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.
Call me skeptical but, IMHO the email scandal has been overstated. I see a relatively small group of overzealous climate scientists anxious to make their case before the Copenhagen summit. The result has been to polarize the debate and sabotage any agreement. IMHO the climate change deniers lose credibility when they portray it as a global conspiracy to redistribute wealth to the third world and protect their own research funding. Ah, come on, I just don’t buy it!
That's classical. Beaut!! If the Americans want to redistribute their wealth to the third world I figure they should. In Canada we have the Liberals and NDP and all I hear from them is tax and spend. Of course, I won't vote for that.
As I've mentioned before, I try to make my grocery money by investing in stocks. Times are hard for the over 65 crowd. I never thought that after 3 mile Island and Chernobyl there would be any kind of movement back to nuclear reactors, much less as clean energy to protect the environment. So, I've invested in that. See, it doesn't really matter if I believe global warming. It's only important there is a split between the two points of view.
Of course, I'm also invested in coal. Realistically, it's not going out of use any time soon. I also like light oil and gas.
Yesterday I listened to the conference call of a company in which I own shares. Something I rode from around 2 to 9 and bought back some at around 5. The make vehicle chasis. One of their lines is fire trucks. In any case, they were saying in the call they expect orders for lower emission fire trucks and other vehicles.
To tell the truth, I can't see what difference it makes if a fire truck emits a bit less emissions as it races to a fire in which smoke and crud is coming from the roof of a burning building. The important part is the jurisdictions in which they operate are willing to pay for replacements.
The part which really makes me smile is the amount of energy which goes into making a vehicle. It's likely they won't put as much fuel into the gas tank of the average fire engine as it takes takes to make them. That counts everything right down the the smallest bolt or screw which goes into making one.
The real climate friendly thing to do is to keep the old vehicles on the road as long as possible. However, that's not likely to happen in most cases.
To make a long story short, I won't be voting for politicians who want to impose climate measures on me.
Well, it is good advice, except that I believe he misunderstands why I am posting. I am not trying at all to convince any of the deniers because I have, rightly or wrongly, come to agree that no amount of reasoning with them will ever convince them.
But I do care when only the irrational side of a debate posts all the messages without any of the other rational folks on the board the impression may be given to the unwary that they are "winning" the debate. So I chime in when it pleases me and try to prick the worst bubbles of irrationality.
The trouble is that, even though I am retired and you would think I had plenty of time, these guys can go on forever and ever with their nonsensical points and I can't do the same in refuting them. They will win every time by exhaustion! Perhaps we need to introduce chess clocks to this debate...
I am not stressed at all by what I am doing here and find it rather good fun, actually. It's fun to prick the bubbles of the pompous deniers and it's even fun (though I realize this does not say anything good about me!) to laugh at their even more pompous reactions.
Because this is a chess discussion board I will, at this point, throw in what I think is a very appropriate quote from good old Emanual Lasker:
"Lies and hypocrisy do not survive for long on the chessboard. The creative combination lies bare the presumption of a lie, while the merciless fact, culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite." — from Manual of Chess"
I am afraid that we humans are about to, if not be totally checkmated, lose several pieces!
But those who can only see one move ahead and who play "hope chess" around climate science will not see it coming and are, instead of looking a little deeper into the position, trying to out shout those who do.
I am not likely to be around for the real disaster and that means I probably won't have to suffer much myself from climate change. But if so, I will also be deprived of the dubious pleasure of saying "I told you so".
Well, there even are several chess players around who think that they can successfully play the Damiano defense against decent players, too!
Last edited by Ed Seedhouse; Friday, 19th February, 2010, 03:17 PM.
I've got dialup so videos on Youtube are almost impossible. Anyhow, I had a look at it says it soon won't be supporting my IE browser but it doesn't seem to be working for me. I take it you have a newer computer and broadband. Keeping the shareholders in dividends. :)
If you want to summarize the monetary arguments, in your own words, I might want to comment.
Maybe you could explain why suddenly nuclear energy is getting to be the poster child of a clean environment. Why nobody ever mentions why someone should be encouraged to buy a new car which emits less emission when it takes so much energy to manufacture the vehicle.
How about you put some critical thinking into this and make some good points. Show us you know something.
Supposing this to be true, what does it have to do with whether I am right or wrong? And why would it bother you so much that you have to make a point of it? Got some issues on your own around this?
Well, and I'm also old, ugly, fat, and have a nasty temper. But name calling never changes my mind, only actual reason can do that.
Anyone who (for some strange reason) wants to read the whole thread and note who has replied to what and when may draw their own conclusions...
Supposing this to be true, what does it have to do with whether I am right or wrong? And why would it bother you so much that you have to make a point of it? Got some issues on your own around this?
Right about what, you old fool? You made a comment about something I wrote to someone else which amounted to your having to get in the last word.
Right about what, you old fool? You made a comment about something I wrote to someone else which amounted to your having to get in the last word.
Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realize this was a board for private conversation. Oh, wait, it isn't, is it? It's a discussion forum! Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "discussion".
As to who is the bigger fool, I imagine everyone here has their own opinion about that, and I won't attempt to change their minds.
Of course you could just declare yourself right and stop posting. Then you wouldn't have to worry all the time about who has the last word. You've declared yourself right now several times but apparently you haven't yet convinced yourself, and so need to repeat it over and over.
But now that you've "exposed" my "need" to have the last word always, I clearly now have to live up to the category you've put me in and make sure to always get the last word every time you post.
There's no way you can stop me from doing that, is there? Oh yeah, you could stop posting and just let me have this coveted "last word", which you imagine I need.
But if you can't allow that, then logic would say that it's really you who need the last word. That means you are just the pot calling the kettle black, doesn't it? But it's OK, I won't tell anyone about your terrible grinding need to always have the last word...
Last edited by Ed Seedhouse; Friday, 19th February, 2010, 11:03 PM.
Questions are being asked on a broader scale too about climate-change data. US researchers Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts, quoted in Dutch daily De Telegraaf, say the perceived global temperature rise may be an result of changes in the measuring methods.
There used to be 6,000 measuring posts, they say, but now there are just 1,500. A number of weather stations in colder areas like Siberia and the Arctic were dismantled, while the remaining stations were in more moderate zones. As a consequence, data from colder areas was no longer used in the calculations.
D'Aleo and Watts also point to discrepancies between terrestrial and satellite measurements. Satellite weather stations report that the temperature of the earth's atmosphere has remained stable, with a slight fall since 2001.
Earth-based weather stations report an increase in warmth which, according to the two Americans, reflects the process of urbanisation. Measuring posts that used to be in remote rural areas have gradually been surrounded by roads, buildings or industry, all of which produce heat.
Tweet
Comment