< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 124 OF 124 ·
|Jan-13-17|| ||Abdel Irada: ∞
You may want to attend to the <Memorable Quotes> page again. It seems to have become a spillover pond for <Kenneth S Rogoff>, with political adversaries arguing over the quotes.
|Jan-14-17|| ||TheAlchemist: <Abdel Irada> I know, but I guess I waited a bit too long (again) and now one of the posts is nominated for a Caissar award. So I have to leave that and the post that sparked the response alone to not destroy the context it was made in. I don't know if it was a troll nomination :-), but I guess it's on me for being lazy (again).|
|Jan-14-17|| ||Abdel Irada: ∞
Is it possible, I wonder, for a post to both violate posting guidelines and win a Caissar?
In any other year, I'd say no ....
|Mar-06-17|| ||User not found: Uros my old pal, my buddy, my partner in crime, my friend.. |
If I post something on the MQ forum and somebody follows me there it's hardly my fault but I'll still take the blame, I don't care. No disrespect to you personally, you're a nice fella but if you can show me what I've done wrong I'll never post there again? Just ban me anyways, you'd think I was quoting memorable quotes or something which is obviously not what that page is for.
|Mar-06-17|| ||TheAlchemist: <Unf> I won't ban anyone yet, but sometimes you give the impression like you're trying to instigate an argument or at least use it as a way to get a cheap shot in. Not all of your posts are like that, but some have been. The one I've quoted about Sugar Dom is an example, where you post a quote and then proceed to take shots at him. Even if I think the quote itself is unremarkable, I would let it stand if not for your follow-up.|
I know politics can be divisive, but sometimes I get the impression (and I may be wrong) it gets taken way too seriously around here. I would encourage political humour otherwise, but if this is what it leads leads to...
|Mar-06-17|| ||User not found: If you truly believe that first paragraph you just posted above then just put me on Iggy Azalea. I don't mean to be funny with you Uros you're a decent fella but if you can't see the pattern of.. |
2.Someone (no names mentioned of course) follows me.
3.I notice days/weeks later and reply.
..then just block me from posting there.
|Mar-06-17|| ||TheAlchemist: <Unf> I'm just saying it's how it appears sometimes. I can't really know anyone's motivations, but MQ really isn't the place to try and get a rise out of someone.|
Regarding the Trump quote you mentioned over at MQ, I don't mind the quote per se, what I don't want is a another @#$%storm like with kkderek. And I worry about a repeat if you'll make posts in the vein of
Again, #NotAll, but at least leave those jabs in the follow-ups out, they really add nothing and that's all I would really like. No comments, no replies, etc. (and this goes for everyone, even though I've always allowed the odd exception).
I feel it's not really my place to offer unsolicited advice, but I just don't want MQ to be used as a stick to poke others with, so maybe avoid posting things that are likely to cause melodrama? I'm not saying it's your fault, but I'm sure that by now you've seen who or what is likely to do so.
|Mar-06-17|| ||TheAlchemist: Anyway, it's midnight already so good night (I'm getting old :-)), I'll try and reply if needed tomorrow afternoon.|
|Mar-06-17|| ||User not found: <what I don't want is a another @#$%storm like with kkderek.>|
And guess who followed me there but under a different username!! See for yourself, I've only just noticed that myself. Yes... 5 years later and he's <still> obsessed with me!
Anyways I'm not bothered. Like I said you're a nice bloke but you need to open your eyes if you think I've caused a problem <this time> around as <User not found>. And you may as well call me Mark, everybody else does!
And if I aren't banned and I see Trumpesque worthy posts they're going to the MQ forum regardless of who posts them. I'm not going to spend another 2c let alone $20 to open my own forum on a site where the owner is too cowardly to say anything publicly when his favourites commit internet atrocities, lol #DontAsk.
|Mar-06-17|| ||User not found: If it's midnight where you are you must be in a warmer climate than the UK? Please don't say Spain or I'll be very jealous, loo. Always thought you were American but that would put you between 5 and 12 hours behind us, not in front. Okay mate Peace out :)|
|Mar-07-17|| ||TheAlchemist: <Mark> Ha, I wouldn't make a good American, I think. Actually I'm from Slovenia, though with Melania in the White House, who knows, it might even be an advantage :-)|
|Mar-07-17|| ||User not found: <TheAlchemist: <Mark> Ha, I wouldn't make a good American, I think>|
Even Americans don't make good Americans now Uros, you see who they elected!? I thought #Kanye2020 was a big joke.. I gotta be honest and say I wouldn't put it past the American people to vote for him. I'm serious! Can you imagine Piers Morgan as Prime Minister in the UK? Neither can I and 99.9999% of the English people but at least he has a brain. Trump doesn't. Scary time for the world.
|Mar-10-17|| ||TheAlchemist: As promised, the (more or less) whole thread on User: Memorable Quotes from mid-February on that sparked another (hopefully last) debate there. I will leave a few of the quoted posts because I find nothing wrong with them (the rationale is explained somewhere below), if anyone does you are free to complain <HERE>:|
<big pawn> on <kenneth rogoff> page, Feb. 12, 2017:
<Point is, you've got no reason to say that it's half and half just because that's how the election turned out.>
User: Abdel Irada:
<Bobsterman3000: I didn't say Tomi was "fake news". I just said I've been known to watch Fox with the sound off, for obvious reasons.>
User: Abdel Irada:
<Big Pawn: Trump is making it 1955 all over again and he's doing it FAST. This is why the people love him.>
<Abdel> and <saffuna> please leave the political issues off this page. I understand your take on unintentionally funny, but (for the most part) this page has been an oasis from the ill will everywhere else on the site. And how hard do you think it'd be for someone else to quote either of you?
I've posted one--count 'em, one!--political post here, and with no comment. I just thought it was too hilarious to let pass.
If they want to quote me, fine. They'll never find one as ridiculous as the one I posted above.
That means on this particular page, going back to September.
If they want to quote me, fine. They'll never find one as ridiculous as the one I posted above.>
Trump's win makes it especially ridiculous.
saffuna being, "in-touch" with America.
User: Abdel Irada:
<OCF>: I am reproducing memorable posts without comment or disparagement.
That is the purpose of this page.
<john barleycorn> and <big pawn> have also re-posted political posts on this page, and they didn't draw your attention, <ocf>. Trying to figure out why.
User: User not found:
<Big Mohammed Ali>
<UNF>, I used to box, do Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, I can run 5 miles, <<work on the heavy bag for 15 rounds straight>>, I'm 6'3" and 220 pounds.>>
LMAO 😂 😂 😂
Even Mohammed Ali the great couldn't do ^^^
User: Colonel Mortimer: <OhioChessFan: <Abdel> and <saffuna> please leave the political issues off this page.>
And yet on this very page..
<OhioChessFan: <diceman> on the Rogoff page about Obamacare: <So brilliant, so intelligent, that it needed to be “paused” because America couldnt handle its intellect all in one sitting.>
There's a word for this kind of behaviour - it beings with an H and ends with an Y
User: diceman: <Colonel Mortimer:
<diceman> on the Rogoff page about Obamacare:
<So brilliant, so intelligent, that it needed to be “paused” because America couldnt handle its intellect all in one sitting.>>
Nothing to do with politics!
I just happen to be eminently quotable.
For the record, I liked saffuna's post,
because it was sooooooo wrong.
User: User not found: <OhioChessFan: <BP: As I said before, <hmm> is the American version of <unf>. A couple of cranky girls.> Nah, <HMM> is occasionaly right, and sometimes flashes some humor. <ladyboy gaga> is a humorless idiot and the worst thing that ever happened to this site>
Judas Iscariot calling someone a ladyboy (!?) memorable because he changed his tune ever since DD posted paedophile like pictures of my niece and got suspended from here and work and <still> can't open his forum of racist homophobic hatred... Don't believe me ask him yourself :)
User: Abdel Irada:
<johnlspouge: < <User not found> wrote: If Donald Trump was the answer then how stupid was the question!? >
User: Abdel Irada:
<zanzibar: Gack! Not enough to spill over on a player's page, now it's here too?
I'm having a Rogoffover moment.>
We all are.
This page has now turned into <<Kenneth S Rogoff> Part II>. The gang's not *all* here, but I think we've got a quorum.
User: diceman: <I'm having a Rogoffover moment.
<We all are.>>
Liberal whining and crying is ubiquitous.
User: offramp: I suppose we all know that Kieseritzky had poo-poo that was harder than diamonds. As part of a discussion on that phenomena we asked the opinion of a medical professional:
Lionel Adalbert Bagration Felix Kieseritzky (kibitz #88)
<rgr459: a a physician, my preferred question to assess stool consistency is: if you stool on the floor, and drop a quarter in it, will it splash, stick, or bounce off?>
User: Abdel Irada:
<offramp: I suppose we all know that Kieseritzky had poo-poo that was harder than diamonds.>
I didn't know that, but now, thanks to you, I do. And I will probably remember it for the rest of my life in excruciating detail, at least whenever I play the King's Gambit. :-S
User: diceman: <offramp: I suppose we all know that Kieseritzky had poo-poo that was harder than diamonds.>
Surprising he didn't play the 'stonewall” more often.
User: User not found: <SugarDom: Trump is one smart fella... >
Said seriously without a gun pointed at his head! After the infamous night of the dumb tweets t'boot!
User: Big Pawn: <MarkFinan: I was seeing /breaking up with someone at the time (but I loved him ;) ) and you know what blokes are like?> TheFocus chessforum (kibitz #1116)
No, <markfinan>, tell us what blokes are like when you are breaking up with them.
I normally wouldn't post that here and would save it for rogoff, but I noticed that this page is unmoderated now I'm going to use it as a dumping ground.
User: Keyser Soze: Swell...
User: OhioChessFan: Sigh.
User: TheAlchemist: <dumping ground>
Yes, please, we could really use more of that @#$% here. Anyway, since some continue to use it as a such I may have to close it down temporarily until you all migrate somewhere else (or back), though that's certainly not ideal. So any other ideas? Obviously the pattern will continue to repeat itself, it's been going on for more than two years now (albeit with different protagonists).
As I've said before, this page needed no moderation for almost 9 years. Now it gets regularly littered with Rogoff @#$%*&!# etc. That used to be your outlet, so what changed?
User: TheAlchemist: I could also put certain people on ignore and prevent them from posting here, but that is another thing I would really like to avoid if possible.
User: Stonehenge: < I could also put certain people on ignore>
User: OhioChessFan: <So any other ideas? >
My first thought is that it's a little bit of the broken window theory. My second thought is that people are a little unclear on what constitutes a broken window.
As for Rogoff, I think that's a bit of a subset of a bigger issue-the idea that some inane comment is funny. Well, yeah, it can be, but that doesn't strike me as in the spirit of this page. There are some really funny comments on Rogoff, partisan though they may be. It's the repeating comments not because they are intrinsically funny but for the sake of mockery that seems a bit out of place here.
I don't know. Just rambling.
User: TheAlchemist: And if people really need an outlet, you can even use my own forum, I don't care what gets posted there, since it's not "thematic".
<Stonehenge> I'll see if people offer any other (better) ideas. People on ignore may still contribute through "third parties" if they so wish.
Sadly I will have to curate this in some way or another. I've been delaying it too long so a lot of this is on me for not nipping it in the bud.
<OCF> I actually have no problem with political humour as such, if people didn't take it too seriously. Surely all views can be made fun of without people taking it personally.
Regarding mockery, again it's a fine line. You may be quoting some unintentionally funny/stupid mistake - I know I've made many - provided they can laugh at themselves, otherwise it can again spur an endless argument. But mocking for the sake of mocking (e.g. your political "opponents") seems out of place and against what I've envisioned this to be.
Although, now that I think about it, we were violating <But mocking for the sake of mocking (e.g. your political "opponents") seems out of place and against what I've envisioned this to be.> quite often when it came to AJ - not to mention the posting guideline #3, so I'm actually being a giant hypocrite right now.
Anyway, I would appreciate any suggestions.
User: TheAlchemist: More spam incoming.
Thoughts on some recent and still present submissions:
1) <If Donald Trump was the answer then how stupid was the question!?>
I think this shouldn't be a problem for anyone, even if you don't find it funny personally.
2) <Point is, you've got no reason to say that it's half and half just because that's how the election turned out.>
Now this is about another user. It is a part of a much larger post, I read through it and you could maybe argue it was taken out of context, since he did substantiate it with a few points, but I would still classify it as "unintentionally funny" and hopefully not a problem.
3) <<SugarDom: Trump is one smart fella... >
Said seriously without a gun pointed at his head! After the infamous night of the dumb tweets t'boot!>
More or less a clear example of a post that has little to no value here, not to mention it isn't even really a quote from someone but a jab at them.
4) Various posts that are part of a discussion or just lone comments about other posts have no place here.
Still, these are just my opinions and I'm no better arbiter on what is "appropriate" or "offensive" than anyone, in fact I am very much against the notion of such vague and subjective terms that are just a veil for censorship and pushing certain agendas.
If anything, we are limited by the posting guidelines but even they can be unclear at times. And again, who gets to judge what constitutes a violation? CG?
That is why I've relied on "gentlemanly" conduct thus far and it has worked well until recently.
Hmm, is there's something relevant in the terms of service, perhaps? I admit I have never paid it much attention.
User: diceman: <TheAlchemist:
As I've said before, this page needed no moderation for almost 9 years. Now it gets regularly littered with Rogoff @#$%*&!# etc. That used to be your outlet, so what changed?>
Democrats lost an election.
User: tpstar: <TheAlchemist> You have done a great job with this page from the start, so keep trusting your own judgment.
In truth, the site tension has gone way down, first when the <LIFE Master> took himself out, second after the Wesley So page turmoil, and third because the chess world remains vigilant against the global threat of Carlsen Fanboyism.
<what changed?> Social media!
User: saffuna: How about making the rule that ONLY the memorable quote can be posted, along with the name of the poster?
No commentary allowed.
User: TheAlchemist: <saffuna> If you look at the top of the profile (under <IMPORTANT NOTICE>), it has been a "rule" (or at least strongly encouraged) since the very start.
Thing is, I never had to apply it save for 1 or 2 occasions in the past.
User: Big Pawn: <saffuna: <john barleycorn> and <big pawn> have also re-posted political posts on this page, and they didn't draw your attention, <ocf>. Trying to figure out why.>
Is this a memorable quote or just commentary?
<Dice: Democrats lost an election>
That's what changed. I've been watching this page for a long time now and it's become a dumping ground for the <British Drama Queen> and his <Heavy friends>. I was waiting for it to be cleaned up because it used to be a pretty good page. But the moderator of this page hasn't done anything to stop it from becoming a dumping ground, so I just figured he condoned it. Therefore, I started dumping on it yesterday.
Of course, I can just be put on ignore and he can continue to let the others dump as they have been. I think I see what is going on here.
This is the new <rogoff page> and I think I like it like that.
User: TheAlchemist: <Big Pawn> I agree I haven't done enough and fully accept the blame, but I don't agree I have been partisan. If anything, it was the people you mentioned that were deleted the most often (and even banned for a while).
In the past my approach to off topic posts has mostly been to let things die down and then come in and do a sweep, which proved ineffective (again).
The silver lining is that I at least have some motivation to hang around more regularly now.
And as a bit of heads up, I will allow the conversation to continue for a while yet if anyone would like to add anything and then archive it onto my forum and purge the whole thing here (along with many preceding posts).
User: saffuna: <big pawn> It's a comment. <ocf> pointed out leftists who had posted political comments here, but not similar posts by righties.
User: TheAlchemist: <User not found> You are really being counterproductive :-)
Anyway, I think I have done this in the past once, but I could "formally institute" an option for the quotee to appeal for the removal of a post if it would help solve controversial situations. Not something I'm really keen on, though.
User: Big Pawn: We've got a place to throw eggs already at the <rogoff> forum. All the egg throwers know where to go when they have new eggs and a hankering to throw them. It's a shame that this page has to be ruined, as if there isn't enough egging going on at <rogoff>.
I like this page, but the bar should be set pretty hi I think. I used to come here once in a while and read the witty quotes and there were a lot of them one after another. Now it's just another page that acts like a junk drawer.
I'm glad you're going to clean it up.
User: User not found: This forum <was> hilarious but you have to go back to 2005-6 ish when Mort (and AJ) was just getting started. I'm sorry <Alchemist> you can delete this one I'm just making an observation and yearning for the days of yonder, long before I even knew what an internet was, lol.
In all seriousness I only just noticed all the follow up posts, my apologies for those people :)
User: TheAlchemist: Well, there was quite a lot of enthusiasm all around, certainly (and a whole lot of @#$%posting, to be honest). Mostly you'll notice that many of the people who used to contribute back then aren't around anymore.
User: User not found: <Mostly you'll notice that many of the people who used to contribute back then aren't around anymore.>
There's only one person missing that I'm aware of Uros, all the others just have different usernames. Goldsby, for all his faults, was a comedians wet dream. He's no longer with us... Oh he's alive and begging, just not on ceegee, lol. Probably the smartest move that man ever made, I might join him in exile ;)
Peace to you Uros I know some people must get on your nerves (including myself) but if you look at my last post I wasn't wanting attention, I was just laughing that someone called Herr Trump a "Smart guy!". Even you must admit that that's <memorable>!
User: Abdel Irada:
<TheAlchemist>: If you want my counsel, I'd suggest that you start by simply enforcing the rule that this page is for quotations, not commentary and arguments about the quotations.
If someone says something inane enough to be posted here for mockery, he has no one to blame but himself. (But that doesn't mean he can't take revenge the *right* way: Wait for his mockers to make their own verbal blunders and post those.)
We might still end up with a bit of an arms race of quote-counterquote, but I think that could actually be a fun exercise, to see if people can remain patient and good-natured and follow the rules.
Meanwhile, it might be just as well to delete all posts that are just commentary on other posts.
User: Big Pawn: <Abdel Irada: If someone says something inane enough to be posted here for mockery, he has no one to blame but himself>
<Abdel Irada: I will put no one on ignore for exercising his right to free speech>
<Abdel Irada: I have tentatively removed <OhioChessFan> from my ignore list>
User: diceman: <Abdel Irada: I will put no one on ignore for exercising his right to free speech>
<Abdel Irada: I have tentatively removed <OhioChessFan> from my ignore list>
The gift that keeps on giving!
|Mar-10-17|| ||TheAlchemist: Well, that was a pain. Hopefully an all-round reminder of why I shouldn't slack off :-).|
|Mar-10-17|| ||perfidious: My thanks for removing the political detritus which had sullied Memorable Quotes for a time.|
|Apr-07-17|| ||Memorable Quotes: Archived
<<Apr-04-17 User: Abdel Irada>: ∞
A third hypothesis holds that it resulted from a collaboration — a "marriage of Heaven and Hell" — to construct a game to represent the moral struggle for mankind.
(What is little known is that although he is the inferior player — it being notoriously difficult to defeat omniscient opponents — Satan has received the odds of pawn and move. God wins in the end, but first He must overcome the devil's initiative, while always closely defending His vulnerable light squares on e6 and f7.)
And there's a fourth hypothesis: that chess evolved over a long period of time from simpler board-game forms. However, chess creationists point to gaps in the fossil record in the early pre-Chaturanga period, while Young Game creationists deny that the pre-Chaturanga period existed.
For the record, I think it's not a bad post, #4 is actually very amusing, but it's technically a discussion, sorry.
|Apr-18-17|| ||Knight13: What country in eastern Europe is the best to live in? I didn't give up my communist citizenship for this #### in the States (you know what I'm talking about).|
|Apr-18-17|| ||TheAlchemist: Haha :-). But ok, seriously, probably the Czech Republic. It seems to have a reasonably healthy economy as far as I've read, although their growth has slowed down a bit in recent times (still in the EU average, while the unemployment rate is one of the lowest), plus there are the beautiful locations, beautiful women, great (and mostly cheap) beer.|
|Apr-18-17|| ||Knight13: <TheAlchemist> No EU, if it can be avoided. They've gotten too authoritarian. How good is your country, by the way (Slovenia)?|
|Apr-19-17|| ||TheAlchemist: <knight13> Well, I don't know, non-EU is a pretty tall order (I assume you don't mean Switzerland, Norway, Iceland etc. and even they have a lot of bilateral agreements and common regulations, I think it will even expand a bit - Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and then very little remains - Bosnia and Albania will probably take longer, Kosovo even more, since it isn't even recognized by all as a potential candidate, while I don't want to speculate on Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova and others, since they aren't even on the "radar").|
Slovenia is a bit of a mixed bag, I'm sad to say. It is a beautiful and geographically diverse country, I think the quality of life is still ok, but it's been stagnating for years after the crisis in 2009. We have a little economic growth now, but I still think we produce too little and too much is focused on selling/reselling, services etc. And even in manufacturing the added value is small compared to many countries to the North and West, so the wages aren't all that great in a lot of the private sector (many work on minimum wage). A lot of people get by only just (I think there aren't many who are very poor, but the safety net is strained), there's a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy, political unwillingness for reform (it would cost too much in the next elections), the public sector is very inefficient, too much corruption, cronyism led by people from the communist times, etc., which leads to a lot of wasted (stolen) government money. Sadly this mentality of quid pro quo, nepotism etc. permeates throughout.
My own situation is not so bad, I live on the coast, where the climate is quite mild and one thing I think we still don't appreciate enough is we are very safe, both regarding violent crime (what is more common are family tragedies) and especially terrorism. Who knows if this will last, though.
I guess it really depends on what you do. If you make a good living it should be pretty great if you don't mind the so-so public sector services.
|Apr-20-17|| ||Knight13: <TheAlchemist> Okay, you know what, non-EU over geographical location (like Eastern Europe). Lots to research, but you gave me a good idea on where to start. Will look into Switzerland and Israel first. Norway and UK are compromised, Iceland is too cold.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 124 OF 124 ·
Take the Premium Membership Tour