Looks like you finally got what you deserved Suggo. And before you ask, yes, I am enjoying every minute of it :)
What's that rainbow?
Maybe some sort of intelligent conversation (no I am not referring to you Mastermind) that you were unable to provide?
Mastermind, I didn't say the opposite was better. I said basing strength of character and being a better person on someone showing tolerance was a false indicator, and that the underlying reason for such action should be looked at.
Sorry to actually think about something past the shallow level you seem to like to keep things.
You know very well the 'underlying reason of tolerance' we are talking about in this case. It isn't fear, nor anything negative. And that was the point I tried to make by going to your level. You are trying to make the whole argument invalid by just contriving and dismissing the notion of tolerance , just as I tried to reverse your definition by claiming 'since intolerance = bad, tolerance = good'. Ironically, you are the one who brought it down to a shallow level for the sake of your point of view.
And it's ma'd'stermind.
Hmmm, I seem to remember some great people of the past that were very tolerant of others. And people greatly respected them for that alone. Two examples: Christ and Gandhi.
Well one of those is a fictional character but I won't go into that.
Ghandi doesn't exist?!? 
who has enough time in life to cheat on a chess website to boost a rating that doesn't mean anything. i mean wouldn't it get boring?
who has enough time in life to cheat on a chess website to boost a rating that doesn't mean anything. i mean wouldn't it get boring?
How dare you interrupt a poster bashing spree just to get back on topic?
Why, I should report you to the mods for this!
Who would try to cheat. It's a game of learning. You LEARN! NOT CHEAT!
If I understand correctly, you're asking if it's allowed for you to hold your peice over a square so that you can immediately drop it as soon as you're opponent has moved minimizing the amount of time that comes of your clock?
Given that there is a feature that you can turn on (Pre-Move) that will even enable you to drop the piece in advance of your opponent making their move I don't think that it's a problem. You might even want to try turning on the Pre-Move feature -- it will ensure that no time comes off of your clock.
I thought this as well and messaged him about premove an hour ago, but he shot back a reply that this is not what he is talking about. He kind of seems like he is on a parallel universe or something.
HURRY
dexter u finally understood what i am talking about
sorry all the rest my english writing is not as best as the oxford people not even near
ok now that dexter knows what i am talking about not pre move a regular move finally is it legitimate legal move
some players see my clock doesnt move or 1-2 seconds and say maybe i am cheating
i need an admins answer so i can defende myselp and send them to the right forum to get the right answer
thanks simsim
" hold your peice over a square so that you can immediately drop it as soon as you're opponent has moved minimizing the amount of time that comes of your clock?"
So going back to the topic proper, are we to tolerate cheating here in Chess.com?
Answer: No.
been here 4 days and running the place already
Mastermind, I didn't say the opposite was better. I said basing strength of character and being a better person on someone showing tolerance was a false indicator, and that the underlying reason for such action should be looked at.
Sorry to actually think about something past the shallow level you seem to like to keep things.
You know very well the 'underlying reason of tolerance' we are talking about in this case. It isn't fear, nor anything negative. And that was the point I tried to make by going to your level. You are trying to make the whole argument invalid by just contriving and dismissing the notion of tolerance , just as I tried to reverse your definition by claiming 'since intolerance = bad, tolerance = good'. Ironically, you are the one who brought it down to a shallow level for the sake of your point of view.
And it's ma'd'stermind.
Mastermind, youmight want to go back read what I was saying! I was not trying to dismiss the whole notion of tolerance or anything of the sort. Let me spell it out for you as you seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.
There were a few statements earlier that said, tolerance makes you a better person, and tolerance shows a strength of character. My point was/is that tolerance taken on face value is not a good indicator of these two assertions. The underlying reasoning behind the tolerance shown is the factor that we should be looking at. You have even agreed with this by saying "It isn't fear, nor anything negative" indicating that if this was the case neither of the earlier assertions would be valid.
For others, what history shows that the person in question exists? Please don't quote from that fictional book you find in hotel rooms!
Is the topic about tolerance?
No, it's about cheating.
And cheating is not tolerated here.
Lol, both existed. What one may have claimed to have been is where your fictional arguement lies, but both existed.
I'm enjoying watching you squrim Suggo. Please, say something else that is ridiculous so we can all laugh at it.
Suggo is becoming a fictional character...
lol, you guys try so hard to get one over on me and fail every time! Give up boys, you obviously don't have enough talent! 
Lol, both existed. What one may have claimed to have been is where your fictional arguement lies, but both existed.
I'm enjoying watching you squrim Suggo. Please, say something else that is ridiculous so we can all laugh at it.
Suggo is becoming a fictional character...
lol, you guys try so hard to get one over on me and fail every time! Give up boys, you obviously don't have enough talent!
And the topic goes from the original cheating to tolerance to Suggo. Way to go. Bye folks.
Frankly I have no idea on how to cheat, and all these pre-move staff, why? it's a game, I don't do pre-move even if I know the opponent is forced to move that peace he can make a mistake and that some time is how you win a game, If these pre-moves are to gain time, In may opinion aether you play only 1 or 2 games you can hendel as far time concern, I'm not sure but I think I won a game just because the opponent made a pre-move and frankly I was counting on that.
Play chess for me is a relax time after work or during If I can ( I like to win but if I loose I can care less )I play max 2 games not 5,6,or Moore as I see on the "current game page" unless the person have no job to go to, relax they are only games cheating in games is unlawful there is plenty of that in real life.
The win is clear when you take to opinional lines of arguments over cold hard facts. Keep some dignity and keep quiet before you emabress yourself further.
Cold hard facts? What are the cold hard facts you refer to Rainbow? Tolerance makes you a better person and shows strength of character? Hardly cold hard facts if you ask me, more like generalisations. But I agree that I certainly wouldn't want to "emabress" myself. What does "emabress" mean by the way? It sounds terrible!
*hint* there is a spell check at the top of the box when you are posting! LOL
Is the topic about tolerance?
No, it's about cheating.
And cheating is not tolerated here.
Actually this thread is very much about tolerance. The question of second chances has been a major point of discussion and I do believe tolerance is very much involved. To say it was about cheating wouldn't really be correct, I think it was more about the response to being caught cheating than the act of cheating itself...again very much about tolerance.
Mastermind, I didn't say the opposite was better. I said basing strength of character and being a better person on someone showing tolerance was a false indicator, and that the underlying reason for such action should be looked at.
Sorry to actually think about something past the shallow level you seem to like to keep things.
Hmmm, I seem to remember some great people of the past that were very tolerant of others. And people greatly respected them for that alone. Two examples: Christ and Gandhi.
Well one of those is a fictional character but I won't go into that.
Here is a question for you, why were they greatly respected? For their tolerance or for the reasons behind that action?
As I said before, if there is a tolerance based purely on fear...or in worse cases, tolerance of wrong doing so as to gain benefit....?