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.
Why did they wait until 2011 to complain? Convenience maybe? Why 2007 figures? Maybe they are more than the 2011 figures? Maybe the 2011 figures are in line with the base salary of say Royal Bank.
The reason I'd have asked you different questions than Bob is because I don't consider you to be as informed.
Blaming 1% of the population for the problems of the other 99% is quite simply a big lie.
Last edited by Gary Ruben; Tuesday, 15th November, 2011, 11:05 PM.
Solicitors representing the City of Toronto attended at the Superior Court of Justice - Ontario this afternoon to respond to an injunction application with respect to the notice under the Trespass to Property Act. Late this afternoon, the Court granted an interim injunction until it makes its decision. This is expected by 6 p.m. on Saturday. In the decision, the court ordered that no new structures can be erected in St. James Park, beyond those that were already in place as at 10 a.m. today. Occupy Toronto must post a copy of the Court's decision on its website.
On Twitter - 11 T.O. councillors sign letter asking Ford to take no further action on #Occupy protesters until issue discussed at council at end of Nov.
Bob A
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 15th November, 2011, 11:13 PM.
No I'm suggesting that if it happens under you watch that you take responsibility for it instead of claiming not to have been responsible for anything. I've never been a fan of the Rupert Murdoch type defense.
I'm also suggesting that once responsibility is taken as it should be that firing is only a last resort and is not the only option available or the default position. I'm also not a fan of Donald Trump's approach. ...
I agree for the most part, but, when there's billions of dollars involved I think firing should be near, if not at, the top of the list of consequences for a negligent CEO. I wouldn't expect a big bank's CEO to know anything at all about so-and-so's $100,000 residential mortgage or ABC Company's $1,000,000 line of credit. But once you start getting into the billions of dollars, I think a competent CEO should know what the hell is going on.
... I am not aware as you suggest that Bob had no responsibility as CFC president for whatever happened to the CFC. ...
I didn't suggest any such thing. I was talking about a specific situation: Can. Rev. Agency's withdrawal of the CFC's charitable status. Whatever it was that caused CRA to reconsider the CFC's status happened several years, if I'm not mistaken, before Bob was involved with the CFC's executive. Bob happened to be in the president's chair when CRA announced its decision. That doesn't mean he's at fault for the loss of charitable status. If I'm misunderstanding you, please explain.
... Nor am I particularly interested in excuses; as a shareholder ie member of the CFC I am not satisfied with what happened under his watch or the other exec or governor's. Oddly enough most of the same people are still in charge today. If you suggest a particular person is not responsible I'd be interested to hear if in your opinion anyone is. Perhaps no one was responsible. ...
... If you suggest that I have no right to say anything as a CFC member I'd be interested as to why you are suggesting this.
I said I wasn't clear on the point you were trying to make. I never said or implied that you had no right to express your opinions.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
I agree for the most part, but, when there's billions of dollars involved I think firing should be near, if not at, the top of the list of consequences for a negligent CEO. I wouldn't expect a big bank's CEO to know anything at all about so-and-so's $100,000 residential mortgage or ABC Company's $1,000,000 line of credit. But once you start getting into the billions of dollars, I think a competent CEO should know what the hell is going on.
I didn't suggest any such thing. I was talking about a specific situation: Can. Rev. Agency's withdrawal of the CFC's charitable status. Whatever it was that caused CRA to reconsider the CFC's status happened several years, if I'm not mistaken, before Bob was involved with the CFC's executive. Bob happened to be in the president's chair when CRA announced its decision. That doesn't mean he's at fault for the loss of charitable status. If I'm misunderstanding you, please explain.
I don't know the answer / who was responsible?
I said I wasn't clear on the point you were trying to make. I never said or implied that you had no right to express your opinions.
I see you don't know who is responsible you just know who isn't. You would make a good lawyer. Perhaps at the very least your client Bob had a responsibility to ensure that it did not happen. Unless of course he just accidentally happened to be CFC president through no action of his own.
And obviously a competent CEO would be required to know and have approved the policies that allowed approval of ABC companies loan; of any loan actually no matter the size.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Wednesday, 16th November, 2011, 09:39 AM.
It would have been useful to point out that the link is to action taken in NEW YORK CITY, especially when it is posted in a thread with "Toronto" in the title.
The goal of the occupy movement was never to occupy public parks. The goal was to raise public awareness of the problems in our economic and political systems (mostly USA) that tend to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few.
Occupying public parks was just tactics. Now that it looks like the tents are coming down, time to change tactics. I hope the protestors will realize this and keep it all peaceful. Public support is everything. Fighting with the cops and municipal politicians (all 99%'ers) would just be counter productive.
Awareness has been raised, and you are saying that was the goal. Why then does the occupying have to continue?
If you really think about it, you will realize that raising awareness isn't the true endgame goal. Some kind of anarchy is the endgame goal. That is why the occupying must continue... awareness means nothing without consequences. Mere awareness isn't going to put bankers in jail.
You make an EXCELLENT reference to the cops being part of the 99%ers. Why then would cops act, on behalf of the 1%ers, to dismantle the movement? Could it be because the cops have jobs? Maybe not the best jobs, maybe not even fairly paid jobs, but jobs. What this means is that the situation hasn't gotten so severe that even the cops revolt. No coup d'etat can succeed without the military joining the movement: in Syria you have the military firing upon citizens, in Iran you have "elite" Al-Quds security force keeping the unhappy citizenry at bay.
Bob, I appreciate what you would like to see happen (bankers and CEOs with blood on their hands in jail), and I also appreciate that you would like to see it done without violence. I join you in that desire. But the Occupy movement is misguided, and misguiding. "Raising awareness" is not the true goal, violence and anarchy is.
I return to my earlier point: you can do a LOT more with the power of the almighty dollar than you can with the "power" of free speech and protest. That is why income taxes get removed from payroll checks rather than relying on the citizenry sending the money in. What if the citizenry revolts and doesn't pay? Take the money away from them before they can do that, and pacify them with the right of free speech and assembly and protest.
Stop relying on "raising awareness", that's been done. Start working on getting the 99%ers to cease spending money on anything but necessities. Convince them to stop buying new cars, new TVs, computers, gadgets, trinkets, stop attending professional sporting events, the list goes on and on. You might even get the cops to join in. That would be a movement that would do a lot more than raise awareness.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Awareness has been raised, and you are saying that was the goal. Why then does the occupying have to continue?
If you really think about it, you will realize that raising awareness isn't the true endgame goal. Some kind of anarchy is the endgame goal. That is why the occupying must continue... awareness means nothing without consequences. Mere awareness isn't going to put bankers in jail.
Paul, but you are so EXTREME. :) But understandably so, residing in the USA, you are in the belly of the beast. You should come back to Canada!
Awareness is not the endgame. It is just the opening. From some of the posts I see, we clearly are still in the awareness phase for many.
Freezing our butts off in the cold doesn't sound very 99% to me. Sounds like the extreme 1% of the 99%, and it would be too easy to brand it as such. Better to keep the protests for the mainstream 99%, protest marches on the weekend, internet campaigns, town hall meetings.
... Bob, I appreciate what you would like to see happen (bankers and CEOs with blood on their hands in jail), and I also appreciate that you would like to see it done without violence. I join you in that desire. But the Occupy movement is misguided, and misguiding. "Raising awareness" is not the true goal, violence and anarchy is. ...
Isn't it far too early to be talking about true goals. This 'movement', as people refer to it, is far too fragmented at this point for anyone to draw reliable conclusions about goals and consequences.
... Stop relying on "raising awareness", that's been done. Start working on getting the 99%ers to cease spending money on anything but necessities. Convince them to stop buying new cars, new TVs, computers, gadgets, trinkets, stop attending professional sporting events, the list goes on and on. You might even get the cops to join in. That would be a movement that would do a lot more than raise awareness.
For some reason this reminds me of the riots that took place in Watts in 1965. I always wondered why the rioters mainly destroyed homes and businesses in their own neighbourhoods rather than doing the damage in predominantly white neighbourhoods. What you're suggesting in the preceding quote seems similar because it's a shotgun approach; i.e. the 99% would be hurting many of their own numbers in a general, non-necessity spending strike. I think it would be more effective if the 99% could target specific corporations for, say, a day or a week at a time as a demonstration of their 'wallet power'; i.e. put the fear into the elite regarding the reliability of their cash flow. Practically speaking, of course, the odds against the 99% being able to act in a concerted fashion are astronomical.
Last edited by Peter McKillop; Wednesday, 16th November, 2011, 11:38 AM.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Practically speaking, of course, the odds against the 99% being able to act in a concerted fashion are astronomical.
Practically speaking there is little indication that the 99% actually agree with the nebulous goals of this movement. That said, destroying the personal property of the protesters in New York is low. The lesson for the protesters is to leave the electronics at home when you go protesting.
The only thing this 'protest' has shown me is that the usual suspects and professional protesters are at it again. You will see the same crowd at every protest. If they are peaceful and don't break any laws I have no problem with them... but as soon as they do, I would recommend cutting off their welfare and watch how many of them keep protesting.
Tweet
Comment