13082 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
This is the definition given by TheFreeDictionary.com:
In another thread I proposed that pompousness doesn't really exist, and that it's just a an invention of my inferiors, because my inferiors, differently from me, cannot posit an argument very well. This is true also for the elite (the 10-20 most active posters here), and always differently from me they don't really KNOW if what they call pompous is actually their better or not. Instead my assertions are objective, and contain no pompousness, but rather undeniable university-educated fact, something my inferiors cannot do. Without mentioning that I can predict my inferior's arguments 10-15 moves distance in less than 1 second.
There are many arguements from my inferiors which support my thesis, and will publish some when I have a little more time.
Your post displays a certain pomposity, if you don't mind me saying.
I think the post was an attempt at irony.
Incidently, outside of chess I have the misfortune of knowing an idividual, who personifies "pomposity." Hence as long as he exists, pomposity exists.
Oh dear, really?? My irony detector must be on the blink again.
More satire than just irony, but yes, it's hardly genuine.
You say your arguement contains undeniable university-educated fact; however, I'm fairly certain universities do not claim some people are inferior to others. Perhpas, in other periods of time, some people were considered inferior (e.g. African American slaves), but today, many countries including Canada and the United States do not believe in "inferiors." Your arguement is quite hypocritical, and frankly, quite arrogant. I would admit my arguement is rather pompous, but apparently, pompousness does not exist.
What's funny is having to explain it's satire.
Its a derogatory term to deflate the unknowledgable wind-bag especially used against those who seek to inflate their own egos.
Sometimes it can be spiteful, crushing those who like us all, seek a little respectful recognition from their fellow human beings.
Those who are most dangerously prone to pomposity are the expert and the skilled, for they have something to boast about and easily develop a tendency to put down the ordinary person.
What endears us to our animal friends is their complete lack of pomposity.
It comes as no surprise to me. I can hardly expect my inferiors to have ever stepped foot in a library to actually learn anything, let alone to have gone to university for a four-year degree in English literature.
There may be something here, as we well know that all animals are equal (although some are more equal than others).
Animals dont really exist because computers don't know they exist .
What people seem to be forgetting is the famous Jean-Jacques Q. Aureolis experiment, in which he raised three sons with the explicit intention of turning them into the most tight-assed pompous pricks imaginable, and wholly succeeded in doing so, with a particularly stunning ability to exude authority on any subject imaginable due to the simple fact of having read a book (whether absorbed or not).
Clearly, inherent pomposity is a myth; it is rather a trait to be acquired through hours of diligent study, alongside focused praxis. Those who look at their superiors in pomposity and attribute the skill differential to natural characteristics are just not working hard enough to be a total dick.
Heh, heh, heh … for a second We thought We might be the target of the pomposity accusation but realized that We are too humble for this to be true. But We have been accused of pretentiousness for Our use of the first person plural in Our posts. But that is merely dragon-speak, and besides We do not give a good rat's ass about what humans think of Us anyway. >:[
And/or vice versa!
One cannot cognitively ascertain whether or not pompousness exists pursuant to consciousness, in congruance with consciousness, prerequsite to consciousness or as a direct result of consciousness, be it ours or anothers, therefore and ergo I heretofore conclude that it may or may not be the case, as it were, to wit: perhaps.
You've met my mother?
9/1/2014 - Mate in 2
by prompen a few minutes ago
The world is Caruana's oyster.
by EscherehcsE 6 minutes ago
World Chess.com Correspondence Chess Championship Match (MSC157 vs. _)
by windmill64 16 minutes ago
8/3/2014 - Mate in 2
by chaims 33 minutes ago
My adversary hasn't done any move for days
by Trag55 35 minutes ago
Windows Phone 8 Beta Testers Needed
by sergrnz 40 minutes ago
Admins: Spam alert, you may wish to check this
by adamplenty 45 minutes ago
what is the point of correspondence chess?!??
by rowsweep 52 minutes ago
What will Nakamura's excuse be at Sinquefield 2014?
by rowsweep 65 minutes ago
8/29/2014 - Rada - Kostal, Prague 1942
by LaGr77 81 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!