1 edit
Originally posted by TOMUKYou clearly didn't read my earlier post carefully enough. The Concise Oxford (btw. you haven't given a reference) defines uninitiated as not initiated, it defines the one word in terms of the other. So I went back and looked up initiate, which is the present tense of initiated. This is what is known as research.
My god your thick. You still haven't realised. Let me enlighten you. Uninitiated means: Not knowledgeable or skilled; inexperienced.
You however, looked up 'Initiated', which suprisingly enough means something completely different.
And just to put it in plain english because clearly your very simple and need as much support as possible, uninitiated is ...[text shortened]... hat one up and whilst your at it look up: folly, moron, twit. They describe you very well indeed
You have contradicted yourself twice. You said it referred to a state of mind, not uneducated. Part of the definition I typed in (2b) is about education (eg. initiated into the art of arguing in Forums). So while calling me a fool you entered a definition that actually agreed with what I wrote.
Now when it comes to experience of this site Moldy Crow is about a year ahead of you. Therefore you are the person who is uninitiated, not him. I suspect he did read the posts, at least your first one. His point was perfectly valid, instead of making a reply you went for an insult.
Oh and incidentally, since Bowmann hasn't picked up on this it is: "My God you're thick". Not "My God your thick".
I notice that you resort to insult very quickly when arguing. This normally indicates someone on extremely weak ground.
Now you have missed the entire point this is a correspondence chess site. You can expect games to last for months, even years. Unless you agree it in advance you cannot reasonably complain that your opponents don't respond in less than a day.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe uninitiated are hard to educate. These words resonate profoundly throughout everything said with you and are clearly far beyond your limited logic. If you’re unable to understand the basic underlying reasons behind what I have said, then please hold your silence. In your defence I can only assume you’re a child or have an IQ similar to one, in which case I apologise as whatever I say you simply won’t understand as it’s beyond your comprehension
You clearly didn't read my earlier post carefully enough. The Concise Oxford (btw. you haven't given a reference) defines uninitiated as not initiated, it defines the one word in terms of the other. So I went back and looked up initiate, which is the present tense of initiated. This is what is known as research.
You have contradicted yourself ...[text shortened]... in advance you cannot reasonably complain that your opponents don't respond in less than a day.
1 edit
Originally posted by TOMUKI hate people who won't subscribe and then complain in the forums about the infrequency of their play here.
I hate people who play here and only move once a day. Discuss
Seriously, if you want to play fast you've come to the wrong place - www.uchess.com - is going to be more suited to you.
1 edit
Originally posted by TOMUKI don't need to start a new thread as my response was a perfectly logical one. You asked for a discussion about the fact you hate people who move once a day (once a day is fast here, by the way). If you think you're just to expect people to move faster than once a day in your 6 games then you're mistaken as this is not the culture of this site or correspondence chess in general.
Start a new thread. Discuss
1 edit
Originally posted by TOMUKthere is nothing to discuss here. This is a correspondence chess and everyone is entitled to move whenever they want as long as within the time frame. You can't just force people to move.
I hate people who play here and only move once a day. Discuss
