Suker is right, you made one philosophy and broke it with another, so why should we listen to it whatsoever?

i say,'' build a bridge and get over it''....you expect people to play fair they dont i have played games where the person  is as much as a queen down and they keep on playing??! ya just have to hang in there dont make a hohum mistake and play it out....although it would  be nice in such positions a judge could step in and call the game,some of us would like to move on....

Let them wait it out or resign. I dont care; all I care is who wins. Manny's right. Let's face it, waiting it out is  bad for them and does nothing 2 us.

I only care if my opponent drags the game out if I am very close to a milestone. For example:

1. I am near my all-time high in rating and winning this game puts me over the top.
2. I am near a multiple of 100 and winning this game puts me over the top.
3. I am close to winning a tournament.

Thank you for your contribution, Kupov. Feel good to vent?

That's it... let it all out... it's okay - we're in a place of sharing here. Tell me how you really feel.

Insults are almost invariably, by their nature, "venting" - in the sense that they a) contribute nothing to the discussion other than expressing "I feel frustration with you that only calling you a pompous idiot will relieve".

Something in my post rankled you enough as that you felt you needed to express your upset. That's okay. I like that. Good. Just means I got to you.

/pompous? perhaps
//idiot? unlikely

I'm not sure if I follow.

You can either a) contribute to the thread - comment on the content therein, or b) call me a "poo poo head"

If you choose to simply insult, then I'm free to speculate on your rather obvious cause for doing so - venting.

Aaaaanyways. I'm going to go back to playing my games pompously, thanks.

 Sometimes people say "idiot" when they mean "fool," fools not neccesarily being stupid.

When you transition from insults to a cogent argument, I'll entertain it - until then, have a nice day.

Here are other words you might call me in the meantime:

blockhead, bonehead, cretin, dimwit, dumbbell, dunce, fool, ignoramus, imbecile, jerk, kook, moron, nincompoop, nitwit, pinhead*, simpleton, stupid, dork, muttonhead, ninny, out to lunch, tomfool, twit, ass, blockhead*, bonehead*, boob*, bore, buffoon, clod*, clown, cretin*, dimwit*, dolt*, dope*, dunce, easy mark*, fair game, idiot, ignoramus, illiterate, imbecile, innocent, jerk*, lightweight*, moron, nerd*, nincompoop*, nitwit, numskull*, oaf, sap*, schlemiel*, silly, simpleton, stooge*, sucker, victim, birdbrain, dumb ox, dunderhead, fathead, goose*, halfwit, lamebrain*, loon, ninny, turkey, twerp, twit.

Ahhh there we go, all better. Shall we agree that I am all of the above?

Perfect. I'm glad we got that out of the way and can move on with our lives.

Whatever would make you feel better, dude.

I thought everybody knew that it was verboten on the internets to "ask someone to leave". It's just an attempt to win an unwinnable argument.

I see, I must be terrible at discerning when people are serious and not. :-(

And you're trying to get us to conform to yours with nothing more than pure sophistry.  At least we have a leg to stand on here.

lol, you really aren't making much sense here, contradicting yourself all over the place. You are saying: "I respect their right to be rude, but I do NOT respect everyone else's right to discuss this topic."

(Not to mention your other contradiction, listed in post #144)

Okay, so let's say this isn't a simple discussion but rather, a message for those those poor helpless people. But guess what? It's still within the rules and rights of people. Call this whatever you wish, interpret this however you want -- it's still within the rules. And like you said yourself...

You respect "rights and rules" only when they serve you, but then you abandon that concept as soon as it starts to counter your point. Like I said, contradictions all over the place...

I'm not sure what's being argued anymore - but I was just hoping that everyone is having FUN arguing, right?

/I like arguing
//just hoping you're having fun with this one

I respect Suggo's right to lay out his position how he chooses. In this particular matter, I think I fall on the other side, the side which draws a generic line in the sand regarding what is "rude" and what is not. I don't get too worked up over it though myself, again, since I play 1 min games on live chess. Maybe if I'm in the mood for a longer game, a 3 minute game.

The way I see it is that I am attempting to describe what is generally accepted as polite, based on what I've seen here and on other servers, from talking to many people, etc. I don't think it's your typical "anybody can do what they want".

I simply look at it differently. The first paragraph - I don't see this as an attempt to bend other people to see it my way. If I say that such-and-such is rude, it's because I know a LOT of experienced chess players who consider it rude. I don't count new users. I don't see myself "imposing standards upon people" but rather I see it as an educational process. Very often someone comes in complaining that something or other is rude - it's useful when they know that there are a majority of people who share their viewpoint.

"Infringing upon their rights within the rules" -- this is rather unrelated to manners/rudeness.

EDIT: I have relatively little invested in this particular discussion and I'd rather not get into the whole attempt to prove someone wrong, especially someone as valuable to the discussion as the holder of the opposite viewpoint. If you prove the naysayers all wrong, you're just left with a bunch of yes-men.

Suggo, you're arguing that persuasion and influence is unacceptable, at least in a public forum, except when you do it.

This is the hypocrisy and contradiction to which we're referring and about which you are being very deliberately obtuse.

Do you also rally against public persuasion to try to keep kids off of drugs or out of gangs?  How about public health advisories to influence people to take precautions against diseases like STDs or a flu pandemic?

(my posts are ignored on this thread)

Thegrobe is right;you are doing that. And You said earlier,"If it's within their rights/rules, I have no problem with it whatsoever!(too lazy to quote the post)"

Then you start arguing on this thread, so it proves you were lying on that post.

If you say something and then break it, why should we listen if you create one point, destroy it with another, destroy THAT one with ANOTHER,eta.?