Lel rudolf... she has red hair and red rose and red cheek!
The Prettiest chess player!
Sort:
Does rudolf has a red nose and cheeks? Don't know
Optimissed wrote:
No, honestly, it's because you're creepy.
This would carry more weight if it wasn't coming from you. Honestly.
Hey eye looks like it got ahem... dunked in water lel!
Now she just need the bowl on her head!
Bullet! She collects firing shots...
...I am high rocked but I may recall that
Mr.Pierre made me try chess after... he twit about chess and MMA
Optimissed wrote:
<<The irony is that those males who don't like my posts on the thread over the years think *I* am making the thread feel creepy...guess what? That's your conscience knocking.>>
I mean, really. That's called projection.
You sure do like to borrow my arguments...can't you come up with your own stuff?
What is is your explanation for someone that posts 3 times in a row about the same post/poster? Because mine is that you keep reaching for another "oh yeah?", but none of them are satisfying enough...
I don't know of a single forum where there isn't a thread on attractive participants. To the unhappy or woke readers, why not start a thread for the hunks?
Sigognac wrote:
I don't know of a single forum where there isn't a thread on attractive participants. To the unhappy or woke readers, why not start a thread for the hunks?
Because it's wrong no matter who it is done to. That's kind of the point. Just because a person is attractive to you doesn't give you a right to salivate over them publicly and invite everyone else to do so as well.
As in most cases, you can figure out what the ethical implications are if you take any internet scenario and put yourself or someone in your family in the same situation, but face to face with a group of people doing that same type of behavior. For those that try to exploit their attractiveness and become celebrities by posting their own photos, fine...go to town...it's still wrong because it results in the environment we see here for everyone around them...but at least they are knowingly making that trade-off for themselves. For the average person just going to a chess tournament? Not cool.
btickler wrote: . . . . .
You are foaming at the mouth over nothing. No one takes you seriously. Get well soon.
Anyway, people, the correct answers are Alexandra Botez and Maria Florencia Fernandez.
Sep 9, 2021
0
#353
I think WGM Tatev Abrahamyan is the prettiest chess player, and you can learn a lot from her series of lectures.
The lady has a microphone on the side of her mouth...
What's with the microphone?
Esquilax1 wrote:
btickler wrote: . . . . .
You are foaming at the mouth over nothing. No one takes you seriously. Get well soon.
Anyway, people, the correct answers are Alexandra Botez and Maria Florencia Fernandez.
- Not foaming at the mouth. Lots of people have tried this tactic, because it's so basic...but if you go back and dig around, you will not be able to quote anything "foam worthy". Good luck trying.
- Who are you again? You don't take me seriously, apparently, but you don't represent...anyone.
Sep 10, 2021
0
#356
I have no affection for the "woke" cancel culture and the radical misandry that argues that normal male biology and attraction inherently degrades and oppresses women.
However, I think that posting someone else's photographs in which they are identified by name without that person's permission is impolite and may be a form of doxxing. Due to facial recognition software, hacking and identity theft, many people, including myself, keep their photographs off of the internet. Internet privacy concerns are such a problem that there are also apps with which one can scramble one's images so subtly as to be recognizable to humans but not to facial recognition software.
Some of these images are public figures' press photos, which is fine, but reposting pictures downloaded from someone's personal social media page would be creepy, to say the least.
Esquilax1 wrote:
btickler wrote: . . . . .
You are foaming at the mouth over nothing. No one takes you seriously. Get well soon.
Anyway, people, the correct answers are Alexandra Botez and Maria Florencia Fernandez.
You just posted a teenage photo of a now almost 25 year old women. I'd consider someone like you to be a creepy pervert.
Gambitiodic wrote:
I have no affection for the "woke" cancel culture and the radical misandry that argues that normal male biology and attraction inherently degrades and oppresses women.
However, I think that posting someone else's photographs in which they are identified by name without that person's permission is impolite and may be a form of doxxing. Due to facial recognition software, hacking and identity theft, many people, including myself, keep their photographs off of the internet. Internet privacy concerns are such a problem that there are also apps with which one can scramble one's images so subtly as to be recognizable to humans but not to facial recognition software.
Some of these images are public figures' press photos, which is fine, but reposting pictures downloaded from someone's personal social media page would be creepy, to say the least.
I have no problem with your post, but I will springboard off your first comment.
First, cancel culture and "woke" are throwaway buzzwords, so I won't be using them. Is there a level of misandry in today's world? Yes. Does it remotely compare to the "normal" level of misogyny worldwide...not even close. A few men here are annoyed that they can't post photos of attractive young women without getting any flak for it. Meanwhile, more than a quarter of the world's population (including many women) still believe that it is perfectly okay for a man to beat his wife. So, perspective is called for.
Like any other cultural shift involving civil rights, there are always people that decide that their side deserves to beat up on the other side for past wrongs. That's just how people are. When the arguments leave the realm of awareness and solutions and turn primarily to recriminations and blame, that's a problem.
I am not woke: I am waking up!
Optimissed wrote:
First, cancel culture and "woke" are throwaway buzzwords, so I won't be using them. >>
You just did. You called them "throwaway buzzwords", which means you engaged with them.
The misandry versus misogyny polarisation is relative to cultural subgroups within society at large. In some situations, it seems that one rather than the other is dominant. To some extent, misandry is a natural reaction to millennia (presumably) of misogyny. However, there's probably no more potent force for the creation and perpetuation of misogyny than misandry.
Your final paragraph is quite correct and concise, however. Obviously, intelligence still remains and periodically attempts self-expression. What a pity about the lapses from that lauded ideal.
Does it matter if you agree with me? You just wanted to express your usual "I'm brilliant and you are not" schtick. It's like a broken record. Shoo.
It's just ranking some chess playing females based on looks...
I am pretty troubled that I can't find anything I want though... the cancellation and internet scouring is not so upon me; note I am no going to indulge in Cartel Jalisco de genracion pleasures albeit...
It hit me that some people may not have the creative dexterity when it comes to even agreed things...