< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 125 OF 125 ·
|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.|
|May-12-17|| ||Knight13: <TheAlchemist> Just finished playing Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 yesterday. Female Shepard, Paragon (mostly), Sole Survivor, Colonist, Infiltrator (both games), no romance in ME1, with Garrus in ME2. Really disliked the Cerberus bull*$@!% in ME2. Also, too many recruiting missions, not enough story-progression missions. ME2 felt a lot shorter than ME1 despite there being more hours of gameplay. Wasn't a fan of being forced into missions in ME2, either. However, ME2 had better atmosphere, deeper characters, and was overall more emotionally engaging.|
|May-13-17|| ||TheAlchemist: <Knight13> That's a really good summary, the thing is that they went to being more character focused in ME2 (that's why there are so many squadmates, each with their recruitment and loyalty mission), whereas ME1 was more about the story (and an intro to the universe), so I suppose it depends on which you prefer, I think both were done well overall. I still tend toward liking ME1 a bit more even now (I wasn't as bothered by the gameplay, I even think they went too far in removing some things in ME2), but each has its good and bad points. The Cerberus railroading wasn't really executed well, I think it could have been done better (after all, they were the only faction that believed you). I agree about the characters/atmosphere, also the voice acting was better overall which helps too.|
Anyway, judging by what you said, if you plan on playing ME3 you'll probably find it a mixed bag, it has some of the highest and lowest points of the entire series.
|May-14-17|| ||Knight13: <TheAlchemist> I didn't trust The Trustworthy Man at all. I suspect that he's the one who gave the Collectors the location of Shepard's Normandy SR-1 in the beginning of the game so that he could rebuild Shepard with the Lazarus Project to use as an asset to accomplish his own goals. The game didn't explain how the Collectors found Shepard at the beginning of the game, though. Didn't trust Miranda Lawson throughout the entire game either, even after the loyalty mission. And I just saw her last week as a waitress in a Steak n' Shake. Looked exactly like her. |
Shepard was pretty charismatic, much more so in ME2 than ME1, at least the Paragon version. Shepard did come across as someone people would follow anywhere and give their lives to. If Paragon Shepard was real, I'd fight and die for him or her. Garrus, too. So wasn't hard to choose who to romance in ME2. Guess they did very well on these two characters.
Won't be playing ME3 in the near future 'cause it's not on Steam and I don't like EA's Origin inconvenience-everyone-to-grab-more-cash @!!$.
|May-15-17|| ||TheAlchemist: <Knight13> Yeah, unfortunately some things are never made clear throughout the games or are only hinted at. But about Shepard's body <spoiler alert> it was the Shadow Broker (it's explained in the DLC Lair of the Shadow Broker and in the comic ME Redemption). Again from the DLC, it's mentioned there by Liara that the Shadow Broker knew about the Reapers and was looking for a way to survive, so he made a deal with the Collectors. Whether it's really that simple I don't know, but the Collectors were definitely interested in Shepard. As far as I know, the extent of TIM's involvement leading up to the attack is never mentioned. It is possible, though, the Collectors would have attacked regardless, this way he knew when and where.|
Some of what happened between ME1 and ME2, various characters' backstories etc. is featured in the many comics they released (I didn't read them, I only know they exist - the summaries are on the ME Wiki).
There are also many novels written throughout the years (by lead writer Drew Karpyshin and others), but from what I understand, since I didn't read them, they are only peripherally related to the games. E.g. one describes how Anderson was betrayed by Saren in more detail, another how he came into contact with Sovereign, one of the major characters (Paul Grayson) is only mentioned in passing by Tali on Freedom's Progress (it was about how Cerberus attacked the Flotilla when they were sheltering a human biotic).
BTW, about Miranda, if you complete her loyalty mission and take her to the final boss, she will quit if you decide to blow up the base, so there's that.
|May-15-17|| ||Knight13: <TheAlchemist> The DLC wasn't on Steam. :( And I did blow up the base because I didn't trust Cerberus and TIM. I don't remember Miranda quitting Cerberus in the main game, though, so it must've happened afterwards. She just told Shepard on the ship after the mission that she thought it was the right decision. I wonder if she thinks wearing heels into a firefight is a a good decision.|
|May-16-17|| ||TheAlchemist: <Knight13> No, I meant when you decide whether to blow up the base, when TIM tries to convince you to reconsider, he will order Miranda to stop you and she will refuse and say she quits (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj4...). I only wish there was a "Whoops... aaaaand we're out" in there :-)|
|May-16-17|| ||Knight13: <TheAlchemist> Oh, I see. I didn't take her to the last battle, so I missed that cutscene. |
Also, the Reapers should branch out to other galaxies if they care so much about "managing" advanced organic lifeforms. All they need are a dozen or so Reapers to wipe out everything in the Milky Way anyway, and there are thousands of them.
|May-18-17|| ||Knight13: <TheAlchemist> One question: Commander Shepard, is the Insanity difficulty mode of ME1 and ME2 worth playing?|
|May-19-17|| ||TheAlchemist: <Knight13> In ME1 not so much, since most organic enemies just spam Immunity and it gets a bit annoying (also, you can only unlock it in the third playthrough, one in Veteran and one in Hardcore, so I don't know if you've the patience for it - well, unless you hack your config files). In ME2 I think it's a bit more challenging and I'd recommend it there. For both I'd say to try at least Hardcore, since it gives enemies more protection, which makes using biotics a bit harder.|
But for both I'd say they aren't that hard even on Insanity, in some games I find the highest difficulties way too much, here not really. In ME1 you struggle until you're level 20 or so when you start getting tier II equipment drops (and the Krogan Battlemaster on Therum is a huge difficulty spike if you go for Liara immediatly), in ME2 I think only Horizon is really difficult.
BTW, if you'd like a higher FOV, there is a hack for that as well:
And remember to always back up your files :-)
|May-19-17|| ||Knight13: <TheAlchemist> I've only finished ME1 and ME2 on Veteran difficulty. I guess I'll try Insanity difficulty for ME2. I rarely revived or used my squadmates in ME2, and I had them on auto level up. Can't do that in Insanity and get away with it, I'm guessing.|
I don't use hacks or any type of mod for any game. I like to play the games as the developers intended.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 125 OF 125 ·
A free online guide presented by Chessgames.com