|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-23-07 | | ughaibu: PiGuy: It doesn't matter how you classify it as a sentence, it specifically includes the contention that this game has no kibitz. AfterHours: http://www.christianforums.com/show... |
|
| Jun-23-07 | | Gregor Samsa Mendel: <AfterHours: Excellent. This has now been included in the top 5 dumbest internet arguments I've ever observed. You guys are the best.> Do you have a link to the list of top 5 dumbest internet arguments? It sounds like an entertaining read. |
|
| Jun-23-07 | | Gregor Samsa Mendel: And while I paused to check on the state of my soup, <ughaibu> kindly supplied the link. Thank you. |
|
| Jun-23-07 | | Pi Guy: When <nelech> wrote his question that "contained the contention" that there were no kibitzes on the page, there weren't any, since his kibitz hadn't yet been posted. If he had written "only one kibitz on this game , one of the best of Kasparov ?", not only would it have been inaccurate at the time he was writing it, you could have posted "no, there are two!", and you would be using the same logic. You would be basing the validity of his "statement" on what occurred after he typed his kibitz, which should be only be based on what was there when he was actually typing it. |
|
| Jun-23-07 | | ughaibu: Are you suggesting that he was writing to himself? Certainly he was misrepresenting the state of the page to any reader other than himself and this was a situation of his own creation. If the intention was only to draw attention to this page, a post on the lines of "8 52 75373 82 9646?" would've served the purpose and have been neutral in content, alternatively the sentiments that you're attributing to him could've been accurately expressed, for example, "I'm surprised that I'm the first person to kibitz on this game. . . . ? |
|
| Jun-23-07 | | DUS: <ughaibu> is a friend of Bertrand Russell (1872-1970). |
|
| Jun-23-07 | | Pi Guy: <ughaibu>Your last kibitz shows that you agree that everything implied by the original post was true at the time it was written. You can't expect him to kibitz from someone else's opinion. For the sake of using a bad analogy, if, on the day a game were played, someone were to post the message "Can you believe a game this exciting was played just a few hours ago???!!!" The kibitz wouldn't make much sense to someone who happens to notice the game a year later, but it would look stupid to say "Can you believe a game this exciting was played at 9:00am EST on Saturday, June 23, 2007???!!!" Anyone reading the kibitz I just used as an example would assume the game took place the day the person typed it, just like anyone reading nelech's post would assume there were no posts at the time he wrote it. <If the intention was only to draw attention to this page, a post on the lines of "8 52 75373 82 9646?" would've served the purpose and have been neutral in content, alternatively the sentiments that you're attributing to him could've been accurately expressed, for example, "I'm surprised that I'm the first person to kibitz on this game. . . . ?> A post that says "8 52 75373 82 9646?" would draw attention mostly to that post, not to the game. Ultimately, that's what nelech's post did, but that was unintentional. A post that says "I'm surprised that I'm the first person to kibitz on this game. . . . ?" 1)wouldn't end in a question mark.
2)is basically the statement form of nelech's original post. |
|
| Jun-23-07 | | ughaibu: PiGuy: I'm not expecting him to kibitz from someone else's opinion, an internet forum is for communication, one's posts are addressed to an assumed reader and posts are dated, so your first points don't apply. 1) "no kibitzing on this game" also wouldn't end with a question mark, if you insist that it would, change my example to "I'm the first to kibitz on this game, . . . ?" Of course there's no real difficulty understanding what he meant, the problem is finding something interesting about these 'no posts here!' type comments. I think we're doing rather well so far, thanks for playing. |
|
Jun-24-07
 | | Open Defence: <nelech> thanks for telling us about this gane.. it is a very nice game |
|
| Jun-24-07 | | Pi Guy: <ughaibu: PiGuy: I'm not expecting him to kibitz from someone else's opinion, an internet forum is for communication, one's posts are addressed to an assumed reader and posts are dated, so your first points don't apply.> Posts are also in order, so anyone reading his post would also realize that while he was writing it, there were no posts on this page.
<1) "no kibitzing on this game" also wouldn't end with a question mark, if you insist that it would, change my example to "I'm the first to kibitz on this game, . . . ?" > Yes, I insist that it would end in a question mark, as most rhetorical questions do, although you could argue it would end in an exclamation point. <Of course there's no real difficulty understanding what he meant, the problem is finding something interesting about these 'no posts here!' type comments. I think we're doing rather well so far, thanks for playing.> The argument seems to be changing every time one of us kibitzes on this page. I agree <nelech>'s post may have been poorly worded and is a contradiction to anyone reading it after it was posted, but what he wrote made sense at the time he wrote it. I'm happy to leave it at that because neither of us seems to be making any progress. Besides, multiplte kibitzers have noticed this game, so <nelech>'s kibitz has done its job, even if its we can't agree whether or not it makes sense. |
|
| Jun-24-07 | | nelech: what about the game ? I just wanted to draw your attention on this wonderful game .And remember that English is not my language |
|
| Jun-24-07 | | ughaibu: PiGuy: This is a chess forum, when a player makes a move they see what the position will be when the move is completed. By suggesting that Nelech couldn't see that one ply deep, you attribute to him an extraordinary blunder. Anyway, if I've got in the last word I'm also happy to leave it at that. Nelech: Your english is very good. Dont worry about my posts, I was just feeling irritable. I apologise if you feel picked on. |
|
Jun-24-07
| | Open Defence: geez a kibitz don't need no grammar... |
|
| Jun-25-07 | | khursh: Dear <ughaibu:> and <Pi Guy:> What do you think about following sentences/questions? <<"When did you stop beating your wife?">and
<"no kibitzing on this game <not counting mine>, <when it is> one of the best of Kasparov ?>> |
|
| Jun-25-07 | | macphearsome: this is possibly the funniest internet argument I've ever witnessed. |
|
| Jun-25-07 | | Giearth: When I went home, my pipes busted, furniture overturned, TV smashed, and there was my brother-in-law holding a club. I cried, "WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?(!)" He answered, "I busted your pipes, overturned your furnitures, and smashed your TV." (Swinging his club in front of my nose...) To ask "what have you done" is like <ughaibu's "self referentially paradoxical, in short, meaningless"> since the answer I got was exactly as what I saw... My "statement" was really a question but I also want to claim that it wasn't really a question. It was just as <Pi Guy> stated, that I <wasn't expecting an answer>, I just ventilated my frustration over what had happened in the first place. Of course, I could have "asked" or "stated" my statement in alternate version e.g. "Why did you do this?" or "Did you do this?" etc. so that the meaning would become clearer but I chose the <self referentially paradoxical> and <rhetorical> statement at that moment due to the fact that my mind was probably like what <nelech> was experiencing when he submitted his first kibitz... Peace to all, especially <ughaibu, Pi guy and nelech> ;) P/s: My grammar is really poor. (Sigh)... |
|
| Jun-25-07 | | Giearth: Yes, the game is really good ;) |
|
| Jun-25-07 | | khursh: And on the 10000 kibitz someone will write on this page: <after <nelech> provocation this page became the most popular one> and <little attention was paid to this great game> |
|
| Jun-25-07 | | Giearth: If I'm not mistaken, the method/strategy (or whatever it's supposed to be called) used by Kasparov is called (♕-side) majority attack. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I vaguely remember my friend taught me that lesson. ;) |
|
| Jun-25-07 | | nelech: Finalement j'ai eu raison de lancer ce post ! |
|
| Jun-25-07 | | Giearth: <nelech: Finalement j'ai eu raison de lancer ce post !> Yes, you were. ;) |
|
| Jun-26-07 | | sanyas: <nelech>, <ughaibu>, you both rock. That's a compliment, by the way, nelech.
I'm adding this to my collection just because the kibitzing is so funny. It's also a great game, though - Black's advanced central pawn did nothing for him since it didn't help his pieces to advance, and Kasparov just played around it with the standard <(♕-side) majority attack>. |
|
| Jul-02-07 | | sanyas: Actually, no, it's not quite that good, sorry. |
|
| Sep-06-09 | | PinnedPiece: Score 69 par 66. Wow, some of Kasparov's moves with his knights were just brilliant. I went 43.Ng4 and got full credit from the scorer (+3) to break par 66 (where I had been hovering at the end). 43.Ng4 isn't nearly as good as 43.Nf3 now that I see it. |
|
Dec-23-14
 | | Alex Schindler: Cool game. 76 on Par 70,that's about as good as I've ever done! I would talk about what I found interesting in the game, but it seems most observations will be ignored in favor of semantic back-and-forth originating from the most autistic possible parsing of determiners like "this". |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
