously doubt whether he's a rapist piece of shit, you're a rapist enabling piece of shit.
Wow, I look forward to the cool, logical thought processes of lawyer Daswani in the courtroom. ;-)
The question seems obvious. Have you ever read the Quran? The religion dictates the annihilation of the Jews. Fortunately, not too many muslims take these precepts seriously or limit their practice to five daily prayers, ritual washings, and fasting on Ramadan etc. As I have said before Israel has no way of telling who is who. This is a condition unique to Muslim's, not all white males under 50. The measure is temporary where lives are at stake. Sadly when lives are at stake all bets are off when it comes to liberty. The problem is that this measure is being used as propaganda to make Israel the bad guys.
This is the most madhouse rambling bullshit I have ever read in my entire life. You start by saying the "question seems obvious." What? You mean the answer seems obvious? Then you ask me if I've read the Koran. Keep in mind the question I asked:
Why didn't they just ban all males under 50, instead of just Muslim males under 50? How would that have led to their citizens being murdered?
What in the flying fuck does reading the Koran have to do with my question? You then go on some rant, start to get racist by distinguishing "white" people from Muslims, and then go on with about another classic Belzberg Israel conspiracy.
How many fucking times do I have to ask the question?
Why didn't they just ban all males under 50, instead of just Muslim males under 50? How would that have led to their citizens being murdered?
You said that they had to religiously discriminate to stop their citizens from being murdered. You must be arguing, then, that if they had banned all males under 50, their citizens would have been murdered. I want to know how.
1) The US would not come to a screeching halt without ILLEGAL immigrants. Sure, the wealthy would have to pay more to have their lawns cared for and their children privately watched.
You're peddling racially based stereotypes. Like I said, you know nothing about America. You could at least read up on the matter before posting about it, though.
Meanwhile, working-class people, currently unemployed, would have opportunity to not have to compete with illegal labour.
Another racially charged myth coming from you. Read up.
2) I encourage you to take Trump to court and charge him with sexual assault. If you win, then you are hero. Otherwise you are just another keyboard warrior on a Canadian chess site.
How dumb can you get? Sexual assault is notoriously hard to prove. Just because something can't be proven in a court doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Trump has obviously committed sexual assault. He's fucking bragged about doing it. If you seriously doubt whether he's a rapist piece of shit, you're a rapist enabling piece of shit.
Last edited by Ben Daswani; Wednesday, 26th July, 2017, 09:21 PM.
You know nothing about America, clearly. This country would come to a screeching halt without the labor of undocumented immigrants.
So she's pro-what? What has she actually advocated for? Don't just say "pro-Sharia" like some scare tactic. I've heard that being pro-Sharia, to some, means following Islamic law in their personal life. I don't give a fuck if she thinks that. What has she actually advocated for that you don't like?
What are you even on about here? When has Sarsour every advocated for a system that sees women as property?
And anyway, Trump bragged about committing sexual assault. Trump has committed sexual assault. He's the fucking President. Why are you not sickened by him? You're dodging the point here. You said his bragging about committing sexual assault was normal "locker room" talk. I'm saying it takes a dumb fucking idiot of a man to think that, and the fact that you're more sickened by Sarsour indicates how misplaced your outrage is.
Why is that irrational? I'm here to help save this great country from worthless, bigoted, conservative imbeciles. Go me. Such a hero.
Edit: also I wouldn't live somewhere that's not a liberal city, and don't associate with people who aren't liberals, so it's not like I have to deal with these idiots directly very often.
1) The US would not come to a screeching halt without ILLEGAL immigrants. Sure, the wealthy would have to pay more to have their lawns cared for and their children privately watched. Meanwhile, working-class people, currently unemployed, would have opportunity to not have to compete with illegal labour.
2) I encourage you to take Trump to court and charge him with sexual assault. If you win, then you are hero. Otherwise you are just another keyboard warrior on a Canadian chess site.
Anyone can doctor a screenshot. We have time to figure this out, anyway, if we have until the end of the year. We'll probably have to meet up somewhere to prove results.
I'll ask the question for the fourth time:
The question seems obvious. Have you ever read the Quran? The religion dictates the annihilation of the Jews. Fortunately, not too many muslims take these precepts seriously or limit their practice to five daily prayers, ritual washings, and fasting on Ramadan etc. As I have said before Israel has no way of telling who is who. This is a condition unique to Muslim's, not all white males under 50. The measure is temporary where lives are at stake. Sadly when lives are at stake all bets are off when it comes to liberty. The problem is that this measure is being used as propaganda to make Israel the bad guys.
Leave a comment: