Just a wake-up call
-
Many times we have heard people around us mentioning about how powerful and influential they are, just because they know certain people in their lives and certain CEO of the CEOs of the world.
So how does people around us actually displayed how powerful they are?
Is it by knowing the AMOUNT of people who are influential?
OR
Is it by knowing the influential people themselves?
For example, in a game of chess....does having multiple pieces on the chessboard makes you the winner of the game OR does knowing your pieces well will makes you as the winner of the game?
It's just a wake-up call for self-"powerful" but vulnerable people out there.
-
WhUt I dOn UnDeRsTaNd LoL
-
It's neither having multiple pieces nor knowing pieces well.
It depends on the position you're in, your skills in evaluating your position, after evaluation, your decision for offense/defense.
anyway. for your 2 options presented.
It shows no recognition of the influential people on you.
Paper tiger. -
Originally posted by Mk7:
It's neither having multiple pieces nor knowing pieces well.
It depends on the position you're in, your skills in evaluating your position, after evaluation, your decision for offense/defense.
anyway. for your 2 options presented.
It shows no recognition of the influential people on you.
Paper tiger.It's neither having multiple pieces nor knowing pieces well.
It depends on the position you're in, your skills in evaluating your position, after evaluation, your decision for offense/defense.I was thinking of that as well.
-
Well parn, I understand wat you're trying to say... Indeed it is a wakeup call for some ppl however I think the example on chess is abit off...
Chess is more like a battle on mistakes...
-
Originally posted by Mk7:
It's neither having multiple pieces nor knowing pieces well.
It depends on the position you're in, your skills in evaluating your position, after evaluation, your decision for offense/defense.
anyway. for your 2 options presented.
It shows no recognition of the influential people on you.
Paper tiger.
Since you don't understand the scenario, you can imagine the chessboard with all the pieces in it before the chess game.It's common knowledge that you need to have a GAMEPLAN first before you begin any game.
-
Sorry I don't understand what you're trying to put forward here.
Maybe more layman terms or increase the precision of your language? -
So obvious that Parn doesn't know how to play chess well
-
The topic isn't about chess.
Pin Head is unable to reply to my topic post.
-
Parn must always be right, even when she has obviously displayed stupidity by using the wrong chess analogy
Either she doesn't know chess at all, or she doesn't know about the topic she is talking about at all. Either way, using bad analogies doesn't show anything smart about parn
-
Ha Ha ...
Next please.
-
Parn's usual reply when not able to produce a more intellectual reply.
-
Originally posted by Pin Head:
Parn's usual reply when not able to produce a more intellectual reply.
Clones usual reply when not able to produce a more intelligible reply. Instead of constructive discussion over the overall topic at hand, you choose to focus on a small and unimportant part of his post, taking it way out of context and choosing to nitpick trivial details instead.
Not on anyone's side, but despite you all saying this and that about parn, the fact remains you guys seem to be fascinated with his posts, and regardless of the barrage of insults and criticism you all hurl at him, you all still come back for more. Shows how much you're secretly fascinated with him, huh.
-
Originally posted by Pin Head:
Parn must always be right, even when she has obviously displayed stupidity by using the wrong chess analogy
Either she doesn't know chess at all, or she doesn't know about the topic she is talking about at all. Either way, using bad analogies doesn't show anything smart about parn
No offense but the topic isn't really on chess... Even if she use a wrong analogy, her point is still there... We're really going off topic... -
Originally posted by nightsky87:
Clones usual reply when not able to produce a more intelligible reply. Instead of constructive discussion over the overall topic at hand, you choose to focus on a small and unimportant part of his post, taking it way out of context and choosing to nitpick trivial details instead.
Not on anyone's side, but despite you all saying this and that about parn, the fact remains you guys seem to be fascinated with his posts, and regardless of the barrage of insults and criticism you all hurl at him, you all still come back for more. Shows how much you're secretly fascinated with him, huh.
So how do you define clones?This is not nitpicking. If you want to use a bad analogy for your topic, you jolly well take responsibility for the bad analogy.
Since you want to act intellectual, I give you a chance. Please tell me
1) how pointing out the bad analogy by parn isn't to the topic since the analogy is being used as a supporting point?
2) why is it that the main analogy, being used as a point of support, is a trivial detail, and only a small and unimportant part?
3) how this post of yours is related to this topic at all?Give a bad analogy in a paper and you will be penalised like mad. And you are telling me that this is trivial????
Bottomline: She should have chosen a better analogy.
-
Originally posted by ^Acid^ aka s|aO^eH~:
No offense but the topic isn't really on chess... Even if she use a wrong analogy, her point is still there... We're really going off topic...
Her point is still there, I did not deny. But when you give a valid point followed by a bad analogy, what credibility does that give you?Reading the front part was ok, but the second part gives a "huh?".
-
id rather be a winner with all my chess pieces left :]
overwhelming defeat to you!
-
Originally posted by nightsky87:
Not on anyone's side, but despite you all saying this and that about parn, the fact remains you guys seem to be fascinated with his posts, and regardless of the barrage of insults and criticism you all hurl at him, you all still come back for more. Shows how much you're secretly fascinated with him, huh.
(1)we are not fascinated by his posts, we are just fascinated with his dumbness and stupidity.
(2)we don't come back for more, this guy just keep coming back to post all these pseudo philosphical qns!!
-
Originally posted by Pin Head:
Her point is still there, I did not deny. But when you give a valid point followed by a bad analogy, what credibility does that give you?Reading the front part was ok, but the second part gives a "huh?".
It wasn't a bad analogy, it is just beyond your comprehension that's all.Are you so ashamed to admit that you do not understand my post?
And I'm not going to waste my time to explain it to you when you do not have the intention to participate in this discussion.
Take a look at your own post first before you pick on others.
-
For example Chinese chess
Before you know how to play the chess you need to know some of these chess funtions..
like car, cannon, horse how are they able to move
so its how you use those CEOs to win the game.they are like the horse,cannon, car one of the main general of the game which can help u win the game easiler
you can win with 5 soliders but.. it will take a long time isn'it?
if you dont' even know those chess how are you suppose to win the game?
a solider is very useful but if u imploy them in to a wrong position they are dead for sure
-
Originally posted by 00king00:
(1)we are not fascinated by his posts, we are just fascinated with his dumbness and stupidity.
(2)we don't come back for more, this guy just keep coming back to post all these pseudo philosphical qns!!
As usual, you are only capable of posting such comments. -
Thanks for waking me up.
-
Originally posted by [J]erry:
For example Chinese chess
Before you know how to play the chess you need to know some of these chess funtions..
like car, cannon, horse how are they able to move
so its how you use those CEOs to win the game.they are like the horse,cannon, car one of the main general of the game which can help u win the game easiler
you can win with 5 soliders but.. it will take a long time isn'it?
if you dont' even know those chess how are you suppose to win the game?
a solider is very useful but if u imploy them in to a wrong position they are dead for sure
Well no offense but that's a very bad analog -___-Parn's trying to state that having more chess piece does not = to winning the chess game... It's knowing how to use them wisely and not just knowing how to move them...
-
Some people are worthless trash who only know how to throw names around to show how 'cool' or 'powerful' they are. For example, they will say "Hey I know XXX, we are good friends what!" but in reality, XXX do not even know of the so-called good friend's pathetic existence (I went to ask XXX about it).
So yeah, time to wake up. Power by association is just temporary and you never know the person you are bragging to may be a blood relative or a good friend of the influential person you pretend to know.
-
Originally posted by ^Acid^ aka s|aO^eH~:
Well no offense but that's a very bad analog -___-Parn's trying to state that having more chess piece does not = to winning the chess game... It's knowing how to use them wisely and not just knowing how to move them...
yes.. thats what im trying to say..
if you put all your cannon horse and car at the wrong position they will get eaten up right?
so you have to make use of them..
is like you are going to work in a car industry and what for u call the CEO of FarEast organization?
i agree with parn.. me too hate those people who think they are a big shit if they know somebody..