On Dec 19, 4:03 pm, "David Kane" wrote:


Pretending that the rules against drawing are
real rules is just stupidity. They are almost never enforced
for a number of reasons, including being internally
inconsistent with the rest of chess' rules, and its practices
for over 100 years.

If you really believe that, then why do you rant and
rave about "drawing" when you have a clear-as-mud
issue to address? Priority #1 should be to fix the
rules.

There is nothing significantly wrong with the rules.

Um, at the top you listed some significant problems
with the rules; now you bleat that there are no such
problems. Look, kid: you can't have it both ways;
either there is, or there isn't anything wrong with the
rules, okay? Get a grip. The plonker-dude could
explain precisely which fallacy or other error category
this falls under, but all I can do is recommend you
try learning to think rationally; not only for these troll
postings of yours, but also it will help you out in the
real world. Trust me on this.


-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 4:03 pm, "David Kane" wrote:


Pretending that the rules against drawing are
real rules is just stupidity. They are almost never enforced
for a number of reasons, including being internally
inconsistent with the rest of chess' rules, and its practices
for over 100 years.

If you really believe that, then why do you rant and
rave about "drawing" when you have a clear-as-mud
issue to address? Priority #1 should be to fix the
rules.

There is nothing significantly wrong with the rules.

Um, at the top you listed some significant problems
with the rules; now you bleat that there are no such
problems.



If you were capable of reading and understanding,
I explained exactly why the rules against drawing
aren't a problem. They aren't taken seriously.

Moreover, enforcement of these rules make no
difference. They are simply an irrelevancy to
the points that I am making.




Look, kid: you can't have it both ways;
either there is, or there isn't anything wrong with the
rules, okay? Get a grip. The plonker-dude could
explain precisely which fallacy or other error category
this falls under,


The plonker dude simply didn't understand
the meaning of the various fallacies. I'd be
happy to give you a tutorial if you'd like.

help bot wrote:

David Kane wrote:

If you feel that my posts do not contribute to the
discussion, I suggest that you stop reading them.

*plonk*

Facing facts *is* difficult but I wouldn't brag
about it.

Just finding any facts amongst the jungle of
ad hominem and insults is difficult enough. I
suspect he wore himself out researching all the
different terms and sorting the red herrings from
the myriad other kinds of fallacies. The truth is,
I haven't seen this much fallacious-argument
material here since back when Larry Parr was
going full-tilt. Congratulations, DK-- you are now
ranked number one in your field.

What is really pathetic is the fact that he seems to
be too dimwitted to figure out that he is talking to
someone who no longer sees his posts, thanks to the
magic of killfiles.

Here are some clues for the clueless (those who are
already clueful can skip to the next post now):


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Plonk

[Usenet: possibly influenced by British slang `plonk' for cheap booze,
or `plonker' for someone behaving stupidly (latter is lit. equivalent
to Yiddish `schmuck')] The sound a newbie makes as he falls to the
bottom of a kill file. While it originated in the newsgroup talk.bizarre,
this term (usually written "*plonk*") is now (1994) widespread on Usenet.

See also kill file.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Killfile

[Usenet; very common] (alt. `KILL file') Per-user file(s) used by some
Usenet reading programs (originally Larry Wall's rn(1)) to discard
summarily (without presenting for reading) articles matching some
particularly uninteresting (or unwanted) patterns of subject, author,
or other header lines. Thus to add a person (or subject) to one's kill
file is to arrange for that person to be ignored by one's newsreader in
future. By extension, it may be used for a decision to ignore the
person or subject in other media.

See also plonk.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Troll

1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting
on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the
post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in
turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one
trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite.
The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and
flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do,
while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in
fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be
in on it. See also YHBT.

2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts
specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup,
discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone
or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they
have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply
want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after,
they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are
recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him,
he's just a troll."

Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower
category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing
some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial.

The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily
produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not
infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of
a followup to troll postings.

See also Kook.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Kook

[Usenet; originally and more formally, `net.kook'] Term used to
describe a regular poster who continually posts messages with
no apparent grounding in reality. Different from a troll, which
implies a sort of sly wink on the part of a poster who knows
better, kooks really believe what they write, to the extent that
they believe anything.

The kook trademark is paranoia and grandiosity. Kooks will often
build up elaborate imaginary support structures, fake corporations
and the like, and continue to act as if those things are real even
after their falsity has been documented in public.

While they may appear harmless, and are usually filtered out by
the other regular participants in a newsgroup of mailing list,
they can still cause problems because the necessity for these
measures is not immediately apparent to newcomers; there are
several instances on record, for example, of journalists writing
stories with quotes from kooks who caught them unaware.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

On Dec 19, 6:44 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

There is nothing significantly wrong with the rules.

Um, at the top you listed some significant problems
with the rules; now you bleat that there are no such
problems.

If you were capable of reading and understanding,
I explained exactly why the rules against drawing
aren't a problem. They aren't taken seriously.

Please give a link to the "survey" where this was
determined. (BTW, nobody I know was tallied.)


Moreover, enforcement of these rules make no
difference. They are simply an irrelevancy to
the points that I am making.

I wasn't aware that you made any points at all;
the vast majority of your commentary here has
been identified as ad hominem and/or insults.

Of course, I haven't read everything.


Look, kid: you can't have it both ways;
either there is, or there isn't anything wrong with the
rules, okay? Get a grip. The plonker-dude could
explain precisely which fallacy or other error category
this falls under,

The plonker dude simply didn't understand
the meaning of the various fallacies. I'd be
happy to give you a tutorial if you'd like.

LOL! You are soooo ludicrous! I think he
may have put a bit too much effort into his
work; perfect classification of fallacies is
neigh well impossible, because of all the
overlaps and redundancies. But by and
large, he pegged your swill for what it was.

Perhaps a Louis Blair could even present
a graph, showing the percentage of insults
compared to the percentage of ad hom.,
and how it varies over time-- but it's way too
much work for most folks to tackle.

Pulling "survey results" out of thin air is
not a very convincing way of making a point.
It reminds me of the old guard propaganda
style of Larry Parr (again). IMO, it would be
more effective if you wrote that /in your
opinion/, nobody takes certain rules
seriously; that's because at least then your
comments would have an air of objectivity.

Still, with 90%+ garbage, who is going to
work to sort out any wheat from all that chaff?
(Even the hard-working plonker guy gave up.)


-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 6:44 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

There is nothing significantly wrong with the rules.

Um, at the top you listed some significant problems
with the rules; now you bleat that there are no such
problems.

If you were capable of reading and understanding,
I explained exactly why the rules against drawing
aren't a problem. They aren't taken seriously.

Please give a link to the "survey" where this was
determined. (BTW, nobody I know was tallied.)

I'm making a claim that has not been contradicted.
You yourself have whined about the lack of
rule enforcement, so I could (reluctantly) claim
you as supporting evidence. Not only, that I
posted a very recent game that was obviously
not contested. How much evidence do you need?

Moreover, enforcement of these rules make no
difference. They are simply an irrelevancy to
the points that I am making.

I wasn't aware that you made any points at all;

You could remedy that by simply reading
what others post.

Of course, I haven't read everything.

And understood even less.


Pulling "survey results" out of thin air is
not a very convincing way of making a point.
It reminds me of the old guard propaganda
style of Larry Parr (again). IMO, it would be
more effective if you wrote that /in your
opinion/, nobody takes certain rules
seriously; that's because at least then your
comments would have an air of objectivity.

That would simply be inaccurate English.
Whether a rule is enforced is a matter of
fact. I could be wrong on the facts, but
opinion has nothing to do with
it.

Almost all of plonker dude's problems
with my posts stem from the fact that
I am blunt. Bluntness may have its
advantages and disadvantages, but
it is not a logical fallacy.

"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote in message
...



help bot wrote:

David Kane wrote:

If you feel that my posts do not contribute to the
discussion, I suggest that you stop reading them.

*plonk*

Facing facts *is* difficult but I wouldn't brag
about it.

Just finding any facts amongst the jungle of
ad hominem and insults is difficult enough. I
suspect he wore himself out researching all the
different terms and sorting the red herrings from
the myriad other kinds of fallacies. The truth is,
I haven't seen this much fallacious-argument
material here since back when Larry Parr was
going full-tilt. Congratulations, DK-- you are now
ranked number one in your field.

What is really pathetic is the fact that he seems to
be too dimwitted to figure out that he is talking to
someone who no longer sees his posts, thanks to the
magic of killfiles.

Mr. Macon doesn't seem to understand the concept
of closed-mindedness. Closed mindedness doesn't
obligate others to stop talking. Closed minded people
are supposed to be able to shut out the arguments
of others, lest they disturb their carefully constructed
fictions.

He's not too good at it, which is a promising sign.

On Dec 19, 7:38 pm, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:


Kook

[Usenet; originally and more formally, `net.kook'] Term used to
describe a regular poster who continually posts messages with
no apparent grounding in reality. Different from a troll, which
implies a sort of sly wink on the part of a poster who knows
better, kooks really believe what they write, to the extent that
they believe anything.

The kook trademark is paranoia and grandiosity. Kooks will often
build up elaborate imaginary support structures, fake corporations
and the like, and continue to act as if those things are real even
after their falsity has been documented in public.

This sounds an awful lot like Phillip "nearly-an-IM"
Innes and friends to me. One perfect example is
the fact that they (i.e. the Evans ratpack) have
continued to complain about a claim by Taylor
Kingston that he once had a rating of "2300+" --
which was off by maybe fifty or sixty points -- yet
these "kooks" will at the same time pretend -- like
six year old children -- that nearly-an-IM Innes did
not simply invent his own imaginary title and rating.
It's a complete disconnect with reality, and too, they
often exhibit fits of paranoia.

I don't see the term "kook" used nearly as often
as "troll", however. I heard it used back when I
was young -- a very long time ago -- back before
the internet was invented [here come the troll!]
by Al Gore.


-- help bot

On Dec 19, 8:14 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

Um, at the top you listed some significant problems
with the rules; now you bleat that there are no such
problems.

If you were capable of reading and understanding,
I explained exactly why the rules against drawing
aren't a problem. They aren't taken seriously.

Please give a link to the "survey" where this was
determined. (BTW, nobody I know was tallied.)

I'm making a claim that has not been contradicted.

Um, you don't seem to understand how things
work. It is *you* who made the unsupported
claim, and thus the burden of proof is on *you*.
I would simply like to see the "evidence" in
support of your wanky opinion-- if it exists.

A hallmark of these "surveys" is that most
have never actually been done; when called,
their inventors often fold and run. Let's see
if this is the case here.


You yourself have whined about the lack of
rule enforcement, so I could (reluctantly) claim
you as supporting evidence.

Nonsense; if I believed that the rules are not
taken seriously, I would not complain about
non-enforcement. BTW, among *casual
players* -- the ignorant newbies -- I think the
rules are not taken very seriously.


Not only, that I
posted a very recent game that was obviously
not contested. How much evidence do you need?

Just a link to your supposed "survey", which
purportedly will show that the rules of chess
are not taken seriously.

I wish you could see the TD at my local club;
not only does he take the rules seriously, he
penalizes folks who get "Bat signals" during
play, from the ringing of cell phones!


Moreover, enforcement of these rules make no
difference. They are simply an irrelevancy to
the points that I am making.

I wasn't aware that you made any points at all;

You could remedy that by simply reading
what others post.

I tried that; reams and reams of information
regarding the myriad different types of herrings--
red, green and blue, all sorts of ideas for
puerile insults, but precious little in the way of
any facts. And this, after plonker-dude
practically begged you for them.


Of course, I haven't read everything.

And understood even less.

I was confused by the reference to Sonja
Hennig. All those movies, and yet I never
even heard of her. Plonker-dude informs
us that many of her appearances were
*unattributed*, which clears things up a bit.


Pulling "survey results" out of thin air is
not a very convincing way of making a point.
It reminds me of the old guard propaganda
style of Larry Parr (again). IMO, it would be
more effective if you wrote that /in your
opinion/, nobody takes certain rules
seriously; that's because at least then your
comments would have an air of objectivity.

That would simply be inaccurate English.
Whether a rule is enforced is a matter of
fact. I could be wrong on the facts, but
opinion has nothing to do with
it.

Idiot. If you could be wrong, it is not a "fact"
at all, but merely your opinion. Facts are
never wrong. while your opinions are hit or
miss.


Almost all of plonker dude's problems
with my posts stem from the fact that
I am blunt.

Nah. He has been studying "101 Fallacies"
and you are driving him crazy by proving
that the author was too limited in his scope.
I think maybe he went to Amazon.com to
order the "1001 Fallacies" version from
Oxford.


Bluntness may have its
advantages and disadvantages, but
it is not a logical fallacy.

Another red herring fish. Nobody cares if
you are or are not "blunt"; that was not the
focus of plonker dude's criticisms; your
problem is that you think your opinions are
automatically the same as proven facts,
and that you can't think rationally and are
plagued by fallacies and red herrings. In
fact, you even smell like a fish.


-- help bot

help bot wrote:

Another red herring fish. Nobody cares if
you are or are not "blunt"; that was not the
focus of plonker dude's criticisms; your
problem is that you think your opinions are
automatically the same as proven facts,
and that you can't think rationally and are
plagued by fallacies and red herrings. In
fact, you even smell like a fish.

You are the wind beneath my wings.

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 8:14 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

Um, at the top you listed some significant problems
with the rules; now you bleat that there are no such
problems.

If you were capable of reading and understanding,
I explained exactly why the rules against drawing
aren't a problem. They aren't taken seriously.

Please give a link to the "survey" where this was
determined. (BTW, nobody I know was tallied.)

I'm making a claim that has not been contradicted.

Um, you don't seem to understand how things
work. It is *you* who made the unsupported
claim, and thus the burden of proof is on *you*.
I would simply like to see the "evidence" in
support of your wanky opinion-- if it exists.

A hallmark of these "surveys" is that most
have never actually been done; when called,
their inventors often fold and run. Let's see
if this is the case here.

I never claimed that there was a survey.
You can ask plonker dude for the name
of that fallacy. Byt don't expect him to
get it right.



You yourself have whined about the lack of
rule enforcement, so I could (reluctantly) claim
you as supporting evidence.

Nonsense; if I believed that the rules are not
taken seriously, I would not complain about
non-enforcement. BTW, among *casual
players* -- the ignorant newbies -- I think the
rules are not taken very seriously.


Not only, that I
posted a very recent game that was obviously
not contested. How much evidence do you need?

Just a link to your supposed "survey", which
purportedly will show that the rules of chess
are not taken seriously.

No such survey was promised. The counterevidence
is games that were not contested and also not
considered to be afoul of the rules.


I wish you could see the TD at my local club;
not only does he take the rules seriously, he
penalizes folks who get "Bat signals" during
play, from the ringing of cell phones!

Another nice irrelevancy.


Moreover, enforcement of these rules make no
difference. They are simply an irrelevancy to
the points that I am making.

I wasn't aware that you made any points at all;

You could remedy that by simply reading
what others post.

I tried that; reams and reams of information

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.