Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing User Profile Chessforum

Member since Feb-09-07
no bio Full Member

   Bureaucrat has kibitzed 4159 times to chessgames   [more...]
   May-23-18 Kenneth S Rogoff (replies)
Bureaucrat: Another fan jumps in with a totally unprovoked attack. Hey, <tga> how about backing up your LIE that "all" of our conversations start with you writing something "substantive" and I responding with derision. Just give me <one> example.
   Mar-29-18 S Kukk vs Carlsen, 2018 (replies)
Bureaucrat: Du må ha baller for åpne med b3 mot Carlsen.
   Mar-11-18 World Championship Candidates (2018) (replies)
Bureaucrat: <wordfunph: So is hiding his prep.> I think he is hiding his strength.
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.


Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 34 OF 34 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: Welcome back to premium status!
Premium Chessgames Member
  Bureaucrat: Thanks!
Premium Chessgames Member
  moronovich: God aften <Bureaucrat> !

Godt at se,du er tilbage igen.Håber alt er vel.Og så endda med den gode gamle avatar :)

Premium Chessgames Member
  Bureaucrat: <moronovich>! God aften! Davs!

Alt vel her, særlig etter at jeg har fått tilbake fiske-avataren.

Noe nytt i Danmark?

Premium Chessgames Member
  moronovich: God aften igen !

Gruer for en restaurering af vores hus(vi er 20 andelsboliger,i forlængelse af hinanden),hvor de næste 3-4-5 uger kan blive ret hårde.Ellers var det jættecool at vores fodbolddamer gik i finalen efter en stor indsats her til aften.Meget fortjent. Og så bliver det spændende at se om Magnus
kan finde hans A-game igen i St Luis !?

Og hvordan går det i Norge !?

De bedste hilsner fra -moro-.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Bureaucrat: Oppussing er aldri gøy. Du har min medfølelse!

Imponerende av de danske fotballdamer. Vi ønsker Danmark lykke til på søndag! :-)

I Norge er det lite som skjer for tiden. Det er fortsatt sommer, og samfunnet er i gå-sakte-modus. Jeg har så vidt begynt å jobbe igjen etter ferien, men har ikke helt klart å omstille meg til arbeidslivet igjen. Man blir lat av ferie. Heldigvis er det action i St Louis, og i går klarte den godeste Carlsen å spille et riktig bra parti mot Karjakin! Imponerende. Jeg håper han kan klare å snu den negative trenden i langsjakk med et bra resultat i denne turneringen. Det blir spennende!

Premium Chessgames Member
  moronovich: God aften !

Bare en time til det går løs i St Luis.
Og sikke et parti Magnus diskede op med i går!.Det føltes som den "goe gamle" Carlsen.(Min egen teori er at hans nye kærlighedsliv har kostet på skakkontoen).

Jeg håber du finder din mojo igen efter ferien.Men jeg genkender,at det kan være svært efter gå-sakte-modus,som jeg i øvrigt holder meget af.Skulle ideelt set være sådan hele året :)

Med ønsket om en go tur til St Luis og en fin weekend !

Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: Thank you <Bureaucrat> for two excellent posts in my forum.

I will respect them by putting some thought into them, before I reply.

Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: My response to this post:

thegoodanarchist chessforum (kibitz #341)

is this:


... my assumption has been that human rights have no meaning without the existence of states and governments.>

I disagree that human rights have no meaning without the existence of government. This is because rights are not derived from the existence of government.

I strongly agree with the USA Founding Fathers (FFs):

<We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their <<<<<Creator>>>>> with certain unalienable Rights,>

Yes, EXACTLY! This TRUTH is/should be self-evident. Rights are endowed by our creator, not our creation (government).


I have always thought of the existence of human rights as dependent on the existence of <states>.>

I agree that the existence of <states> plays a key role in human rights. What role? Not to create our rights, mind you, but to *defend* them from violation.

Again from our FFs:

< secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...>

Again, exactly right! Thank you, Thomas Jefferson! What a true American hero!

The main purpose of government is to defend the rights of its citizens, which already existed before creation of the government itself.

Response is also in my forum here:

thegoodanarchist chessforum (kibitz #350)

Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: <Aug-04-17 Bureaucrat: (continued)>

I have edited your continuation for clarity in my response. I also have two parts.

Part 1:


<tga: I can be alone on a tropical island. Free to speak my mind... I don't need government to *provide* that.>

True. But you are also free to collect food, cultivate crops... (i.e. the equivalent of economic rights)...

Do you think civil and political rights existed <before> the formation of modern states, while social and economic rights did not?>


What you call economic rights, such as collecting food and water, cultivating crops, hunting animals, I consider subsistence. These activities are included in our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

<Civilization and the rise of states curbed some (or most) people's economic and civic freedoms in return for "protection" by the state.>

This is another way of saying that, in order to live in harmony with other people, everyone has to make compromises. So freedom of speech does NOT include the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for example.

<Thus, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly gained <value> (in comparison to your tropical island), because it would allow people to challenge the power of the state. That is why dictatorships always restrict freedom of speech.>

That is an interesting perspective. Thank you for sharing it.

<The Universal Declaration of Human rights emphasises the obligation of states (i.e. governments and state institutions) to protect human rights of citizens.>

So far all of the rights we have discussed are exercised by the individual, with his or her own internal motive force. Free speech, freedom to collect food & water, etc.

<It includes healthcare, social security, and equality before the law as fundamental human rights>

Social security needs further clarification as to what you mean by it. Equality before the law is a self-evident right.

However, healthcare is unlike any of the others discussed so far.

What if NO ONE wanted to become a doctor or a dentist or a nurse?

Then how do you provide healthcare without compelling someone to become a doctor or a dentist or a nurse without depriving other people of their liberty?

<...alongside civil and political freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. You argue that some of those rights are not rights at all, but <services> proviced for the citizens.>


<However, when services are <necessary> in order to protect the rights of the citizens, I don't see how useful or important that distinction is.>

Really? You don't? To me it is THE MOST USEFUL distinction.

Once healthcare is declared a right, then the government is compelled to provide national health care. It no longer becomes debatable politically.

That means all citizens are suddenly faced with the financial burden of providing universal healthcare, without any say in the matter! The entire issue is removed from discussion, and the political will of one group becomes utterly victorious and is imposed (without recourse) on all political opposition, who are utterly defeated on the issue.

But my money is the same as my time, which is limited. I get income from selling my time, along with my skills, to an employer. So a portion of my limited time on this earth is then converted to limited money, which I can use for my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

And that is the situation until socialism wins on an issue, and declares healthcare (for example) a right, and my time/money is confiscated by a fascist state without my consent nor representation, because it is a "right" and so even my elected representatives cannot oppose it!

Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: Part 2:



For you to think that the time and efforts of OTHER PEOPLE exist for YOU to help yourself to, at your whim, IS FASCISM.>

Wow! That's some statement. Isn't that exactly what government services are for, to employ people whose job it is to provide services for anyone entitled to receive those services? If society decides that it's the people's right to have access to free healthcare (in the meaning, paid for through taxes and run by the state)..., it's not like the doctors are free to decide whether to do their job or not. They will have an obligation to treat anyone in need of treatment.>

Yes, of course! And this is EXACLTY why our USA FFs created a constitution, with a Bill of Rights, and a very specific process for amending the Constitution. And, I will add, a small government frame work in understanding of these very issues.

To have the government in the first place, you have to have some intrusion in the lives of private citizens, but amending the Constitution was made difficult to ensure that government did not run amok in making every little thing into a "right".

And so I ask you, who the hell are the people who wrote the <Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 25:>

I didn't vote for them. They don't run America. Who the hell are they to tell me how *they* will spend my time/money? Especially without going through the legal process of amending the LAWS of MY country, as agreed upon by the founders of the country?

Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: As for the debate tactic, here is some analysis by Ben Shapiro.

Premium Chessgames Member
  WannaBe: Play the Race Card, worked for probably last 30 years.
Feb-20-18  Nisjesram: Valued and respected rogoff kibitzer :
1)yesterday , I refuted omv argument - once again.

2)earlier , <big pawn> used to say that god of omv argument is same as god of classical theism - Abrahamic god. And yesterday, <big pawn> , in effect , admitted that that was not so that god of omv argument may die one day and god of omv argument is not running affairs of world and world is running spontaneously on its own without any intervention/oversight.

3)I urge you people to ask <big pawn> to provide a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to following three questions :

Question no 1 : may god of omv argument die one day ? Just a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer please.

Question no 2 : is god of omv argument running the affairs of world ? A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer please?

Question no 3: does omv argument imply that it is not possible that world is running spontaneously on its own without intervention/supervision/oversight ? A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer please.

Thank you


Feb-22-18  Nisjesram: <big pawn> has given good explanation about basics of teachings of Jesus . I would like to say some about advanced teachings of Jesus.

2)well, I have presented a theory - that 'locus of omv , was created at the same time that universe was created and is not timeless i.e. it will dissolve/die if/when universe dissolves/dies - it has beginning and end , it is not timeless. More so , it has no say in running affairs of universe. Universe runs spontaneously on its own without any intervention/supervision/oversight.

And obviously it is not creator of universe either - it was created at the time universe was created.

Definition of classical theism as provided by <big pawn> has god as timeless and creator of universe. So, omv stands refuted.

3)this is a well known theory. In fact , many scholars including David godman believe that that is the correct interpretation of teachings of Jesus. Like this : 1)timeless source of universe is not 'personal god' but impersonal Absolute. 2)Absolute is locus of 'Brahman' which runs affairs of universe spontaneously. 3)when universe dissolves , Brahman dissolves and when universe is created Brahman is created 4)Absolute is eternal/timeless. 5)Absolute is continuously supplying some 'spiritual energy/light' (which is neither matter nor energy - something spiritual) and if that 'spiritual light' is not supplied , universe will collapse.

4) all those details are not needed for omv debate purpose.

Only thing that matters is a locus for omv which is not timeless and so on.

Here, people don't even understand even the basics of teachings of Jesus that <big pawn> explaining in his forum, so obviously I don't expect them to understand the advanced details.

Even <big pawn> had no clue what Absolute was let alone knowing the difference between 'personal god' and Absolute in detail/depth.

I had introduced <big pawn> for the first time to the 'concept' of Absolute and he was completely clueless. Later on I had provided some links on philosophy to study Absolute.

I had provided links on teachings of Jesus too in the rogoff forum, however, obviously , neither <big pawn> nor his mates are ready for that yet.

They all at very junior level.

Nonetheless, one should not have difficulty understanding that imv argument is nonsense and stands refuted without knowing teaching of Jesus in advance.

Let me know if anyone has any questions or needs any help

Feb-24-18  Nisjesram: <awn: <jessicafischerqueen: <Nitwit Jam Head> Will you please cease your inane, rambling, profoundly uneducated spamming. It is irritating beyond comprehension. You are and have always been the most addle minded nitwit ever to post at this website. Permanent ignore. Hopefully enough will follow suit so you get auto blocked.>

I knew someone was going to say this sooner or later, and it is spot on. <Tga> is not going to be happy that <Nizzle> left his dirty toilet paper all over his forum.>

I am leaving forever from today (as regular poster. I may post under special circumstances which I detail below) , because instead of thanks , I get insults.

I showed <big pawn> how stupid omv argument was , I also showed him that he did not know teachings of jesus or philosophy, he did not know difference between 'personal god' and Absolute (he did not even know what Absolute is till I mentioned this 'concept' to him)

And instead of thanks , I get such insults.

Today is my last day on as regular poster.Now, I may post here only if someone insults me or thanks me or needs my help in physics/maths/economics etc. Or if I need to inform people that johnlspouge has endorsed my refutation of stupid omv argument.

Thank you

Feb-24-18  Nisjesram: <amp: One of the problems with forums is that owners have a perpetual power of deletion. Sometimes posts are deleted which leave a string of incomprehensible posts>

True, <offramp>.

See , what is happening is that <thegoodanarchist> is playing a farce which I explain by his recent action - he commented on one of my posts in rogoff forum and said that I made an empty/bald assertion with circular logic etc. Now, that is usual stupidity of <thegoodanarchist> - the post he commented on was one of a series of posts and evidence/proof/test of the assertion mentioned by me was in other posts of mine. He does this all the time and then posts insulting remarks about me in his forum and implicitly invites <big pawn> (who is most obnoxious/notrious troll of this site) to insult me in his forum as well.

So, this time I posted all of my posts of the thread that he commented on in his forum so that he does not miss any - you see , in rogoof forum , so many people posting and therefore all posts of one thread get scattered and perhaps that is why <the good anarchist> missed other posts of mine and made a fool of himself. That is why I posted all those posts in his forum so that he does not miss any and does not make a fool of himself again.

I have always tried to help <thegoodanarchist> in physics/maths, teachings of jesus , spirituality and philosophy - all those areas where <thegoodanarchist> is very weak and almost always makes fool of himself.

And instead of thanks I get insults. That is why I decided to leave forever where ungrateful idiots like <thegoodanarchist> and <big pawn> keep on posting nonsense all the time.

From now on , I will post only under special circumstances.

Thank you

Feb-26-18  Nisjesram: <bureaucrat> , I am leaving this site forever.

Before leaving, I would like to ask you a question, if you please.

Thank you.


Premium Chessgames Member
  Bureaucrat: Sure. What's your question?
Feb-27-18  Nisjesram: <bureaucrat: Sure. What's your question?>

I am posting on Rogoff.

Please read there.

Thank you

Feb-28-18  Nisjesram: Reposted from rogoff , some words beeped out out of respect for <bureaucrat> , input sought :

<bureaucrat> ,<rogge> and other sane members of this forum.

Once , this is over and we officially declare that omv argument has been refuted, I have a few things in mind :

1)last time <bureaucrat> had said something like this about posts on omv "very good posts <nisjesram> and <johnlspiuge> .."

A lot of time has passed since. I will explain refutation in such simple manner, once refutation is official, for everyone and in such a concise manner - I promise everyone will understand. And you guys will exclaim "such a stupid theory ,omv argument , and such simple refutation . why it took so long ?". Because of tricks of <big pawn>. I will explain.

2)I may write a comedy script also featuring elite *$#@%$ of <big pawn> like <thegoodanarchist> ,<tpstar> , <diceman>... And perhaps , over the time , term 'elite posters' in this forum would be synonym for an insult like '$@%#$@ and #@$%&@"

Thank you

Feb-28-18  Nisjesram: Any inputs on above post , if you please, <bureaucrat> and others.

Thank you


Premium Chessgames Member
  Bureaucrat: <Any inputs on above post , if you please, <bureaucrat> and others.>

Nah, I haven't been paying that much attention to the OMV debate lately, and it's kind of difficult to keep track of it anyway, between all the posts about guns, percentages and whatnot. Better keep it on Rogoff, though, as my forum is not the right place. Thanks.

Feb-28-18  Nisjesram: So, <bureaucrat> , what exactly are you saying ?

If and when omv argument is 'officially' refuted, do you want simplified explanation of refutation or not?

Let me understand you clearly.

Thank you

Feb-28-18  Nisjesram: I am done on this site.

May not see your response, if you choose to give any.

Take care , <bureaucrat>

Thank you.


Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 34)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 34 OF 34 ·  Later Kibitzing>

Daily puzzles, news, and more!
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific user and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged in to
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC