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.
As you all can see, Belzberg is not exactly known for keeping things rational.
You focus on belittling everything except for the content of the articles that show two different clerics advocating the destruction of Jewry, the one that was a guest at a Mosque in Montreal and the one in Davis California. Both citing the same religious text in the form of a Hadith. Then you call out Israel for "Religious discrimination" for a temporary ban at a Mosque where Israelis were murdered by young Islamic radicals.
You spew awful hatred for anyone that did not vote for Hillary Clinton that happens to be close to half of all American voters. Do you see yet how irrational your statement is?
I have relatives in Jerusalem who's very existence is at risk. So yes, that for me is a priority over other issues. If you don't like it or believe it you can stick it up your ass. http://onefamilyfund.ca/wp-content/u...eport-2016.pdf
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Friday, 28th July, 2017, 04:58 PM.
So I was not wrong. You were assuming the gender, ethnicity and sexual preference of the people in the photo. Glad we cleared that up.
How is it an assumption? They're Republican members of Congress. Republican members of Congress are, by and large, straight, white males. That's not an assumption; that's an easily verifiable facts.
I care about relations with countries with large armies and nuclear capability. So we don't end up dragged into a war.
Sounds like some cold war paranoia to me.
Should the US dictate which countries can have nuclear weapons? Not in my opinion. Is Trump the first president to do this? I don't believe so.
The reason I brought that up is because you said that Trump can "work with others." My point is that he can work with Russia. He's no better than Clinton, and in many cases (Canada, UK, Germany) worse than Clinton, for developing relations with other countries.
Where were you when Obama was in charge and the US was deporting illegal immigrants, launching drone strikes, destabilising countries, toppling leaders?
I was saying, "Shit, well at least it's not a Republican." Democrats are not perfect for me. I'm a libertarian. But they're a hell of a lot closer to perfect than Republicans.
Last edited by Ben Daswani; Friday, 28th July, 2017, 12:27 PM.
It's just exemplifying what I'm saying. Republicans are mostly straight, white males.
The only countries in the entire world that see Trump favorably are Russia and Israel. Sounds like he gets along with two countries.
It's now not just international relations you're doubling down on, but Russian relations? You don't care more about the United States' relationship with, uh, Canada? The UK? Germany? All those and more combined?
And this is ignoring the fact that Trump can, by and large, only work with and appeal to people who, like him, are straight, white males?
Trump doesn't think "other countries" should be allowed to, though. He doesn't think Iran should. He doesn't even think Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear technology on its own soil.
Once again, America's foreign relations are not improved with Trump's election; only Russian relations are. Why are you so obsessed with Russian relations?
So I was not wrong. You were assuming the gender, ethnicity and sexual preference of the people in the photo. Glad we cleared that up.
I care about relations with countries with large armies and nuclear capability. So we don't end up dragged into a war.
Should the US dictate which countries can have nuclear weapons? Not in my opinion. Is Trump the first president to do this? I don't believe so.
Where were you when Obama was in charge and the US was deporting illegal immigrants, launching drone strikes, destabilising countries, toppling leaders? You think bad things started with Trump?
P.S. To be clear I applaud many things Obama did: e.g. get people out of Gitmo, normalise relations with Cuba, deport 2M+ illegal aliens. No politician is perfect, we take the good with the bad and move on.
Last edited by Tom O'Donnell; Friday, 28th July, 2017, 12:14 PM.
In the list of atrocities committed around the world dismissing a bunch of transsexuals from serving is really low on my list.
Probably because you're not a transgender person.
Are you aware of how rampant violence against transgender people is?
Are you aware of the message the shit-eating President's declaration sends to the populace? He said that transgender people are a burden. Just for being born how they are. No better or worse than you or I.
Common sense would dictate that, as violence against transgender people is already high, and the shit-eater's message further "others" them, the ban normalizes the different treatment of transgender people and thus effects real acts of violence against transgender people.
But, like I said, you're not a transgender person. So why the fuck would you care?
Last edited by Ben Daswani; Friday, 28th July, 2017, 11:57 AM.
Wow, I'm utterly shocked. Belzberg gets his news from a racist website that literally has a "black crime" section. What are you going to cite next? The Stormfront forums?
I thought the reason you posted the picture was to show that Republicans are all straight, white, males. If not, then I am unclear on the point of the picture.
It's just exemplifying what I'm saying. Republicans are mostly straight, white males.
Trump seems to get along with Putin. Putin has nukes. I care more about whether two guys with nukes get along than if Trump gets along with Meryl Streep, Rosie O'Donnell or Alex Baldwin. That's why I referenced Clinton talking about Putin when I said "getting along with folks". I guess that was me not being clear.
The only countries in the entire world that see Trump favorably are Russia and Israel. Sounds like he gets along with two countries.
It's now not just international relations you're doubling down on, but Russian relations? You don't care more about the United States' relationship with, uh, Canada? The UK? Germany? All those and more combined?
I prefer people who can work with other folks.
And this is ignoring the fact that Trump can, by and large, only work with and appeal to people who, like him, are straight, white males?
I am no fan of Putin but if the US can have military bases around the world, why can't other countries?
Trump doesn't think "other countries" should be allowed to, though. He doesn't think Iran should. He doesn't even think Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear technology on its own soil.
Once again, America's foreign relations are not improved with Trump's election; only Russian relations are. Why are you so obsessed with Russian relations?
Wow, I'm utterly shocked. Belzberg gets his news from a racist website that literally has a "black crime" section. What are you going to cite next? The Stormfront forums?
You're no more clever than Belzberg or Drkulec. You're arguing against points I've never attempted to make. I never said I knew the "gender, sexual preferences, and ethnicity of all the people in the picture." Revisit what I said:
"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."
All I said was that Trump, and the Republican Party as a whole, are bad at working with people other than straight, white males. This is a demonstrable fact. Both in their voting block and in the makeup of the party--both at the state and federal level--the party is vastly underrepresented by women, people of color, and people from queer communities, especially when compared to the Democratic Party.
Then I posted a picture that exemplifies that. I did nothing more. I never said I knew anything about every individual in the picture. Get a clue. Be a big boy. Respond to the shit in bold. You said you like people who can work with others; then why do you support Trump, when the Republican Party, and Trump in particular, have trouble working with those different from themselves?
I apologize. I thought the reason you posted the picture was to show that Republicans are all straight, white, males. If not, then I am unclear on the point of the picture. Is it to show Trump is popular, or that people applaud him or ...?
Trump seems to get along with Putin. Putin has nukes. I care more about whether two guys with nukes get along than if Trump gets along with Meryl Streep, Rosie O'Donnell or Alex Baldwin. That's why I referenced Clinton talking about Putin when I said "getting along with folks". I guess that was me not being clear.
To clarify, here is the link and my comment referencing it:
Edit: please add some screeching at the end. I'm too lazy to look it up.
You conservatives need to get together and decide whether I'm white or not. According to you, I apparently am, but according to the Whissell I'm an "immigrant" with a "home country" other than Canada because I'm an Indian.
Do you know the gender, sexual preferences, and ethnicity of all the people in that picture? Who is the bigot?
You're no more clever than Belzberg or Drkulec. You're arguing against points I've never attempted to make. I never said I knew the "gender, sexual preferences, and ethnicity of all the people in the picture." Revisit what I said:
"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."
All I said was that Trump, and the Republican Party as a whole, are bad at working with people other than straight, white males. This is a demonstrable fact. Both in their voting block and in the makeup of the party--both at the state and federal level--the party is vastly underrepresented by women, people of color, and people from queer communities, especially when compared to the Democratic Party.
Then I posted a picture that exemplifies that. I did nothing more. I never said I knew anything about every individual in the picture. Get a clue. Be a big boy. Respond to the shit in bold. You said you like people who can work with others; then why do you support Trump, when the Republican Party, and Trump in particular, have trouble working with those different from themselves?
A couple of men in Bountiful, BC were convicted of polygamy a few days ago. In general, personally I think competent adults marrying groups of other competent adults should be legal. That doesn't mean they should just ignore the law. Using your logic, a pro-life person might say that the freedom of the "unborn baby" is more important than the freedom of the woman to abort and therefore kidnapping her and forcing her to birth is "more free". Your super-genius judgement doesn't entitle you to ignore laws. It does allow you to try and change them.
Before someone starts posting about these guys using polygamy as a smokescreen for marrying underage girls and basically brainwashing them, I am speaking more generally about group marriages with competent adults able to consent, not be coerced, etc.
" ... Likewise, Canada's polyamorists — people with multiple partners outside a religious context — said they were relieved because Bauman said the law shouldn't apply to them unless they decide to formalize their unions.
"The formality of marriage is really not a big issue in the polyamorous community," said John Ince, the spokesman for the Canadian Polyamoury Advocacy Association.
But George MacIntosh, the lawyer appointed by the court to argue against the law, said the decision unfairly criminalizes the actions of consenting adults and he may appeal the decision.
"Three consenting adults who are causing no harm ought not to be committing a crime. The judge found that people in that circumstance are committing a crime if there was some celebration of the marriage, and we don't think that the section says that," said MacIntosh. ..."
I think there would be few objections to polygamy if they were marrying 45 year olds as one comedienne suggested. Though I imagine that in the event of a group divorce things could get dicey in a situation where the wife is entitled to half the assets in the case of multiple wives.
Leave a comment: