|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 810 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Mar-02-12
 | | Domdaniel: <Dr twinlark> Um. One second thoughts, you're right. Or at least make a strong case which I'm disinclined to pick holes in. Newspapers are another story. Journos tend to have a sentimental belief in good old-fashioned robust reporting ... even though it leads to Murdochism, and a culture of preemptive bollocking and apotropaic monstering. |
|
| Mar-02-12 | | Everyone: <twinlark: If <everyone> who lacks a winning personality and engages in activities that have centuries of mainstream and reasonably honourable tradition (even if it's not been in such concentrated form) and endorsement gets thrown under a bus or into a deep hole guarded by the legions of Fracking Bleeding Idiots...we should abolish buses, shovels and spades.> You let the cat out of the bag. |
|
Mar-02-12
| | Domdaniel: What harm did a *digging implement* ever cause anyone? Not counting cases of blunt instrument cranial trauma, which is easier done with a hammer anyhow. That reminds me ... I saw a game lost by a played named Leonid Basin. The 'pun' that came to mind was "You can't wash your hands in a Buffalo". Explanations on a postcard, please, to the Man on the Clapham Omnibus. |
|
Mar-02-12
| | Domdaniel: Speakina slang ... which chess opening was formed by a process of hemiteleia ...? That's what happens when the rhyming element is dropped from a piece of rhyming slang. As in 'chitty chitty' (= slang) or 'Bristols' (Bristol City ... er, breast). The *Barry*, of course. Once thought to have been named after a player named Barry -- possible suspects included the strong American amateur John Barry, leading English players such as Milner-Barry and BH 'Barry' Wood, and Irish international Colm Barry -- it is now accepted that the opening (a variant of the London System, 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Bf4 etc) was not named after a person. It's also said, without further explanation, that 'Barry' is a slang term for 'Rubbish'. That 'London System' is a hint. While rhyming slang is also used in Australia, Ireland, and various British cities such as Liverpool, the London or Cockney version is the most famous. You get from 'Barry' to 'rubbish' by interpolating the name 'Barry White' (a soul singer, m'lud ... no, no, not quite, he uses his voice, but the result is deemed soulful ... yes, m'lud, quite like jazz ... I can tell that his Lordship is a Hep Cat). Barry White. Rhymes with a word meaning 'rubbish'. Apply hemiteleia, Barry is left. Couldn't be more zit.
'Frog' means 'road', btw, from 'frog and toad'. ST Kendall's study of rhyming slang was called 'Up the Frog'. We concur. |
|
| Mar-02-12 | | twinlark: <Or at least make a strong case which I'm disinclined to pick holes in.> Just as well otherwise we'd have to abolish picks as well. |
|
| Mar-02-12 | | frogbert: some extreme feminists think we sho... oh, you said *picks*. |
|
Mar-02-12
| | Domdaniel: Good show, chaps.
A language is a dialect with an army and a navvy -- he's the one in charge of the picks. Or <o selecao> as they say in Rio. |
|
| Mar-02-12 | | twinlark: and if they yell with it, there's the air force as well. |
|
Mar-02-12
| | Domdaniel: Everything comes back to Isaac Newton. As Master of the Royal Mint, he was in charge of the pyx. And his magnificent *Optics* was the basis of photos, movies, flickr and pics. Lordy, that makes him ultimately responsible for the, y'know, *focus*. Mebbe I should burn a copy of Principia in protest. Or just singe one. It's like <Planet des Singes> round here. And the Ass saw the Ange... |
|
| Mar-02-12 | | quantum.conscious: <Domdaniel: <quantum.conscious> Here's a useful technique of which you may be unaware. When attempting to work out why somebody behaves in a particular way, try seeing it from their point of view. It's really much more productive than name-calling (what does 'not caring about truth' mean, anyway? Is it a philosophical standpoint or an oblique way of calling someone a liar?). I'm not saying any of those you mention are right or wrong -- people rarely fit neatly into those boxes. Simply that you'd understand them better if you had a clearer grasp of their motives, their view of themselves and their own roles, their sense of their own significance, and so on. The psychological stuff.
Believe me, it's more fun than name-calling, however oblique. Only if you're open to new ways of thinking, of course. Many people aren't. > i don't want it to be oblique or ambiguous.
<frogbert> has been a liar and dishonest person. if he has evolved since and has started respecting and caring for truth and honesty , i have no way of knowing. |
|
Mar-02-12
| | Domdaniel: Pity, that. I prefer oblique and ambiguous.
But I can try your way of doing things: you seem to have no real interest in other people's motives. You don't know or care who they really are. Your primary aim is to condemn by attaching labels. I have never met a dishonest person. Or an honest one. Most humans slither up and down the continuum according to the relevant circumstances. Context is everything. Try thinking next time. |
|
Mar-02-12
| | Domdaniel: And getting more like <Planete des Singes> every day, innit. |
|
Mar-02-12
 | | jessicafischerqueen: <Boulle>. |
|
| Mar-02-12 | | quantum.conscious: <Domdaniel: Pity, that. I prefer oblique and ambiguous. But I can try your way of doing things: you seem to have no real interest in other people's motives. You don't know or care who they really are. Your primary aim is to condemn by attaching labels. I have never met a dishonest person. Or an honest one. Most humans slither up and down the continuum according to the relevant circumstances. Context is everything. Try
>
i can have 'your kind of conversation'.
but are you really interested in having a conversation with me ? do you really think you know me? |
|
Mar-02-12
 | | OhioChessFan: He That Must Not Be Named stopped by the site today. I am 100% certain he will visit the site the rest of the week. Closed his forum a few days back. I am sure he expected to find dozens of posts of support and closed the forum when they didn't materialize. I continue to find this amusing and interesting. |
|
| Mar-02-12 | | twinlark: Pierre is unsinged:
Hairless apes, they're unhinging
While cluster-bingeing. |
|
| Mar-02-12 | | quantum.conscious: <Domdaniel: Pity, that. I prefer oblique and ambiguous. > awesome.
let me say something very unambiguously - degree of how evolved a person is known by that person's ability to embrace ambiguities in human behavior. was i unambiguous enough in stating that?
context is everything, isn't it?
what does embracing this ambiguity of human behavior give , however? well, peace to begin with but much more than that. clarity. clarity is everything. isn't it?
clarity about what? and why is it important?
clarity is important or ambiguity? |
|
Mar-02-12
| | jessicafischerqueen: <quantum> Frogbert isn't doing anything wrong- what's your problem with him? Incidentally, your lugubrious list of pseudo-profound rhetorical questions in your last post is laughable. Unfunny, but still laughable. Maybe time to resign whilst you still enjoy some vestige of dignity. You strike me as one of "those guys" who plays on to checkmate two pieces down in a Correspondence game, forcing everyone else in the tournament to wait an extra six weeks for you to finish the round. |
|
Mar-02-12
| | jessicafischerqueen: <Doggimus> I should have known you were one of those few who actually read the book. In Montreal we actually created a "Boulle study group" in order to provide an excuse to get hammered every night and try to figure out why his potboilers kept getting made into epic movies. "Bridge on the River Kwai" in particular. |
|
| Mar-02-12 | | crawfb5: <Jess> Kwai ask Kwai? |
|
| Mar-02-12 | | quantum.conscious: <jessicafischerqueen: <quantum> Frogbert isn't doing anything wrong- what's your problem with him?
Incidentally, your lugubrious list of pseudo-profound rhetorical questions in your last post is laughable. Unfunny, but still laughable. Maybe time to resign whilst you still enjoy some vestige of dignity. You strike me as one of "those guys" who plays on to checkmate two pieces down in a Correspondence game, forcing everyone else in the tournament to wait an extra six weeks for you to finish the round.
>
<pseudo-profound rhetorical questions > i say they are very profound (may be way out of your league. if not you may show some evidence that you have any clue what domdaniel meant when he said 'he preferred ambiguous'. that is profound but still very junior for me. i am very well aware of these kind of conversations. nothing else is more important to me in life than the wisdom which gives such kind of ideas. try thinking next time <jfq> :) ). so, how do we settle if they are profound or not?
i started a very simple conversation and <domdaniel> started to have a very 'inane' conversation in tangential direction. now, perhaps , it is out of league of <domdaniel> too ( like you? i would soon know) or soon the conversation will reach its logical conclusion. |
|
| Mar-02-12 | | quantum.conscious: and <jfq>, you should listen to <domdaniel> more carefully and instead of lambasting me should try to understand my motives . but <'you seem to have no real interest in other people's motives. You don't know or care who they really are. Your primary aim is to condemn by attaching labels.
'>
:) |
|
Mar-02-12
| | jessicafischerqueen: "out of <dom's> league." aaahhhh HAHAHAHA That'd make a cat laugh.
What are you 16 years old, male, right?
Try shutting up until you're forty. Otherwise you've got 20+ years of embarrassing yourself to look forward to. You should feel grateful to have <dom> to take you seriously though. He's a real teacher, patient, good-willed, and all that. I'm not. However, believe it or not, I just gave you sound advice. |
|
Mar-02-12
| | jessicafischerqueen: I have no aim at all. You get the best advice possible from those with no aim. As it is, right now you're nothing more than an irresistable target. Luckily, I don't have to deal with aggressive, addle-minded half-educated boys like you on a daily basis anymore, having graduated and all. So that's all from me. Enjoy your stay in <frogspawn>. Listen to <dom>, it's well worth it. See you in 20 years. |
|
| Mar-02-12 | | quantum.conscious: <jessicafischerqueen: "out of <dom's> league." aaahhhh HAHAHAHA
That'd make a cat laugh.
What are you 16 years old, male, right?
Try shutting up until you're forty. Otherwise you've got 20+ years of embarrassing yourself to look forward to. You should feel grateful to have <dom> to take you seriously though. He's a real teacher, patient, good-willed, and all that. I'm not. However, believe it or not, I just gave you sound advice.
>
why you keep on labelling me and dom, <jfq>? :) my chronological age is important to you?
how about you show your intellectual , psychological and spiritual age? consider this again :
<jfq: pseudo-profound rhetorical questions > i say they are very profound (may be way out of your league. if not you may show some evidence that you have any clue what domdaniel meant when he said 'he preferred ambiguous'. that is profound but still very junior for me. i am very well aware of these kind of conversations. nothing else is more important to me in life than the wisdom which gives such kind of ideas. try thinking next time <jfq> :) ). so, how do we settle if they are profound or not? > focus on this instead of labelling me and Dom then you might show some evidence that dom is a good teacher. talking loudly and forcefully, labelling others instead of saying anything of substance - so far does not show much evidence how good a teacher dom has been to you. does it ? :) |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 810 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
