Lifted from
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/march2008/180643_carpio.htm

“Petitioner’s discussions with the President dealt not on simple bribery, but on scandalous bribery involving high Government officials of the Philippines”

“Petitioner admits, and there can be no dispute about this admission, that his discussions with the President dwelt on a bribery scandal involving high Government officials of the Philippines.”

Bencard – clever enough the defense rested entirely on the suppression of proof protected under executive privilege. Same strategy invoked during investigation of military in the 2004 cheated elections.

You should have known that the white pieces made a series of bad moves before, and that the white rooks did not flank the white king, until much later in the game. Before that, the black pieces were “almost unhindered” in their advance.

As a chess luminary, you should know that things could happen in chess, especially when chess masters like you play against chess morons like me.

C’mon, not everyone is as brilliant as you are in chess.

Still, black is checking, albeit white is in advantage now.

I guess you have to live with that.

ethics, morals and ecclesiastical norms derives it’s obligatory force from spiritual sanctions, i.e., intangibles such as dishonor, guilty conscience, eternal damnation;

not so, bencard, not so. i suggest keeping an open mind and read michael shermer’s science of good and evil. your concept of obligatory force only demotes the meaning of free will, i.e., from a theological perspective. but if you have to argume from a theological standpoint, my take on this is simple: as creatures in the image and likeness of God, that sense of morality resides within and does not need an objective outsider.

The rule book says: if the same position with the same player to move is repeated three times in the game (in this case, perpetual checking) the rule mandates that the player to move can claim a draw.

How can the situation given by the commenter lead to perpetual checking eh marami pang move ang white at ang defense ay di pa nila mapenetrate what with the queen and the bishops still on the chess board.

Sa pawns ? hahaha you make ma laugh. nakabasa ka lang ng rule, pinaste mo na rito.

Applying that to the politics, as he was saying, Lozada,is
represented by a pawn. Agree. But this “pawn” will never have the chance to be promoted as Queen (queening. The support of the bishops is gone. Even the queen got sick. And another knight died. I am sorry to hear those bad news. sooner or later Lozada will be gobbled up may be by another pawn or by the rook or by the queen.

Maglaro ka na lang checker o sungka. mwehehe

The Ca t, white is winning, and black intends to play perpetual check (let’s grant that he can). so if they don’t call it a draw, we’ll have to leave them. there’s nothing more to see. i don’t know about mandated draw though. it’s not in the rule book.

with the gueen, the bishops and the rook flanking the King, how could the black make a perpetual check?

Baka di pa sila makarating sa paroroonan nila, kain na sila.

Tssk tssk

pilit na analogy

Now I believe him.

Because the chess analogy that he linked is not a chess analogy at all. If you are really playing chess, you will see why.”

Oh, I’m sorry to hear that MLQ3 did not take on your own “chess analogy”. Mwehehehe…

mwehehehe”

Who said that the endgame has commenced? The analogy was talking about the “essential pieces for the endgame” and situations “towards the endgame”.

mindanaoan is correct: “The Ca t, white is winning, and black intends to play perpetual check (let’s grant that he can). so if they don’t call it a draw, we’ll have to leave them. there’s nothing more to see…”

But: “i don’t know about mandated draw though. it’s not in the rule book.”

The rule book says: if the same position with the same player to move is repeated three times in the game (in this case, perpetual checking) the rule mandates that the player to move can claim a draw.