Another excellent show of where Suggo is at in his mental development.

Look someone who sees what is happening.

A fine moderator you would make Rainbow!

 What could possibly be the point of this earth shatteringly useless post. Do you think anyone on the board doesn't know a game is officially over when there is still time on the clock? Either you feel it neccessray to make obvious statements that everyone knows and that no one is disputing, or you have no idea how to read between the lines.

When people say the game is over, they are saying 'the competitive phase is over' or for 'all intents and purposes' its over, or some variation of that general theme. No one needs the all knowing Suggo to remind them of the book definition of over, they need you to do some basic critical thinking when you read their posts.

Chess is the same Lobster, the game isn't over until either someone checkmates, resigns or times out.  But there are many on here who don't seem to want to accept that.

Perhaps you should get your facts straight before making false comparisons. Nerds do not go round insulting people, suggo does. Nerds argue the correct size, suggo argues the wrong. Please don't come in when you haven't a clue what has happened.

So you are going to try and bully him now too Rainbow?

I argue the wrong!!  lol, is it wrong because it doesn't agree with you Rainbow? lol

He doesn't have a clue of what has happened....

What has happened Rainbow?  I would like to know as well!!

 I can't even put into words how baffling this statment is. This is the 'sport comparisons' group entire arguument. That the soccer game is over (do you need 900 more words desribing what I mean by over?) before the final whistle just like chess is (usually) over before checkmate.  Again if you had the ability to do any critical analysis of people's opinions and follow a logical train of thought you would see why your statement serves no purpose whatsoever.

I just feel the need to clarify why this is so stupid. You are essentially saying

People don't want to accept that their arguement is wrong because their arguement is wrong

 I am starting a Suggo Defense Fund

Please send checks/cash or money orders to me.

I'll use the money to spread peace and good cheer.

Promise.

I'll be real happy and peaceful when I get it.

Of course it serves a purpose Lobster, the same purpose that I have continued to follow in any of these threads that I have been involved with.  That is to make sure people know it is their choice when to resign or not resign or take as much time as they like per move, and that they shouldn't feel pressured into behaving how others deem appropriate! 

No it serves no purpose. Do you really think one person on this entire site needed you to clarify that a game of chess isn't over till checkmate(timeout/resign). 

You have previously presented your arguement (no pressure to resign, your choice) Though I disagree with your overall viewpoint, your previous posts atleast served a purpose.

Who does chess isn't over till checkmate adress?

The 'never resign' people? They play till checkmate so they don't need to know

The complete newbie? Maybe, but usually no one includes them in the "you should resign" discussion

The "learn to resign" people? (I already explained why this is uselss)

Just becuase you have a good intent doesnt mean your statment serves any purpose

 Yes, you can pick your friends and you can pick your nose but you should never pick your friend's nose.

Ah yes, the old stupid comparisons argument. 

So are you jumping in on this one Lobster? or are you conveniently going to allow it because it is a cohort of yours?

It's pretty simple...post #13 sums it up!

I don't know what you'd like me to say. I assume you are going to bring up the real life and games are different theme you brought up in a different thread. Then you will go back to the well trodden anything within the rules is fine thing which we've already argued, and really am not that interested in returning to.

I thought you would be jumping in and telling Reb his post serves no purpose...no? lol

This is why you can't argue...I don't have a problem with his analogy but even if you do. There is a difference between wrong and purposeless.  He is trying to make a point with his analogy, you can find it wrong, but it still attempts to achieve a purpose, you statement, right or wrong acheives nothing, just like saying the sky is blue is correct but has no purpose.

Your problem is you always look for the immeadate 'cute' rebuttal. If I call your post thoughtless you will find some way (desperatly for sure) to prove how my post was thoughtless. If I say your viewpoint is 'too simple' you will find some way (a strecth) to find my point too simple. Just you immeadetly looked for another post with no purpose.  Things aren't always so convenient

Actually the sky isn't blue...lol

Unless its nightime or raining (obvious exceptions implied by the statement) the sky is blue.

Amazingly this is the second time I've had to defend this simple statement on this website

Even on a bright sunny day without a cloud in the sky, the sky still isn't blue.

Yes, it's not a stupid comparison. It's directly related.

Not resigning is not against the laws of chess. Picking your nose isn't against the law.

You can choose to pick your nose and wipe it on the tablecloth. You can choose to not resign.

Everyone will think you're a .... if you pick your nose, everyone will think you're a ... if you don't resign in a QRvsK endgame.

3 tenets - a) is it allowed? yes b) can you choose to do it? yes c) do others think it's moronic? yes.