if you know

Hmmm...Friend kurocug is deeper than u think...

This is a stupid thread. I apologize for participating.

For a bonus 10 points, can anyone name the man who in the last 20 years has come closest to 'starting World War 3'? Hint; the only US mainstream 'news' figure I know for sure has criticized him on this front is Sean "Idiot" Hannity, so he must be a Democrat...

Hmmm...Poplitics frowned on here but my guess is Rumsfeld or Bush.

Seeing as the USSR collapsed in 91, I don't think anybody in the last 20 years has come close to starting WW3.

EHHHHH!  Wrong answer!  The correct answer is General Wesley Clark, at the end of the bombardment of Serbia in the late 90s.  A British general refused his order to storm an airport occupied by Russian peacekeeping troops with the very words 'I'm not going to start World War three for you.'

Amusing fact: in post #16, kurokug stated; "okay im gonna stop my question about strategy"

Nice story. Any resources for a more elaborate explanation?

I tink I read of it first in Chomsky's book on the conflict; I'm certain the BBC made a documentary that dealt with it a few years after the fact.  The reason it's fresh in my mind, however, is that I was in a coffee shop a couple of nights ago which randomly included a copy of one of Hannity's diatribes, and I was flicking through it for entertainment purposes; he indeed referred to it as a mistakenly aggressive act (hah!), though he did say he's fond of anyone who 'stands up to the Russians.'

Just google Pristina Airport and Wesley Clark, and I'm sure you'll find something.

I would have to say this is quite the strategically broad topic. If that makes sense, but it doesn't - or at least it shouldn't.

Ok, I finally feel good about myself as a fairly recent member to chess.com for reading this [once] legendary thread.

Is it sad that I read this beginning to end overnight for 6 hours? Probably. But then again, that's my strategy for browsing in the chess.com forum. And it would be wise for me to revise my strategies.

What I meant is this:

When I first began reading this, my eyes were "glued" to the monitor. I found myself laughing fairly hard at times. As the thread progressed, though, it became duller because people would talk about off-topic things such as geometric shapes, economics, etc. At the end, I would have to say that this thread is anti-climatic. It lacks "soul." Rather, I'll say this: off-topic posters had ruined the "legendary status" of this thread.

There you have it. (Don't get me wrong though; this thread makes for a great read! )

Surely, this topic is the eighth wonder of the world!

Alas, it has been discovered! Yet, only to be lost again.

[MODERATED]

oki, Rahul moderate words 

where did i say WW1 didnt have chemical weapons are u a paranoid???

sorry if i AM RUDE

It would have been an extremely short thread if it had stayed on topic.  

Rather than "sad", I find it quite interesting to see how topics and thought processes wander around. Sometimes it's fun to look at the starting and end (or current) points and wonder how the heck did they ever get from point A to point B. I consider the term spam inappropriate when applied to posts that stray from what someone considers to be the proper thought path-- it's completely incompatible with traditional definitions and concepts of spam.

I suppose some would use the word "spam" as synonymous with "unwanted".  Of course, that makes the use of the word purely subjective, whereas I've always thought of spam as objectively defined.

I agree with Wikipedia's general summary of spam as "electronically distributed unsolicited bulk messages" and "posts that are advertisements, abusive, or otherwise unwanted on Internet forums. It is generally done by automated spambots. Most forum spam consists of links to external sites, with the dual goals of increasing search engine visibility in highly competitive areas such as weight loss, pharmaceuticals, gambling, pornography, real estate or loans, and generating more traffic for these commercial websites." Basically, spam has an ulterior motive beyond simply stating an opinion, or even engaging in a discussion or argument.

But in a pinch, if someone wishes to express contempt and indicate the inferiority of others' thoughts and posts relative to their own, the word spam can suffice even if perhaps it isn't the most appropriate term for the circumstances. It at least makes it obvious that judgement has been rendered and an insult is being bestowed, which is the important point. 

I think this thread has become a de facto spam thread. I mean, it isn't even clear what the "topic" is. Is it strategically position? Or is it kurogkug's another question? Or is it waiting to BorgQueen's answers?

Because those all lead to very different threads (one of which even involves watt = amp * volt).

Oops!  Well, I am embarrassed!  Re-reading, I see clearly now that you meant "spam infestation" in the positive sense. 

Yes, next time we need a thread title that provides a little more direction than "if you know"!

This topic is about itself, now.