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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
New World Order (NWO), sometimes called the Great Reset
The New World Order (Label of the Left)/The Great Reset (Label of the Right)
Our own self-governance, while maintaining individual freedoms, is one of the most critical human issues.
This is one of those rare times that both sides of the political spectrum are identifying the same issue, though they may approach it somewhat differently.
There are powers that wish to direct the affairs of humanity........and, unfortunately, their idea of "benefiting humanity" and our plebeian idea of "benefiting humanity" are not the same.
And "NO"....this is not just a mere conspiracy theory.
Decisions have been, and are currently being, made to implement this covert (And sometimes quite open) agenda.
We must be very alert to where we are starting to cede to authority, power over us that we will be unable to later take back.
Any comments CT'ers?
Bob A
P.S. I do consider Sid's materials on this of importance.......it is a matter of priority and time on-line.
The bottom line:
Nobody has the right to govern somebody else, or to enforce their idea of 'benefiting humanity' upon others. Only people agreeing with each other can join hands to act jointly to govern themselves and act in a way they feel 'benefits humanity'....
Our current systems of government are not set up to follow this simple idea ... only a Libertarian system can ...
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Saturday, 24th June, 2023, 10:05 AM.
I would like to try to come up with a set of commonly accepted statements by all sides that set out some facts on this complicated and controversial topic.
I would like to start with the Post # 91 of Dilip Panjwani (23/6/24).
Commonly Accepted Statements on NWO/GR (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)
Statement # 1. World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.
Statement # 2. Over time, electors have democratically accepted the government structure proposed at the time, usually some variant of earlier forms of government (Who are "electors" has evolved over time).
Statement # 3. People (A majority of the local government, at least) have the right to.agree with each other on a government structure for themselves and can join hands to act jointly to govern themselves, and act in a way they feel "benefits themselves and humanity", so long as there is a respect for basic human rights.
OK CT'ers...........weigh in with comments......the best form of content will be to actually produce for discussion the revised statement you are proposing.
I would like to try to come up with a set of commonly accepted statements by all sides that set out some facts on this complicated and controversial topic.
I would like to start with the Post # 91 of Dilip Panjwani (23/6/24).
Commonly Accepted Statements on NWO/GR (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)
Statement # 1. World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.
Statement # 2. Over time, electors have democratically accepted the government structure proposed at the time, usually some variant of earlier forms of government (Who are "electors" has evolved over time).
Statement # 3. People (A majority of the local government, at least) have the right to.agree with each other on a government structure for themselves and can join hands to act jointly to govern themselves, and act in a way they feel "benefits themselves and humanity", so long as there is a respect for basic human rights.
OK CT'ers...........weigh in with comments......the best form of content will be to actually produce for discussion the revised statement you are proposing.
Bob A
Listen to the videos first before trying to discuss and summarize this, please.
The process, as I use it, is for anyone to generate a statement they think might gain broad acceptance.
They do not have to be an "expert" to put forward a proposed statement.
I have not viewed all the relevant material, but few here have. And I do have Dilip's comments in Post # 91, to which I am somewhat favourable, as my working base. So I'm trying for statements, to start, that at least Dilip and I might agree on. Of course everyone else can, and is invited to, chime in.
I'd invite you to revise the statements if you feel they will not gain broad acceptance..... improve them. Or, put forward better Statements that you believe will be commonly accepted.
I know this is a new process I have adopted here and in the Negative Climate Change thread. It is going to take time for everyone to figure out how to make it work best.
The process, as I use it, is for anyone to generate a statement they think might gain broad acceptance.
They do not have to be an "expert" to put forward a proposed statement.
I have not viewed all the relevant material, but few here have. And I do have Dilip's comments in Post # 91, to which I am somewhat favourable, as my working base. So I'm trying for statements, to start, that at least Dilip and I might agree on. Of course everyone else can, and is invited to, chime in.
I'd invite you to revise the statements if you feel they will not gain broad acceptance..... improve them. Or, put forward better Statements that you believe will be commonly accepted.
I know this is a new process I have adopted here and in the Negative Climate Change thread. It is going to take time for everyone to figure out how to make it work best.
Bob A (Anti-NWO)
You said you would review the material and have not. How do you expect me to take you seriously?
I recognize the problem........lack of data affects evaluation......
But I will do my best with what I've got until I view your two main videos you are concerned most about (I have actually taken the step to archive them, so I can find them immediately when I get sufficient time to go through them.....stopping and starting because I can only take a short video stretch at a time).
I would like to try to come up with a set of commonly accepted statements by all sides that set out some facts on this complicated and controversial topic.
I would like to start with the Post # 91 of Dilip Panjwani (23/6/24).
Commonly Accepted Statements on NWO/GR (Proposed by Bob Armstrong)
Statement # 1. World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.
Statement # 2. Over time, electors have democratically accepted the government structure proposed at the time, usually some variant of earlier forms of government (Who are "electors" has evolved over time).
Statement # 3. People (A majority of the local government, at least) have the right to.agree with each other on a government structure for themselves and can join hands to act jointly to govern themselves, and act in a way they feel "benefits themselves and humanity", so long as there is a respect for basic human rights.
OK CT'ers...........weigh in with comments......the best form of content will be to actually produce for discussion the revised statement you are proposing.
Bob A
LOL.
Bob, if you want us to accept that these are "facts", please provide some examples of their existence. Same old story. I'm sure the logic you have lined up for this is exemplary, but as usual, these premises are unsupportable.
#1 Premise (commonly accepted fact). In this society, majority rules. Nothing else really matters.
Fred Henderson has proposed a statement (Post # 100). I would like to revise it a bit (I don't accept the second sentence) and add it to the list of Commonly Accepted Statements. I would suggest inserting it in the list as the new # 3.
Also, I am proposing a new Statement # 4.
Commonly Accepted Statements re NWO/GR
Statement # 1. World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.
Statement # 2. Over time, electors have democratically accepted the government structure proposed at the time, usually some variant of earlier forms of government (Who are "electors" has evolved over time).
Statement # 3. (Henderson/Armstrong Proposal) Democratic societies have adopted "Rule by the Majority".
Statement # 4. (Armstrong Proposal) People have passed "Constitutions" and developed Courts in order to have human rights respected and to prohibit the tyranny of the majority.
Statement # 5. People (A majority of the local government, at least) have the right to.agree with each other on a government structure for themselves and can join hands to act jointly to govern themselves, and act in a way they feel "benefits themselves and humanity", so long as there is a respect for basic human rights.
The floor is now open to the CT'ers avalanche of criticism! As we have said, the best comment is when there is the proposed revision of the Statement in question.
"Bob, if you want us to accept that these are "facts", please provide some examples of their existence."
The Conversation Format we are using here does not work this way.
The Statements are to be short and to be such that the proposer believes it is commonly accepted as fact. Thus it is assumed that there is much supportive evidence available, accepted by many. Thus the proposer does not have to provide evidence in support ("some examples of their existence"). Benefit of the doubt applies initially.
However, when a CT'er wants to propose a revision of the Statement, or outright rejection, then the burden falls on them to support their proposed changes by evidence.
At this point, the original Statement Proposer must then bring out the heavy weapons, and produce evidence that supports the statement, and shows that the proposed revisions are wrong.
Where there are no proposed revisions to Statements for a week, then this process is shown to have worked........no extra work for the Statement Proposer, since s/he was right that most know the evidence in support already.
Our "Conversation Format" operates on two main principles:
1. If there is no proposed revision of a Statement put forward as a "Commonly-Held" Statement, nor objection, within one week, then the Statement is considered "commonly-accepted" (This follows the Quebec parliamentary procedure: No objection to a motion put, then no discussion or voting necessary - motion is considered passed by a majority, at least).
2. The goal is not "unanimity", though that would be nice. The goal is "majority" acceptance of a Statement; this gives it the status of "commonly-held".
5 Commonly-held Statements have now been posted for one week without any suggested revisions. So the following Statements are now "commonly-accepted" by the CT'ers interacting in this thread (Of course, revisions to Statements can be proposed at any time, regardless of how long they may have been commonly accepted by that time):
Commonly Accepted Statements re NWO/GR
Statement # 1. World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.
Statement # 2. Over time, electors have democratically accepted the government structure proposed at the time, usually some variant of earlier forms of government (Who are "electors" has evolved over time).
Statement # 3. Democratic societies have adopted "Rule by the Majority".
Statement # 4. People have passed "Constitutions" and developed Courts in order to have human rights respected and to prohibit the tyranny of the majority.
Statement # 5. People (A majority of the local government, at least) have the right to.agree with each other on a government structure for themselves and can join hands to act jointly to govern themselves, and act in a way they feel "benefits themselves and humanity", so long as there is a respect for basic human rights.
I believe this is no small achievement by our group......there are many various government theories held by the many CT'ers here (Capitalism, Libertarianism, Democratic Marxism, etc.). Trying to put together agreed upon statements on this issue is worth something, and even deserves to be re-posted elsewhere to generate there discussion on this critical issue.
Tweet
Comment