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.
Subscribers aren't the main consideration for a newspaper. They need the advertising revenue. Who do you suppose provides most of that? The right wingers or the left wingers.
They also have Harlequin books so are no strangers to fiction and Metroland community newspaper which seem to be doing well. They cut the delivery on that to 2 days a week in this area from 3 days but it's loaded with advertising.
Do you subscribe to The Toronto Star or simply read the part they show online?
I subscribe to the Star and read most of it online. Being a basketball fan, I enjoy the sports coverage.
Joe Clark did waffle on where to put the Canadian embassy in Israel - just to keep votes - but overall, he was a fairly principled guy with integrity - even if I didn't agree with his principles.
Hi Jeffrey:
I agree with you. Though at that time, too, an NDP supporter, I was over-all quite impressed with Joe Who's integrity (he was quite lacking in political skills I'm afraid - note the vote of confidence he lost!). I understand he was recently interviewed somewhere in the media as an "elder statesman" and came across as charming, thoughtful and honest (don't remember where that was).
If responsible voters means not wanting to get ripped off, I think almost everyone is responsible. Never met a voter who wanted to get ripped off. Ont the marijuana issue, we disagree. For the record, I smoke nothing at all at any time, but the idea that smoking a joint should be a "criminal" act is too similar to the idea that having a glass of wine is a criminal act. We once prohibited alcohol too - and that showed itself to be a foolish idea. Wine; alcohol - both contain hallucinogens. Alcohol can lead to alcholism, but doesn't have to; marijuana use could lead to heavy drug use, but almost always doesn't.
Just my opinions.
Jeff, I meant that in not liking being ripped off (through big-time government corruption), a responsible voter takes it as a very serious issue. Not all voters take it that seriously, they just vote along party lines blindly, or place other issues (perhaps often incorrectly) ahead of heavy corruption (a sign a political party or PM lacks basic integrity, i.e. should not be trusted). That's if voters are paying sufficient attention, another criteria for being responsible as a voter.
Drugs, including marijuana, can have different effects than alcohol. It is also harder to test when someone is sufficiently impaired by a drug like marijuana, compared to alcohol. In any case, legalizing such a street drug is arguably a big moral issue, at least for even mildly puritanical voters. Fwiw, kids (still?) go through the education system being taught that marijuana is a gateway drug. Perhaps one needs to study the history of many drug addicts' lives before disputing this educational tradition (which even many kids seem to dismiss as so much propagandist crap).
[edit: as an aside, it's too bad this thread is getting so lengthy. Earlier I posted my (still current) view that the federal Liberals would win the next election (either with a minority or a majority). One reason being (aside from the Cons base perhaps staying home in droves, due to the corruption issue) Trudeau's all-important (generally in politics) charisma, as compared to the lack of it in his opponents.]
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Wednesday, 26th February, 2014, 09:15 PM.
Reason: Spelling
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Anything is possible - I agree. But historically, provincial change has come with federal change, for about as long as I've been alive. That was really my first and only point.
There is no fate but the one we make. Don't count on past patterns continuing into the future.
Earlier I posted my (still current) view that the federal Liberals would win the next election (either with a minority or a majority). One reason being (aside from the Cons base perhaps staying home in droves, due to the corruption issue) Trudeau's all-important (generally in politics) charisma, as compared to the lack of it in his opponents.]
Your lack of faith disturbs me.
Trudeau has the inside track on winning simply because he is better looking than his opponents. In most elections the more attractive candidate wins. Of course, that is assuming that despite the media's ability to suppress the truth about those candidates that they favor, that our intrepid candidate doesn't self destruct. Given Trudeau's flair for putting his foot in his mouth I think making it through almost a year and a half or more without a series of gaffes seems rather unlikely. Harper is Machiavellian (I see that as a compliment). He is surrounded by some smart people and also by a crew of smarmy political operators. His task over the next few months is to do a good job of herding his cats. He sincerely believes in what he is doing.
There are quite a few more shoes to drop in the political corruption revelations with respect to the Senate and I suspect that many of them will drop on Liberal heads. The papers are full of dirty laundry on another prominent Liberal senator including the latest groping and sexual harassment allegations. This could get messy.
Vlad, you may be putting aside your own earlier point that basically the media tend to favour the federal Liberals, at least in ignoring Trudeau's gaffes or downplaying them.
The type of voter the Conservatives count on are IMHO the type of voter who put more weight on the corruption factor. Harper and the Cons sold themselves as a squeaky clean party in past election(s). Even remotely hard core Liberal voters are more inclined to look the other way in continuing to elect their own corrupt (Liberal) politicians. Just look at Ontario's provincial Liberal government, for example.
Fwiw, I do agree Liberal corruption now (and probably historically) is much worse than anything by Cons/PCs. Personally, I've expressed how I feel about who not to vote for regardless. I'd vote for some version of a Tea Party in Canada in the next election if there was one. The real hope for voters is not of this world in the long run regardless, IMO. In that I have faith.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Thursday, 27th February, 2014, 02:03 PM.
Reason: Grammar
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
The real hope for voters is not of this world in the long run regardless, IMO. In that I have faith.
You still have a responsibility to find the candidates that have similar beliefs. Opting out because you don't want to vote for any of the rascals is a valid response to our current situation. Voting for the lesser of the evils is another valid response. In the end I will not vote for any of the Gaian religion candidates, ever. The state of Ontario's economy under the Liberals is the perfect reflection of where we are headed if we put them in charge.
I will not vote for any of the Gaian religion candidates, ever. The state of Ontario's economy under the Liberals is the perfect reflection of where we are headed if we put them in charge.
Hi Vlad:
Geez ........I sort of like in a way the Gaian concepts. Fits into my search into the "Supra-Natural"!
You still have a responsibility to find the candidates that have similar beliefs. Opting out because you don't want to vote for any of the rascals is a valid response to our current situation. Voting for the lesser of the evils is another valid response. In the end I will not vote for any of the Gaian religion candidates, ever. The state of Ontario's economy under the Liberals is the perfect reflection of where we are headed if we put them in charge.
Like I wrote in an earlier post, I'd have a duty (IMO) to vote for the lesser evil if there was a dangerous fringe party that even theoretically might get elected in my riding if most folks stayed home.
In the coming election, in my riding I'll probably face the following choices (exclusively) again:
Con, Lib, NDP, Green.
Hence like you wrote, declining my vote (verbally), or spoiling my ballot are legitimate choices in my riding, at least.
Again, with this scenario in my riding, the least evil choices, from a principled (at least re: proven/probable party corruption/disintegrety) point of view, are NDP or Green (simply as they've never been in power federally).
The least evil choice, from a practical point of view, would seems to be the Cons, if one trusts their economic record up until now. However, in the long run there always seems to be some sort of a price for a nation to pay for serious sorts of corruption by their leaders (for those who read their scriptures, one can point this out, at least). I'm sure Nigel H. can run down all the scandals attached to the current government. One I recall, which is not corruption-related, perhaps, is the lavish spending on the Toronto G8 summit. For those who are into conspiracy theory, a green light may have even been given to brutalize some of the protestors.
Formerly I was getting ready to hold my nose and vote NDP (a Green administration arguably being much more of a proven to be costly choice to Canada's economy - compare the Ontario Liberal's Green Energy policy results). This has even strategic sense to it, if one accepts that the Cons will probably not form the next government. Then the NDP can keep the Liberals on a tight leash in case of a minority federal Liberal Government supported by the NDP. Possibly not many years will pass before another election would result, and in the meantime the Cons may have learned their lesson about corruption (one might hope).
The crack pipe dispensing machines in Vancouver, that Mulcair apparently approves of (if I can believe my ears about Sun News Network's claim, which I haven't been able to track down on the internet or elsewhere) disturbs me though. Now, I am also reminded that in Bob Rae's days as NDP Premier of Ontario, seniors were forced to share a building in Ottawa with supposedly reforming drug users. That's my recollection of at least one episode of a Lowell Green radio show. This sort of social engineering policy is comparable to financial corruption, in terms of a moral issue, at least for me.
Hence, from a moral point of view, Green may be my best option, but it makes no sense economically or strategically (in hoping to hold the Libs to a minority). Even not voting for any of these four parties, if that's the scenario indeed in my riding, means letting someone else choose what they think is the least evil, rather than me being able to at least offset their vote. I think as a voter I'm going to be in a terrible quandry this time around.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
In the end I will not vote for any of the Gaian religion candidates, ever.
Vlad, so you prompted me to google the term "Gaian". I stumbled upon Gaian Greens. Hey dude, don't lump me in with those crazies. I have voted Green Party before, but I'm sure Elizabeth May et al are "mainstream" Greens, not this crazy bunch. Just trying to save the planet, cause it's a good idea.
Jeff, I meant that in not liking being ripped off (through big-time government corruption), a responsible voter takes it as a very serious issue. Not all voters take it that seriously, they just vote along party lines blindly, or place other issues (perhaps often incorrectly) ahead of heavy corruption (a sign a political party or PM lacks basic integrity, i.e. should not be trusted). That's if voters are paying sufficient attention, another criteria for being responsible as a voter.
Drugs, including marijuana, can have different effects than alcohol. It is also harder to test when someone is sufficiently impaired by a drug like marijuana, compared to alcohol. In any case, legalizing such a street drug is arguably a big moral issue, at least for even mildly puritanical voters. Fwiw, kids (still?) go through the education system being taught that marijuana is a gateway drug. Perhaps one needs to study the history of many drug addicts' lives before disputing this educational tradition (which even many kids seem to dismiss as so much propagandist crap).
[edit: as an aside, it's too bad this thread is getting so lengthy. Earlier I posted my (still current) view that the federal Liberals would win the next election (either with a minority or a majority). One reason being (aside from the Cons base perhaps staying home in droves, due to the corruption issue) Trudeau's all-important (generally in politics) charisma, as compared to the lack of it in his opponents.]
1. I'm unaware of any voters who want to be ripped off. 'Seriousness' is always a matter of degree.
2. More people die from alchohol than marijuana. Alcohol is a far more serious threat to society (if it's a threat at all). And very few users go on to anything worse. Yes - some do. But some alcohol drinkers become alcoholics, or go onto serious drug use too.
Vlad, you may be putting aside your own earlier point that basically the media tend to favour the federal Liberals, at least in ignoring Trudeau's gaffes or downplaying them.
The type of voter the Conservatives count on are IMHO the type of voter who put more weight on the corruption factor. Harper and the Cons sold themselves as a squeaky clean party in past election(s). Even remotely hard core Liberal voters are more inclined to look the other way in continuing to elect their own corrupt (Liberal) politicians. Just look at Ontario's provincial Liberal government, for example.
Fwiw, I do agree Liberal corruption now (and probably historically) is much worse than anything by Cons/PCs. Personally, I've expressed how I feel about who not to vote for regardless. I'd vote for some version of a Tea Party in Canada in the next election if there was one. The real hope for voters is not of this world in the long run regardless, IMO. In that I have faith.
Brian Mulroney accepted a large sum of money in a paper bag as payment for work as a "consultant". Don't think it gets worse.
Tweet
Comment