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.
Here's an interesting article from the Vancouver newspaper. Possible another view of what's happening in the real world. I held shares in that company but sold them some time ago. I want to see how the problems resolve before deciding if I want to reinvest.
Perhaps, but not necessarily. For example, some people say that the biological precept 'survival of the fittest' is also the ethical basis of capitalism. If that is so, then we must not forget that a corollary to that precept is 'strength in numbers'. If the 'numbers' bring about a redistribution of wealth then, depending on circumstances, can that not be a valid event within the framework of capitalism?
What an excellent, excellent point you raise and question you ask. I'm impressed.
Gary dismisses it like swatting at a fly, but I think of Gary as kind of the Nigel Tufnel of this board. Nigel Tufnel is the Spinal Tap guitarist (in the movie "This Is Spinal Tap") who describes to the Rob Reiner character that Spinal Taps amp settings all go to 11, rather than the standard 10. Rob Reiner asks, "Is that louder?", and Nigel Tufnel says, "Well, its one louder, isn't it?" To which the Rob Reiner character says something like, "Maybe the numbers are different, but the volume is really the same." Nigel Tufnel chews on his gum a few seconds, then says "Well, our amps go to 11."
In other words, the volume is really the same but Nigel Tufnel can't let that get into his head. He's so hooked to the idea that their amps are "one louder" that he just repeats his dogma.
There's many, many people like that today. Just the other day, Republican Presidential candidate Herman got into trouble because, when asked if he approved of Obama's policy on Libya, he took over a minute of hemming and hawing and squirming in his seat before he finally asked the interviewer just what was it he was supposed to be agreeing or disagreeing to. It's all on video, as well as the kicker: later that day, Cain was asked by another reporter whether he could now, several hours later, agree or disagree with Obama's policy on Libya. Cain stopped, stared into the camera, and said "Nine, nine, nine." (That's his tax plan, for those who don't know). He could just as easily have been Nigel Tufnel saying, "Well, our amps go to 11."
I just want to repeat: your point and your question are very good. Kudos! I think the answer to your question is yes, it can be, and that is what the right wing is afraid of: that strength in numbers can actually be a form of survival of the fittest.... in a valid way that makes it, when it happens as an "economic event", part of capitalism!! The right wingers only want people to think of survival of the fittest in individual terms: the "job creators" are the fittest, and we shouldn't do anything to inhibit their natural survival... such as tax them like we would anyone else.
But if a group of 99%ers can become so strong -- by banding together, just because of their natural need to survive -- as to become the new fittest... it's as valid as anything else in nature.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
So your theory is that this was started by the Indiana chamber of commerce ...
No, you're getting a bit literal there. My light point is that, on the surface at least, the USA gov't, because of its intimate links with China, is more "communist" than you could ever imagine the occupiers to be. The occupiers want to fix the ailing system that we have. The C-word weapon is a Reductio ad ... sword, a blunt letter-opener in a post-post world.
No, you're getting a bit literal there. My light point is that, on the surface at least, the USA gov't, because of its intimate links with China, is more "communist" than you could ever imagine the occupiers to be. The occupiers want to fix the ailing system that we have. The C-word weapon is a Reductio ad ... sword, a blunt letter-opener in a post-post world.
Which C-word? Capitalism or Communism? Lousy red communist comrade. Dirty 1% capitalist. See it works both ways. They have both become loaded terms. I don't just imagine the occupiers political positions, I read them and the writings of various activists.
Or you could turn the chess board around and say that China has become more capitalist due to trade with capitalist countries; not that the USA has become a communist nation by virtue of world trade.
So I put it to you has the USA become communist thanks to increased trade with China since Nixon eased trade embargos in 1971 or has China become more capitalist since 1971? Say compared to Mao's Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution? I would think even a casual observer would see that trade has moved China to capitalism and not moved the USA to communism. Granted China still shoots their own people down in the streets as all good communists do; but now they have also found that they enjoy making money and accumulating personal wealth. Chairman Mao is doing backflips in his grave. If you really want to see where communism/capitalism has gone wrong it's not the USA it is the former Soviet Union. But of course the occupiers are not concerned with Russian oligarchs or with third world countries that are far worse off than Americans. Otherwise maybe they'd suggest that at least Americans stop putting food in their gas tanks and increasing food prices for the developing world. No, this is ask not what American can do for the world; this is ask what America can do for Americans.
By your way of thinking it must be a good thing that the US does not lift the trade embargo with Cuba; otherwise the US would really be communists, trading with two communist nations. I think you'll find that the US is buying trade goods not systems of government from China.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Saturday, 19th November, 2011, 05:46 PM.
By your way of thinking it must be a good thing that the US does not lift the trade embargo with Cuba; otherwise the US would really be communists, trading with two communist nations. I think you'll find that the US is buying trade goods not systems of government from China.
I've been expecting U.S. relations with Cuba to ease. Sooner or later it's likely some nation will help Cuba drill their offshore lands and the U.S. might be interested. One Canadian company is a big player in the Cuban nickel and Cobalt mining and electricity. Also they have some oil and gas there and, I think, resort hotels. It's not like it's impossible to do business in Cuba.
First of all how much do you know about Marxism? Would you recognize it if you saw it? Secondly perhaps if you or others are claiming the movement is this or that then you should already have done your research into the individual voices coming out of the movement. If not you can try this one on for size http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/777-...ts-its-nemesis but no I'm not going to link to several examples and debate endlessly the meaning behind the links.
Thanks for the link. It is one of thousands of websites on the topic I have never seen before. So now I have the Marxist perspective. I have bookmarked it and will check for updates periodically.
I don't just imagine the occupiers political positions, I read them and the writings of various activists.
Zeljko - as we have previously both agreed, there are many voices of the OWS movement. I understand your fear that Communist/ Marxist voices may dominate the message.
Besides the 4 economists I gave you already (Sachs, Hudson, Stiglitz, Krugman), may I suggest you google Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Bill Black. I would much prefer their voices were heard over the voices of the Marxists/Communists. IMHO, these 8 better represent the views of the OWS movement. None of them are Communists or Marxists.
It is not a matter of overthrowing our economic system, but fixing what is not working, eliminating the abuses of the system, and improving it so that it works in the best interests of all of us, not just the 1%.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Monday, 21st November, 2011, 12:17 PM.
I think that Zeljko and I actually mostly agree on this issue, I wanted to remind that there is no longer a government that tells the publishers of dictionaries that there is no plural to the Russian word коммунизм; there is no monolithic Communist threat.
The only Communist power isn't really Communist? QED.
So, with apologies to the well-known TV science fiction show S.T.
R is F
Labels are Irrelevant
You will be Bankrupted.
The Occupy bandwagon has been jumped on by many factions and points of view, not just outdated Communists. (Bob Gillanders stated the same thing just above). Here's an analogy: in any group of Canadians, you will find L fans. Does that mean Canadians in general are L fans? Not at all.
Thanks for the link. It is one of thousands of websites on the topic I have never seen before. So now I have the Marxist perspective. I have bookmarked it and will check for updates periodically.
Don't think you have the entirety of the Marxist perspective. It's just one link in response to one person asking (questioning?) if I could post anything; by no means was it meant to be definitive on my part. I could post links to literally what would take hours of reading to go over. However, that is not my habit as I'm not a teacher and I don't assign homework.
Your saying that you can't know everything about the OWS movement and in fact only a small part of it is of course something I agree with.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Monday, 21st November, 2011, 07:13 PM.
I think that Zeljko and I actually mostly agree on this issue, I wanted to remind that there is no longer a government that tells the publishers of dictionaries that there is no plural to the Russian word коммунизм; there is no monolithic Communist threat.
The only Communist power isn't really Communist? QED.
So, with apologies to the well-known TV science fiction show S.T.
R is F
Labels are Irrelevant
You will be Bankrupted.
The Occupy bandwagon has been jumped on by many factions and points of view, not just outdated Communists. (Bob Gillanders stated the same thing just above). Here's an analogy: in any group of Canadians, you will find L fans. Does that mean Canadians in general are L fans? Not at all.
I'm much in agreement. However I think you can say that some significant amount of voices in Canada are Leafs fans. Therefore you can't ignore them or pretend they don't exist.
Zeljko - as we have previously both agreed, there are many voices of the OWS movement. I understand your fear that Communist/ Marxist voices may dominate the message.
Besides the 4 economists I gave you already (Sachs, Hudson, Stiglitz, Krugman), may I suggest you google Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Bill Black. I would much prefer their voices were heard over the voices of the Marxists/Communists. IMHO, these 8 better represent the views of the OWS movement. None of them are Communists or Marxists.
It is not a matter of overthrowing our economic system, but fixing what is not working, eliminating the abuses of the system, and improving it so that it works in the best interests of all of us, not just the 1%.
I am familiar with those names you mention. Not sure why you would think I'm not. They are often given to diatribes and polemics. They are also not the ones sleeping out in the parks and facing off aganst the police. As such they are peripheral to the movement or using the movement for their own purposes. I'm not sure why you think those academics and media personalities have the right to speak for the OWS movement. What they can do is give their opinion. There are other as well qualified academics that would disagree with them on some points.
I never said that the Marxist voice dominates the OWS movement. Again no one does; I merely said there is a significant strain of Marxism and anti-capitalism.
Unlike you I don't simply hope that one group or other will dominate. I simply listen to the voices that are coming out of the movement. I don't pretend that some are more valid because they have a PhD after their name or can grab the media spotlight for themselves or because I like what they say.
You are of course entitled to your opinion as to who speaks for the movement, what the goals of the movement are. At the end of the day it's one person's opinion. I still suggest you do some reading on protest movements in history and how their dynamics work; how they become extremist in their tactics and ideologies and how a small but well organized and vocal minority can take over the larger group.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Monday, 21st November, 2011, 07:17 PM.
I am familiar with those names you mention. Not sure why you would think I'm not. They are often given to diatribes and polemics. They are also not the ones sleeping out in the parks and facing off aganst the police. As such they are peripheral to the movement or using the movement for their own purposes. I'm not sure why you think those academics and media personalities have the right to speak for the OWS movement. What they can do is give their opinion. There are other as well qualified academics that would disagree with them on some points.
I think we are defining the OWS movement differently. You seem to define the OWS movement as only "the one's sleeping out in the parks", whereas I am including all those "academics and media personalities", as well as all the millions of mainstream "armchair supporters" who are cheering from the sidelines and marching on the weekends.
Tweet
Comment