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.
By the way, one of the reasons I don't want to do a bet in the manner you suggested is that there is no way to avoid cheating. You could write the test multiple times and only submit to me your best score. How would I know? I trust your shady ass about as far as I can throw it.
All in all, I find it pretty hilarious that a professional business owner is afraid to write a GMAT against someone with no business experience.
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
By the way, one of the reasons I don't want to do a bet in the manner you suggested is that there is no way to avoid cheating. You could write the test multiple times and only submit to me your best score. How would I know? I trust your shady ass about as far as I can throw it.
All in all, I find it pretty hilarious that a professional business owner is afraid to write a GMAT against someone with no business experience.
No...you can only write the Mensa admission test once. Nice try.
No...you can only write the Mensa admission test once. Nice try.
For real? That adds some legitimacy. Okay, fine, you're on. When do we have to write the test by? End of the year? How will we prove our marks to each other? Let's bang out the logistics here.
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
He banned trans people from the military. That's a fascist move. He turned a Boy Scouts convention into a political rally, railing against past leaders and political opponents. That's a fascist move. That was just this week. That's been his game for a while now, though. He spent years fostering bullshit, racist rumors about the legitimacy of the birth certificate of a political opponent, and then parlayed that into political popularity. That's a fascist fucking move.
There are lots of reasons why people vote for Trump; it's usually a combination of factors. Here are some things I think on the matter:
1. Lots of people are dumb. Half of people are dumber than average. They can't reason well at all.
2. Because many people can't reason well, they sometimes vote against their own interests.
3. Additionally, people have interests that are different from my own. My interests are freedom, and applying freedom equally among actors.
4. Most people are very self-interested.
5. People are xenophobic.
6. People who can't reason well are often xenophobic.
7. Xenophobia is not always the result of stupidity. Sometimes smart people are xenophobic.
8. There are a lot of people who suffer from systemic prejudice because of their immutable characteristics.
9. Conservative people and conservative sympathizers are less likely than average to be the type of person described in #8.
10. When one is xenophobic, coping with one's xenophobia can often be a primary interest.
Studies indicate that social liberals are more intelligent than social conservatives. Studies indicate that social liberals are more educated than social conservatives. Studies indicate that social liberals are more trusting of higher education than social conservatives. These are established facts. I won't even bring up the correlation between irreligion and intelligence and the correlation between irreligion and liberalism, and what that implies... oops, already did. :)
So, different people are Trump supporters, or Trump apologists, or just oblivious non-partisans failing to recognize the severe magnitude of the affront to freedom to which the Trump presidency and the religious conservative takeover speaks, for different reasons.
You?
3. Additionally, people have interests that are different from my own. My interests are freedom, and applying freedom equally among actors.
I think you value freedom from the state, but that's not valuing freedom, and certainly not the application of freedom equally among actors. You're more anti-state than pro-freedom, at least in my book. Like, as I've mentioned before, you were dismissive of the President bragging about committing sexual assault. Sexual assault is an egregious affront to freedom. One in six women will be the victim of rape in her lifetime, and that's just rape. Other, less severe forms of sexual assault are much more prevalent. Tens of millions of women have been the victim of sexual assault and you dismiss the President bragging about committing it as normal "locker room" talk. It seems like you're only really aggrieved about affronts to freedom when they're committed by the state, not citizens.
4. Most people are very self-interested.
You don't seem that worried about Trump violating the freedoms of groups you don't belong to. You also seem interested in the maintenance of your privilege.
9. Conservative people and conservative sympathizers are less likely than average to be the type of person described in #8.
You're definitely not the type of person described in #8.
A supposed libertarian suddenly cares about the state's border laws? Why would a libertarian care about undocumented immigrants who come somewhere, work, contribute to the economy, and live their lives peacefully?
Not yet, because the Supreme Court doesn't have the votes for it yet. But Trump appointed a Supreme Court justice who's voted in favor of religious fundamentalist policies which tighten restrictions on abortions.
I can't even imagine the cognitive dissonance that goes into facilitating such a thought.
I've never used the word evil. That's Drkulec talk. I think we have different interests. I don't think my interests are in any way "better" or "more just" or "more good" than yours. I am a moral anti-realist, to be honest. But I do want my interests, and not yours, furthered. Don't we all? I consider my interests to be under threat right now, so I've taken a hard-line view. There's a culture war going on, between people fighting for freedom and tolerance, and people fighting against it. Anyone claiming to be in the middle is on the other side.
And don't give me some bullshit about how I'm intolerant of others' views. Tolerance is about being tolerant of immutable characteristics. People should, in fact, be judged on their views.
Contrary to what you're claiming, I don't care if you share my views or not. You can believe whatever you want. But I'm going to call shit as I see it. And what I see is you calling Linda Sarsour a "feminist activist" (using quotation marks yourself, as if there's some sort of illegitimacy or suspension of reality embedded in the term), even though she's mostly known as an activist in the Muslim-American and Arab-American communities, not explicitly feminist communities, and then describing her views as sickening. You went out of your way to tie feminism to something you deem sickening, but you dismiss you-know-what-by-now as "locker room" talk. It's not a good look for a supposed libertarian.
I will tackle two of your neverending stream to keep this thread manageable:
1) Borders. A country isn't a country without borders. There are very few tasks that federal governments should be involved in, imo, and guarding borders is one of them. If people are in a country illegally, and it can be proven they are there illegally, it isn't unreasonable to deport them. A nation of laws and all that. When you have a welfare state you need borders even more.
2) Linda Sarsour helped organise the Million Women March. She describes herself as a feminist. Yet she is pro-Sharia. Is it the racism of low expectations to apply one standard to one set of people and another to a different set? Trump said a bad thing in a private conversation - well before he was a candidate - and he's a fascist, yet it is okay to have someone supposedly speaking for women to advocate for a system that basically sees women as property? She claims that Muhammad was a feminist. Don't get me wrong, she's certainly entitled to her view and no way should her speech be limited because of it. The same should go for Trump the private person.
I think people voted for Trump because they didn't like Clinton. You find it objectionable yet it sounds like you choose to live amongst these rubes despite them being clueless and dumb. That seems irrational to me.
P.S. I am an atheist or maybe more accurately from what I've read an apatheist.
Last edited by Tom O'Donnell; Wednesday, 26th July, 2017, 05:37 PM.
"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.
For real? That adds some legitimacy. Okay, fine, you're on. When do we have to write the test by? End of the year? How will we prove our marks to each other? Let's bang out the logistics here.
Wow, that's the first credible thing you have said. End of the year is fine. I am not sure how we would prove the marks to each other. Online was easy because I took a screen shot of the result.
1) Borders. A country isn't a country without borders. There are very few tasks that federal governments should be involved in, imo, and guarding borders is one of them. If people are in a country illegally, and it can be proven they are there illegally, it isn't unreasonable to deport them. A nation of laws and all that. When you have a welfare state you need borders even more.
You know nothing about America, clearly. This country would come to a screeching halt without the labor of undocumented immigrants.
Linda Sarsour helped organise the Million Women March. She describes herself as a feminist. Yet she is pro-Sharia.
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?
Trump said a bad thing in a private conversation - well before he was a candidate - and he's a fascist, yet it is okay to have someone supposedly speaking for women to advocate for a system that basically sees women as property? She claims that Muhammad was a feminist. Don't get me wrong, she's certainly entitled to her view and no way should her speech be limited because of it. The same should go for Trump the private person.
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.
I think people voted for Trump because they didn't like Clinton. You find it objectionable yet it sounds like you choose to live amongst these rubes despite them being clueless and dumb. That seems irrational to me.
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.
Last edited by Ben Daswani; Wednesday, 26th July, 2017, 05:52 PM.
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
Wow, that's the first credible thing you have said. End of the year is fine. I am not sure how we would prove the marks to each other. Online was easy because I took a screen shot of the result.
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:
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?
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
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.
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.
"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.
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.
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
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.
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
Tweet
Comment