Smoking and Chess

Sort:
AlCzervik

And that's why political discussion is not allowed here. Too many are set in their ways. Arguments ensue.

zborg

And if you want to understand the difference between fighting and arguing/debating, in the Classical Rhetorical sense, see the following --

http://www.amazon.com/Thank-You-Arguing-Aristotle-Persuasion/dp/0307341445/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1351682869&sr=1-1&keywords=thank+you+for+arguing+by+jay+heinrichs

It's an eminently reasonable, modern-day, introduction to a classical skill that would discussions in these nutty forums.  Entertaining too.

AlCzervik

Thanks, piggy, but I don't think I need to buy a book to know the difference.

DrFrank124c
skullskullskull wrote:

When there aren't any food stamps the poor will eat the rich.

Why do you think the polticians make sure people are kept well fed in this country? Most of  the revolutions in history started when people got hungry. When people run out of food there's no telling what they will do. You've all heard of the Donner Party! They were nice hard working farmers who ran out of food so they had themselves a  little dinner party and ate each other.  Long pork anyone?

corrijean

The Donner party members didn't kill people.

They practised mortuary cannibalism. Quite a few of the party even refrained from that. 

zborg
AlCzervik wrote:

Thanks, piggy, but I don't think I need to buy a book to know the difference.

@AL, clearly you already know that difference, as per your Avatar photo.  

AlCzervik

Lock and Load?  Smile

Arguing and debating are equivalent terms in Rhetoric.

Powder-puff "fighting" is what everyone does on the internet (and in U.S. politics) although the Rhetoric is sometimes vicious, in both environments.

At least the U.S. has continued to transfer power peacefully, with the exception of Lincoln's election, and it's aftermath.

DrFrank124c

Powder-puff "fighting" is what eveyone does on the internet, and in politics.

Thats what chess is all about--better to make some noise or make a move than physically confronting someone and getting hurt. 


yottaflops

I smoked cigs for 10 years and just recently quit (5 months now).  I quit for my own health mainly and for the way smoking took ahold of my life, though I will admitt freely that it is a nasty habit.

Wake up, go smoke.  Eat breakfast/lunch/dinner, go smoke.  Stressed out? Go smoke.  Drinking (alcohol)?  Go smoke after a drink.  Hungry?  Go smoke - it will curb your hunger...for a little while.  Sick and coughing up blood?  Go smoke.

This is how my smoking experience went and I bet many smokers would tell you the same if they were honest with themselves.  I hated the way smoking made me smell.  The way smoking took ahold of my daily activities and made me a slave to always want one more (whether that be chain-smoking or on the hour smoking, etc.).  I used to smoke about a pack a day except on weekends with friends when I would have one every 10 minutes or so.

My legs started to get poor circulation for the past 2-3 years and I decided that either I quit now, or suffer the consequences later on (amputation, lung cancer, throat cancer, etc.).

Sure it makes you feel euphoric (but only for a little while).  Do I miss the immediate feeling on that first puff of a new cig?  Sure, but not that much, and in 7 more months time - I bet even that desire will subside to almost zero.

How did I stop?  Cold turkey.  If you have the will to stop buying cigs, you can overcome the impulses.  Try no cigs for a day.  The next day is easier.  Then a week.  Soon a month will go by and you may wonder like I did, "Why did I ever start smoking in the first place?".

fburton

Great post, yottaflops. Yes, cold turkey is what worked for me, after a few 'pretend' attempts via cutting down.

electricpawn
corrijean wrote:

In Washington state, the average person pays 31.2% of their income in taxes. 

That includes sales tax, payroll tax, property tax, income tax, etc.

I read an article in The Economist that said, given what we expect from state, local and federal governments, our total tax burden should be 37.5%

I agree with you about the numbskulls who took on mortgages they couldn't afford, but there will always be people who have an aversion to putting pencil to paper. My wife, for example, is very smart but sometimes functions at an emotional level rather than a dispassionately logical level where major purchases are concerned. Sometimes I wonder where my bail out is, but when I think back on the number of people who lost jobs in 2008 - 2009 and think about how concerned I was about keeping my job, I count my blessings. I'm in the home improvment industry, and until housing construction trends make a serious move upward, everyone in my market segment is going to be insecure - with a couple of exceptions.

bigpoison
frank124c wrote:
bigpoison wrote:
Estragon wrote:
 

You're a moron.  What bank would finance such a loan?  NONE. 

Ha!  You gotta' forget logic when thinking about banking in the last decade.

Ever hear of ninja loans?

I don't put anything past the banks. Basically they gamble with our money and when they lose they get more money from government. Why did Obama gives billions of dollars to them? If he was on the side of the people why didn't he loan the money to people who owe mortgages, they in turn would have given the money to pay back the banks and an easy re- payment plan could have been worked out. Or better yet, why doesn't the government seize the banks putting an end to their games. How is chess, politics and smoking related? The politicians are in bed with the bankers who keep the people quiet by providing them with cheap drugs such as cigarettes and alcohol. This is their chess game! 

TARP was enacted under Bush, not Obama.

EP, I'm still cryin' about that series.

DrFrank124c

Locked. No politics please.

This forum topic has been locked