Nice people being those who believe you and do what you tell them?
No, nice people being those who don't toss around their bitterness and insecure ego all over the place.
Once again, for the Nth time...feel free to post something concrete, if you have anything at all but your delusional narrative to share.
a meme for ya
Meanwhile, MorningGlory want to be justified by Elroch's comment and has no intention of submitting to the indignity of answering me. He isn't very bright, same as some others.
your delusional narrative
This is what I mean. Nobody can count the times you're written that and similar about many people here. I'm trying to help and BestBeerRoot obviously is too, or he wouldn't continue being so pleasant to you. He seems to be a very forgiving person and I think it's a shame that there are those here who put him down, because he "lmao's" too much for their peace of mind. I like him simply because he's a good person. That's absolutely clear about him. I'd like to like you too and so would others. You make it impossible. You even claim you don't want to be liked.
[and]
Obviously in your mind you don't. You talk about others living in illusory worlds so much, there has to be something wrong. You more or less admitted it a few days ago too, when you admonished me for something. I'd obviously struck a raw nerve. You do have to do something about it, for your own good. I'm past thinking about the good of others, because I saw you clearly the other day, in all your vulnerability, and I wanted to help you. All your projections about other people. Wherever you come across people who think you're right about anything, you need to give them a very wide birth and be highly sceptical, at all times. Just remember that. It's possible to help yourself but no-one else can do it for you.
Post one link of me telling anyone else but you that they are living a delusional narrative on a regular basis. Go for it.
I have bolded all the things above that only exist in your own head. Rootbeer is fine, he's just off his beam. He will agree with anyone and anything that fits his headspace at any particular moment.
I'm quite sure Elroch is going to say exactly what I have written. In some things Elroch thinks as I do and vice versa.
bicklter is your friend, so I suggest you take him with you when you leave, if you can't persuade him to stop trolling.
Lol, always trying to connect people that have no connection. The truth is many people think you're off your rocker, and I am not friends with them all.
Tootbeer is fine he's just mad? Charming person you are. You're the ultimate fantasist and you always have been that here.
Ooh multiple posts. Eeek.
He never said "chess is a waste of time". He simply did not find enjoyment in playing. Also, Einstein was never a Professor of Mathematics but a Professor of Theoretical Physics. So many people in these forums just "make stuff up off the top of their head".
He never said "chess is a waste of time". He simply did not find enjoyment in playing. Also, Einstein was never a Professor of Mathematics but a Professor of Theoretical Physics. So many people in these forums just "make stuff up off the top of their head".
I agree. Einstein would definitely not say that "chess is a waste of time."
Its not a waste of time, therer are just better things to do with time
Well, if he said "chess is waste of time" it seems to be some words said in a specific moment.
Just to think, lets considere that maybe he was hungry and so, play a chesss game of 30 minuts was waste of time.
But lets also considere,
if I play chess with a my dog it is a wast of time. (I play better than it)
if I play with Chess.com Max Engine (3200) it is waste of time. (I will always lost)
I need, so look for a player of my level.
I think that we need to know the environment, the circustances, and all others things of when Einstain said that "play chess is waste of time".
It seems to me that it is an incomplete conclusion considere that Einstein said that chess is waste of time without without a global and in-depth view of the situation he found himself in when he said that.
Maybe he was just kiding or being ironic! Who knows?
The quote "All is relative", continues valid.
In my opinion, which I mentioned already, since he and his friend Lasker played a few games together and since Einstein was manifestly no good at chess, Lasker may have suggested that he should put in a bit of effort to learn the game and Einstein made the reply he was reputed to have made. That's a possible context which would explain his comment, without contradicting the fact that he'd played a few games with Lasker.
Einstein was reportedly 1800-ish strength, a very respectable rating for an amateur with no real time put in.
I played go for a year on KGS. Got to 3 kyu. Can't recall any knowledge I had!
Of course, a good reason to argue why it would require me to know everything
i have been under the assumption that you know (almost) everything for some time now. it's why i get pissed when you leave!
Einstein was reportedly 1800-ish strength, a very respectable rating for an amateur with no real time put in.
i got to 1700 here with zero study, so this does not surprise me.
one thing this topic has shown is that skill in chess does not equate to any social skills, or intelligence.
Einstein was reportedly 1800-ish strength, a very respectable rating for an amateur with no real time put in.
i got to 1700 here with zero study, so this does not surprise me.
It's an over-estimate, as would be expected. Certainly, an 1800 FIDE is capable of putting together a good game. He was nowhere near that, according to what little evidence exists. 1200 to 1500 at most?
On the very last page of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote:
"We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups within each class, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species...we may be certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of great length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection."
'Progress towards perfection' - as this formula demonstrates, Darwin never fully accepted the implications of his own theory of natural selection. He knew that evolution cares nothing for humans or their values - it moves, as he put it, like the wind - but he could not hold on to this truth, because it means evolution is a process without a goal. Progress implies a destination towards which one is travelling, whereas natural selection is simply drift. ("The Immortalisation Commission" - John Gray; page 40.)
That's very assumptive thinking, indicating that the writer doesn't accept that Darwin made the full journey from a religious paradigm to a scientific one. That would conform with the beliefs of some but there is believable evidence that he did make that journey in full.
The idea of "progress towards perfection" comes from the culturally conditioned frame of mind but it doesn't indicate a lack of acceptance that humans are animals, at least for the purposes of evolution. However, as such, it remains as a type of phraseology which would appeal to the traditional mindset.
John Gray is utterly wrong to claim that "the formula demonstrates" the results of his assumptive thinking. It does no such thing and that ought to be obvious to an intelligent person. Not to a credulous one, however.