Anyone who thinks i'm making this up can easily do about 30 seconds of
"research" and verify. The person in question is a mentally retarded
36 year
old named: "Jason Lohner" who has a 1311 rating and has lost all of
his
tournament games, with the possible exception of one game where the
guy was
pounding him and hung a piece. The retard even admits to this himself.

I didn't go looking for a "bad game" of his. He's a 1311 rated retard
and
all of his games are bad. I did a search in the Canadian games archive
database and three of his games were in it. He lost all three. I just
posted
the first two that were there.



Inconnux = Jason Lohner = Fetal Alcohol effects baby = 1311 chess
rating
http://www.chess.ca/memberinfo.asp?CFCN=144557


Here he loses to someone even LOWER rated than he is:
http://members.shaw.ca/winnipeg_ches..._vs_Retard.htm

And check out this game:
http://members.shaw.ca/winnipeg_chess/1300_Jamboree.htm
Notice the obvious blunder on move 35 that a blind inebriate wouldn't
make
in a bullet game time scramble.


JMR

"Good Moves Aren't Worth BEANS!" wrote in message
oups.com...
Anyone who thinks i'm making this up can easily do about 30 seconds of
"research" and verify. The person in question is a mentally retarded
36 year
old named: "Jason Lohner" who has a 1311 rating and has lost all of
his
tournament games, with the possible exception of one game where the
guy was
pounding him and hung a piece. The retard even admits to this himself.

I didn't go looking for a "bad game" of his. He's a 1311 rated retard
and
all of his games are bad. I did a search in the Canadian games archive
database and three of his games were in it. He lost all three. I just
posted
the first two that were there.

I will admit that I've come late to this thread and have no idea why you
seem to have it in for this person, but I must make a few observations.
First, quotation marks are used in this context to qualify the word
enclosed. Therefore, "research" isn't really research at all but some other
process. And "Jason Lohner" must clearly be a pseudonym. If his name really
is Jason Lohner, no quotes are necessary.
Second, the term "mentally retarded" (quotes here used properly to call
attention to the term AS a term) is an acceptable description of a person
with reduced mental abilities in one or more cognitive areas and is even
used by caring professionals in the field. The term "retard," however, is
offensive in all contexts. It should not be used by any person who cares to
be taken seriously.
Third, if the individual in question is actually mentally retarded and is
not suffering merely from your contempt, then I can't see how a 1311 rating
is poor. I myself have an IQ of 130 (well out of the retarded range), but I
"boast" (quotes used here to call qualify the term enclosed) of a mere 1224
rating. I'd be pretty happy to see it go to 1311.
BTW, I can't help but wonder: If this individual has lost ALL of his
tournament games, how does he have a rating AT ALL? And how did it get to be
1311? Did he somehow start out at 2000 and steadily plummet to this point?
It doesn't make any logical sense.

"Michael Steen" Third, if the individual in question is actually mentally
retarded and is not suffering merely from your contempt, then I can't see
how a 1311 rating
is poor.

You are dealing with a usenet troll who is probably sliding a broomstick up
his ass while he posts these messages about someone who probably beat him in
a tournament. Jason Lohner supposedly has only one chess win, and it was
probably over the guy who keeps posting the messages.

I will admit that I've come late to this thread and have no idea why you
seem to have it in for this person

I called the city he lives in 'winterpeg' he seems a little touchy about it.

And "Jason Lohner" must clearly be a pseudonym. If his name really is
Jason Lohner, no quotes are necessary.

It is my real name

The term "retard," however, is offensive in all contexts. It should not be
used by any person who cares to be taken seriously.

Nobody takes his posts seriously, I suggest you filter his comments out.

is poor. I myself have an IQ of 130 (well out of the retarded range), but
I "boast" (quotes used here to call qualify the term enclosed) of a mere
1224 rating. I'd be pretty happy to see it go to 1311.

Mr Repa is actually a pretty good chess player, but he holds anyone below
his rating with contempt. He seems to equate his rating with his self
worth.

BTW, I can't help but wonder: If this individual has lost ALL of his
tournament games, how does he have a rating AT ALL? And how did it get to
be 1311? Did he somehow start out at 2000 and steadily plummet to this
point? It doesn't make any logical sense.

He loves to post games from my first tournament. I was unrated going into
the tournament and came out with only one draw (against a 1600 rated
player).
I started playing chess against chessmaster 10k a couple of years ago, I
haven't
played OTB chess until Last september. I currently play on chessworld.net
under "Inconnux".

My second tournament I only won one game. In the third tournament I won two
games, and in my last tournament I won one and drew one although I did beat
a
class A player.

J.Lohner

On Mar 20, 6:52 pm, "Heywood Jablowme" wrote:

"Michael Steen" Third, if the individual in question is actually mentally
retarded and is not suffering merely from your contempt, then I can't see
how a 1311 rating

is poor.

You are dealing with a usenet troll who is probably sliding a broomstick up
his ass while he posts these messages about someone who probably beat him in
a tournament. Jason Lohner supposedly has only one chess win, and it was
probably over the guy who keeps posting the messages.

Another point is that *I* recruited the troll first; he
is my student by all rights, and I resent this attempt
to muscle-in on my lucrative(??!) position as tutor to
the broom-stick boy known variously as Skippy or
Jason Repa. Frankly, I'm not sure if you -- or anyone
for that matter -- has the patience and time to deal
with his kind. No, this is the sort of work which is
tailor made for help bots (and trained psychiatrists).

-- coach bot

"Michael Steen" wrote in message
...
I will admit that I've come late to this thread and have no idea why you
seem to have it in for this person

You're right. You have no idea what you're talking about, but that doesn't
seem to prevent you from giving your unqualified opinion of what you "think"
(notice the quotes? They're being used to denote the fact that you really
aren't thinking) is going on.


but I must make a few observations.
First, quotation marks are used in this context to qualify the word
enclosed. Therefore, "research" isn't really research at all but some
other process.

Not "some other process" (quotes were used that time to indicate what your
verbatim statement was) but an indication that it is not really research to
simply click on a link or go to a single website. Just as it isn't really
physical exercise to get up and grab a beer from the fridge. You need to
understand that quotes are used for more than thing. I believe these
concepts are taught at the elementary school level.

Second, the term "mentally retarded" (quotes here used properly to call
attention to the term AS a term)

I didn't use quotes for "mentally retarded", nor are they necessary. Nor
would I use quotes if I referred to the person as HOMELESS or ECONOMICALLY
CHALLENGED. You're completely in error here. Go back and finish your junior
high and perhaps you'll understand.


Third, if the individual in question is actually mentally retarded and is
not suffering merely from your contempt, then I can't see how a 1311
rating is poor. I myself have an IQ of 130

You don't have an IQ of 130 buddy. I can tell you that for a fact. Your
gross assumptions and logic errors in this post of yours is evidence enough.
The fact that you're completely missing the meaning of what was said, but
instead focus on peripherals such as grammatical rules/spelling/etc is more
evidence of a low IQ and clerk mentality. The fact that you're a 1224 chess
player is further proof. Although there is definitely no one-to-one
correlation between chess elo and intelligence, it is clear that someone who
plays tournaments and gets a rating that low has a very modest level of
intelligence. You don't even have to know anything about chess to get to
1600. Simple calculation and not leaving material hanging will achieve this.
If you're rated 1224 it's because you're unable to calculate simple 2 or 3
move combinations and approach the problem-solving

You probably got this number from some online site (tickle test?) that is
trying to make you feel good about yourself so they can sell you something.
I know some really dumb people that scored over 130 on that test. The
questions are all extremely simple. On a serious intelligence test the
questions start out simple but get much, much harder. A serious intelligence
test is also timed and has alot more questions.

I can see why you're shoving your nose into this thread though. Retards do
tend to stick together.

JMR

This sounds like a posting from the known RGCM homosexual and troll Matt
Nemmers. He's a frustrated faggot who's ****ed at me for posting about the
fact that he shoves chess pieces up his arse.

JMR

Help-Bitch is another usenet troll and complete imbecile who isn't even a
chess player. His big claim to fame is his moderate success at
computer-assisted corr. games on RedHotPawn where he just does what his
fritz tells him to.




Inconnux = Jason Lohner = Fetal Alcohol effects baby = 1311 chess
rating
http://www.chess.ca/memberinfo.asp?CFCN=144557


Here he loses to someone even LOWER rated than he is:
http://members.shaw.ca/winnipeg_ches..._vs_Retard.htm

And check out this game:
http://members.shaw.ca/winnipeg_chess/1300_Jamboree.htm
Notice the obvious blunder on move 35 that a blind inebriate wouldn't
make
in a bullet game time scramble.


JMR

"Inconnux" wrote in message
news:yj_Lh.67652$lY6.40015@edtnps90...
He loves to post games from my first tournament.

Actually, as I started earlier, you've lost pretty much ALL of the chess
games you've ever played. You keep telling us about this game where you beat
some 1700 player who was kicking your ass and hung a piece. But I think
that's your only "victory".

I'm assuming that even a 1311 rated inbred hick from a small town like you
can figure out how to find the Canadian Chess Game archive. It has three of
your games and you lost all three of them, including where you lost to
someone even LOWER rated than yourself. 1311 is your rating NOW. After your
first tournament you were 1200 and change, so don't give us this bull****
about how you've "improved". You're an idiot in all areas of thinking, not
just in chess. You've proven this time and time again.

Also, as was told to you several times now, but you've refused to
acknowledge, is the fact that I didn't even know your worthless ass from a
stray packet in a voip line untill you made the rather stupid decision to
start flaming and harassing me in a thread that had nothing to do with you.
An extremely dumb guy such as yourself, who's a wide open target, should
have known better than to pick a fight with someone who's superior to you in
every way imaginable.



Inconnux = Jason Lohner = Fetal Alcohol effects baby = 1311 chess
rating
http://www.chess.ca/memberinfo.asp?CFCN=144557


Here he loses to someone even LOWER rated than he is:
http://members.shaw.ca/winnipeg_ches..._vs_Retard.htm

And check out this game:
http://members.shaw.ca/winnipeg_chess/1300_Jamboree.htm
Notice the obvious blunder on move 35 that a blind inebriate wouldn't
make
in a bullet game time scramble.


JMR

On Mar 21, 1:49 am, "Good Moves are worth BEANS!"
wrote:

but I must make a few observations.
First, quotation marks are used in this context to qualify the word
enclosed. Therefore, "research" isn't really research at all but some
other process.

Not "some other process" (quotes were used that time to indicate what your
verbatim statement was) but an indication that it is not really research to
simply click on a link or go to a single website. Just as it isn't really
physical exercise to get up and grab a beer from the fridge. You need to
understand that quotes are used for more than thing. I believe these
concepts are taught at the elementary school level.

Here I believe that Skippy must be regarded as an
*expert*, especially when it comes to what is currently
taught in his school -- and on the subject of beer.


Third, if the individual in question is actually mentally retarded and is
not suffering merely from your contempt, then I can't see how a 1311
rating is poor. I myself have an IQ of 130

You don't have an IQ of 130 buddy. I can tell you that for a fact. Your
gross assumptions

Uh, you can tell us for a "fact" what you assume?


and logic errors in this post of yours is evidence enough.
The fact that you're completely missing the meaning of what was said, but
instead focus on peripherals such as grammatical rules/spelling/etc is more
evidence of a low IQ and clerk mentality.

Low IQ and "clerk mentality" are two different
things, Skip. In fact, a person of fairly high IQ
might well make an excellent clerk, as perhaps
did Albert Einstein in the patent office.


The fact that you're a 1224 chess
player is further proof. Although there is definitely no one-to-one
correlation between chess elo and intelligence, it is clear that someone who
plays tournaments and gets a rating that low has a very modest level of
intelligence. You don't even have to know anything about chess to get to
1600.

Hmm. Things are awfully easy up in Winterpeg.

Down here in the USA one needs to know a little
bit about chess to get to 1600, because it is
above the average rating. So you need to know
enough to beat the untalented who have spent a
good number of years studying the game.


Simple calculation and not leaving material hanging will achieve this.

For a computer it will. But humans are, well,
fallible. What is hard is seeing all the tactics
at every turn.

If you're rated 1224 it's because you're unable to calculate simple 2 or 3
move combinations and approach the problem-solving

This may be correct. I expect that I could now
achieve a decent rating by emulating a dumb
computer which sees only tactics, but then, I
can only do this because I am a chess genius.

You probably got this number from some online site (tickle test?) that is
trying to make you feel good about yourself so they can sell you something.
I know some really dumb people that scored over 130 on that test.

One of the ads which try to lead people to that
test shows a column of critters and asks: which
one does *not* belong to the group? Of course,
the supposed rote answer is the spider, because
it has more legs than the others (which all, I believe,
have exactly six, making them "insects"). And yet
a wiser man might get this wrong, seeing that the
particular number of limbs is of *far less importance*
than a certain other aspect. I am speaking of ants,
and if you can figure out what I mean, you may have
some hope yet. I fully expect the test creators
were well pleased with themselves on constructing
this question, and yet it is indicative of their general
lack of high intelligence, in my view.

As to Tickle, I found their test to contain what
I consider to be several flaws. For one thing, there
were "trick" answers, which I deemed inappropriate
for this sort of test. For another, a few of the
questions had no inarguably correct answer, so
they should have been tossed out as a matter of
course. To me, this sort of thing demonstrates
laziness (or perhaps an evil desire to trip test-
takers up by purely artificial means) or else
incompetence. What is disturbing is that they
claim to have snatched many of their questions
from Mensa, and if this is so one can only gasp
in awe.

The questions are all extremely simple.

Not true. however, the test does include
questions for which the answer is a bit obvious.
This is so that even numskulls like Skippy will
not finish up with a score of zero (+ correct
guesses).

On a serious intelligence test the
questions start out simple but get much, much harder. A serious intelligence
test is also timed and has alot more questions.

This is correct. The lack of any time limit
means that those who put in more effort will
score better than those who take the test
lightly. It's another serious flaw. When I took
the test, I was exceedingly tired but
nevertheless put in considerable time in an
effort to get everything correct. Afterward I
found that several of my mistakes were
"obvious" ones, just as in my chess games.
The thing is to stand back and ask oneself:
are they trying to trip me up here, or is the
apparently correct answer correct? Again,
the trick questions came unexpected to me,
while veteran IQ test takers would have had
no problem in seeing them for what they are.

In chess, I always expect tricks and traps,
for it is a competitive game. Bit in this sort
of test, I expected honesty, integrity, and
a genuine attempt to test my knowledge
(if not my actual intelligence).

-- help bot