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.
Adam; I do not think she was discussing the conservatives; maybe it was one policy of theirs? Sometimes people say things in the heat of the moment. Look at what she actually said; I think that it was taken out of context by the media.
The whole thing started out when she compared the conservative's environment plan to Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of the Nazi's. Then the media might have blown it out of proportion saying that she also called Harper a Nazi(or atleast compared him to one). Her comments are still not appropriate... Canada.com news article on Elizabeth May controversy
Adam; so she actually compared the Conservative policy/plan to a similar weak policy/idea of Chamberlain. The "noise" was media generated.
I think a major problem with the Conservative policies is that they are not science/fact based. They get all the facts and science; and then do what they want with the policy (basing it on ideological thinking).
Cases of point:
1) Census policy is opposed unanimously by statisticians, scientists, etc.
2) Getting tougher on crime (building more prisons) flys in the face of crime rates that have been dropping for years, justified by "unreported crimes".
3) Non-existent climate change policy; ignoring the reality of the science
Adam; so she actually compared the Conservative policy/plan to a similar weak policy/idea of Chamberlain. The "noise" was media generated.
I think a major problem with the Conservative policies is that they are not science/fact based. They get all the facts and science; and then do what they want with the policy (basing it on ideological thinking).
Cases of point:
1) Census policy is opposed unanimously by statisticians, scientists, etc.
2) Getting tougher on crime (building more prisons) flys in the face of crime rates that have been dropping for years, justified by "unreported crimes".
3) Non-existent climate change policy; ignoring the reality of the science
It doesn't much matter what May thinks. She's simply leads another party which will split the left wing vote and the environmentalists. She's well past her "best before" date and a replacement leader is in order.
Layton and Iggy are flogging the same policies when it's not their turn to support the conservatives in a vote.
In our first past the post system it's unlikely a Green Party member will win a riding.
Actually those points you mentioned are the reason I like the Conservatives. I'd like to see them with a majority.
Probably this fall or next spring the Prime Minister will have to call an election to clear the air. The opposition parties seem to be more intent on watching the polls for signs of a miracle. Fair weather politicians. It's kind of like global warming. While they oppose global warming they wait for their poll numbers to warm up. That's what I call incontinence, or is it inconsistency.
Adam; I do not think she was discussing the conservatives; maybe it was one policy of theirs? Sometimes people say things in the heat of the moment. Look at what she actually said; I think that it was taken out of context by the media.
Right,...
That would be the same media that repeats every idiotic pronouncement that she makes and tries to convince us that her dross is gold?
She violated Godwin's law.
She is totally lacking in substance. She does sound quite shrill in leadership debates. Her and Dion probably should have got a room after that last "debate". She is incapable of getting elected even when the Liberals don't run a candidate against her so as not to split the vote.
I would say that the emperor has no clothes but the image that would project would be profoundly distasteful.
So he will be "forced" to break his own law again eh Gary? Do you approve of law breaking?
He is not breaking the law according to the judge that heard the case last time. Besides it will be Iggy that forces an election because his poll numbers look good that week.
Adam; so she actually compared the Conservative policy/plan to a similar weak policy/idea of Chamberlain. The "noise" was media generated.
I think a major problem with the Conservative policies is that they are not science/fact based. They get all the facts and science; and then do what they want with the policy (basing it on ideological thinking).
Cases of point:
1) Census policy is opposed unanimously by statisticians, scientists, etc.
2) Getting tougher on crime (building more prisons) flys in the face of crime rates that have been dropping for years, justified by "unreported crimes".
3) Non-existent climate change policy; ignoring the reality of the science
1) The people whining about the census are not scientists. They are the bureaucrats that need the data to justify increasing taxes. I don't care what they want.
2) The last few times that I reported crimes the net result was zero. None of my property was ever recovered and I wasted a lot of time in a totally non-productive way. The next few times that the same thing happened, I didn't bother reporting it and oddly enough I managed to recover some of my property. Just because I didn't report it doesn't mean no crime was committed.
3) The "science" is fudged and the data lost because it has been destroyed but we are supposed to trust them because they are climate "scientists". :D
Vlad and Gary. Where is Bonhommes post on this. After all, you guys are the "Three Stooges".
Gary, are you not also past your "best before date". Don't be an emperor so that Vlad does not imagine distasteful images.
Vlad, regarding my initial 3 points:
1) I am a member of CAG (Canadian Association of Geographers) and am on their listserve, and all the emails that come across from scientists, geographers, and statisticians are negative. One of the fundamental requirements of any survey is that is is from a RANDOM SAMPLE. This CANNOT be obtained from a volunteer sample. If you argue this point, you have a profound gap in your statistical knowledge. Please confirm this fact in your response.
Vlad and Gary. Where is Bonhommes post on this. After all, you guys are the "Three Stooges".
Gary, are you not also past your "best before date". Don't be an emperor so that Vlad does not imagine distasteful images.
Vlad, regarding my initial 3 points:
1) I am a member of CAG (Canadian Association of Geographers) and am on their listserve, and all the emails that come across from scientists, geographers, and statisticians are negative. One of the fundamental requirements of any survey is that is is from a RANDOM SAMPLE. This CANNOT be obtained from a volunteer sample. If you argue this point, you have a profound gap in your statistical knowledge. Please confirm this fact in your response.
2) Lock your door next time.
3) You know not what you are spewing?
Hiya Paul,
Actually, I think you are an asshole. As such you never have to worry about your best before date. Your "science" will always entertain.
Lately your posts have become nasty. Clean them up and you'll move from the asshole category to someone with whom it's worth exchanging posts.
You simply can't IMPOSE controversial "science" on people.
I used the same phrase that you and Vlad used to describe Elizabeth May; what is your problem. If you cannot "take it" then why "dish it out"?
Climate change science is NOT controversial with the scientists. I am not imposing anything on anyone; just giving people information and sources of information.
I highly recommend reading the present link. It shows that there is NOTHING controversial about climate science. The controversy is with the public and politicians and people who have vested interest in the status quo (specifically the fossil fuel based energy supply). http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+html
Last edited by Paul Beckwith; Tuesday, 17th August, 2010, 12:27 PM.
Reason: spelling error
Vlad and Gary. Where is Bonhommes post on this. After all, you guys are the "Three Stooges".
That last unprovoked sentence shows what a disservice you do to the science you supposedly serve.
Bonhomme is still waiting for a rebuttal to his claims that your constant republishing here of various weather events, and specifically your claim that these events are more frequent and more severe than in the past, is totally bogus unless by "the past" you mean within a human generation. And if that's what you mean, such a claim doesn't prove anything in the context of global warming, and I dare you to rebutt that.
Until you offer such rebuttal, you forfeit the point.
I hope this means that forthcoming severe weather events won't put this thread back at the top because you want to play Chicken Little again.
Oh, and please go back and check, I did not swear anything on a stack of Bibles. I "swore" on a stack of Cher Final Farewell Tour posters going back at least 20 years (one for each year), along with Brett Favre retirement announcements! :D
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Tweet
Comment