I apparently have your email address now?

Excellent. I'll be selling it to a variety of spam advertising outfits, but no fear! I will pass on .05% of the profit to you.

I already know how to get protected photos so yes you are right= low res with watermarks is a much more secure method to protect photo uploads.

Anybody who stops to think about it, and is actually capable of such cognitive action, I'd say. ;p

<Switch> *that* was an absolutely brilliant meme adaptation. Fifty points to Gryffindor! :D

<dakkie> nice to see you back! :)

Incidentally -

<Switch: <[...] I may get around to checking it... eventually.>>

<dakkie: <I'll watch it.. at some point.>>

HOW TO PRONOUNCE CHESS NAMES PROPERLY youtube channel by <Annie K>:

http://www.youtube.com/user/AnnieK1...

If you are interested to know the accurate pronunciations of non-English chess masters, this is the place to come.

<Annie> even gives the correct pronunciation of the notorious <Roman Dzhindzhidzhvllilillllli>:

Then we have Marta Przezdziecka (and her twin sister Ewa). Here I'll just say that the ending, Polish style, is probably pronounced 'etch-ka'. Just like Socko is 'sotch-ko'.

And 'Limerick' is 'Limmer-itchk'. Or so I've heard.

Vanadium.

It finds its way into screwdrivers and its atomic number is 23. The *only* element for an icosatriophile.

I have a brilliant reference book by John Emsley, with the rather dull title of <Nature's Building Blocks>. It's actually an A-Z of the periodic table, with all sorts of odd factoids about the elements. It inspired me when I was trying to write a fiction about a chemistry boy genius (well, chemistry aside, I knew the other, um, elements). And it even helped with that HYFIN klu a coupla xmases back.

Vanadium was discovered twice, first in Mexico where it was named 'Panchromium' in 1801. Then it was renamed 'Erythronium', and finally a Swede won out by naming it for Vanadis, the Goddess of Beauty. As a result, many people think it was discovered by <Vanessa Paradis>.

Bronstein doesn't bite, honest. And I'll be uploading Euwe too, uh, one of these days. ;)

<Jess> thanks much for the plugs! I hope to catch up with more email and youtube stuff this weekend... I had family descend here last weekend, to check out my "new" place. ;s

<Dom: <Cognitive ... *action*? You sure this is possible? I thought cognition and action were an either/or deal.>>

Heh. I know what you mean, dear, but it's an action all right - you just don't notice it much, cuz you're one of those to whom it's a mostly effortless one. ;) But just take a look at those less fortunate beings who struggle to get any of it done, or simply can't manage it.

Not at all. I don't have an agenda - I simply say it the way I see it, but usually only when I estimate, after consideration, that it really needs to be said. This last part makes the difference. ;)

<I am quite sure you knew that it was an honest mistake>

Certainly, but the problem is that your honest mistakes are very frequent, and often quite harmful, or with the potential to become quite harmful. Slow down, think twice, or more, and remember that you don't <absolutely> need to put your 2c in on EVERY topic and thread. Otherwise you will only irritate people.

This is meant as constructive criticism - consider that I don't have any reason to want to "pull you down".

Thanks for the ChessCube update. I update my profile about once in a blue moon - I still haven't even gotten around to putting ChessTempo in there, never mind Chess.com, and my own YouTube channel (have to get around to that sometime...) - anyway, I'm not about to report every week's ups and downs, this isn't the stock market, nor a twitter page. But I'm interested in hearing news, so thanks. :)

I am not quite sure what you are getting at here.I have had about 700 posts in about 1200 days,i.e.,0.58 posts in a day.In contrast,you have made about 3400 posts in roughly 2650 days,i.e.,1.28 posts a day on average,which is over double mine.Of course a good number of them would have been on your user forum.In my 700 or so posts,how many of them do you think were harmful or with harm potential?Considering that I put my 2c in every thread(according to you) and the fact that I spend about 2 hours a day on average at CG,how many posts should I have had by now?By the way,have you been monitoring my posts very closely?I don't recall our paths crossing too many times.Maybe you are one of those kibitzers who read player pages but don't post in them regularly?

Also,how come you don't tick off posters like <jfq>,<AJ>,<rilkefan>,<timhortons>,etc. who weigh in on a number of topics rather needlessly and/or make 'harmful' mistakes quite frequently?I mean,I understand that a few such kibitzers are your friends,but it couldn't possibly hurt too much if you could ask them not to regularly make snide remarks and even create havoc at times.Or did you pick on me just to make a point to the others that such mistakes aren't accepted here?Or is it because I am a non-Premium member whereas the others I mentioned are Premium members and hence untouchable?

<I'm not about to report every week's ups and downs, this isn't the stock market, nor a twitter page.>Of course,you are not a news reporter and I doubt too many people want you to update your profile <that> frequently.It would be nice of you to reflect the truth though,once in a while. ;)

If you so wish,you may delete this post.In fact,I would request you to do so after you read it so that we don't have people from all over CG giving the topic a twist of their own.I definitely don't intend to start a war against you here.Also,I request you not to respond to my questions in the third paragraph.I merely want you to reflect on them.I asked them aloud because of the quite clear double standards prevailing on many fora on CG.

<This is meant as constructive criticism - consider that I don't have any reason to want to "pull you down".>Yes,I understand.I hope you too will take my posts in the right spirit.

Lastly,please excuse me if the tone of this post was too shrill and/or disturbing.I am still learning how to make best use of my limited knowledge base in English(it's my third language...).I certainly don't mean to offend a widely respected kibitzer like you and gain your ill-will.

I think, however, that it's worth pointing out that *everything* posted on this site is public. It may be read by anyone, including people who never post anything. In some net forums where a sort of 'insider ethic' held sway, this was traditionally seen as *lurking*, and was often met with disapproval.

But that is explicitly not the case on CG. There are no insiders, no elite, no lurkers. Newcomers are 'newbies' only in the literal sense of being recent arrivals: they are, or should be, made to feel welcome, not excluded. Forums and player pages and live games are all equal, and differ only in the host's editorial control in a forum. This doesn't make them private.

It sometimes feels like a particular thread is *like* a private conversation. Maybe I'm misreading your post, but you seem to imply that there is something wrong with reading other people's kibitzes without making one's presence known.

On the contrary, this is the norm. Almost all of those private-seeming 'conversations' attract a cloud of silent observers, especially if what is said is interesting or well-written. It is wise to simply accept this.

Annie - like me and many other people - tends to be broadly aware of what is currently going on all over CG. Again, this is a regular and routine piece of normal site etiquette.

The number of posts that a person makes isn't very important. Nor, in my opinion, does it matter whether somebody is a premium member or not, though paying for membership may imply greater commitment to the site.

I'm not criticizing you here, but some sort of misunderstanding has taken place. I'm sure you didn't come to CG to make enemies - and, as far as I know, you haven't. But you could in future, if you carry on reacting rather than reflecting.

Annie probably understands CG and CG etiquette better than anyone. A good thing to say to her (I find) is "You're very perceptive". This has the value - rightly esteemed by <Ohio>, among others - of being *true*.

<Ohio> thanks, nice find!

<Dom: <<shivasuri> Annie may choose to address your points, and I'm not trying to anticipate what she may have to say. [...]>>

I'm not going to comment on that post now; no reason, no need. It will stay, of course - it's interesting analysis material, but now is not the time for that. Meanwhile, I'll call it "insufficient data", and just continue observing trends, under the normal terms and conditions of the CG Vigilante Program. ;)

<Forums and player pages and live games are all equal, and differ only in the host's editorial control in a forum. This doesn't make them private.>Strictly speaking,the live games can usually only be accessed by Premium Members while the game is live.I concur with the spirit of your post though.

I was just mildly upset with the following snippet:<Annie K.:your honest mistakes are very frequent>

I simply didn't think my honest mistakes were very frequent,but it doesn't matter much.It's not like I am under trial for any crime;so I needn't be too upset,I guess.

<Also,how come you don't tick off posters like <jfq>,<AJ>,<rilkefan>,<timhortons>,etc. who weigh in on a number of topics rather needlessly and/or make 'harmful' mistakes quite frequently?>Since <Annie K.> doesn't seem to wish to delete my post now,maybe you could respond to this?I just wanted to know if Premium Members are given a special right to insult others freely (and rather regularly for some).If so,there should be a 5th posting guideline saying that the above 4 guidelines do not always apply to Premium Members.

In any case,I will be off to University for my 4-year engineering course in 8 days and will have limited or no net access for the majority of the next few years.So you will hopefully see a lot lesser 'honest mistakes' from my side.

The point <Dom> was making about your not understanding the social norms of the site is a valid one. For example -

We premium members can use a kibitzing search function, and almost all of us use it regularly to find posts which contain our names/handles. This is how we find posts addressed to us, anywhere on the site. But this also means that we will see any post talking <about> us, so there is no such thing as talking about somebody behind their back here: if, whenever, and wherever we mention another member, they will know... and we know when we write those posts that they will know, and they know that we know that they will know... etc.

So, speaking of mistakes: remember when you found a post by <Jess> mentioning <tpstar>, and you ran straight off to his forum to "tell on her"? Very unwise thing to do. When <Jess> mentioned <tpstar>, she knew that he would see her post; and he knew that she wasn't trying to talk about him "behind his back". (Just as I know that they will both see this post...). We don't need informants. You really only accomplished one thing there: getting a good head start on establishing a reputation for yourself as someone who will possibly turn out to be a malicious gossip and troublemaker.

You didn't cause any trouble, because there was none to be caused... but to all appearances, it certainly wasn't for lack of trying on your side.

Gandhi wouldn't be proud, eh?

<Also,how come you don't tick off posters like <jfq>,<AJ>,<rilkefan>,<timhortons>,etc. who weigh in on a number of topics rather needlessly and/or make 'harmful' mistakes quite frequently?>

Since you insist. Your premium member fixation nonsense has nothing to do with it. I *have*, in fact, spoken to <Jess>, and others, about behavior I didn't agree with, at the appropriate times and places. You know next to nothing about past interactions, so please stop assuming that things didn't happen because you are not aware of them.

Some others are posters I simply don't cross paths with on the site. Yet others are posters I am more aware of, but see no point in addressing, because I see no improvement coming of it; too stupid, or otherwise mentally out to lunch, to understand/accept constructive criticism. And the deliberate trolls, whom one does not feed, but simply ignore and/or blow the whistle on.

So that's another thing you misunderstand - if you are addressed over your behavior, that doesn't mean you are seen as <worse> than some who are not; it means that you are considered a possibly <less hopeless> case. But if you'd rather be counted among the most clueless and/or obnoxious posters, well, that's your choice.

<In any case,I will be off to University for my 4-year engineering course in 8 days and will have limited or no net access for the majority of the next few years.>

Ah - I reckoned you to be about 14-16 y/o or so, but one doesn't ask, due to security concerns. University should be good for you. :)

Also, really excellent job on the new <Polgar Sisters>- I love the photos, the correct accents on the name, the format, and of course your pronunciation.

One assumes that you won't get anyone questioning your pronunciation of Hungarian names- but on youtube we can assume nothing, I fear.

Finally,

QUESTION: What are these "smoothies" you folk have been discussing? Are they some new kind of extra risque nylon stocking?

If so, do you think I should insist Richard buy me a pair?

Oh almost forgot- I just yesterday heard a Russian narrator referring to <Seymon Furman> as "Foreman".

<Ah - I reckoned you to be about 14-16 y/o or so, but one doesn't ask, due to security concerns. University should be good for you. :)> Yes,it should do good for me,as it should for most others. As of today,I am aged 18 years,5 months and 4 days.That's almost half your age.Interesting that you continue to address me in a condescending and patronising manner.Should I now make a snide joke about your age being such?

<..remember when you found a post by <Jess> mentioning <tpstar>, and you ran straight off to his forum to "tell on her"? Very unwise thing to do. When <Jess> mentioned <tpstar>, she knew that he would see her post; and he knew that she wasn't trying to talk about him "behind his back".> Well,you are misrepresenting the issue here.<jfq> posted something in her forum and then deleted it later(she denies it,but I am positive about the posting and the deletion).So how is <tpstar> supposed to know about it unless he had chanced upon it earlier?I don't fully remember what it was about now but all I wanted was a clarification on his views of/on the subject.

<Gandhi wouldn't be proud, eh?> Considering that I have a clear conscience on the issue,he has no reason to worry.If <jfq> actually cares for anything remotely resembling the truth,she will have something to worry,not me.And for the sake of not wishing to create bad vibes between <tpstar> and <jfq>,I left the issue there,whereas I could have rightfully continued and given him an overview of what she said.

Besides,I don't admire all aspects of Gandhi.I am not one for blind idolatry.I adore him for having the courage to stick to the truth at all times(excluding the couple of childhood incidents) and for his general simplicity and the trust he places in others.I don't consider the value of non-violence promoted by him incessantly to be tenable in all situations although it is a highly interesting idea(l) to observe in action.

<You didn't cause any trouble, because there was none to be caused... but to all appearances, it certainly wasn't for lack of trying on your side.> To all appearances?Oh,you mean all appearances from your side?If so,you are correct.You sure seem to try hard to misunderstand some such situations.Once again,I reiterate that I wasn't trying to cause trouble.I can confidently claim a clear conscience on that point.