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.
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.
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.
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.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
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)
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...
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.
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".
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...
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.
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".
Kerry, I have to tell you that if you can't see anyone in Western Canada qualified on merit to play on the Nationa team, you and I are looking at a different chess scene.
I'll bet you 20 dollars this national team doesn't finish in the top 20. Interested?
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.
and your third 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 it is, in Europe it is already accepted as a fact and most European countries are trying to find ways to solve this problem).
1. His opinions on drowsing is irrelevant to the discussion. It in no way nullifies his work in rising sea levels. This is called a red herring argument... perhaps you should take a course on logic.
2. Theon did years of work on AGW and has made a stand, just because you dont like it, doesnt make his opinion invalid. Note he isnt the only former NASA scientist who has come out and made skeptical statements about AGW, a point that you conveniently ignored.
3. You have only proved that you have NEVER READ a philosophical book if you dont see criticism of it. Perhaps you missed the part where it is considered one of the hundred most influential books in the past 100 years...
Kuhns premise is that science is CONSTANTLY changing and what is science 100 years ago is a joke now. Yet those who follow the paradigm follow it almost RELIGIOUSLY even when the evidence against it grows. Not until the next generation of scientists become the majority does the old paradigm fade away. Kuhn documents this quite well. That is why I recommended the book for those who religiously follow the current scientific theories of today.
Kerry, I have to tell you that if you can't see anyone in Western Canada qualified on merit to play on the Nationa team, you and I are looking at a different chess scene.
I'll bet you 20 dollars this national team doesn't finish in the top 20. Interested?
No dice. We could send every chess player in Canada and we still wouldn't finish in the top 20. I don't have anything to do with selecting who represents Canada; I leave that to the experts.
Of course there are likely players all over the country who may be qualified - I don't know the details of the selection machinations other than the result.
As far as I can tell, the CFC operates in secret, like the Knights Templar (who are also responsible for Global Warming)
1. His opinions on drowsing is irrelevant to the discussion. It in no way nullifies his work in rising sea levels. This is called a red herring argument... perhaps you should take a course on logic.
2. Theon did years of work on AGW and has made a stand, just because you dont like it, doesnt make his opinion invalid. Note he isnt the only former NASA scientist who has come out and made skeptical statements about AGW, a point that you conveniently ignored.
3. You have only proved that you have NEVER READ a philosophical book if you dont see criticism of it. Perhaps you missed the part where it is considered one of the hundred most influential books in the past 100 years...
Kuhns premise is that science is CONSTANTLY changing and what is science 100 years ago is a joke now. Yet those who follow the paradigm follow it almost RELIGIOUSLY even when the evidence against it grows. Not until the next generation of scientists become the majority does the old paradigm fade away. Kuhn documents this quite well. That is why I recommended the book for those who religiously follow the current scientific theories of today.
Maybe his views on drowsing are irrelevant but him being completely wrong is not and you failed to mention that.
I never said his opinion was invalid but you are the one who is not looking at Hansen's response and the battle between the two and seeing that they are just trying to completely discredit the other(most likely due to alterior motives), and that article you presented has a few lies about Theon anyways, who is John S theon
Theon came to public attention in January 2009 when he announced that he did not support the scientific consensus that global warming is man-made. It is a scientific consensus just because a few scientists disagree doesn't take way from much from the majority of scientists.
I initially missed the other NASA scientist article I'll get back to you on that after I do more research.
Science is CONSTANTLY changing? really?? Thats news to me, you must be joking, I thought science just stayed the exact same and never changed and could never be questioned, oh wait that's religion.
Richard Dawkins also talks about that in one of his books, about how science is constantly compounding which is why a child can learn things that the greatest scientists of the past had no idea about.
the 3% of climatologists who are against AGW has along way to go to beat the majority of 97% and the evidence is piling up for not against it, Bjorn Lomborg has finally seen AGW to be the problem it is, even though before that he was a vocal skeptic and even has a skeptic book.
There is a much larger amount of evidence for then against AGW.
AGW deniers will never be the majority, because for that to happen that would take time and our world is going to be changing even more in the future providing more evidence for climate change. AGW supporters really could just sit and wait until more and more disastrous events occur(which they are) but we are actually trying to fix the problem.
AGW is not a theory it is a fact accepted both by the National Academy of Science and the Royal Society and the vast majority of scientists. In order for the deniers to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that global warming is not occurring(or is at least not man-made) the amount of evidence they require is enormous.
Tweet
Comment