chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

 
Chessgames.com User Profile Chessforum

twinlark
Member since Nov-17-05
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My wrap of our Chessgames Challenge: The World vs A Nickel, 2006 against ICCF Grandmaster Arno Nickel is at User: World Team Tribute.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.>

― Geoffrey Chaucer, The Parliament of Birds

>> Click here to see twinlark's game collections.

Chessgames.com Full Member

   twinlark has kibitzed 17835 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Jan-13-17 twinlark chessforum (replies)
 
twinlark: Tillerson wants to block Chinese access to its artificial islands?? Who slipped the joy juice into his coffee?
 
   Nov-27-16 Fidel Castro (replies)
 
twinlark: A reminder to people who are dumping on the memory and their idea of Fidel Castro's legacy that Nelson Mandela considered a great ally and a good friend. Look at the condolence tweet below and open that link. That Nelson Mandela is revered throughout the world is without debate. ...
 
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 327 OF 327 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jan-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  chessmoron: <Jim> This assertion from CNN is enough for readers to think this "might" be true: "The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible."

Do you know that Richard Engel from NBC News actually trying to do investigative work on these salacious claims and found nothing credible?

Where are CNN investigators since October of last year trying to exactly that?

Jan-15-17  visayanbraindoctor: <saffuna: I suggest rightwingers..>

I am not a right winger, and neither are the Colonel or twinlark. You should know that if you read up on my posts on the nature of the state and on economics.

On the other hand, I see CNN and liar Cooper as proto-fascist elements in US society, lying to their audience in order to serve big corporate interests.

I hope you stop supporting their endeavor or doing apologetics for them. You might end up as a de facto proto fascist yourself, whether you are aware if it or not.

Maybe you don't see it yet. I believe you have good intentions, but you are supporting the wrong guys.

Jan-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: Ok, I was wrong and I apologize for that. It was foolish on my part.

I do not know enough about Syria to judge CNN's coverage. It is certainly possible you are correct.

However CNN is 100% in the right on this Trump dossier story. All criticism should be directed at Buzzfeed.

Jan-15-17  visayanbraindoctor: <chessmoron: <Jim> This assertion from CNN is enough for readers to think this "might" be true: "The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible.">

What CNN did (and not only to Trump) is to insinuate a slanderous accusation but leave room for it to plausibly deny the slur. It's a form of propaganda that hides under the cover of legitimacy and legality. I've seen it dozens of times. Well-oiled mass media rumor mongerers have been doing it for a long time. I call it dragon lies.

Jan-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: No. CNN presented real news. Journalism.
Jan-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  chessmoron: Actually both CNN and Buzzfeed did a great disservice to investigative journalism. I actually did not mind what Buzzfeed published. However Buzzfeed's reasoning to publishing it is quite disturbing.

Now we know that Harry Reid's letter to Comey on Russia-Trump link is from this salacious and unverified memos.

The FBI has already debunked these memos via NYT before the election which CNN report, that suggested Trump was compromised by Russia, were NEVER reported on.

Jan-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <What CNN did (and not only to Trump) is to insinuate a slanderous accusation but leave room for it to plausibly deny the slur. It's a form of propaganda that hides under the cover of legitimacy and legality. I've seen it dozens of times. Well-oiled mass media rumor mongerers have been doing it for a long time. I call it dragon lies.>

Well said!

Unfortunately, the brainwashing has been accomplished already by US media, and <saffuna> is a prime example of it. He would give his <LIFE> in defense of the lies.

I hope an outside perspective will help him overcome his blind partisan bias.

Jan-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  TheFocus: <saffuna: Again, CNN acted with journalistic integrity on this story. No question at all. They reported that intelligence agencies had briefed Trump on a dossier with unverified, negative information on him.

That is absolutely true and newsworthy.>

How would they know what was revealed in a classified intelligence meeting?

Does that mean that CNN is "not" acting ethically?

Because "classified" means no one at the meeting was supposed to tell.

So where did CNN get their information, and why would they reveal that classified information?

Not exactly journalistically ethical after all.

Jan-16-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: <So where did CNN get their information, and why would they reveal that classified information?>

CNN revealed no classified information at all.

It revealed that the intelligence agencies had briefed Trump on classified information, which included information potentially damaging to Trump.

It got the information as a leak, from some confidential source, which is done all the time and is journalistically ethical. For example, the Pentagon Papers were a leak. The Wikileaks DNC/Podesta emails were from a confidential. That didn't bother you at all, as I remember. (Wikileaks, not the Pentagon Papers.)

It appears you simply don't like information damaging to Trump to reach the public.

<How would they know what was revealed in a classified intelligence meeting?>

They knew it included information negative to Trump, unverified information as they reported. That itself is not classified information.

I don't know about the other cases <visayanbraindoctor> mentions, but on this case CNN is 100% in the clear.

Jan-16-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  chessmoron: <Jim> Leaks on Podesta/DNC and Pentagon Papers were verified to be true.

When FBI already debunked the memos before the election and CNN still trying to asserts that there's some truth on these memos (see how CNN reports frame the MI6 is credible to US intelligence), that tells me that CNN doesn't care about truth. They are only advancing their own agenda to keep that Russia-Trump link alive.

Jan-16-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: I am only discussing the current CNN story that the intelligence agencies briefed Trump about the negative, unverified dossier about him.

As far as I know, nobody has questioned that the agencies did in fact brief Trump and the negative dossier does exist. <What CNN reported is true.>

Now as far as the Pentgon Papers and the Podesta emails are concerned, nobody knew whether they were true at the moment they were released, did they? It was afterward--as was the only way--that they were verified.

Jan-16-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: Here is the statement by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. He criticizes the leak but specifically confirms that the dossier exists and that he discussed it with Trump. Also he does NOT deny that the aencies briefed Trump on its contents earlier.

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsr...

Neither at his press conference nor elsewhere has Trump ever claimed the dossier does not exist or that he was not briefed on it. He simply says the contents of the dossier (which CNN did not reveal) are false.

So CNN's report has been confirmed as true by any reasonable standard.

Jan-17-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Colonel Mortimer: <saffuna> <So CNN's report has been confirmed as true by any reasonable standard.>

Let me know how the following has been confirmed as true by any reasonable standard..

"..whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible."

Or is that not so subtle an attempt at editorialising, rather than reporting?

Jan-17-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: <"..whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible.">

That's all you can come up with? Pretty pathetic. Not going to claim the briefing never took place <colonel>? Not going to claim the dossier doesn't exist?

In effect you are agreeing CNN's coverage was legitimate.

Jan-17-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Colonel Mortimer: <Saffuna> You're not understanding the difference between editorialising and reporting.

CNN pretended to do the latter while doing the former. Otherwise they could have happily left out those key sentences without it affecting the factual content of the report.

It's like saying there were credible intelligence reports about Iraq's WMD based on the fact that US intelligence found Chalabi's testimony credible.

Jan-17-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: <colonel> CNN reported the Trump dossier story, did not editorialize.

You so desperately want to say CNN revealed classified information. But you can't.

You so desperately want to say the dossier doesn't exist. But you can't.

You so desperately want to say the intelligence agencies didn't brief Trump on it. But you can't.

So you are left with the weak, WEAK complaint that CNN said the former British agent had a good record in the past. Which apparently is true.

You...got....nothing.

Jan-17-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Colonel Mortimer: <saffuna> You haven't addressed my point or answered the question. Instead you've erected a giant strawman in all the excitement.

Get back to me if you want to discuss dispassionately.

Jan-18-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: Sure. As soon as I stop laughing over your comical attempt to tar CNN on this one. You can't knock it on any of the major points, so you find a single line which just may indicate something positive about the dossier, and blow it up into something it clearly isn't.
Jan-18-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Colonel Mortimer: <saffuna> So the source is credible and the dossier is not a hit job? Why else would CNN be the first to break a story the entire media was refraining from breaking due to the dubious veracity of the dossier?

It's more than a single line where CNN lends credence to the dossier. But they are also careful to offer caveats. It's like they're hedging their bets, hoping that it's not fake news but giving themselves some outs if it is.

Have you read the entire article? Or are you relying on biased anti Russian commentary? (As you have been previously shown to do)

Jan-18-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: <So the source is credible and the dossier is not a hit job? >

CNN did not say the dossier is a hit job or not a hit job. It said Trump had been briefed on the dossier by the intelligence agencies. Period. End of its story.

Jan-18-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Colonel Mortimer: <saffuna> <It said Trump had been briefed on the dossier by the intelligence agencies. Period. End of its story.>

Not a conclusion someone who had read the entire article would reach.

Jan-20-17  visayanbraindoctor: Trump finally is officially POTUS (without getting assassinated as some people tought could occur.)

Protestors are still complaining. I never could understand their thing for a female President. In the last Philippine election three males and two females ran for president, and no one gave a ____ about their gender. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phili...

I talked with a classmate who has emigrated to the US and practices there as a doctor. He says that he doesn't like Trump for being a racist and voted against him. Yet all I could hear from Trump himself in his speeches is that he plans to take action only on illegal immigrants, which my classmate should find reasonable since he is a legal one. Funny but he doesn't seem to comprehend this.

It must be the political righteousness culture in the US gone intolerantly haywire.

To outsiders living outside the US, it should not matter, except that this political righteousness culture is justifying the US warhawk leadership factions in intervening abroad in foreign wars for the cause of fake humanitarian democracy (or something like that).

Jan-20-17  sac 4 mate: <Protestors are still complaining. I never could understand their thing for a female President. In the last Philippine election three males and two females ran for president, and no one gave a ____ about their gender.>

Yes, but the Philippines have elected a couple of female Presidents in the past. In the case of the United States, a lot of people are attached to the imaginary "glass ceiling" concept, the litmus test that says our electorate has moved beyond some magic point of non-sexism when they elect the first female President. When the first woman does break through, people see it as an indelible sign of progress.

It was the same way with Obama; now that we've "proven" we're no longer too racist to elect a black President, we probably won't be particularly concerned about electing a second one. It's an absurdly tribalist notion, but it gets a lot of page clicks.

On the other hand, I think the people protesting in Washington this weekend are motivated by Trump's remarks about women, more than Clinton's defeat.

Jan-21-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <visayanbraindoctor: Trump finally is officially POTUS (without getting assassinated as some people tought could occur.)>

Maybe Chris Matthews wanted another "thrill" up his leg?

<Protestors are still complaining. I never could understand their thing for a female President.>

They probably couldn't tell you who the candidates were.

<fake humanitarian democracy (or something like that)>

Yes, as long as there are non-US terrorists, there will be "fake humanitarian democracy."

<non-US>

Had to put that in for CM.

Jan-21-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: The protests now are about Trump's election, not Clinton's defeat.
Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 327)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 327 OF 327 ·  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 Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged in to chessgames.com.
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 | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC