Me neither, but I am grateful to him for attempting to make them.Roger de Coverly wrote:With current attitudes, it would be very difficult to see any links to http://www.ecforum.co.uk at http://www.englishchess.co.uk .
There is however a thread at http://www.englishchess.co.uk/forum where Jack has commented.
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/Forum/vi ... f=18&t=422
I don't really know what convoluted points Simon Spivak was trying to make.
Jack Rudd's election Q&A thread
-
JustinHorton
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Jack Rudd's election Q&A thread
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
Michael Farthing
- Posts: 2069
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
- Location: Morecambe, Europe
Re: Jack Rudd's election Q&A thread
Well he got sidetracked into making convoluted points about Jonathan Bryant before his convoluted point about Jack could reach its climax (assuming it ever would have done)
[Edited to correct Michael Flatt to Jonathan Bryant. Apologies to both].
[Edited to correct Michael Flatt to Jonathan Bryant. Apologies to both].
Last edited by Michael Farthing on Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Christopher Kreuzer
- Posts: 8838
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
- Location: London
Re: Jack Rudd's election Q&A thread
Hmm. "Carl's clucking cockerels". That might have more legs than "termites"! 
-
David Robertson
Re: Jack Rudd's election Q&A thread
Hhmm. Maybe. But what it gains in alliteration, it forfeits in galline veracityChristopher Kreuzer wrote:Hmm. "Carl's clucking cockerels". That might have more legs than "termites"!
-
MartinCarpenter
- Posts: 3053
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: Jack Rudd's election Q&A thread
You almost get the impression that Simon was trying to give an empirical demonstration of how distracting the noise he was referring to can be 
(But then he diverted into something else.).
(But then he diverted into something else.).
-
JustinHorton
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Jack Rudd's election Q&A thread
So you sayDavid Robertson wrote:Hhmm. Maybe. But what it gains in alliteration, it forfeits in galline veracityChristopher Kreuzer wrote:Hmm. "Carl's clucking cockerels". That might have more legs than "termites"!
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
John McKenna
Re: Jack Rudd's election Q&A thread
Clucking hens or crowing cockerels are examples of "galline veracity".David Robertson wrote:Hhmm. Maybe. But what it gains in alliteration, it forfeits in galline veracityChristopher Kreuzer wrote:Hmm. "Carl's clucking cockerels". That might have more legs than "termites"!
Edit: Carl's Crowing Cockerels - good name for a Fantasy Football team.
Last edited by John McKenna on Tue Sep 15, 2015 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
David Robertson
Re: Jack Rudd's election Q&A thread
LOL, faced with the evidence, I concede. In truth, I was more concerned to work 'galline' into a sentence than the veracity.JustinHorton wrote:So you sayDavid Robertson wrote:Hhmm. Maybe. But what it gains in alliteration, it forfeits in galline veracityChristopher Kreuzer wrote:Hmm. "Carl's clucking cockerels". That might have more legs than "termites"!
I don't doubt it. But it misses the clucking point!John McKenna wrote:Clucking hens or crowing cockerels are examples of "galline veracity"
-
JustinHorton
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Jack Rudd's election Q&A thread
He's having another go...
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com