Life is a chess game and the chess games we have played are related with our personal life.

She starting to make sense guys, even one of the person from chess.com wrote an article on a young boy who has a tough life in the US and he taken up the game of chess also the boy said that his life seem related to chess in a way.
( I will try and find that article if I can.)

you've missed the topic- what kind of game you play is irrelevant, whether or not the game you play is related with your personal life is the topic at hand.

comment this normajeanyates 

But Vonlupe. I already did that! In a previous post! Here: I am appending that post  at the end of this one.

But before that:

["comment this normajeanyates"??  - for exclusive commentary I usually charge a fee, but I will waive it this once - but I prefer that if you want exclusive comment you use - as I said - send [me] a note/message/email/phonecall/text/telegram/postcard/valentine ]

Now, for the comment you asked for:

[REPOST]

about statement made in the title of the thread:

The ontological implications of every point made in it put so great a burden on the semantic resources of the english language that; flexible though those semantic resources are, I venture to express my fear, If I might be allowed to be so bold as to do so, that they would not prove strong enough nor flexible enough to survive the burden under question.

Translated into one possible ideolect of a hypothetical person who, perhaps unlike me, is in a habit of putting things bluntly, that would read:

False on every count.

[UPDATE: ]

Translated into one word:

Bollocks.

--------

PS: serious update: I just noticed that the originator of the thread [nane] is of my gender. [I usually respond to the point, not to the person.]

umm.. she may have a point - I don't know -- but for the present I can't bring myself to agree with nane. But I am often wrong, and I could be wrong on this one...

So please take the above paragraph as my response, and the paragraphs quoted and updated before that as how my response would be phrased as, were the originator a male.

Discrimination? No. Affirmative action and solidarity.

Haus, I changed my mind even as you were typing your response. Unfortunately my edited-post got thru before yours. Please read the post immediately precedes yours as it stands now. I hope that is okay now...

"You don't score philosopher points by being a malcontent, Norma."

I plead guilty. But I wrongly assumed the original poster was some idle male who had a woman to do his washing and cooking for him while he is busy making posts like that. Those sorts of men are fair game to me.

So what I plead guilty to is: thinking in stereotypes, without even checking up on who the poster is [as far as I can and as far as is justified by the importance of the post] ...

In short, I plead guilty to philosophical and political sloppiness.

[this post is a response to Haus's post preceding this. Unfortunately he has deleted it though it was a perfectly reasonable post, so only he knows why] , and I omitted to quote it, so the context has to be inferred.]

It shouldn't. I was wrong.

Okay I plead guilty to that explicitly - it was implicit in my amended post.

But.

I stand by the foll statement I made: [the boldfaced part: I have quoted the rest to provide the referent for the pronoun 'those' I use there.]

"But I wrongly assumed the original poster was some idle male who had a woman to do his washing and cooking for him while he is busy making posts like that. Those sorts of men are fair game to me."

vonlupe, the first part of my first post was a joke! But I *did* translate it into plain english in the same post...

You know what, I think I am coming around to nane's point of view... Thank God (or the invisible pink unicorn of whatever) this topic is not political or I would be counted among the Christopher Hitchenses and the Regis Debrays of the world... my name would be mud.

On second thought - I'll keep M. Debray [who was once comrade Regis] out of this ... after all, unlike Hitchens he *was* in that bolivian jail under imminent danger of death... I respect Regis for his extremely brave and committed activities in the 1960s  - that he is who he is *now* is doesn't take that away...

Hey...my cat put my neighbour in check with a poop on his patio. He's saying to my neighbour "Your move, mate!!!". Chess is Life indeed !!

chess will be the death of me yet :(

Yes, chess can be the death of my cat too. I see out of my window, my neighbour whispering "Here, kitty, kitty" with a baseball bat in his hands !!! Yikes, I better pull back my bishop ( I mean, my cat ).

Hmm..Guys..As far as I posted this topic,I thought it would be commented in a fair mind(noting this,because some tried to have fun of it).

Of course chess can be viewed as a representation of life - after all, what is life but a constant epic struggle by which every decision we make bears consequence - reward or punishment.

Fun, pain, learning, teaching, friendship, adversaries, crisis, victory, defeat, life, and death...

The ebb and flow of chess is representative (if not parallel at times...) to our very own existence.

Nane, you can't invite all to comment & then turn around and be unhappy with the comments people make. It was obvious that what I wrote is ridiculous - no one can seriously believe that what I wrote is what I do or did - so my point is that if chess is about Life, Life is also about humour - and therefore, we should find humour in chess too. Far from making fun of your topic, I made a very valid comment though through a very unconventional way...but hey, everyone in this world is different.

Opening a topic in an open forum means good with bad.

Dont let it stop you, just know most wont agree.

Then smile!!!