1
2
![[nl]](/mwf/v12/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
Name calling? I just point out the facts. A moron is officialy defined as a person with an IQ below 85. In my testing it has been shown that such persons do recognize claims like the one we are discussing as laughable. Hence the statement qualifies as "beyond moronic".
If the facts are unpalatable to you, you should not read here. Your babble about evidence for deliberacy, b.t.w., is so far beside the point of relevance that it does not deserve a better qualification...
If the facts are unpalatable to you, you should not read here. Your babble about evidence for deliberacy, b.t.w., is so far beside the point of relevance that it does not deserve a better qualification...
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
> A moron is officialy defined as a person with an IQ below 85.
Correction: a moron WAS officially defined... The American Psychological Association no longer uses the terms "moron", "imbecile", and "idiot", but instead categorizes mentally handicapped people into "mild", "moderate", "severe", and "profound" degrees of mental retardation.
Even the use of the term "Mental Retardation" is not considered acceptable- "Mental Challenged " is the politically correct term now used in most states. Nomenclature changes over time as awareness chances.
That change has little to do with "awareness" and more to do with hyper-sensitive "touchy-feely" nonsense. Retardation is a term used throughout the sciences for something that is slow or lagging behind.
No "awareness" of the what it means to stigmatize.
I think that this assumes that labeling someone who truly has an IQ of 2 standard deviations below average "mentally retarded" is an insult. It has only become an insult in situations where people have used it derisively.
So, when you use the term, you always preface that you're not being insulting in your use! Nice try!
If I'm using it to refer to someone who is actually mentally retarded, I'm not being insulting. If I use it to describe someone who is NOT mentally retarded, but seems to be acting that way, then yes, I'm being insulting.
So, you are telling someone who is mentally challenged that they are "retarded"?! And, that is perfectly fine?
Hey, buddy! Don't worry, you didn't know what you were doing because, well...you're RETARDED!
Hey, buddy! Don't worry, you didn't know what you were doing because, well...you're RETARDED!
You want to try that again? Have you ever worked with persons who are mentally challenged and asked them if they liked being referenced as RETARDED! Because you know they aren't stupid.
[edit for accuracy] There are board levels of competency where the individual knows something is missing and have a high frustration level in getting it right. You're focusing on only one end of the scale where a person may have to spend their entire life being care for within the confines of a Developmental Center.
[edit for accuracy] There are board levels of competency where the individual knows something is missing and have a high frustration level in getting it right. You're focusing on only one end of the scale where a person may have to spend their entire life being care for within the confines of a Developmental Center.
Generally speaking, in general, we try not to remind people of their disabilities. However, for the use of medical practice, literature, etc., we need labels. If people used "mentally challenged" in an insulting way continuously, we'd need a new term.
I like the way you fall back on the use of the term "we". Look, I see absolutely no reason to try and argue any more on this point.
Naturally, when I say "we", I'm referring to the medical/scientific community in this situation, which is a subset of society.
Oh! Naturally!
> If people used "mentally challenged" in an insulting way continuously, we'd need a new term.
This is exactly why I equate this type of political correctness to idiocy. A group of people with an obvious disadvantage needs to be named for practical necessity, and are so in a perfectly neutral way. But because the individuals of the group resent being in it, they start to resent that name. So the politically correct come up with another name, which the groupmembers do not recognize, and thus do not resent. Then everything will be fine exactly to the point where they realize "hey, but that means us!", and then they resent it again, and the whole circus commences from the start...
I've also notice that you have devoted some of your time to giving chess programming lessons on Winboard Forum. So, you're just a bit of a testy and out spoken kind of guy. A little eccentric may be-but your elevator does go to the top floor, just sometimes perhaps you don't look out the windows quite so often anymore.
I love this forum- going from the ambiguities in the use of code to further the development of ones own ideas- to the nomenclature used within the mental health field -where everyone is an expert.
For once Turbo and I share "common ground"
Going to go "mentally challenge" myself now... hasta la vista.
Well, political correctness in itself is idiocy. (Oh sorry, challengedness...) And I see no reason whatsoever to be politically correct towards statements or claims. Or do you think it hurts the sensitivity of moronic statements to be called moronic?
> Well, political correctness in itself is idiocy. (Oh sorry, challengedness...) And I see no reason whatsoever to be politically correct towards statements or claims. Or do you think it hurts the sensitivity of moronic statements to be called moronic?
Judging from your above attempts at cogitation -I'd say you have some definite obstacles to over come- and given this example of how you express yourself- you're intellectually challenged.
Not by you. That is for sure.
You just classified yourself as belonging to the group of common name-callers.
You just classified yourself as belonging to the group of common name-callers.
Pardon me for even dignifying you with an answer- that won't happen again!
Great!
I am sure the readers of this forum will highly appreciate this.
I am sure the readers of this forum will highly appreciate this.
Just a little full of your self -cocky kind a guy aren't you! Civility might get you a better response!
A better response would be no response (as you promised). Well, everybodies loss... No one needs your cheap ad hominems!
Well, you keep making silly remarks as you did in a previous post- how can one not refrain from correcting you.
The only silly remark I see was "that won't happen again". And it wasn't mine...
Oh, I too have my moments of silliness!
Oh! Your the famed Author of the "Usurper" -well, no wonder you see this field as a country club hobby and the WCCC an exclusive venue for programmers only. That explains it all. It's hobby up time!
Wrong! There is an engine called "Usurper", but it was not by me.
What what did you chess engine did you author?
I did author an engine called Usurpator around 1978, you are probably mixing it up with that.
Some other engines I wrote are micro-Max, HaQiKi D, Shokidoki. How many engines did you write?
Some other engines I wrote are micro-Max, HaQiKi D, Shokidoki. How many engines did you write?
The latter look like very interesting programs indeed.
Well, Xiangqi and Shogi are more challenging games than Chess to write engines for, because they face you with unique problems that have no counterpart in Chess, for which no generally known solution exists,but which drastically affect the search. In Xiangqi this is the rule that forbids perpetual checking or chasing, and in Shogi these are the drop moves. An extra challenge for me as a westerner is that Inever played these games at all, which makes it harder to recognize what your engine is doing wrong.
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
in the early 70's i used to play against Spastic teams.some of them were quite good players and i respected them all.If i described them as that today i would be villified.political correctness gone mad imo.
You just did!
>The American Psychological Association no longer uses the terms "moron", "imbecile", and "idiot", but instead categorizes mentally handicapped people into "mild", "moderate", "severe", and "profound" degrees of mental retardation.
Just because the terminology was changed does not mean those "old" terms are not still applicable... particularly here where the vast majority of posts by "rybka regulars" regarding Rybka & the ICGA easily qualify for the adjectival forms of those definitions.
Technically, the name here applies to the act, not to the person. Calling someone a moron is far different from saying that what the person did was moronic.
Seriously? Referring to one's behavior as 'moronic' certainly is not scientifically designed to engender a positive millieu for constructive discussion. Query: who does moronic things - but morons? Let us not minimize what has occurred. If we were to rationalize aforementioned behavior away then the problem can not be repaired as there is then no problem. Let us call it what it is. Unvarnished hostility. Once the perpretrator comports himself in a gentlemanly manner and publicly acknowledges his rather untoward behavior then I am sure all the forum members will be generously supportive of any attempts at contrition and reconciliation.
If only morons did moronic things, then we would be saying that everyone is perfect within their capabilities. Like most others on this forum, I've certainly done many moronic things, but hopefully I've also done enough good things, or even a few brilliant things, to balance those out.
HGM wrote: "Name calling? I just point out the facts. A moron is officialy defined as a person with an IQ below 85. In my testing it has been shown that such persons do recognize claims like the one we are discussing as laughable. Hence the statement qualifies as "beyond moronic".
If the facts are unpalatable to you, you should not read here. Your babble about evidence for deliberacy, b.t.w., is so far beside the point of relevance that it does not deserve a better qualification... "
Bold Lettering mine.
Classic. This sampling is a stellar example of what I am addressing. Ok boys and girls are your 'Hostility Meters' clanging yet? Apparantly those that have opposing viewpoints 'babble.' Indeed, as a participant of this discussion I also am not worthy of any clarification as to perhaps why my perspective may be in error. Also note that I should not read here because the owner of this particular 'interaction' has proclaimed it to be so! I also assert that to employ such terms as 'Moron', is rather unseemly in view of the extremely negative conotations and insensitivity of such .....speech. Deep, deeeeep Sigh......
Just as a sidebar, Mr. HGM, a Moron was actually a reference to those in the I.Q. category of the 50 to 69 range.
If the facts are unpalatable to you, you should not read here. Your babble about evidence for deliberacy, b.t.w., is so far beside the point of relevance that it does not deserve a better qualification... "
Bold Lettering mine.
Classic. This sampling is a stellar example of what I am addressing. Ok boys and girls are your 'Hostility Meters' clanging yet? Apparantly those that have opposing viewpoints 'babble.' Indeed, as a participant of this discussion I also am not worthy of any clarification as to perhaps why my perspective may be in error. Also note that I should not read here because the owner of this particular 'interaction' has proclaimed it to be so! I also assert that to employ such terms as 'Moron', is rather unseemly in view of the extremely negative conotations and insensitivity of such .....speech. Deep, deeeeep Sigh......Just as a sidebar, Mr. HGM, a Moron was actually a reference to those in the I.Q. category of the 50 to 69 range.
Turbojuice wrote: "If only morons did moronic things, then we would be saying that everyone is perfect within their capabilities....."
Indeed. Such a dynamic as you highlight would be a 'nescessary' condition as opposed to a 'sufficient' condition. Quite correct.
Indeed. Such a dynamic as you highlight would be a 'nescessary' condition as opposed to a 'sufficient' condition. Quite correct.
![[ro]](/mwf/v12/flags/ro.png "Romania")
All of you are some sharks. Including Bob. Jealous. I don't get it. The first version of Rybka is quite old. Why NOW all this shit? I don't know how much of fruit code was used in Rybka and I don't even care. And for a very long period of time no one seemed to care...All of a sudden all of you became so self conscious. And I tell you...this decision(rybka disqualification) was made because of you haters. Bob I know you'll read this. Man there's a moment in life when you should give up. You worked for a long time on crafty and somehow I understand your frustration. But the important fact, the essential fact is : VAS IS A BETTER CHESS PROGRAMMER! He used some fruit code(move generator as I remember) but he have done something that no one could.
I do know I appreciated the quantum leap that Rybka made with the first version in terms of rating leap. I was sick of being systematically milked by chessbase annually for very little (and sometimes not at all, IMHO ) rating improvement in those days. Do not misunderstand. There is much I like about chessbase.
Has Ed offered any more input lately? I would be curious to see what he has to say on the whole matter of the decison made against Vas now..
So basically, I can't play chess anymore unless I invent my own rules and come up with new opening moves, because someone has already used all the opening moves, I would use ? Sounds like a monopoly? Or get permission from FIDE. Yes, that is what I will do :)
oh wait I can't use those either.
oh wait I can't use those either.
Well said.
BTW regarding Ed I see this: http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=414882&t=39721
1
2
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill