Using the word " prove " when the word " proof " should be used isnt a spelling problem . He is using the wrong word but the word he uses is spelled properly . Its like the people who don't seem to know the difference between : their, they're and there ..
Nor "Its" and "It's."
I already addressed this in post #23 . Do you have ADD or something ?
apostrophe deficit disorder!
Using the word " prove " when the word " proof " should be used isnt a spelling problem . He is using the wrong word but the word he uses is spelled properly . Its like the people who don't seem to know the difference between : their, they're and there ..
Nor "Its" and "It's."
I already addressed this in post #23 . Do you have ADD or something ?
Hello,
As a person with ADHD, I find this post highly offensive. ADD is no longer a proper clinical term, as it was replaced with ADHD in the diagnostic manuals several years ago. Furthermore, despite my condition, I have nonetheless been able to carry on logical discussions on many occasions. Perhaps you should be looking to substandard intelligence as the factor behind hayabusahayate16's posts. I am currently contacting the ACLU, SPLC, and Homeland Security to inform them of how much your post has hurt my feelings.
:'(
I feel distraught by images relating to the American holocaust! followed by the trivializing of it.
Wow, I didn't know Goyathlay is Geronimo?! I learn something new everyday in the Chess.com forums:)
Yes , his Apache name was Goyathlay ( one who yawns ) but the Mexicans named him Geronimo , they feared him greatly and rightly so ....
I feel distraught by images of the American holocaust! followed by the trivializing of it.
I didn't mean to trivialize it. The sarcasm of the meme was supposed to show a similarity between our government's version of terrorists today with how other people were looked at by our government as terrorists of the past.
the other three lads look rough too.
It was Reb who did the trivializing but since he is titled he can write anything he wants.
It's like when Nixon said " If the President does it, it's not illegal".
The entire "war on terror" is a joke, you can't win a war against an abstract concept. However, if we're only referring to a war against al-Qaeda or ISIL or whatever other Islamist organization, if we actually wanted to win, it would have been over before 2002 rolled around. Only problem is that it's never been about winning, it's been about keeping the military contractors afloat (and, for the more conspiracy-minded, taking away rights, as well).
robbie_1969 wrote:
One was caught cheating in the Dubai open, GM Gaioz Nigalidze had an iphone hidden in the restroom, if thats not dim i dunno what is.
http://www.dubaichess.ae/2015/04/12/dubai-bans-georgian-chess-champion-caught-cheating-at-dubai-open-chess-tournament/v
.
The lesson we learn here is......
DON'T GET CAUGHT!
Think we got it now.
No i dont think you do get it, in fact its self evident that YOU DONT GET IT. The lesson is, DONT CHEAT, its dumbA$$. Why is it dumbA$$, because you are depriving yourself of much of the sorrow and joy in chess. How hard can it be? Are you saying that to cheat was smart and that only getting caught was stupid? No? then your assertion makes NO SENSE. If you are saying that then can you tell us why cheating and not getting caught should be considered smart?
Yes, that's correct, "our own practical purposes" for interaction is exactly what I mean! I'm not speaking about health professionals, but how we judge insanity--the non-professionals--throughout the course of our lives. That's what matters to me. Probably the same goes for judging "intelligence". But "intelligence" has this added variable of being very public, without shame. Whereas insanity can be very public but one may be shamed by expressing it. Of course the dangerously insane, just like the dangerously intelligent, have a very thin border between them:)
Oh, ok, as long as the judgers realize it's a very limited subjective judgment, not a truth about the sane nature of individuals. :) It can be dangerous and disrespectful (and get in the way of further understanding) to oversimplify on a scale if we do not acknowledge the limits of this model.
the other three lads look rough too.
It was Reb who did the trivializing but since he is titled he can write anything he wants.
It's like when Nixon said " If the President does it, it's not illegal".
What /whom was a trivializing ?
Sorry Reb, it was just a goof.
robbie_1969 wrote:
No i dont think you do get it, in fact its self evident that YOU DONT GET IT. The lesson is, DONT CHEAT, its dumbA$$. Why is it dumbA$$, because you are depriving yourself of much of the sorrow and joy in chess. How hard can it be? Are you saying that to cheat was smart and that only getting caught was stupid? No? then your assertion makes NO SENSE. If you are saying that t
hen can you tell us why cheating and not getting caught should be considered smart?
.
Obviously, I was being ironical. Please try and keep up..
Hindsight is 20/20 vision.
I believe we each, as individuals, evaluate the people we come across in our lives as having an insanity rating, just like chess ratings:)
Perhaps some people do that but it wouldn't explain insanity, it would just be a rough model of our own limited perception, for our own practical purposes of interaction :)
To me that's kind of like rating peoples' intelligence on a scale as well. We may do that subconciously but it doesn't accurately explain intelligence. IMO/IME/etc.
Yes, that's correct, "our own practical purposes" for interaction is exactly what I mean! I'm not speaking about health professionals, but how we judge insanity--the non-professionals--throughout the course of our lives. That's what matters to me. Probably the same goes for judging "intelligence". But "intelligence" has this added variable of being very public, without shame. Whereas insanity can be very public but one may be shamed by expressing it. Of course the dangerously insane, just like the dangerously intelligent, have a very thin border between them:)