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.
So, what exactly is your message? Can you state it coherently in 25 words or less? What specifically should the "B.C. Chess Community" be doing to help out Karen & Silken? Can you identify who is in the B.C. Chess Community? Have you identified a dollar amount that you think each of them should send to Karen? Can you be specific?
"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
The last post of Mr. Duncan Smith contains as much arguments as sentences : five. A quote exhibiting that Mr. Smith's position amounts to say that "the BC chess community OWES a duty of help" to such and such is still missing.
I'm not sure, but I think what follows is the post from Duncan that you're looking for. I've put the key sentence in bold italics.
I suspect even if a crime had been committed the family would be unwilling to press charges. This however is not important. I too do not fully understand the families approach. I would presume there are social agencies that would help, but I am unfamiliar with this topic. But I also don't understand the public persona the BC chess community has taken. Here's my opinion; the man served the chess community for numerous years and by doing so his family sacrificed a part of their life too. The chess community owes this family the decency to help them towards closure. If they are unable or unclear how to proceed, surely someone in the local chess community could help them out, rather then what appears on the surface to be an unofficial agreement to totally ignore them. Maybe someone has done something, but the blog suggests otherwise.
I am willing to judge this part of the equation. The chess community must do something. I suspect the longer this goes on the worse it gets for everyone involved, and I do suspect that someone knows more now then they are letting on, but I am willing to concede this might entirely be Peter's responsibility. If this is the case, then some people should step up and clear up the possibility that they are involved in the disappearance aspect. With respect to the CFC, I would suggest any officer of the business that has a connection with this case should make a public statement to clear things up.
p.s. If this was a local story here someone would have helped them out by now.
"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
Thank you for spotting that sentence ! I wonder how you could miss all the arguments that post contains :
+ The man served the chess community for numerous years ;
+ The family served indirectly too ;
+ There is something to be done, at least in providing information ;
+ We have evidence that someone knows something that could help ;
+ Nothing seems to have been done ;
+ If the affair was in Toronto, something would be done ;
+ If the community does not do something, the worse is yet to come ;
Only by the look of this post, I'd say it's a rather well argumented position, more so considering what has been proposed to counter it so far, i.e. the caricature about fund raising. I doubt it's the main one, though. From what I can see, the central thesis would be that the public persona of the BC chess community looks strange. The last paragraph of that post makes it quite clear.
Of course, there are no philosophical analysis as to how to derive "could" to "should". Somehow, I get the feeling that only that would make you move out of your purely theorical standpoint. Should I give it a try ?
Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Tuesday, 29th September, 2009, 06:32 PM.
All we have is that someone told Lynn Stringer that Peter was OK. There has been no evidence that that " someone " actually knows Peter's whereabouts. In fact, there has been no evidence that Peter has disclosed to anyone his whereabouts.
Kevin's " B.C. Chess Community " conspiracy theory is purely conjecture. He has given no evidence that anyone in fact knows Peter's whereabouts. Even the police have not said they know his whereabouts.
Questions :
Suppose Peter said that he would tell someone his whereabouts on the condition they not disclose it to anyone. And suppose that person agreed. Would that person be breaking their promise to Peter if they told the wife/daughter, or is that person relieved of their personal obligation to Peter for some reason? And what would that reason be?
Is there any " public obligation " on such person to tell the wife/daughter under the circumstances of this case?
All we have is that someone told Lynn Stringer that Peter was OK. There has been no evidence that that " someone " actually knows Peter's whereabouts. In fact, there has been no evidence that Peter has disclosed to anyone his whereabouts.
It would be strange that a person Lynn Stringer trusts says something he does not really know. If that information was not to be trusted, there are fair chances it would have been denied by now, to the interest of the person who does not want to get involved in any of this.
Admittingly, that's not evidence about Peter's whereabouts, but that's evidence enough to provide a glimpse of hope. Working with that evidence might amount to something, if there was any willingness to work and not just theorize. The theorical stance gets more and more theorical, slowly but surely entering solipsism.
Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Wednesday, 30th September, 2009, 11:34 AM.
Suppose Peter said that he would tell someone his whereabouts on the condition they not disclose it to anyone. And suppose that person agreed. Would that person be breaking their promise to Peter if they told the wife/daughter, or is that person relieved of their personal obligation to Peter for some reason? And what would that reason be?
Is there any " public obligation " on such person to tell the wife/daughter under the circumstances of this case?
If you knew that he was charged with a crime it would be illegal for you not to reveal his whereabouts. However I have seen no evidence that he is even being sought by the police, let alone that there are charges.
In any event there is no evidence that this has happened anyway. It's all just speculation.
Testimony is "a solemn statement made under oath". I haven't seen any of that here.
Maybe that's because we're not in a court of law.
Testimony could also be "an assertion offering firsthand authentication of a fact". It could also be "something that serves as evidence". It could also be "a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter". The authentification, the assertion and the solemnity a testimony requires is built-in the very act of saying something. Very ordinary sentences show how it works : they could begin for instance by "honestly, I tell you that [...]", "I tell you, [...]", "I swear, [...]", "I'm very serious, this is not a joke [...]", etc. Only pedantry prevents from acknowledging that the result of an assertion can be taken as evidence.
Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Tuesday, 29th September, 2009, 10:31 PM.
... Of course, there are no philosophical analysis as to how to derive "could" to "should". Somehow, I get the feeling that only that would make you move out of your purely theorical standpoint. Should I give it a try ?
Hi Ben. Prove to me that out of the set of all chessplayers, the subset identified by Duncan as "The B.C. Chess Community" owes something, anything, to Karen and Silken.
"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
Kevin is certainly at it again... of course by calling people degenerates from across the ocean... his comment are the height of speculation, but then he has the nerve to accuse people of cyber bullying!...and his character assassination of Lynn Stringer isn't??? Pot... Kettle... Black...
Amusing that he screams 'censorship!!!' about Chesstalk from his blog but doesn't have the balls to open up his blog to comments! scared of possible comments or people actually being able to defend themselves??? Note when you set up a blog on blogspot allowing comments is set by default! he would have had to change this setting on purpose. That, to me, is censorship... but of course when you have a GM title this makes you all knowing about everything... even when it is on the other side of the planet...
As was stated earlier... this looks like the onset of 'Fischerism'... maybe we should ask him if the US deserved the 9/11 attacks???
Only pedantry prevents from acknowledging that the result of an assertion can be taken as evidence.
So now we're back to simple name calling. Can't refute an argument? Call the other guy a pedant.
Well, silly me for believing that when you say a word you intend it's normal meaning. Relying on shades of meaning also has a name, and that name is "equivocation".
Even so I haven't seen any assertions on this matter that are other than hearsay either here on on the Spragget blog, other than from Mrs. Springer.
Kevin is certainly at it again... of course by calling people degenerates from across the ocean... his comment are the height of speculation, but then he has the nerve to accuse people of cyber bullying!...and his character assassination of Lynn Stringer isn't??? Pot... Kettle... Black...
Amusing that he screams 'censorship!!!' about Chesstalk from his blog but doesn't have the balls to open up his blog to comments! scared of possible comments or people actually being able to defend themselves??? Note when you set up a blog on blogspot allowing comments is set by default! he would have had to change this setting on purpose. That, to me, is censorship... but of course when you have a GM title this makes you all knowing about everything... even when it is on the other side of the planet...
As was stated earlier... this looks like the onset of 'Fischerism'... maybe we should ask him if the US deserved the 9/11 attacks???
Well put, Jason, and very good points about the comments setting!
It isn't just the GM title that seems to earn one the "all knowing about everything" accolade. Jean Hebert is only an IM, but his personal attacks on Hal Bond and his proclamations about what is supposed to happen in organizing a prestigious chess event have earned the same silent nods as Spraggett's blogs (if it is indeed Spraggett, which seems to be of some doubt?).
This is all a troubling tendency. The more that question it, the better. Chess is a mere game and mastery of it doesn't equate to mastery of real life / philosophical issues.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
The meanings of "evidence", "testimony" and "hearsay" are obvious enough here, so the charge of equivocation is moot at best. (The usage of hearsay is not even correct, as we are not the one who have to testify.) We don't need to suppose we are in a court of law : at best, it's a metaphor. It would be very strange to think we are making a legal case here.
You are being refuted, and you are still indulging in pedantry.
Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Wednesday, 30th September, 2009, 09:08 PM.
Tweet
Comment