Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Recommended Posts

Recommended Posts

Last 7 days. Updated daily
  1. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    08 Dec '17 08:25
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    And you think the best place for advice is a chess site?
  2. 08 Dec '17 10:44
    Originally posted by @great-king-rat
    In order to once again showcase your near complete lack of basic reading comprehension I will now ask you to quote the text where I "apparently" insisted this.
    Bump for Duchess64. Please have the decency to indicate where I claimed this. You know the thread, copy-pasting the relevant text should take 2 minutes at most.
  3. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    08 Dec '17 14:26
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    "This emnity between the Arabs and the Israelites is as old as Isaac and Esau (sic) ..."
    --Divegeester

    Divegeester shows his extreme ignorance and misunderstanding of history.

    In reality, the conflict between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs is a rather modern one,
    driven mainly by politics, not by supposed ancient religious hatreds. This confl ...[text shortened]... targets in Arab
    societies, hoping to incite a panic and provoke Jews there to flee to Israel.
    This is Duchess's second post on the second page and she is into incendiary mode right off the bat to Divegeester. Extremely ignorant and misunderstanding he must be denounces our Duchess. Keeping track Shav, I detect a pattern.
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    Caustic/Disagreeable
    08 Dec '17 23:52
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    What I wrote is completely true. As I recall, earlier No1Marauder claimed that I wrote of
    defeating a 'woman grandmaster', which I interpreted to mean a player with a WGM title.
    I don't recall such a game. A WGM is NOT the same as a GM or an IM.

    My first game with a GM (where he was playing 15 opponents in a simultaneous exhibition)
    ended in a dra ...[text shortened]... a GM
    an IM can play on their worst days. I can win by taking advantage of the opportunities.
    You've never offered a shred of evidence to support such grandiose claims. You won't even reveal what country you are from.

    Given how you act on this forum, it is most likely you are lying.
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    Caustic/Disagreeable
    09 Dec '17 13:18
    The House recently passed a law saying that any States' issued permit to carry a concealed handgun would be effective in all 50 States. Apparent from the obvious hypocrisy of right wing States Righters passing a law that overrules dozens of State laws in an area traditionally left to the States (whodey alert), the bill faces serious Constitutional objections as an overreach of Federal power. An article discussing it (though not very clearly) is here: https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/concealed-carry-reciprocity-constitutional-challenges/

    My own opinion is that the bill should fail due to the precedents of United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison, both cases where Congress used the pretext of the Commerce Clause to attempt to regulate unrelated matters (the first regarding guns near schools, the second giving a federal cause of action in domestic violence cases). As explained in the Morrison wiki article:

    With regard to the Commerce Clause, the majority said that the result was controlled by United States v. Lopez (1995), which had held that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was unconstitutional. There as in Morrison, the Court stressed "enumerated powers" that limit federal power in order to maintain "a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local." Lopez therefore limited the scope of the Commerce Clause to exclude activity that was not directly economic in nature, even if there were indirect economic consequences.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morrison

    Some right wingers have thrown a Hail Mary and said the law would be sustainable under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution:

    Article IV, Section 1:
    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

    But it seems pretty clear that that provision was meant merely to make judgments and other legal findings effective in other States and not grant Congress an extraordinary power to make laws in certain States override the laws of other States nationally where the laws were concerned with matters beyond Federal power i.e. those enumerated and those which fall under the "Necessary and Proper" Clause. Thus, to read into FFCC such a Congressional power is an ironic assertion for right wing legal scholars like Randy Barnett, to make.

    I realize the issue is a bit technical but hey I thought a thread that had (not yet) been polluted by the ongoing flame war ruining this Forum might be useful, informative and/or interesting.
  6. Subscriber coquette
    Already mated
    09 Dec '17 16:05
    Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
    Don't give up on that thought just yet. There is a congressional investigation of Meuler and the doj/fbi too. FBI agents are being fired because of corruption. I am still waiting on any proof Trump did anything wrong.
    There's a great Tic Tac Toe site that you'd really love. They are waiting for you.
  7. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    10 Dec '17 00:17
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    ....
    Personally, I could not care less if No1Marauder insists on using 'ACLE' over 'Northern Ireland' every time.
    I don't expect No1Marauder to be taken very seriously by the people who matter about Northern Ireland's future.
    You've leaned on this rhetorical device before, but the evidence which is spattered across multiple pages of thread suggests otherwise.

    If you really could care less, why are we not spared what may best be described as an hysterical and histrionic display of petulance to dominate endless threads in an attempt to divide and conquer forum opinion in the ongoing saga that never amounts to much more than a referendum about you.

    But it's to your inability to conduct yourself in an honourable manner and engage in civil debate, that puts your contributions to this forum beyond the pale.
  8. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    10 Dec '17 19:41
    Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/07/18/kansas-an-unsung-hero-for-economic-growth/#7cb5e9ee58f4
    "The Brownback experiment didn’t work. We saw that loud and clear."

    — Kansas Center for Economic Growth 2017
  9. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    04 Dec '17 10:12
    Originally posted by @divegeester
    “Facebook's new London office brings 800 jobs”

    [b]Nicola Mendelsohn - VP Facebook European Operations

    [i]”Today’s announcements show that Facebook is more committed than ever to the UK and in supporting the growth of the country’s innovative startups.

    “The UK’s flourishing entrepreneurial ecosystem and international reputation for engineerin ...[text shortened]... heguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/04/facebooks-new-london-office-brings-800-jobs-to-the-capital[/b]
    Are they going to start paying taxes?
  10. Subscriber Russ
    RHP Code Monkey
    04 Dec '17 12:12 / 1 edit
    The "search" (as it was) could be used to target the site and absolutely crush site performance. This actually happened unexpectedly last week (see site announcements), so once it was identified, it either had to be removed, or reduced in scope, until a replacement was introduced without the above issue.

    I know it is inconvenient, but the number of people effected by this (very few) relative to those impacted by site performance (everyone) makes it justifiable.
  11. Subscriber Russ
    RHP Code Monkey
    04 Dec '17 13:05
    Originally posted by @fmf
    Are all the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of posts gone forever or are they stashed somewhere?
    They haven't gone anywhere. You can page through the history right now if you need reassurance.
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    04 Dec '17 13:06
    Originally posted by @lyudmil-tsvetkov
    Thank you, Mr. Leggett.
    I suspect this is the right approach: to judge things/people on their merits.

    Mickey Mouse is always funny.
    The only part I don't understand about you playing here is this: It appears you say you can beat engines. If so why don't you tackle the engine users here directly? We have time controls of 1 day with no added time or 3 days no added, or 3 and 3 or 3 and 7 or 7 and 7 and so forth.
    I would love to see you trounce the engineers here
  13. 04 Dec '17 17:10
    You'd be looking at many a blank webpage if the same standard for suspension was applied elsewhere.
  14. Standard member vivify
    rain
    04 Dec '17 17:30
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Evil is evil and I won't vote for the slightly lesser of it.

    I'm sure your moral flexibility would be quite comforting to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead children due to sanctions that Al Gore lauded.

    From even a purely politically pragmatic viewpoint, the fortunes of the Democratic Party now are at a high point precisely because Donald T ...[text shortened]... ng about e-mails, Benghazi and God knows what else every waking minute.

    Count your blessings.
    You have to use your head sometimes, and use the best and most realistic options. Minimizing damage is better than actions that lead nowhere. The election of Trump lead to Scott Pruitt leading the EPA; this action resulted in Pruitt stopping a ban on a pesticide found to cause brain cancer in children. Isn't choosing a less evil option than this worth anything?
  15. 04 Dec '17 17:33
    We agreed to focus our discussion on what proportion of the scientific community agrees with the IPCC consensus that >50% of climate change is anthropogenic. I had argued earlier that the 50% thing isn't really relevant, because if it were 35% then it would still be important and actionable.

    But we agreed to focus, and in your mind anthropogenic had to be more than 50%. The presented evidence indicates that somewhere around 65% of the scientific community agrees with this. You said that this contains error, but I don't know where your evidence is for that. When asked, you've posted irrelevant literature. Now you're posting Al Gore articles and claiming that you're among Al Gore's statistics but it's not the same thing (obviously).