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.
There is NOT a consensus amongst those who study the issue. More and more are coming out and stating how skeptic they are when they aren't worried about getting research grants.
Perhaps all you people who thump your chests and talk about how the science backs climate change should read the following book...
Nils-Axel Morner is one man, INQUA disagrees with his position. Morner's claim that sea levels are not rising has been criticized for ignoring correctly calibrated satellite altimeter records, all of which show that sea levels are rising.
I guess you also agree with his views on drowsing, eh?
from your NASA articles, Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears. That is just a lie...a complete lie, the deniers aren't rapidly growing and people on both sides of the argument keep on flip-flopping. It even talks about how there are many meteorologists(weather-men) who are deniers...
Theon and Hansen obviously hate each other, if you actually do some more research you'd see that they both have fired back at each other calling each other liars, etc... both citing just as much work as the next. That site is obviously one sided(unlike skeptical science with at least acknowledges the denier's argument).
So your first key denier believes in drowsing and is just wrong about the sea levels.
your second one is just in a bitch fight with a AGW supporter.
on your third point, I will have to do more detailed research on Dr. Leonard Weinstein, it is the most interesting of your sources.
and your fourth point on a philosophers book, 1/3 of the page is criticism...so maybe you might want to read both sides of the argument because it seems to me there is more to that issue then you think, if it so heavily debated(now before someone says I should look more at the deniers position because of how heavily debated AGW is, in Europe it is already accepted as a fact(even here NAS does consider it a fact but some of the population doesn't) and most European countries are trying to find ways to solve this problem).
Last edited by Adam Cormier; Friday, 3rd September, 2010, 02:33 PM.
Yes all the scientists hundreds of thousands times more intelligent then you could ever hope to be have all been duped into believing in AGW and only you being the shining light in the dark can see past it. look up the word arrogance...
Yes like those rising sea levels that is caused by Global warming?
Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change.
There is NOT a consensus amongst those who study the issue. More and more are coming out and stating how skeptic they are when they aren't worried about getting research grants.
Perhaps all you people who thump your chests and talk about how the science backs climate change should read the following book...
Hi Kerry,
Of course you looked at the thread. Everyone looks at this thread. It's entertainment.
Bob was on topic. The problem is he gives and opinion and then wants the thead closed down.
If I were the president of the CFC, heaven forbid, I wouldn't be getting involved in a discussion of a controversial theory with which so many people disagree. I'd be more interested in selling chess and memberships and I politely (for me) suggested he do just that.
If he thinks being head honcho of the CFC is a thankless task, he'll find trying to control discussions with censorship even more thankless. He should be investigating why they National Team doesn't have any players from outside of Ontario and Quebec. It's a national disgrace, in my opinion, and not the Canadian thing to do.
It is hardly censorship to suggest that a chess forum limit the discussion to chess. I don't see that being president of the CFC forces Bob to avoid stating his opinions or preferences.
I suppose the canadian thing to do would be to let anyone play and then get mediocre/horrible results and then say "oh well, at least we were there".
I hate to post in this thread (thereby revealing that I have looked at it...) but Bob's post actually was on-topic -expressing his view that he believes in AGW- instead of arguing about the colours in a rainbow and the definitions of "colour" and "rainbow".
This entire thread on a "chess forum website" is entirely worthless. Larry has far more patience than I (and apparently *had* more money, since forum bandwidth costs money at some point)
Hi Kerry,
Of course you looked at the thread. Everyone looks at this thread. It's entertainment.
Bob was on topic. The problem is he gives and opinion and then wants the thead closed down.
If I were the president of the CFC, heaven forbid, I wouldn't be getting involved in a discussion of a controversial theory with which so many people disagree. I'd be more interested in selling chess and memberships and I politely (for me) suggested he do just that.
If he thinks being head honcho of the CFC is a thankless task, he'll find trying to control discussions with censorship even more thankless. He should be investigating why they National Team doesn't have any players from outside of Ontario and Quebec. It's a national disgrace, in my opinion, and not the Canadian thing to do.
As long as we are demonstrating how easily you are duped into believing dark matter is a fact, we ARE on topic, because you have likewise been duped into AGW as fact.
Yes all the scientists hundreds of thousands times more intelligent then you could ever hope to be have all been duped into believing in AGW and only you being the shining light in the dark can see past it. look up the word arrogance...
Bob, Very few give a F*%K what you think. You should probably stick to your knitting and go sign up members for the CFC.
Why don't you go censor the CFC message board and let Larry administer this message board.
I hate to post in this thread (thereby revealing that I have looked at it...) but Bob's post actually was on-topic -expressing his view that he believes in AGW- instead of arguing about the colours in a rainbow and the definitions of "colour" and "rainbow".
This entire thread on a "chess forum website" is entirely worthless. Larry has far more patience than I (and apparently *had* more money, since forum bandwidth costs money at some point)
Look, if I am reincarnated that means I will have a life after I die, that is, an afterlife......
Reincarnation without memory of a past life isn't reincarnation. It is just a meaningless concept. But even so, if it's the same "person" in incarnation 1 as in incarnation 2, then that is an afterlife, by definition.
IF... IF... IF!!!!!
Once again, Ed hasn't read my full post, or he chooses to cherry-pick to make a foolish argument.
Ed, do you have your glasses on when you read these posts? You're making a fool of yourself! Did you READ my alternate theory, Ed? The one that says the SOUL isn't being placed into the second body, only the INFORMATION is?
If you call yourself a scientist of any kind, it is applied science only. You have no idea about theoretical science.
A very plausible theory for reincarnation effects is that the observed effect isn't a soul living beyond death, it is INFORMATION TRANSFER.
Haven't you read any science fiction? This is common theme in probably hundreds of science fiction works! Oh, I know what to expect from you now: you'll make some dumbass remark about my posts being nothing more than fiction....
Anything to sidetrack readers from your lapses and ignorance and false declarations of facts. You're too old for this, Ed, give it up.
Now as I recall this was a thread about climate change, so I would respectfully ask Paul to get back on topic.
Ed
As long as we are demonstrating how easily you are duped into believing dark matter is a fact, we ARE on topic, because you have likewise been duped into AGW as fact.
It would appear that this thread has run it's course. Recent posts have been reduced to name calling and none related topics.
IMHO, the evidence supports the case for AGW.
Since I haven't seen anything constructive or on topic recently, I would be quite happy to see the board administrators block further posts to this thread.
Bob, Very few give a F*%K what you think. You should probably stick to your knitting and go sign up members for the CFC.
Why don't you go censor the CFC message board and let Larry administer this message board.
It would appear that this thread has run it's course. Recent posts have been reduced to name calling and none related topics.
IMHO, the evidence supports the case for AGW.
Since I haven't seen anything constructive or on topic recently, I would be quite happy to see the board administrators block further posts to this thread.
Even if you don't care whether I believe something you claim, you should at least care if others, possibly wanting to believe in AGW, believe the things you claim. Has this thought even crossed your selfish mind?
As we all know, Paul is a saint and would never ever be selfish. That's why he throws all his chess games. Oh, wait...
I have of course provided links to the evidence for all my claims, but it doesn't matter to Paul so he never ever checks them out. He is desparate, you see, to be seen as so much more intelligent, unselfish, honest and just goldarned better than all of us selfish louts. But the truth is he wouldn't know what evidence was if it smacked him in the face.
I don't care two figs if you believe it. Your need in this post to claim "victory" followed by reams of bolded text show quite clearly how much you yourself doubt your own lies.
I knew it, Ed's just blowing smoke, that's all I've seen him do in this entire thread and elsewhere.
Ed, you are a disgrace to the science that you champion.
Even if you don't care whether I believe something you claim, you should at least care if others, possibly wanting to believe in AGW, believe the things you claim. Has this thought even crossed your selfish mind?
I seriously doubt this statement. Back it up if you want anyone to believe it.
I don't care two figs if you believe it. Your need in this post to claim "victory" followed by reams of bolded text show quite clearly how much you yourself doubt your own lies.
Awww, Ed, you're just PO'd because I made you look such a fool with your BS about scientific theory and dark matter being "pretty much a fact" LOL.
Ed usually manages to make himself look like quite a fool without anyone's help.
Egg on your face, you lash out with anger. Oh well, some people never grow up....
Meanwhile, we're all still waiting for your detailed info on isotopes of carbon and on how 30 billion tonnes of CO2 from human sources relates to past volcanic eras of global warming.
Not to mention the medieval warm period that they are oh so carefully trying to ignore. The significance of the medieval warm period is that if it did not portend a disaster for man's survival then neither does any present global warming. Further it indicates that warming if it is indeed occurring may just be the result of natural forces.
Of course, you could continue calling anyone and everyone who doesn't have this info "scientific ignoramous", and not provide any sources to it, but then guess what, no one is going to believe you. Duh!
Readers should notice that Ed, Adam, and Paul Beckwith are together stressing that everyone should have this kind of scientific knowledge, and if you don't have it, you should be cast aside while the more scientifically knowledgeable decide everything for you. This seems to be becoming the overwhelming direction of their agenda. Beckwith coyly asks everyone, "What is your scientific background?", Seedhouse calls anyone without his level of scientific knowledge an "ignoramous" (while laughingly being a total ignoramus about scientific theory and not even knowing it!), and Cormier argues that anything that isn't examined and declared as fact by the National Academy of Sciences is "bullshit".
The most amusing thing is that any academic could tell you that the scientific background purported to give Mr. Beckwith authority is one that would earn him contempt in any discussion of academic credentials. He has no standing.
I have discussed AGW with one scientist who did manage to finish his doctorate and a lot more and his pithy summary was, "Its all bulls**t but you can't say that publicly. It would cost you too much money in grants."
Adam is young. There is still hope for him. He may yet turn from the dark side.
Ed is dumb. There is no hope for him. He has the soul of a spider.
Beware of these three and their insiduous message: they are only the foot soldiers in a very dangerous movement taking place in society.
Leave a comment: