What I think about chess

Sorry for my use of expletives btw, just trying to express how dumb this argument is and im just sick of seeing it appear again and again on the forum.

If I misunderstood the question about the attitude of chess. I wonder some times used to play and to question whether the goal is no pleasure? Does not the adrenaline? Do we create excitement and the drug addicts are not interesting? I wanna ask you took precious time

@LordButternoodles

As a relative newcomer to lichess, I think you'll find that this is the exception rather than the rule. This is not "online chess," we're not playing chess at this moment nor is it even the centre of this debacle. It's the forum and it wouldn't matter if the forum was about chess, checkers, nuclear science, shell scripting, particle physics, comic book fan-fiction, musical genome theory, thermonuclear warfare, or Bon Jovi's indestructible hair. This concerns RainofMeteor's entirely disruptive behaviour towards everyone *on the forum.* If you think I'm the one dragging it out, I think you need to see this post:
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/what-rating-can-i-ultimately-hope-to-achieve?page=3#25

It's clear when somebody goes to post *in another thread* who's needlessly resurrecting an argument. I've put an end to it.

As far as I see it Admiral, Rain was reacting to sarcasm that has persisted through numerous posts dating back a couple of months. The title of the thread was 'Random insults....' and the sarcastic remark was tied to Rains' preference to play games with other people anonymously.
Prior to the sarcasm, Rain was contributing to the forum posts constructively. Rain is fired up, obviously and in my opinion rightly. Look through the threads he's posted and ask yourself if you would've acted differently? Look at the start of this thread. A topic was closed (too many altoids) and an opportunity created for sleeping dogs to lie. Unfortunately, Rain was baited, yet again.
If I have a point, then it is simply - Rain is not being disruptive to the forum and he is not the one who is dragging it out.

I agree with LM AdmiralA, that post was quite bad. And RainOfMeteors, why start such problems. You are not even an active player on this site, since you have not played a single rated game. Why don't you first establish yourself, and than, attack people if it suits your desires, but attacking as an unestablished player just makes it all the more intolerable.

Lord - you don't know the history. Read up if you want to be familiar. My advice to you is don't jump on a cause unless you know what you're fighting for. Everybody's post are here 'for eternity' or at least the donations run out - so read the history and brief yourself before you just add to the swill pit.

I think he is quite accurate and really please forget about this pointless fight and keep the discussion near the original theme.

In response to a recent lambasting by trolls?

Actually, chunky has a point. Although I disagree with their views, this recent string of needless incidents on the forum could've indeed been dealt with in a far more productive manner. However, this hasn't been going on for "a couple of months" and when I look through the threads posted - yes, chunkymonkey, I would indeed have acted differently. My opinion still differs from yours and RainOfMeteor's, but indeed I could have handled this situation a *lot* better than I did.

RainOfMeteor's concerns - however misplaced - should stand irrelevant of whether they've played 8000 games or 8 games on the site. If they have a valid argument against something I've posted, regardless of whoever I am, that argument should stand if it's sound.

Point being, I overreacted and I apologise. I could definitely have done better and shall endeavour to do so in future.

Now can we *please* bury the hatchet and get back on topic?

____INTERESTING: I would argue vis a vis chess that although the personal badmitton of recent messages diverge from the 'mainstream' flow of "what I think about chess" because they point in 'full circle' fashion back to "Static_shadow's" original posting about chess as a form/ 'forum' for SOCIAL INTERACTION.
_____ Perhaps the fact that good chess requires *restrained & controlled* agression promotes civility & respect between adversaries?? I would like to think so...
____ What may go un-noticed but is truly NOTEWORTHY is that between this forum and another I have seen two PUBLIC APOLOGIES. 'Real man' stuff --> HOW RARE!! Think of it -- there is no better testimony to the quality of BOTH the speaker and the audience than an apology. (I am NO saint & I don't normally apolgize to buttheads [if I do it is disguised contempt]. I believe that all of my *sincere* apologies are only offered to people I respect!! If we had this level of integrity from our politicians they might become statesmen & world leaders...
___ Btw: I hope I have properly decoded "*" as an italics/ bold print flag... Is that so??