@sonhouse saidfor the record I did challenge shathouse to a rematch, he refused
@Mott-The-Hoople
Sure hit me.
Mott=1
shathouse= 0
@Mott-The-Hoople saidMost kids grow out of name calling by the 5th grade. Some go on to be elected president though. Wonder who voted for him?
for the record I did challenge shathouse to a rematch, he refused
Mott=1
shathouse= 0
@Lionel-Hutz said...and I will wait for the link and read the paper.
Some responses kind of proof my (private) point 🙂
Anyway, here it is, explained with play-doh figurines: Paper A crunches numbers, Opinion B consists of personal thoughts. Paper A will appear in Journal C. Opinion B is not included in Paper A but, instead, shared anonymously on Platform D just for the lulz.
Next round I can use crayons if play-doh was too complex.
@Ponderable saidAlmost done. They are demanding proofs before publishing.
...and I will wait for the link and read the paper.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYou got that right, I refused because you set up a one day time out when I am in the middle of a move, I would never play a one day timeout.
for the record I did challenge shathouse to a rematch, he refused
Mott=1
shathouse= 0
That just shows how desperate you are to win.
@Lionel-Hutz saidAre you sure? You don’t sound like a liberal, you sound like a complete imbecile aka right winger
A reputable statistics and sociology journal is about to publish one of my papers analyzing the correlations between level/intensity of chess playing and a myriad of political attitudes with lifestyle choices and intersections with family life.
It's a very serious paper but I would summarize it as follows: The conclusion is that progressives are emotionally and intelle ...[text shortened]... d are chronically unhappy.
Of course, the above insight is not included in the paper.
Science.