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.
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
Do you really believe they will even take the time to read that? They have made it apparent that they would rather stay in their fairy-tale world of delusion and ignorance, it's a lost cause. No matter how many facts and how much evidence you provide for them, they will simply shrug it off as 'junk' science or some other excuse to why they don't believe the facts as important in making a decision on anthropogenic global warming.
1)
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.
OMG, just how many times have you been robbed?
Maybe you don't believe Paul about global warming,
but I think you should take his advice and buy a lock! :)
Just how much more evidence do you need! :p
How can anybody disrespect Elizabeth May after her great performance in the last election debate! :D
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Tuesday, 17th August, 2010, 03:08 PM.
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
I had a look at your reference. The very first sentence is a disclaimer which cites "preliminary estimates". That in the bold section before the beginning of the article. The very first sentence of the article starts with "Preliminary reviews". I'm surprised even the choir doesn't want more notes in the music.
I definately think May is past her best before date as party leader. Surely that party is due for a new look. Really though, I don't vote for a political party unless I think I can affort their proposed policies.
Regarding my being past my best before date, of course I am. I've been turning down board 1 assignments for correspondence chess teams. A person has to know his/her limitations. I do have to tell you it is flattering to be asked at my age, however, I feel I can make more of a contribtution on a lower board.
The problem I had with your post was your characterization of some of us who don't buy into the global warming and your insulting spelling of Paul's last name. I know the temperature is high and nerves get a bit frayed but it's the same on both side of the screen. Still, he has an easy name to spell.
I definitely think May is past her best before date as party leader. Surely that party is due for a new look. Really though, I don't vote for a political party unless I think I can effect their proposed policies.
It is hard to be able to effect any parties policies being a lone citizen, if you want to make a difference in this subject why don't you get into politics?
It is hard to be able to effect any parties policies being a lone citizen, if you want to make a difference in this subject why don't you get into politics?
Ouch. That should have read:
I don't vote for a political party unless I think I can AFFORD their proposed policies.
I'm not interested in getting into politics. I'm not interested in being part of one of those kind of teams.
If they want to make me King, what would be different. :)
Define robbed and which time span are we talking about? Lifetime? I haven't been robbed in over four years but then I am living in a better neighborhood these days.
Maybe you don't believe Paul about global warming,
but I think you should take his advice and buy a lock! :)
I'll add it to my shopping list though they have not helped in any of the past instances.
Just how much more evidence do you need! :p
How can anybody disrespect Elizabeth May after her great performance in the last election debate! :D
How many seats in Parliament did her great performance win for her?
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"?
Well of course, TGOTH are allowed to call anyone else any thing they like, but let someone call them something and they explode with rage. This is a frequent occurence with people who suppress their inner anger. They are also extremely jealous of anyone with any scientific literacy since they are entirely illiterate in this regard themselves.
TGOTH = "The Gang of Three Hypocrites".
Last edited by Ed Seedhouse; Tuesday, 17th August, 2010, 07:43 PM.
Well of course, TGOTH are allowed to call anyone else any thing they like, but let someone call them something and they explode with rage.
Take your meds, Ed.
Adam, who is on your side of this silly inconsequential debate regarding AGW, called Elizabeth May something that was a little over the top and I just agreed with him. Take it up with him.
Vlad: Do you actually have any friends in Canada? You might be surprised to learn that your European "culture" doesn't exist anymore! Just my obseravation from all your posts on here.....
Vlad: Do you actually have any friends in Canada? You might be surprised to learn that your European "culture" doesn't exist anymore! Just my obseravation from all your posts on here.....
Sorry,
Like many neutral observers I just can't believe AGW fairy tales. If it brings you comfort to believe that I have no friends, who am I to deny you your little fantasies after so brutally torpedoing your closely held and silly AGW religious beliefs.
I was born in Canada. I've never been to Europe. My culture is Canadian. :D
I could not stop laughing for at least five minutes at your claim to be "neutral"; and your phrases "fairy tales", "fantasies", "torpedoing" and "religious beliefs"; all in one post.
Gary managed to read the first line of the abstract and the first line of the paper and commented on both "lines" previously (not sure if he read more than 2 lines?) "Preliminary" means that more detailed studies are ongoing.
Here is a summary of the article...
97-98% of climate researchers most actively publishing support the conclusions regarding ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate) reports and make up the CE (Convinced of the Evidence) group.
2-3% of these climate researchers make up the UE (Unconvinced of the Evidence) group.
For this group, the expertise and prominence is significantly lower than that of the CE group (see graphs in actual paper on link for yourself; difference is striking).
Expertise is judged by number of peer reviewed papers published, and Prominence is judged by number of times the papers are cited by others.
For Bonhomme (how to research effect of climate change on frequency of large negative weather events).
1)Open "www.google.ca"
2)Type in "frequency of severe weather events"
3)Scroll through list; pulling out most recent 2010 stories.
4)Read stories
Just in case he is stumped; here are the stories: http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre...quence_en.html
This is from the WMO (World Meteorological Association). Vlad will claim that they are religious fundamentalist believers that he can easily torpedo. So lets look at another...
http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/1...ery-continent/
This one is from Climate Progress; one of the most influential blogs on the subject. Many examples are given of extreme weather events that are occuring with uncharacteristic frequency around the planet. Gary will quickly go to FOX news for a rebuttal (cherry picking the source; instead of doing a search).
Fine; lets try again:
ftp://grads.iges.org/pub/kinter/Peop.../Ross_2003.pdf
This government report from the National Climatic Data Center from 2003 has predictions of what type of severe weather we are likely to see with climate change. Hmm...Are we starting to see that now.
The three stooges will now provide FOX or National Post references to try to discredit the above reports. Perhaps Google is biased, and leaves out the Climate Change Denier reports in the search. Hmm...Try Bing...Oops, we get the same thing.
Readers, help me do some Googling and posting when the usual suspects post nonsense...
Like many neutral observers I just can't believe AGW fairy tales. If it brings you comfort to believe that I have no friends, who am I to deny you your little fantasies after so brutally torpedoing your closely held and silly AGW religious beliefs.
I was born in Canada. I've never been to Europe. My culture is Canadian. :D
Vladimir Drkulec
AGW religious beliefs??????
Religion is based on belief,blind faith and superstition, science is the opposite, it is based on facts and evidence. People don't have blind faith in AGW, they do research they find out what the experts know about the subject. They don't have a vision where Al gore comes to them and says believe in AGW and that the facts aren't important. People who study AGW are almost unanimously in support of finding a solution to it and deal with the facts about AGW not lies and superstition.
I have seen no facts or evidence to support your side of the argument Vlad, while Paul Beckwith has plenty of fantastic articles supporting his points from experts on the subject.
Define "neighbourhood" and "shopping mall" and "performance".
Remember that the lock will only work if you put in a key and turn it so that the deadbolt is extended into the wall. Please don't ask me to define "key".
Last edited by Paul Beckwith; Wednesday, 18th August, 2010, 12:54 PM.
Reason: spelling
Tweet
:D
Comment