< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 67 OF 67 ·
|Oct-17-18|| ||Count Wedgemore: LOL, <dice>..
The irony is that his ilk are the ones that is all internationalist, open-border, etc. For <zanzi> & co. you would think it shouldn't matter which country you come from, huh? But of course, if you disagree with them then suddenly it matters. Suddenly it's America first..
So much hypocrisy guys, it's stunning.
|Oct-17-18|| ||TheAlchemist: <optimal play> It's not ideal the way I acted, I know. It's nothing against you or anyone else, but I won't allow it to become a venue of bickering when that can easily be done anywhere else, especially since it often seems like spillover from other pages.|
When I had a lot of problems with two users some time ago who used it to take shots at each other, one's post would inevitably trigger a reply by the other and then cue in snowball effect. So removing the original was the only way to deal with the situation in those instances.
I don't follow what's going on around here much so even if I cared to I cannot take sides, because I simply don't know enough. But I try to be impartial.
All I can ask is that posts there are made in good faith especially if poking fun of others here. I'm not against that, it comes with the territory with being on the internet, but sometimes I feel I'm left with no other choice than to act as I did now.
|Oct-17-18|| ||optimal play: <TheAlchemist> Perfectly understandable.|
I think the Memorable Quotes forum is terrific and I fully appreciate your concern about keeping the page free from bickering and insults.
A wide variety of quotes are posted there, with varying degrees of wit and cleverness.
Some I find very funny and clever, others not so much, but as long as the forum remains free from the gratuitous opinions of self-appointed critics, it can be a page which is easily perused by interested members, enjoying one quote after another, without having to wade through acrimony and argument.
My latest contribution was made in good faith, as always, and whatever anyone else thought of it, I consider it rather ignorant and ill-mannered of <Zanzibar> to post his unsolicited snarky judgement.
After Zanzy proferred his unwelcome viewpoint, other members understandably told him exactly what they thought of him; his hypocrisy, his double-standards, and just how he is seen at this website.
I chose not to jump in with my own comments since I don't give a hoot about Zanzy's bellyaching, and didn't want to see the MQ page deteriorate any further.
It seems that just as Zanzy ruined Daniel Freeman's Players page he also wanted to ruin the Memorable Quotes page. Therefore I hold no animosity towards you for your decision to erase all those comments, including my original quote.
I would still like to contribute (what I think qualify as) memorable quotes in the future, and hopefully <Zanzibar> will have stopped stalking me by then, and we won't see a repeat of Zanzy's disgraceful behaviour.
|Oct-21-18|| ||optimal play: So anyway, just picking up from my earlier comments regarding the Last Supper; the biblical fundamentalists are obsessed with the Law of Moses
and this is one of the reasons why they see the Last Supper as only a "nice memorial supper".|
The biblical fundamentalists pose the following question-and-answer format to try and justify their faulty viewpoint:
<1. Was the Last Supper conducted during the time the Law of Moses was in effect? I say yes.>
<2. Would eating blood be a sin according to the Law of Moses? I say yes.>
<3. Would Jesus ever break the Law of Moses and encourage others to do so? I say no.>
As a practising Jew, Jesus lived under the Law of Moses, but as Son of God, was not subject to the Law of Moses.
Eating blood was definitely a sin according to the Law of Moses, as was:
Picking heads of grain and eating them on the Sabbath (e.g. Matt 12:1-8, Mark 2:23-28, Luke 6:1-5)
Healing on the Sabbath (e.g. Matt 12:9-14, Luke 13:10-17, John 5:1-47)
Eating with unwashed hands (e.g. Mark 7:1-23, Matt 15:1-11)
Forgiving sins unilaterally and authoritatively (e.g. Matt 9:1-8, John 8:2-11)
So Jesus technically broke the Law of Moses on numerous occasions, although it wasn't done deliberately, just for the sake of breaking the Mosaic Law, but with the purpose of bringing about the Kingdom of God.
Now, as regards the drinking of blood, if the Pharisees and Sadducees had been present at the Last Supper and inspected the bread, they would have found only bread. If they inspected the cup, they would have found only wine.
Despite Jesus solemn pronouncement, the Pharisees and Sadducees would have observed Jesus and his disciples eating only bread and drinking only wine.
Lacking faith and therefore being unaware of the significance of what they were witnessing, they would not have considered Jesus and his disciples to be eating or drinking blood. Thus they would not have accused Jesus or his disciples of contravening the Mosaic Law prohibiting the eating or drinking of blood.
So any way you look at it, the biblical fundamentalists end up at the wrong end of this theological argument.
|Nov-07-18|| ||optimal play: I just noticed that one of my posts has been deleted from the forum of my good friend <playground player>.|
Apparently someone else's post was also deleted but I don't know whose or what it was.
Anyway, a brief summary of the conversation was as follows:
<Nov-03-18 playground player: Is it possible Democrats have no idea how they sound, when they condemn "divisive language"?>
<Nov-04-18 SugarDom: This belong to the Rogoff page.>
<Nov-04-18 optimal play: Out of curiosity I just checked the "search thread" on the Rogoff forum and noticed that <playground player> has never once posted there. There are actually eight pages of comments which include a reference to <playground player> but no comments from <pgp> himself.>
<Nov-05-18 saffuna: <optimal play> Which posters wrote about <playground player> of the Rogoff page?>
<Nov-05-18 playground player: <optimal play> I've looked at those Rogoff posts you mentioned, and gained nothing by it. All they do is call names. That's pretty much the long and short of leftid discourse.>
<Nov-05-18 saffuna: Who posted there about you, <pgp>?>
<Nov-06-18 playground player: <saffuna> Mostly just the usual gang of lefties.>
<Nov-06-18 saffuna: I don't remember reading any.>
<Nov-06-18 optimal play: <saffuna> Don't you know how to use the "search thread"?>
<Nov-06-18 saffuna: No. No I don't.>
<Nov-07-18 optimal play: You're even dumber than I thought.>
That is an abridged summary of the conversation including my last comment which has now been deleted.
The full dialogue can be read commencing from:
playground player chessforum (kibitz #15971)
Now anybody reading through this conversation can see that <saffuna> was being deliberately obtuse.
I don't know why?
I suppose he was trying to be a smart alec like he often is on the Rogoff forum by acting stupid, which is tiresome and annoying, so I gave him a whack over the head.
My good friend <playground player> goes to great lengths to ensure his forum is kept civil, which I understand, but every so often the dunderheads here need a clip over the ear just to remind them that the intelligent sensible people only have a limited amount of patience to endure their foolishness.
Anyway, as I mentioned above, there was apparently another post after mine which was also deleted but which I didn't see. I would be interested to know what that post was, so perhaps whoever made the comment after mine could re-post it here.
Anyway, I have no hard feelings against my good mate <playground player> since I understand his desire to keep his forum civil and friendly, but perhaps if he simply deleted <saffuna>'s vacuous post to begin with, he could have saved us all the trouble of having to deal with Jim's idiocy.
|Nov-07-18|| ||saffuna: <Now anybody reading through this conversation can see that <saffuna> was being deliberately obtuse.>|
That is not true. In fact I did not know how to "search thread." Now I have been shown how to do it.
The second post was by <sugardom>, piggybacking on yours and calling me stupid.
|Nov-08-18|| ||SugarDom: <The second post was by <sugardom>, piggybacking on yours and calling me stupid.>|
This is what I posted.
<Put the spoon up your mouth. Put the food inside your mouth. Put down the spoon.
Don’t forget to chew. Hehehe.>
|Nov-08-18|| ||diceman: <Now anybody reading through this conversation can see that <saffuna> was being deliberately obtuse.>|
I find it hard to believe the guy who doesn't know where Chicago is, could be obtuse.
(It Must have been quite a head scratcher when the CUBS won the World Series)
|Nov-08-18|| ||diceman: <saffuna:
In fact I did not know how to "search thread.">
Very, "Boy Who Cried Wolf."
(I wonder if Aesop ever met saffuna?)
|Nov-12-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: < diceman: <Count Wedgemore:|
he claimed that,
as a Norwegian, I should be an unbiased observer and not weigh in on the issue..>
Id claim I'm transcountry, and identify American!>
If you try to self identify as Black, he will seek to have your account deleted.
|Nov-12-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Five different people took a shot at Zanzy for his whining, with nobody defending him, which highlights the contempt in which he is now held here at chessgames.>|
And we don't even get to see Brigitte Bardot...
|Nov-13-18|| ||SugarDom: Hi, <optimal>, were you trying to argue for Transubstantiation?|
|Nov-13-18|| ||optimal play: Just for my good mate <tga> here is the trailer for Contempt (1963)|
Even though I like Brigitte Bardot I've never seen 'Le mépris'
I don't like foreign language films because I hate having to read the sub-titles.
While you're reading the sub-titles you're missing the action, and sometimes they leave two words on the screem for about a minute but then there is a whole lot of dialogue which is shown for only about two seconds
so you don't have time to read it all and you can't work out what's going on or who's saying what?
I don't know if Jack Palance is speaking French in this film but the trailer would indicate it's all in French.
Anyway, here is a tribute to Brigette Bardot:
<Brigitte Bardot - Devil in Disguise>
|Nov-13-18|| ||optimal play: <SugarDom: Hi, <optimal>, were you trying to argue for Transubstantiation?>|
I'm not arguing for it, just pointing out those biblical passages which show that the Lord's Supper is much more than just a "nice memorial supper" as described by my good protestant fundamentalist mate <OhioChessFan>.
You'll recall <OCF> and I had an interesting discussion on this and related matters on <playground player>'s forum about a month ago:
playground player chessforum (kibitz #15859)
It was an interesting back-and-forth until I highlighted his inconsistency regarding the Lord's Supper at which point he spat the dummy with <Okay, you can't seem to do me the courtesy of responding to me, so I will move on>, and wouldn't talk to me anymore.
That is the typical response from someone who realises they've just been shown the truth but refuses to accept it.
As you no doubt saw from the re-cap on my own forum, I examined the Lord's Supper in light of Gospel teaching and its relation to the Old Testament Law of Moses, particularly in regard to Leviticus.
The Church's dogma regarding Transubstantiation encapsulates the true meaning of the bread and wine as revealed by Christ himself and as further taught by St Paul.
<OCF>'s argument was demolished on the following points:
1. The language used by Jesus at the Last Supper "This is my body" and "This is my blood" differs from his previous analogous sayings such as "I am the vine" and "I am the light of the world".
2. The Last Supper is prefigured by the concepts of sacrifice and atonement as described in Leviticus.
3. Jesus as Son of God was not bound by the Law of Moses and regularly ignored it in his mission to bring about the Kingdom of God.
4. Since the appearance of the bread and wine remained unchanged there was no violation of the Mosaic Law anyway.
In the face of these undeniable facts, my good ol' protestant fundamentalist buddy <OhioChessFan> replied "Okay, you can't seem to do me the courtesy of responding to me, so I will move on", and that was that!
No further discussion.
The same response if you try to explain to him why the universe is more than 6,000 years old!
|Nov-13-18|| ||optimal play: Further to the above, I realise that my good ol' biblical fundamentalist buddy <OhioChessFan> isn't the sort of person who you can engage with in a proper debate.|
He's not interested in a genuine exchange of ideas because his pride is in the way.
All I can do is calmly and methodically present the truth of the argument and ask pertinent questions which drill down into the hard shell of his prejudice.
Now of course <OhioChessFan> is too prideful to say "Gee, you're right", but maybe, just maybe, when he is driving down the road to get McDonalds some 8 months later, something triggers in him the whole topic of the Lord's Supper, or the age of the universe, or even how heliocentrism shows that Joshua stopping the sun is clearly not meant to be taken literally?!
This can occur completely out of nowhere.
Maybe someone says something on the radio, or he hears a similar conversation at the store, or a friend visits and the topic comes up, and he remembers that I once made an interesting point about one of those subjects.
That could be the catalyst that causes <OhioChessFan> to investigate on his own, and of course once he does that he owns the knowledge.
Owning the knowledge is what does the real persuasion.
If me or anybody imparts that same knowledge to <OhioChessFan> and he believes it, it doesn't persuade him even then. He must own the knowledge.
I'm certain that <OhioChessFan> will never forget our discussions on these topics.
They will sit in his subconscious for a long time until one day, maybe even on that fateful trip to McDonalds in 8 months time, something will unexpectedly pop into his head.
Something will trigger it, and it will be a revelation to him.
It will be as if a light went on.
|Nov-13-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: <optimal play:
I don't know if Jack Palance is speaking French in this film but the trailer would indicate it's all in French.>
Thanks for the link.
I saw the film years ago - it was not very good IMO. One of those artsy films with lots of allusions to this or that
These allusions allow those in the audience who know the reference to feel smug about their knowledge, which prompts them to tell everyone how "artistic and deep" the film is.
Those who don't know or care about the references are free to "enjoy" the film as entertainment, until they realize it is quite boring, and not entertaining at all.
This realization takes about 8 minutes. (Which tells you that I was in category 2, described above).
Jack Palance spoke in English. Other than that, all I recall is that I was bored and used the fast forward button a lot, to see if there were any interesting parts.
|Nov-13-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: <optimal play: <SugarDom: Hi, <optimal>, were you trying to argue for Transubstantiation?>|
I'm not arguing for it, just pointing out those biblical passages which show that the Lord's Supper is much more than just a "nice memorial supper" as described by my good protestant fundamentalist mate <OhioChessFan>.>
I know you wrote a post a few weeks or months ago, talking about the meaning and symbolism of The Last Supper.
Can you reply to me with a link to that post, either here or in my forum? I would like to read it again.
Thanks in advance.
|Nov-13-18|| ||SugarDom: Well, I guess there's nothing wrong if the Catholics think that the bread and wine has been magically transformed into the flesh and blood of Christ.|
But we have to remember some scriptures like:
"Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes out of the mouth of God".
"Beware of the Bread of the Pharisee".
So, this can also be interpreted as figurative speech.
|Nov-13-18|| ||optimal play: <thegoodanarchist: Hi <OP>. I know you wrote a post a few weeks or months ago, talking about the meaning and symbolism of The Last Supper. Can you reply to me with a link to that post, either here or in my forum? I would like to read it again. Thanks in advance.>|
From discussion in forum of <playground player>:
playground player chessforum (kibitz #15859)
Follow-up commentary in my own forum:
optimal play chessforum (kibitz #1654)
<SugarDom: Well, I guess there's nothing wrong if the Catholics think that the bread and wine has been magically transformed into the flesh and blood of Christ.>
It's not magic, it's sacred mystery.
<But we have to remember some scriptures like: "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes out of the mouth of God". and "Beware of the Bread of the Pharisee". So, this can also be interpreted as figurative speech.>
This relates to the point I made earlier.
Jesus often used metaphor to explain the Kingdom of God and other concepts, but his language at the Last Supper differs markedly from his analogous sayings.
Apart from your two examples, in the Gospel of John he often says things like, "I am the bread of life" and "I am the vine", to describe himself and his mission, just as he used parables.
However on Holy Thursday night when he presided over the Last Supper and held the bread in his hands, he did not say "I am this bread", he said "This is my body".
And when he held the cup, he did not say "I am this wine", he said "This is my blood".
This is clearly very different language.
In saying these words, Jesus instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist.
That's why Paul said "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 11:27)
|Nov-13-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: <OP> Thanks for the reply and links, but they were not at all related to what I was asking about.|
So I searched for it myself, using the "search thread" function and <PP>'s advice to type in a user name. I found this:
<<The Passover meal in question was before the cross. Uhoh. Yes, after the cross. The Passover meal in question was before the cross.>
Oh for goodness sake...
Do you not understand how the Last Supper is integral to Christ's sacrifice on the cross?
"At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us'" (CCC 1323)...>
Which is what I was looking for.
|Nov-18-18|| ||Diademas: <optimal play: <Dr Winston OBoogie: <Count Wedgemore: <Tabanus: I neeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..> Good to see you're taking over the reins from <harry>, <Tab>. His sudden and untimely demise will be easier to come to grips with when it's a smoother transition here. It will feel a bit strange entering the Cafe without being told to "FOOK OFF!", etc.>
Has Harry died???>
I sincerely hope not.
Otherwise we all know what will happen.
You'll post all over this site about how you and Harry were such great mates, and how much you really loved him despite all the vitriol you threw at him, and then start trying to organise a paypal account to send flowers and whatnot.
I really hope we all don't have to go through that again!>
Maybe not a candidate for the Memorable Quotes page, but I will admit you kind of hit the nail on the head here.. ;)
|Nov-20-18|| ||optimal play: <thegoodanarchist> That comment is from the Catechism:|
It showed <OhioChessFan> that he did not understand the true relationship of the Last Supper to the Cross.
I pointed out to <OCF> that <The Law of Moses was replaced by Christ's sacrifice on the cross>.
He flippantly replied <The Passover meal in question was before the cross. Uhoh.> as if that was supposed to be some sort of rebuttal?!
And in response to my statement <The Old Testament was replaced by the New Testament> he again replied <Yes, after the cross. The Passover meal in question was before the cross>.
He obviously did not see the connection between these two events, therefore I posted that extract from the Catechism to emphasise how intimately connected these two events are.
<OhioChessFan: Okay, you can't seem to do me the courtesy of responding to me, so I will move on.>
|Nov-20-18|| ||optimal play: <Diademas> Yep, my good ol' mate from Bradford, upon reading something about Harry's supposed "sudden and untimely demise" immediately went into his standard "bereavement mode" and was ready to begin posting incessantly all over this site about how he and Harry were such great mates.|
It would have necessitated an updating of my "Golden Post":
Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #342148)
I would just have to insert <Harry> in place of <Daniel> otherwise it would be exactly the same situation with Mark making a ghoulish pest of himself all over again.
Anyway, I'm sure it was just a couple of people with a morbid sense of humour making a joke about Harry not posting anything lately, and that Harry is perfectly fine and just busy with other things at the moment.
No doubt he'll be back posting his blue links on the Kibitzer's Cafe very soon and telling all and sundry to "FOOK OFF" once again.
|Nov-27-18|| ||optimal play: So anyway, I posted a brief congratulatory message on the players page of Ju Wenjun following her victory in the recent Women's World Championship:|
<Nov-23-18 optimal play: Congratulations to Ju Wenjun on winning the Women's World Championship.>
I noticed her profile photo in which she is wearing some sort of hijab despite not being muslim, as well as a comment about that: <You really had to make this photo of her in hijab her profile picture? She's not a Muslim, you know.>
I then made a comment that her photo should be updated since it was inappropriate and somewhat ironic considering what was currently happening in China regarding the Muslim Uighurs, specifically the fact that an estimated 1 million of these people have been detained in so-called “re-education” camps and subjected to prolonged physical and psychological abuse.
My post was relevant, topical, inoffensive, not directed to anyone in particular, and contained no insults.
Nevertheless, completely out of the blue, I was subjected to an unprovoked insult from a fanatical pro-Beijing autobot who freaked out at seeing some criticism of his beloved communist Chinese regime.
I responded with factual information regarding communist Chinese history since 1949 which only further enraged this Chinese communist automaton, resulting in more insults, but no rebuttal to the evidence presented.
This pathetic brainwashed Chinese peasant wouldn't even accept the truth of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in which 10,000 of his innocent countrymen were killed by the evil communist regime in a brutal military crackdown, but instead claimed it was all just tabloid lies.
He had obviously never even heard of the Cultural Revolution in which up to 20 million people died, nor any other of China's crimes against humanity.
He was utterly clueless about his own nation's history and was only focused on earning additional "social behaviour points":
You see, under China's "Social Credit System", communist autobots like the annoying little pest on Ju Wenjun's page, must act in accordance with accepted social behaviour or risk being "blacklisted":
Like everyone else in China, he has a "social credit score" and was trying to earn extra points by aggressively attacking anyone who dares to cast aspersions on Chinese government policy.
As one of Xi Jinping's pre-programmed communist automatons, this poor pathetic Chinese peasant has been reduced to scrounging around Chessgames and other websites for the purpose of abusing critics of communist Chinese brutality in the hope of acquiring a few extra "social credit points" to finally obtain those elusive “green channel benefits".
Anyway, all criticism of the Chinese government has now been removed from Ju Wenjun's players page, so the little communist Chinese autobot has achieved the desired outcome, thanks in large part to a gaggle of old grandmothers who fret and fume at any arguments which may pop up on various forums from time to time.
These old grannies wet their pants whenever they see a few politically-incorrect sobriquet's and immediately start squealing out <No name-calling please> and <Stop fighting, please> etc etc
Of course they ran to the admin and had everything erased, but it's not so easy to erase the brutal history of China's communist regime.
|Nov-27-18|| ||diceman: <"social credit points">|
Imagine when they're used for bragging rights on the Rogoff page!
I'm more ignorant than you,
and I drink more kool-aid.
I have the points to prove it!!!>
Obviously, when the preliminary ratings
come out, Dr. WOB will be difficult to beat.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 67 OF 67 ·