Should people STOP making STUPID threads ??


Where do you all stand on this important issue?


nah i like them


Untill they are super stupid.......I dont care.


I agree this is a very important issue that requires one to take a certain stance on it. Too many times, people try to be clever and sidestep the issue instead of just being honest and direct. That's probably what causes most of the problems anyway.

Some would rather climb up Mt Everest and say something "evasive" than to just stand right where they are on their own two feet and let us know where they stand.

That's why I don't mind one bit sharing exacty what side of this important issue you can find me, if you'll pardon me being so bold.

Some of my friends are for it. Some of my friends are against it. And naturally, I stand with my friends on this issue.


Let's make it happen!


I agree! I oppose stupidity. Is there a petition I can sign.


Give us an example of a stupid thread.  Several, if you like.


Yeah I think they shouldn't. And I also think you shouldn't either


I think people should stop making threads about whether or not people should stop to make stupid threads. Think I am gonna make a new thread about that.


I agree with justlearningthemoves that a lot of chess-players suffer from self-importance : I might even be one of them !

The good part of bad-threads is that it can sometimes envoke truely hilareous responses. There are some people who have the ability to kill the OP with some of the most beautiful (street) poetry. One of my favorites I believe is the man who's name I highlighted above.


I don't know but there seems to be a lot of cockaroaches on this thread.

It's like a damn roach motel man.

Serphiot schreef:

I think people should stop making threads about whether or not people should stop to make stupid threads. Think I am gonna make a new thread about that.

Somehow this rings a bell : It looks like Godel's-theorum .

If I were a librarian and was asked to make a book including the titles of all the books in the library , do I include the title of MY book in it ?


This thread will turn out to be a draw !


Stupid is a mean word man.


Essentially, i believe that there's no such thing as "stupid" threads...just, (how can i put this as diplomatically as i can) not as much, "well-informed, as articulated, modest, tactful, civilized, open-minded, practical" people posting. But that's just me.

kco wrote:

This thread will turn out to be a draw !



(Heh. To be brutally honest, though-i could do without certain meglomaniac, narcassistic and self-righteous topics that do not open the door to free-flowing, exploratory discussion by all, but just leads inexorberably to their own validation-that "i am right, you are an moron...". Ego. THAT'S WHAT HAS TO GO! thanx for letting me get that out. Heh)


j-fg schreef:

@pelly13 - depends: do you plan on having your book in your library? And is that a Hilbert library? :-) 

I never really (deeply) understood the Godel-problem. I know Hilbert was working on set-theory too , but I'm not a mathematician . I lack the imaginative powers needed for that.

Maybe we should ask GM Dr.John Nunn (math-proffesor) or GM jonathan Speelman . A lot of English GM's seem to have a math-degree.

doduobird123 wrote:

Yes, they should, but they are funny to read.


j-fg schreef:

What you mention is actually closer to Russell than Godel. As for Hilbert, that's a reference to his (in)famous hotel:'s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel

Yes , I've seen the GrandHotel paradox beeing explained in : The Teaching Company (TTC) dvd's (YouTube and Piratebay) . BTW , I keep mixing up those guys, Russell/Godel/Poincare and Hilbert. My favorite is Euler . At least I can understand (not reproduce)  most of his work.

This forum topic has been locked