Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

There are two kinds of chess players...


  • 14 months ago · Quote · #21

    Oonland

    Why the ridiculous complication?

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #22

    PLAVIN79

    Fold or crumble=Does it make that much diferenceFrown

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #23

    Fingerly

    I am a Folder.  While I recognize that Crumplers produce myriad random folds, and the end product is essentially as useful as that crafted by a Folder, the aesthetic discord present in one compared to the harmonious planar symmetry of the other is enough (for me, at least) to substantially differentiate between the two approaches.  This, and also that one method is substantially more resistant to unwanted poke-through accidents.

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #24

    now_and_zen

    Fingerly wrote:

    I am a Folder.  While I recognize that Crumplers produce myriad random folds, and the end product is essentially as useful as that crafted by a Folder, the aesthetic discord present in one compared to the harmonious planar symmetry of the other is enough (for me, at least) to substantially differentiate between the two approaches.  This, and also that one method is substantially more resistant to unwanted poke-through accidents.

    First of all, "harmonious planar symmetry" - Bravo!  Excellent.  I would not have, until subsequent plagiarism, ever come up with that (or so I think). 

    As for folding.  I'm a fidgetter and folder.  In fact no stack of square Post-It note sheets is safe when I am near.  I'm always folding it into all kinds of stuff.

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #25

    Steve212000

    I'm too timid.

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #26

    Fingerly

    Thanks!  Actually, I've been trying to come up with real-life examples of cases where "some A are B, some A are C, some A are neither B nor C, and no A are both B and C", and the old fold/crumple argument was the best one I found on short notice.  You could say I'm trying to help you out.  Smile  

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #27

    now_and_zen

    Fingerly wrote:

    Thanks!  Actually, I've been trying to come up with real-life examples of cases where "some A are B, some A are C, some A are neither B nor C, and no A are both B and C", and the old fold/crumple argument was the best one I found on short notice.  You could say I'm trying to help you out.    

    Yes, I noticed that you are quite the good sport and novel humorist of the pleasantly bantering variety.  It shall not go unrewarded in Heaven if not on Earth.

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #28

    Shivsky

    reflectivist wrote:

    I have yet to find a way to satisfactorily agree with your disagreement. Though we have not agreed to disagree, which in and of itself is not a disagreement, unless you explicitly refuse to make that agreement, I have neither explicitly disagreed with your reply itself; that is, until now. Here's where I differ with you - it is within the category of chess that I'm saying there are two subcategories, the fact that chess in and of itself is a category notwithstanding.  It's a hierachical thing.  Now, were you to take issue with some other fundamental premise, you might gain some ground, and I would most likely have more work to do refuting your rebuttal, or rebutting your refutation, as it were, and hence may be.  Time will tell.

    Heh-heh...you said butt.

  • 14 months ago · Quote · #29

    MrDamonSmith

    All this sounds a lot like "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve".


Back to Top

Post your reply: