Help me! He won't resign

 And what about a "good" player who is way ahead in points, yet can't force a win?

we've all played players who won't resign, no matter what the disadvantage (in material).  You want to think yourself lucky your not playing 14 days per move with your oppenent moving once every 14 days!

that actually happened to me on another site. 

but I do agree that it is prudent to resign if your cause is so obviously lost, any oppenent who deliberately prolongs an obviously lost game do'es not get the opportunity (via a rematch) to do it again.  Having said that, your particular game is open to a stalemate situation and, or error, therefore in this case he is right to continue.  However frustrating this may be....

Please define "way ahead in points" ?

 Regardless of what he meant, you've already defined it yourself.

As per Reb "Good players know when to resign." But it must follow also that good players have no difficulty converting the game to a win at the point when their opponent knows it's time to resign. This is the part that always makes me scratch my head. If a player claims his opponent should resign, that player should have no trouble finishing off the win, so why not just do it. (There are the exceptional cases of a player taking days to make each trivial move and prolonging the game, but that is not a question of not resigning, but a different kind of poor sportspersonship.) 

Some points : I know what I consider "way ahead in points" but I dont know what the person using that phrase considers "way ahead in points" thus my question. Certainly a queen up ( 9 points ahead) is "way ahead in points"  in anyone's book I would think. I have already pointed out that the original poster is a hypocrite for expecting his opponent to resign when he himself doesnt resign a game where he is even further behind. He also didnt resign another game where he was further behind and his opponent had to mate him. At the level of the two players involved not resigning is common. They are weak and either dont understand that they are completely lost OR think that their opponent is weak enough that they will blunder the game away , or blunder into a stalemate, or not know hoe to mate with a queen more. One more thing for you loomis, are you so PC that you cant say "sportsmanship"?

I think we've successfully redefine the thread title into:

"Help! I don't know how to win and the other guy is refusing to help me do it!" 

Reb: I can think of two other reasons not to resign.

I'm an inexperienced player, and I like to watch the game played out so I can learn. There are times when I'm so far behind in material that I know I will lose, but I don't know exactly how my opponent will beat me. In those cases I treat the endgame as a learning experience.

The other is something that I see as a point of sportsmanship in its own right. If I finally see that it's mate in one no matter what I do, I'll move, write/say "good game" and give my opponent the satisfaction of the checkmate that he has earned.

Reb, your conversation is no longer with the original poster, try to keep up. Everyone knows how rediculous the original poster is.

"Sportspersonship" was a joke. The chess.com satire meter must be broken again.

I'll give you another reason for not resigning an online game, be it a rather controversial one...

Once I took up a game with a player rated about 1000 with a record of 0-6-0. I hit him with a Max Lange expecting an easy win when suddenly i is me who is atacked and losing pieces. Took another look at his games and it turned out he lost all on time. I was way down in material and facing a catastrophic loss of points, as I was in the 1200's. But instead of resigning immediatly, I stalled until his rating went up so the loss of points was less dramatic and then resigned. 

So there is a point to playing lost positions. 

1. If you can´t beat him iwth the advantage you have you don´t deserve to win.

2. You guys are right , I deleted the part of the post that gave him some advice.

Nobody should be giving him specific advice on this game because it's in-progress.

   Wow. . .very interesting responses.  First off, thanks to those of you who have given strategy to my opponent, we will see if he is able to utilize all of it.  As of last night, I truely didn't know if a queen alone could create a checkmate situation, and by the resignation demands made by my opponent, I understood that he probably was also unsure.  I stopped playing at the point when my opponent frustration turned into name calling.  (I guess he felt he had to lower himself to my non-gentlemen-like level;)

  However, after reading all of the responses today and contemplating the pros and cons of resignation, I have decided to see where the game ends up.  Reguardless if I am inevitably going to lose, it has been suggested that we may both learn a thing or two, which is the ultimately the main reason that I choose to play on this site.

westre> As of last night, I truely didn't know if a queen alone could create a checkmate situation, and by the resignation demands made by my opponent, I understood that he probably was also unsure. Reguardless if I am inevitably going to lose, it has been suggested that we may both learn a thing or two, which is the ultimately the main reason that I choose to play on this site.

Excellent... good luck! I support playing on if the win is unclear to one or both players.

   I like that.  I might start doing that, too.  If the person is being really annoying, I'll probably take all of my time to do so, as well.   
Of course, since those people will be poor sports, they'll probably complain about me a lot.  They'll probably say that I was being a poor sport because I decided to take the full time for my moves, forgetting to mention that they provoked me.  Maybe they'll even start a post about it.  Then I can post the entire conversation in there to show everyone on chess.com what jerks they are.    So, just a warning to everyone, if you're going to be an a**, be prepared for the consequences.