| |
Main
Date: 03 Mar 2008 07:21:03
From: Chess One
Subject: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
Dear Reader,
20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now
published at
http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 20 questions
session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry brought about
by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCafe.
Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive detail, to
illustrate the context of reks made in the current interview.
There are also a few not-before-released pictures of Mr. Truong and his
wife, from their wedding.
Phil Innes
for Chessville
---
[aside] 20 Questions with Mickey Adams will be published next week as
previously stated - the above interview being more timely.
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2008 22:04:51
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
Rob wrote:
>
>Rob wrote:
>
>> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>>
>> > Rob wrote:
>> > >So my original question remails the same if anyone has
>> > >checked the ip address you gave and now I wonder how
>> > >much header was included in the Mottershead samples?
>>
>> > It's pretty obvious by now that the two have no connection.
>> > One set is associated with Truong, the other with Sloan.
>> > If there was evidence of Truong using the sloan IP address
>> > or Sloan using the Truong IP addresses, somebody would have
>> > posted the evidence by now.
>>
>> Maybe. But the others could just as easily say they have no
>> connection, but they have not. Since it was brought up it should be
>> answered.
>
>Still no replies.
The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. If someone
makes a claim without evidence through an anonymous remailer, I
see no reason why I should do that person's homework for them
by attempting to prove that the claim is true, even if doing so
would only take a few minutes of my time.
In the time it took you to post the series of articles asking
others whether the IP address in question is in the Mottershead
samples, you could have done your own checking many times over.
Open the Mottershead samples in any word processor or text editor,
do a search on the IP address you are interested in, and report
whether there was a match.
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2008 13:19:56
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 30, 8:09=A0am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 28, 5:28 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
> > Rob wrote:
> > >So my original question remails the same if anyone has checked the ip
> > >address you gave and now I wonder how much header was included in the
> > >Mottershead samples?
>
> > It's pretty obvious by now that the two have no connection.
> > One set is associated with Truong, the other with Sloan.
> > If there was evidence of Truong using the sloan IP address
> > or Sloan using the Truong IP addresses, somebody would have
> > posted the evidence by now.
>
> Maybe. But the others could just as easily say they have no
> connection, but they have not. Since it was brought up it should be
> answered.
Still no replies.
|
| |
Date: 30 Mar 2008 06:09:07
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 28, 5:28 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> >So my original question remails the same if anyone has checked the ip
> >address you gave and now I wonder how much header was included in the
> >Mottershead samples?
>
> It's pretty obvious by now that the two have no connection.
> One set is associated with Truong, the other with Sloan.
> If there was evidence of Truong using the sloan IP address
> or Sloan using the Truong IP addresses, somebody would have
> posted the evidence by now.
Maybe. But the others could just as easily say they have no
connection, but they have not. Since it was brought up it should be
answered.
|
| |
Date: 28 Mar 2008 22:28:43
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
Rob wrote:
>So my original question remails the same if anyone has checked the ip
>address you gave and now I wonder how much header was included in the
>Mottershead samples?
It's pretty obvious by now that the two have no connection.
One set is associated with Truong, the other with Sloan.
If there was evidence of Truong using the sloan IP address
or Sloan using the Truong IP addresses, somebody would have
posted the evidence by now.
|
| |
Date: 28 Mar 2008 14:50:58
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 28, 3:19=A0pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> >I don't know. It was just odd to me that once Louis Blair and Guy
> >Macon made this IP public the discussions about IP's went away. I
> >fully believe that there are folks with a lot of computer talent that
> >can spoof IP's.
>
> >For an example(and this will probably be on the Monkey list next), if
> >I visited Guy's website every day, he could capture my IP and the
> >spoof a post. I am sure there is a bit more technically to it than
> >that. Point being is all that is needed is a way of catching a current
> >IP from a poster.
>
> That is a common misconception.
>
> Faking your IP address on Usenet is a *lot* harder than that. =A0
> *Hiding* it is easy, for example my news provider (Giganews)
> does not include an unencrypted IP address in my posts, and
> of course an anonymous remailer or proxy server will make it
> so that the IP address is that of the intermediate machine,
> but me *faking* your IP address in my posts? =A0Not unless I
> have control over your news server.
>
> The basic problem for any attacker using a fake IP address is
> that the basic protocol for sending data over the Internet
> uses your IP address to route packets back to you. =A0Oh, sure
> I could forge packets so that they contain your IP address,
> but whatever machine I am talking to will send responses back
> to your IP address, not mine. =A0This is a big problem for me,
> because news servers and web servers use the layers IP, TCP,
> and NNTP/HTTP to communicate. TCP is connection-based. =A0It
> uses a two-way handshake to initiate the session and for the
> computers to update one another on progress. =A0Without these
> acknowledgements, the computers on each end time out and
> give up.
>
> You can learn more here:http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1674
>
> In addition, in the case of Usenet posts, each hop results
> in another entry in the Path header, and the attacker can
> only add to the rightmost part of the path -- the other
> parts are added after the post leaves his local server. This
> is also very hard to fake. =A0For example, let's look at that
> I see when I look at the path of your posts:
>
> Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
> nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com!
> not-for-mail
>
> Let's look at aech of these:
>
> number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
> My PC added that, saying that this is where the post
> came from and that this is the machine that it had the
> two-way handshake with. =A0Not spoofable by you.
>
> border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
> This was added by number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com, saying that
> this is where the post came from. =A0 Not spoofable by you. =A0
>
> nntp.giganews.com!
> postnews.google.com!
> Same story as above. =A0So far, all machines that I can trust.
>
> 2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com!
> Here we see that the Giganews server says that the post came
> from the googlegroups server. =A0Not spoofable by you.
>
> not-for-mail
> This just says that it's a Usenet post, not an email.
>
> If there were more servers in the path, I would simply go
> from left to right asking in each case "do I trust this
> server to not tell me lies about the next server?"
>
> Now I happen to know that this line in your header:
>
> Injection-Info: 2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com;
> posting-host=3D70.149.157.102;
> posting-account=3DPGLZxQkAAADlS-khR6d7892fziugg3CU
>
> ...was added by googlegroups, and that if you tried adding a
> fake Injection-Info line googlegroups would strip it out
> and replace it. =A0So I know that Google groups had an HTTP
> session with a machine at IP address 70.149.157.102.
>
> So now I ask, is 70.149.157.102 a proxy server? =A0If so, the
> trail stops there and I don't know where the post came from.
> So I look it up with tracert: =A0
>
> =A0adsl-149-157-102.bna.bellsouth.net [70.149.157.102]
>
> That's a Bellsouth DSL line, not a proxy server. =A0And I know,
> using only information from servers that you don't control,
> that you didn't put it there yourself.
>
> --
> misc.business.product-dev: a Usenet newsgroup
> about the Business of Product Development.
> =A0 =A0 =A0-- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Very cool Guy!
So may original question remails the same if anyone has checked the ip
address you gave and now I wonder how much header was included in the
Mottershead samples?
Rob
|
| |
Date: 28 Mar 2008 20:19:38
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
Rob wrote:
>I don't know. It was just odd to me that once Louis Blair and Guy
>Macon made this IP public the discussions about IP's went away. I
>fully believe that there are folks with a lot of computer talent that
>can spoof IP's.
>
>For an example(and this will probably be on the Monkey list next), if
>I visited Guy's website every day, he could capture my IP and the
>spoof a post. I am sure there is a bit more technically to it than
>that. Point being is all that is needed is a way of catching a current
>IP from a poster.
That is a common misconception.
Faking your IP address on Usenet is a *lot* harder than that.
*Hiding* it is easy, for example my news provider (Giganews)
does not include an unencrypted IP address in my posts, and
of course an anonymous remailer or proxy server will make it
so that the IP address is that of the intermediate machine,
but me *faking* your IP address in my posts? Not unless I
have control over your news server.
The basic problem for any attacker using a fake IP address is
that the basic protocol for sending data over the Internet
uses your IP address to route packets back to you. Oh, sure
I could forge packets so that they contain your IP address,
but whatever machine I am talking to will send responses back
to your IP address, not mine. This is a big problem for me,
because news servers and web servers use the layers IP, TCP,
and NNTP/HTTP to communicate. TCP is connection-based. It
uses a two-way handshake to initiate the session and for the
computers to update one another on progress. Without these
acknowledgements, the computers on each end time out and
give up.
You can learn more here:
http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1674
In addition, in the case of Usenet posts, each hop results
in another entry in the Path header, and the attacker can
only add to the rightmost part of the path -- the other
parts are added after the post leaves his local server. This
is also very hard to fake. For example, let's look at that
I see when I look at the path of your posts:
Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com!
not-for-mail
Let's look at aech of these:
number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
My PC added that, saying that this is where the post
came from and that this is the machine that it had the
two-way handshake with. Not spoofable by you.
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
This was added by number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com, saying that
this is where the post came from. Not spoofable by you.
nntp.giganews.com!
postnews.google.com!
Same story as above. So far, all machines that I can trust.
2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com!
Here we see that the Giganews server says that the post came
from the googlegroups server. Not spoofable by you.
not-for-mail
This just says that it's a Usenet post, not an email.
If there were more servers in the path, I would simply go
from left to right asking in each case "do I trust this
server to not tell me lies about the next server?"
Now I happen to know that this line in your header:
Injection-Info: 2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=70.149.157.102;
posting-account=PGLZxQkAAADlS-khR6d7892fziugg3CU
...was added by googlegroups, and that if you tried adding a
fake Injection-Info line googlegroups would strip it out
and replace it. So I know that Google groups had an HTTP
session with a machine at IP address 70.149.157.102.
So now I ask, is 70.149.157.102 a proxy server? If so, the
trail stops there and I don't know where the post came from.
So I look it up with tracert:
adsl-149-157-102.bna.bellsouth.net [70.149.157.102]
That's a Bellsouth DSL line, not a proxy server. And I know,
using only information from servers that you don't control,
that you didn't put it there yourself.
--
misc.business.product-dev: a Usenet newsgroup
about the Business of Product Development.
-- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| |
Date: 27 Mar 2008 08:35:49
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 27, 9:34=A0am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On 27, 9:02=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3, 1:13=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Did you actually think there was anything new in the interview? I was
> > > hoping we would get at least some idea of what type of evidence Truong=
> > > claimed to have that might clear him, but saw absolutely nothing.
>
> > > Truong seems to have the entirely wrong idea about obligations of the
> > > USCF towards him. The USCF interests are not automatically bound to or=
> > > against the interests of Truong. They were presented with convincing
> > > evidence of Truong's guilt, in the form of Motterhead's report which
> > > was backed by two expert reports. Thus, their first obligation was to
> > > try to determine whether Truong was innocent, in which case they would=
> > > tie their interests to his, or guilty, in which case they would try to=
> > > separate themselves from Truong as much as possible.
>
> > > Therefore, the USCF asked him for a legally binding declaration of
> > > innocence. Truong did not provide this; he did not at the time,
> > > claiming a misunderstanding, but he could easily have provided one
> > > since to try to mend fences. He claimed that he had convincing proof
> > > of innocence. The USCF wisely sent it to their lawyers rather than
> > > judge this themselves; the lawyers did not feel that the evidence was
> > > at all =A0convincing.
>
> > > The timing is not exactly clear; around this time, Truong started
> > > attacking the USCF board. By this time, it is very clear that the
> > > interests of the USCF and Truong are not the same. Therefore, rather
> > > than turn over records which Truong requested (and I am convinced they=
> > > would have done this had Truong given a sworn statement of innocence
> > > plus rock-solid evidence of innocence which he claims), they came to
> > > the conclusion that his interests must be separate from those of the
> > > USCF. Negotiating settlements on behalf of the USCF without Truong
> > > became obvious practical policy rather than a notorious plot. If
> > > Truong wants access to the records, let his lawyers talk to the USCF
> > > lawyers, but by not cooperating on his part he brought on himself the
> > > decision that he would not automatically get access.
>
> > > The USCF lawyers have undoubtedly told the USCF that there is strong
> > > evidence of Truong's guilt, and that they must look out for their own
> > > interests.
>
> > > Truong claims that he has leads which might indicate guilty parties.
> > > Why should they believe him? They have the expert reports, and Truong
> > > himself does not give any reason to believe that these so-called leads=
> > > have any basis; instead he claims he has no idea who did it.
>
> > > This does not even deal with previous behavior of Truong which might
> > > cast doubt on his innocence; the PhD claims and the Bob Bennett
> > > postings. Truong's credibility is very low; if he wants to convince
> > > anyone, he had better show some vidence rather than dwell on Sam
> > > Sloan's traits or USCF policies. Sam Sloan is the one who filed suit,
> > > but nobody took notice when Sam made any earlier accusations. =A0The
> > > credibility this times comes from Motterhead and the two expert
> > > reports; Sloan himself is irrelevant to the question of whether Truong=
> > > has been lying on this issue.
>
> > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > On 3, 9:45=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On 3, 8:00=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected]> wrote in me=
ssagenews:214fc4e0-0244-4761-9a1f-f73f66e7baa0@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com.=
..
>
> > > > > > On 3, 4:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >> Dear Reader,
>
> > > > > >> 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truon=
g is now
> > > > > >> published
> > > > > >> athttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/T=
ruong2.htm
>
> > > > > >> There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 2=
0
> > > > > >> questions
> > > > > >> session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry b=
rought
> > > > > >> about
> > > > > >> by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCa=
fe.
>
> > > > > >> Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive de=
tail, to
> > > > > >> illustrate the context of reks made in the current interview=
.
>
> > > > > > Mr. Truong:
>
> > > > > > "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise=
."
>
> > > > > > What kind of bs is that?!
>
> > > > > > But yes, nobody in past had this kind of experience
> > > > > > in criminal Internet behavior as Mr. Truong - in this
> > > > > > respect he's unique.
>
> > > > > > Phil:
>
> > > > > > =A0 =A0"you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
> > > > > > =A0 =A0 but satirizing another Board member,"
>
> > > > > > Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
> > > > > > (Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
> > > > > > but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
> > > > > > you write like this).
>
> > > > > > Wlod
>
> > > > > I'm sorry Wlod, but I could [almost] always tell the difference be=
tween the
> > > > > false-Sloan and the real one. I find it difficult to believe any n=
ative
> > > > > English speaker could not. But perhaps people will now write in to=
say how
> > > > > dumb they are?
>
> > > > > What I found encouraging about the interview was a determination t=
o pursue
> > > > > this matter so that all the information could come out, and so all=
people
> > > > > could review it. If I did not think that way I would lose respect =
for
> > > > > myself.
>
> > > > > As to your first point, surely keting expertise is contestable!=
- but 50
> > > > > mainstream mentions in 2006 compared with USCF's 2, makes for a co=
ntest, no?
> > > > > A couple or 3 films on chess now in the offing, an Institute for c=
hess
> > > > > established within mainstream media... meanwhile
>
> > > > > In the Parrot this week I had to take note in a sidebar that USCF'=
s
> > > > > financial advisor got it wrong by a mere $94,000 dollars, putting =
ChessHut
> > > > > even further into the hole. And that is uncontestable. Now, 94k is=
nothing
> > > > > to you and me, but its probably 3 or 4 jobs to other people - and =
this is
> > > > > after Bill Goichberg and Bill Hall have prepared the scene by ment=
ioning
> > > > > letting people go...
>
> > > > > And therefore, the Parrot extrapolates what this can all mean in t=
he next 12
> > > > > months - and if we will see a bare bones 'Small Tent' organisation=
of a
> > > > > dozen or so people employed on maintencance activities. Did I answ=
er your
> > > > > keting question yet?
>
> > > > > I think post-Fischer boom that USCF membership has grown only to t=
he same
> > > > > extent as the US population. But anyway, you tell me what you thin=
k of all
> > > > > that, and what your own measures are - then we could actually disc=
uss
> > > > > something.
>
> > > > > I =A0have respect for myself in attempting dialog based on actuall=
y looking at
> > > > > what is going on, not on vague propaganda and partialities. The sh=
ip is
> > > > > almost sunk Wlod, and no one seems to be in control nor responsibl=
e.
> > > > > Certainly not the USCF board or Ex Director, who have declined to =
talk about
> > > > > it.
>
> > > > > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Great Interview.
> > > > Enjoy the temporary lull today. Since Sam is in court we will be
> > > > spared his diluge of cross-posting nonsense for at least 24 more
> > > > hours!
> > > > Rob- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Jerry,
> > Have you checked the IP address against the Mottershead report?
> > Here is the IP:
> > =A069.124.205.180
> > All Brian wanted to do was harp on the report until this IP was made
> > public and attributed to Sloan. What's up with that?
>
> I agree it should be checked, because I think these IP addresses are
> significant. However, what's up with you thinking that this IP address
> is important while thinking that the many IP addresses matching up
> with Truong are not important? Or do you now agree that the many
> identified IP matches with Truong, which also match up to moves in
> location, are convincing evidence that he made those FSS postings?
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rob(Lex) Mitchell...... <Which-Mitch for Sloan>- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't know. It was just odd to me that once Louis Blair and Guy
Macon made this IP public the discussions about IP's went away. I
fully believe that there are folks with a lot of computer talent that
can spoof IP's.
For an example(and this will probably be on the Monkey list next), if
I visited Guy's website every day, he could capture my IP and the
spoof a post. I am sure there is a bit more technically to it than
that. Point being is all that is needed is a way of catching a current
IP from a poster.
Politically if you have rivals the most effective way of removing them
is to have them kill each other first. So someone plays Sloan against
Paul and Susan. They stay safely out of the fray while the others are
forced to defend themselves.
Rob
|
| | |
Date: 27 Mar 2008 12:21:45
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On Thu, 27 2008 08:35:49 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:
>I don't know. It was just odd to me that once Louis Blair and Guy
>Macon made this IP public the discussions about IP's went away. I
>fully believe that there are folks with a lot of computer talent that
>can spoof IP's.
IMO, there's been less discussion about IP addresses for several
reasons. First, and most importantly, several credentialed experts
have evaluated the Mottershead report and found its methodology and
conclusions sound. So, from the perspective of those who tentatively
accept the truth of the accusations against PT, there's not much more
to say, relative to IP addresses. And from the perspective of those
who dogmatically refuse to entertain the possibility that PT was
responsible for all/many/most/some of the FSS posts, IP addresses are
something they don't want to discuss, unless it's in the context of
some complex spoofing scheme spanning several years. The more
definitive the weight of technical evidence, such as IP addresses, the
more fanciful grow the conspiracy spoofing theories crafted by PT's
defenders to account for that physical evidence.
>For an example(and this will probably be on the Monkey list next), if
>I visited Guy's website every day, he could capture my IP and the
>spoof a post. I am sure there is a bit more technically to it than
>that. Point being is all that is needed is a way of catching a current
>IP from a poster.
The admin of any website you visit could probably capture your IP
address. Spoofing it is one thing. But this is hardly the meat of
the Mottershead Report, which analyzes multiple IPs in specific
locations and time-frames and the context in which they'd have to be
spoofed.
BTW, your example is too late to make the List of the Blind Monkey --
I think it was covered quite early in the game by numbers 5 and 6. :-)
>Politically if you have rivals the most effective way of removing them
>is to have them kill each other first. So someone plays Sloan against
>Paul and Susan. They stay safely out of the fray while the others are
>forced to defend themselves.
This seems a reasonable speculation. Any evidence for it, beyond it
being a possibility and a decent Machiavellian strategy?
|
| |
Date: 27 Mar 2008 07:34:32
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 27, 9:02=A0am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 3, 1:13=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Did you actually think there was anything new in the interview? I was
> > hoping we would get at least some idea of what type of evidence Truong
> > claimed to have that might clear him, but saw absolutely nothing.
>
> > Truong seems to have the entirely wrong idea about obligations of the
> > USCF towards him. The USCF interests are not automatically bound to or
> > against the interests of Truong. They were presented with convincing
> > evidence of Truong's guilt, in the form of Motterhead's report which
> > was backed by two expert reports. Thus, their first obligation was to
> > try to determine whether Truong was innocent, in which case they would
> > tie their interests to his, or guilty, in which case they would try to
> > separate themselves from Truong as much as possible.
>
> > Therefore, the USCF asked him for a legally binding declaration of
> > innocence. Truong did not provide this; he did not at the time,
> > claiming a misunderstanding, but he could easily have provided one
> > since to try to mend fences. He claimed that he had convincing proof
> > of innocence. The USCF wisely sent it to their lawyers rather than
> > judge this themselves; the lawyers did not feel that the evidence was
> > at all =A0convincing.
>
> > The timing is not exactly clear; around this time, Truong started
> > attacking the USCF board. By this time, it is very clear that the
> > interests of the USCF and Truong are not the same. Therefore, rather
> > than turn over records which Truong requested (and I am convinced they
> > would have done this had Truong given a sworn statement of innocence
> > plus rock-solid evidence of innocence which he claims), they came to
> > the conclusion that his interests must be separate from those of the
> > USCF. Negotiating settlements on behalf of the USCF without Truong
> > became obvious practical policy rather than a notorious plot. If
> > Truong wants access to the records, let his lawyers talk to the USCF
> > lawyers, but by not cooperating on his part he brought on himself the
> > decision that he would not automatically get access.
>
> > The USCF lawyers have undoubtedly told the USCF that there is strong
> > evidence of Truong's guilt, and that they must look out for their own
> > interests.
>
> > Truong claims that he has leads which might indicate guilty parties.
> > Why should they believe him? They have the expert reports, and Truong
> > himself does not give any reason to believe that these so-called leads
> > have any basis; instead he claims he has no idea who did it.
>
> > This does not even deal with previous behavior of Truong which might
> > cast doubt on his innocence; the PhD claims and the Bob Bennett
> > postings. Truong's credibility is very low; if he wants to convince
> > anyone, he had better show some vidence rather than dwell on Sam
> > Sloan's traits or USCF policies. Sam Sloan is the one who filed suit,
> > but nobody took notice when Sam made any earlier accusations. =A0The
> > credibility this times comes from Motterhead and the two expert
> > reports; Sloan himself is irrelevant to the question of whether Truong
> > has been lying on this issue.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > On 3, 9:45=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On 3, 8:00=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected]> wrote in mess=
agenews:214fc4e0-0244-4761-9a1f-f73f66e7baa0@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...=
>
> > > > > On 3, 4:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> Dear Reader,
>
> > > > >> 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong =
is now
> > > > >> published
> > > > >> athttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Tru=
ong2.htm
>
> > > > >> There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 20
> > > > >> questions
> > > > >> session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry bro=
ught
> > > > >> about
> > > > >> by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCafe=
.
>
> > > > >> Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive deta=
il, to
> > > > >> illustrate the context of reks made in the current interview.
>
> > > > > Mr. Truong:
>
> > > > > "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."=
>
> > > > > What kind of bs is that?!
>
> > > > > But yes, nobody in past had this kind of experience
> > > > > in criminal Internet behavior as Mr. Truong - in this
> > > > > respect he's unique.
>
> > > > > Phil:
>
> > > > > =A0 =A0"you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
> > > > > =A0 =A0 but satirizing another Board member,"
>
> > > > > Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
> > > > > (Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
> > > > > but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
> > > > > you write like this).
>
> > > > > Wlod
>
> > > > I'm sorry Wlod, but I could [almost] always tell the difference betw=
een the
> > > > false-Sloan and the real one. I find it difficult to believe any nat=
ive
> > > > English speaker could not. But perhaps people will now write in to s=
ay how
> > > > dumb they are?
>
> > > > What I found encouraging about the interview was a determination to =
pursue
> > > > this matter so that all the information could come out, and so all p=
eople
> > > > could review it. If I did not think that way I would lose respect fo=
r
> > > > myself.
>
> > > > As to your first point, surely keting expertise is contestable! -=
but 50
> > > > mainstream mentions in 2006 compared with USCF's 2, makes for a cont=
est, no?
> > > > A couple or 3 films on chess now in the offing, an Institute for che=
ss
> > > > established within mainstream media... meanwhile
>
> > > > In the Parrot this week I had to take note in a sidebar that USCF's
> > > > financial advisor got it wrong by a mere $94,000 dollars, putting Ch=
essHut
> > > > even further into the hole. And that is uncontestable. Now, 94k is n=
othing
> > > > to you and me, but its probably 3 or 4 jobs to other people - and th=
is is
> > > > after Bill Goichberg and Bill Hall have prepared the scene by mentio=
ning
> > > > letting people go...
>
> > > > And therefore, the Parrot extrapolates what this can all mean in the=
next 12
> > > > months - and if we will see a bare bones 'Small Tent' organisation o=
f a
> > > > dozen or so people employed on maintencance activities. Did I answer=
your
> > > > keting question yet?
>
> > > > I think post-Fischer boom that USCF membership has grown only to the=
same
> > > > extent as the US population. But anyway, you tell me what you think =
of all
> > > > that, and what your own measures are - then we could actually discus=
s
> > > > something.
>
> > > > I =A0have respect for myself in attempting dialog based on actually =
looking at
> > > > what is going on, not on vague propaganda and partialities. The ship=
is
> > > > almost sunk Wlod, and no one seems to be in control nor responsible.=
> > > > Certainly not the USCF board or Ex Director, who have declined to ta=
lk about
> > > > it.
>
> > > > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Great Interview.
> > > Enjoy the temporary lull today. Since Sam is in court we will be
> > > spared his diluge of cross-posting nonsense for at least 24 more
> > > hours!
> > > Rob- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Jerry,
> Have you checked the IP address against the Mottershead report?
> Here is the IP:
> =A069.124.205.180
> All Brian wanted to do was harp on the report until this IP was made
> public and attributed to Sloan. What's up with that?
I agree it should be checked, because I think these IP addresses are
significant. However, what's up with you thinking that this IP address
is important while thinking that the many IP addresses matching up
with Truong are not important? Or do you now agree that the many
identified IP matches with Truong, which also match up to moves in
location, are convincing evidence that he made those FSS postings?
Jerry Spinrad
>
> Rob(Lex) Mitchell...... <Which-Mitch for Sloan>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 27 Mar 2008 07:02:19
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 3, 1:13=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Did you actually think there was anything new in the interview? I was
> hoping we would get at least some idea of what type of evidence Truong
> claimed to have that might clear him, but saw absolutely nothing.
>
> Truong seems to have the entirely wrong idea about obligations of the
> USCF towards him. The USCF interests are not automatically bound to or
> against the interests of Truong. They were presented with convincing
> evidence of Truong's guilt, in the form of Motterhead's report which
> was backed by two expert reports. Thus, their first obligation was to
> try to determine whether Truong was innocent, in which case they would
> tie their interests to his, or guilty, in which case they would try to
> separate themselves from Truong as much as possible.
>
> Therefore, the USCF asked him for a legally binding declaration of
> innocence. Truong did not provide this; he did not at the time,
> claiming a misunderstanding, but he could easily have provided one
> since to try to mend fences. He claimed that he had convincing proof
> of innocence. The USCF wisely sent it to their lawyers rather than
> judge this themselves; the lawyers did not feel that the evidence was
> at all =A0convincing.
>
> The timing is not exactly clear; around this time, Truong started
> attacking the USCF board. By this time, it is very clear that the
> interests of the USCF and Truong are not the same. Therefore, rather
> than turn over records which Truong requested (and I am convinced they
> would have done this had Truong given a sworn statement of innocence
> plus rock-solid evidence of innocence which he claims), they came to
> the conclusion that his interests must be separate from those of the
> USCF. Negotiating settlements on behalf of the USCF without Truong
> became obvious practical policy rather than a notorious plot. If
> Truong wants access to the records, let his lawyers talk to the USCF
> lawyers, but by not cooperating on his part he brought on himself the
> decision that he would not automatically get access.
>
> The USCF lawyers have undoubtedly told the USCF that there is strong
> evidence of Truong's guilt, and that they must look out for their own
> interests.
>
> Truong claims that he has leads which might indicate guilty parties.
> Why should they believe him? They have the expert reports, and Truong
> himself does not give any reason to believe that these so-called leads
> have any basis; instead he claims he has no idea who did it.
>
> This does not even deal with previous behavior of Truong which might
> cast doubt on his innocence; the PhD claims and the Bob Bennett
> postings. Truong's credibility is very low; if he wants to convince
> anyone, he had better show some vidence rather than dwell on Sam
> Sloan's traits or USCF policies. Sam Sloan is the one who filed suit,
> but nobody took notice when Sam made any earlier accusations. =A0The
> credibility this times comes from Motterhead and the two expert
> reports; Sloan himself is irrelevant to the question of whether Truong
> has been lying on this issue.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
> On 3, 9:45=A0am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3, 8:00=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected]> wrote in messag=
enews:214fc4e0-0244-4761-9a1f-f73f66e7baa0@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On 3, 4:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> Dear Reader,
>
> > > >> 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is=
now
> > > >> published
> > > >> athttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truon=
g2.htm
>
> > > >> There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 20
> > > >> questions
> > > >> session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry broug=
ht
> > > >> about
> > > >> by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCafe.
>
> > > >> Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive detail=
, to
> > > >> illustrate the context of reks made in the current interview.
>
> > > > Mr. Truong:
>
> > > > "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
>
> > > > What kind of bs is that?!
>
> > > > But yes, nobody in past had this kind of experience
> > > > in criminal Internet behavior as Mr. Truong - in this
> > > > respect he's unique.
>
> > > > Phil:
>
> > > > =A0 =A0"you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
> > > > =A0 =A0 but satirizing another Board member,"
>
> > > > Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
> > > > (Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
> > > > but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
> > > > you write like this).
>
> > > > Wlod
>
> > > I'm sorry Wlod, but I could [almost] always tell the difference betwee=
n the
> > > false-Sloan and the real one. I find it difficult to believe any nativ=
e
> > > English speaker could not. But perhaps people will now write in to say=
how
> > > dumb they are?
>
> > > What I found encouraging about the interview was a determination to pu=
rsue
> > > this matter so that all the information could come out, and so all peo=
ple
> > > could review it. If I did not think that way I would lose respect for
> > > myself.
>
> > > As to your first point, surely keting expertise is contestable! - b=
ut 50
> > > mainstream mentions in 2006 compared with USCF's 2, makes for a contes=
t, no?
> > > A couple or 3 films on chess now in the offing, an Institute for chess=
> > > established within mainstream media... meanwhile
>
> > > In the Parrot this week I had to take note in a sidebar that USCF's
> > > financial advisor got it wrong by a mere $94,000 dollars, putting Ches=
sHut
> > > even further into the hole. And that is uncontestable. Now, 94k is not=
hing
> > > to you and me, but its probably 3 or 4 jobs to other people - and this=
is
> > > after Bill Goichberg and Bill Hall have prepared the scene by mentioni=
ng
> > > letting people go...
>
> > > And therefore, the Parrot extrapolates what this can all mean in the n=
ext 12
> > > months - and if we will see a bare bones 'Small Tent' organisation of =
a
> > > dozen or so people employed on maintencance activities. Did I answer y=
our
> > > keting question yet?
>
> > > I think post-Fischer boom that USCF membership has grown only to the s=
ame
> > > extent as the US population. But anyway, you tell me what you think of=
all
> > > that, and what your own measures are - then we could actually discuss
> > > something.
>
> > > I =A0have respect for myself in attempting dialog based on actually lo=
oking at
> > > what is going on, not on vague propaganda and partialities. The ship i=
s
> > > almost sunk Wlod, and no one seems to be in control nor responsible.
> > > Certainly not the USCF board or Ex Director, who have declined to talk=
about
> > > it.
>
> > > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Great Interview.
> > Enjoy the temporary lull today. Since Sam is in court we will be
> > spared his diluge of cross-posting nonsense for at least 24 more
> > hours!
> > Rob- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jerry,
Have you checked the IP address against the Mottershead report?
Here is the IP:
69.124.205.180
All Brian wanted to do was harp on the report until this IP was made
public and attributed to Sloan. What's up with that?
Rob(Lex) Mitchell...... <Which-Mitch for Sloan >
|
| |
WHO'S BITTER? (Continued)
Greg Kennedy, he of the cancerous envy, claims
that the sage of Reno is a bitter, bitter person.
Thanks to Louie Blair for pointing out my
earlier note about GM Evans inheriting moolah
galore and then snarfing up in the Reno real estate
barbeque. For those interested in viewing Ingrid Evans'
art, she is represented by the Stremmel Gallery
http://tinyurl.com/3589uo
For those interested in the art of my fourth grade
teacher, one Leslie Lambson, just Google and admire.
"Mr. Lambson," as he will always be known to us
who were taught by him, came out of the Idaho wilds,
fought in WWII, spent a period as a prize fighter, ran
for Congress in Idaho as a libertarian Republican over
50 years ago, studied ceramics under Paul Bonifas
(perhaps the greatest 20th century figure in this
field) and ended up selling his paintings in the
$30,000 range. Check out art.com for some of his work.
Mr. Lambson's single religion was FREEDOM, and
his artistic credo was to paint enough to equip the
viewer to understand further rather than dictate a
painting's meaning. On the other hand, he also
believed in artistic discipline and occasionally
painted hunting scenes that were stunning in their
realism and sheer technique.
My understanding, though I may be wrong, is that
he and Mati Klarwein were very close friends.
("Mati," by the way, is the Malay word for die.)
Yours, Larry Parr
|
| |
Date: 21 Mar 2008 15:39:50
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 19, 9:53=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
7 ...
7 =A0 =A0 =A0 The Larry Evans whom I know lives with his
7 artist wife, who has her own showings and does quite
7 well for herself, thank you. =A0Their home is a beauty,
7 and their life is as idyllic as any such existence can
7 be for those of us caught up in this vale of tears.
7 ...
_
"Larry Evans is probably the richest GM in America.
I don't think he would mind my pointing out that he
inherited over a million dollars when his father died
and then cleaned up in the burgeoning Reno real
estate ket." - Larry Parr (07 Jun 2002
21:33:29 GMT)
|
| |
GREG'S CANCEROUS ENVY
<Karpov was probably eager to play but was pressured by the Kremlin to
make no concessions. > -- GM Larry Evans in Chess Life, ch 2008 on
the 1975 Fischer-Karpov match that never was.
I hereby repost in toto Greg Kennedy's response
to my depiction of an average Larry Evans day. No
comment is necessary and readers are invited to read,
yet again, Greg's cancerous envy.
Let Greg speak for himself. It is perfect.
Yours, Larry Parr
WHO'S BITTER?
<In reality, Larry Evans is very bitter about things like the Soviet
domination of chess, Bobby Fischer retiring prematurely, and so
forth... > -- Greg Kennedy
<Very nice turn of phrase, Larry. "Psychoceramic." Love it! >-- The
Historian
Dear Neil,
Here's the thing: you have met Larry Evans, probably wined
and dined with him, and can speak to Greg Kennedy's bile.
The Larry Evans whom I know lives with his
artist wife, who has her own showings and does quite
well for herself, thank you. Their home is a beauty,
and their life is as idyllic as any such existence can
be for those of us caught up in this vale of tears.
Greg Kennedy imagines that because he must live
as he does, blaming assorted people and probably
chess itself -- well, he figures everyone else is in the
same boat or, more accurately, prays devoutly that they
are or might be soon in said boat.
So, then, the Evans day begins at, say, 9 a.m.
He drives to the local post office and picks up the
mail. Thence to a resplendent breakfast at one of the
casinos. Thence a bit of 21, picking up a hundred or
so in, as he calls it, "pin money." (My practice has
always been to bet on his bets and pick up the cost of
my visit.) Thence to a gymnasium and swimming. Thence
back home to his library and the writing begins.
During my visits, he usually knocks off at about 4 p.m.
or so. His wife, who also is a wizard of a cook in their
cusinarts kitchen (and here, Neil, you will have to
skip the next couple of lines and move on to the final
paragraph). Ingrid's strawberry pie or strawberry
cheese cake -- depending on the mood -- is succulent
beyond ready reckoning. Dinner may be at home or,
quite frequently, at one of the better eateries in Reno.
Thence to a night of banter and good humor with friends.
Larry is going on 76, and it is idle to imagine
that he and his wife do not have bad days and down
moments. They must. That's part of the human
condition -- and, yes, we can all see the sly smirk
spread across cringing Kennedy's map. Evans' life
ain't perfect.
I only wish I could be in Reno tomorrow night at 6pm
to hear his conclusion about whether Bobby Fischer's
MY 61 MEMORABLE GAMES is a hoax.
-- Larry Parr
GREG'S DEEPLY CONSIDERED "REPLY"
>So, then, the Evans day begins at, say, 9 a.m.
>He drives to the local post office and picks up the
>mail. Thence to a resplendent breakfast at one of the
>casinos. Thence a bit of 21, picking up a hundred or
>so in, as he calls it, "pin money."
One can only assume here that Mr. Evans
is playing against other people -- not the
house. Many years ago, I learned how to
count cards and thus, beat the house; it
goes without saying that at the same time,
some greedy mathematicians were ticking
off the wrong people by doing this like a
computer, so they decided to make it a
practice to have /multiple decks/. Now. I
have long forgotten even the basic betting
rules. Anyway, it's hard work unless you
have a nearly-a-photographic memory.
>Thence to a gymnasium and swimming. Thence
>back home to his library and the writing begins.
What does GM Evans write about these
days? Certainly, it cannot be that he is
re-writing the exact same stuff for Chess
Lies that he already has written, time and again.
>During my visits, he usually knocks off at about 4 p.m.
>or so. His wife, who also is a wizard of a cook in their
>cusinarts kitchen
Rated as overpriced stuff by Consumer
Reports, who much prefer Sears Kenmore
in the kitchen.
It is also curious that when blindfolded,
the self-described "experts" were unable
to tell red from white wine, just as some
grandmasters were easily bested by
Chessmaster-weilding Class C players,
in the realm of tactics.
But all this studiously avoids the points
I made: that LE has been very bitter over
the Soviet domination of chess, and so
forth. One can see it in his writings, and
even in his changed attitude toward what
BF did after 1972. Before becoming that
way, LE chastised BF for the unfairness
of his "demands", but after years of
waiting for Godot (BF's return), the poor
fellow caved and started blaming his
disappointments on the Russians and FIDE.
My view is that FIDE is a problem, but
this in no way imparts all the blame on
them for BF's premature retirement from
chess. I see Larry Evans' *original* take
as the definitive one on this issue; his
later ground-shifting, as knuckling under
to overwhelming personal biases.
-- help bot
help bot wrote:
> On 19, 12:53 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > So, then, the Evans day begins at, say, 9 a.m.
> > He drives to the local post office and picks up the
> > mail. Thence to a resplendent breakfast at one of the
> > casinos. Thence a bit of 21, picking up a hundred or
> > so in, as he calls it, "pin money."
>
>
> One can only assume here that Mr. Evans
> is playing against other people -- not the
> house. Many years ago, I learned how to
> count cards and thus, beat the house; it
> goes without saying that at the same time,
> some greedy mathematicians were ticking
> off the wrong people by doing this like a
> computer, so they decided to make it a
> practice to have /multiple decks/. Now. I
> have long forgotten even the basic betting
> rules. Anyway, it's hard work unless you
> have a nearly-a-photographic memory.
>
>
> > Thence to a gymnasium and swimming. Thence
> > back home to his library and the writing begins.
>
>
> What does GM Evans write about these
> days? Certainly, it cannot be that he is
> re-writing the exact same stuff for Chess
> Lies that he already has written, time and
> again.
>
>
> > During my visits, he usually knocks off at about 4 p.m.
> > or so. His wife, who also is a wizard of a cook in their
> > cusinarts kitchen
>
>
> Rated as overpriced stuff by Consumer
> Reports, who much prefer Sears Kenmore
> in the kitchen.
>
> It is also curious that when blindfolded,
> the self-described "experts" were unable
> to tell red from white wine, just as some
> grandmasters were easily bested by
> Chessmaster-weilding Class C players,
> in the realm of tactics.
>
>
> But all this studiously avoids the points
> I made: that LE has been very bitter over
> the Soviet domination of chess, and so
> forth. One can see it in his writings, and
> even in his changed attitude toward what
> BF did after 1972. Before becoming that
> way, LE chastised BF for the unfairness
> of his "demands", but after years of
> waiting for Godot (BF's return), the poor
> fellow caved and started blaming his
> disappointments on the Russians and
> FIDE.
>
> My view is that FIDE is a problem, but
> this in no way imparts all the blame on
> them for BF's premature retirement from
> chess. I see Larry Evans' *original* take
> as the definitive one on this issue; his
> later ground-shifting, as knuckling under
> to overwhelming personal biases.
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2008 16:40:01
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 19, 12:53 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> So, then, the Evans day begins at, say, 9 a.m.
> He drives to the local post office and picks up the
> mail. Thence to a resplendent breakfast at one of the
> casinos. Thence a bit of 21, picking up a hundred or
> so in, as he calls it, "pin money."
One can only assume here that Mr. Evans
is playing against other people -- not the
house. Many years ago, I learned how to
count cards and thus, beat the house; it
goes without saying that at the same time,
some greedy mathematicians were ticking
off the wrong people by doing this like a
computer, so they decided to make it a
practice to have /multiple decks/. Now. I
have long forgotten even the basic betting
rules. Anyway, it's hard work unless you
have a nearly-a-photographic memory.
> Thence to a gymnasium and swimming. Thence
> back home to his library and the writing begins.
What does GM Evans write about these
days? Certainly, it cannot be that he is
re-writing the exact same stuff for Chess
Lies that he already has written, time and
again.
> During my visits, he usually knocks off at about 4 p.m.
> or so. His wife, who also is a wizard of a cook in their
> cusinarts kitchen
Rated as overpriced stuff by Consumer
Reports, who much prefer Sears Kenmore
in the kitchen.
It is also curious that when blindfolded,
the self-described "experts" were unable
to tell red from white wine, just as some
grandmasters were easily bested by
Chessmaster-weilding Class C players,
in the realm of tactics.
But all this studiously avoids the points
I made: that LE has been very bitter over
the Soviet domination of chess, and so
forth. One can see it in his writings, and
even in his changed attitude toward what
BF did after 1972. Before becoming that
way, LE chastised BF for the unfairness
of his "demands", but after years of
waiting for Godot (BF's return), the poor
fellow caved and started blaming his
disappointments on the Russians and
FIDE.
My view is that FIDE is a problem, but
this in no way imparts all the blame on
them for BF's premature retirement from
chess. I see Larry Evans' *original* take
as the definitive one on this issue; his
later ground-shifting, as knuckling under
to overwhelming personal biases.
-- help bot
|
| |
WHO'S BITTER?
<In reality, Larry Evans is very bitter about things like the Soviet
domination of chess, Bobby Fischer retiring prematurely, and so
forth... > -- Greg Kennedy
<Very nice turn of phrase, Larry. "Psychoceramic." Love it! > -- The
Historian
Dear Neil,
Here's the thing: you have met Larry Evans, probably wined
and dined with him, and can speak to Greg Kennedy's bile.
The Larry Evans whom I know lives with his
artist wife, who has her own showings and does quite
well for herself, thank you. Their home is a beauty,
and their life is as idyllic as any such existence can
be for those of us caught up in this vale of tears.
Greg Kennedy imagines that because he must live
as he does, blaming assorted people and probably
chess itself -- well, he figures everyone else is in the
same boat or, more accurately, prays devoutly that they
are or might be soon in said boat.
So, then, the Evans day begins at, say, 9 a.m.
He drives to the local post office and picks up the
mail. Thence to a resplendent breakfast at one of the
casinos. Thence a bit of 21, picking up a hundred or
so in, as he calls it, "pin money." (My practice has
always been to bet on his bets and pick up the cost of
my visit.) Thence to a gymnasium and swimming. Thence
back home to his library and the writing begins.
During my visits, he usually knocks off at about 4 p.m.
or so. His wife, who also is a wizard of a cook in their
cusinarts kitchen (and here, Neil, you will have to
skip the next couple of lines and move on to the final
paragraph). Ingrid's strawberry pie or strawberry
cheese cake -- depending on the mood -- is succulent
beyond ready reckoning. Dinner may be at home or,
quite frequently, at one of the better eateries in Reno.
Thence to a night of banter and good humor with friends.
Larry is going on 76, and it is idle to imagine
that he and his wife do not have bad days and down
moments. They must. That's part of the human
condition -- and, yes, we can all see the sly smirk
spread across cringing Kennedy's map. Evans' life
ain't perfect.
I only wish I could be in Reno tomorrow night at 6pm
to hear his conclusion about whether Bobby Fischer's
MY 61 MEMORABLE GAMES is a hoax.
Yours, Larry Parr
|
| | |
Date: 19 Mar 2008 13:33:18
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:b61884a4-3904-4674-b0c6-b221476e95ce@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> WHO'S BITTER?
> I only wish I could be in Reno tomorrow night at 6pm
> to hear his conclusion about whether Bobby Fischer's
> MY 61 MEMORABLE GAMES is a hoax.
eh! here the old one say
Seeing the clawtrack of star
Hearing the wingbeat of rock
And his own singing.
Where the pool unfolds its undercurls
[Ophelia]
There she goes.
And that works it to death
There she goes
Darkfish, finger to her lips,
Staringly into the afterworld.
And still with his foot in his stocking.
PI
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2008 04:58:37
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 18, 10:52 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> VIVA LA DIFFERENCE
>
> <He [Edward Winter] writes better than any of the Evans
> ratpackers (except perhaps LE, back when he was still sane),
> and he is obsessed with correct spelling and dates.> -- Help Bot
>
> Greg Kennedy, who is emotionally challenged, is
> the crackpot who is calling the kettle black when
> questioning the sanity of GM Larry Evans.
>
> Our psychoceramic is bitter about his entire life.
> Larry Evans is largely delighted with his own life.
>
> That's the difference.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
Very nice turn of phrase, Larry. "Psychoceramic." Love it!
|
| |
DRIPPING WITH ENVY....
Is probably the best way to describe Greg Kennedy's attitude towards
the achievements of the 5-time U.S. champion who currently has the
lead article
in Chess Life as well as Britain's Chess, two of the world's
prestigious magazines.
My favorite anecdote is in THE BOBBY FISCHER THAT WE LOVED by GM
Evans:
Bobby was really fearful that something might happen to him. Once we
all bundled into a car to show him Virginia City, a tourist attraction
of the Old West. He heard a strange sound while I was driving and
asked whether it was safe to continue. "We're all willing to risk it,
but we realize that your life is more valuable than all of ours put
together," I quipped. Without missing a beat, he replied, "That's
right! That's right!"
It reminded me of when I accompanied him and a reporter from Sports
Illustrated to an exhibition he gave at Riker's Island in 1960
described in "Chess is Breaking Out in Prisons" for my first
collection of syndicated newspaper columns Evans on Chess. Once inside
the jail, he asked, "Suppose you didn't stop when the guards told you
to. Would they shoot?" I told him not to try it. "No, seriously.
Suppose you just kept on going and didn't stop. Would they shoot you?
I mean, would they really kill you?" We were all amused, but not quite
sure what would happen. At last the warden said gently, "They would
not kill you."
I was there with Bobby during the good and big years. And what years
they were!
help bot wrote:
> On 18, 11:52 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Larry Evans is largely delighted with his own life.
>
>
> In reality, Larry Evans is very bitter about
> things like the Soviet domination of chess,
> Bobby Fischer retiring prematurely, and so
> forth. This is why he writes as though time
> has stood still for the past forty years, and
> it explains why he cannot move beyond the
> Cold War mentality he adopted so long ago.
>
> Younger players probably view such
> people as relics of the distant past, quite
> out of touch with the reality of today. Is it
> any wonder then, that LE rarely -- if ever --
> writes about the current grandmasters of
> chess? The man is practically fossilized!
>
> Ah, but living in Reno has its advantages.
> I keep reading how there are 300 days of
> sunshine per year-- that sort of thing. Oh,
> and let us not forget that the state of
> Nevada has no income taxes; it does not
> need them, you see, because of all the
> income from gambling casinos.
>
> My own experience of Nevada amounts
> to just passing through; a whole lot of
> desert and heat, but apparently there are
> areas with milder weather, where wealthy
> retirees bask in sunshine without burning
> up or drying out.
>
> Chronic complainers like Larry Evans
> are likely not "delighted" with their own
> lives; to the contrary, they tend to dwell in
> the past while the "delighted" live in the
> moment, leaving the past behind them
> where it belongs. Mr. Evans has some
> serious "issues", as can be seen in his
> holier-than-thou attitude toward critics;
> even wrong-date corrections often lead
> to a "High Noon" style showdown with
> this poor fellow. I expect things to get
> even worse as he continues to age... .
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2008 00:06:13
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 18, 11:52 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Larry Evans is largely delighted with his own life.
In reality, Larry Evans is very bitter about
things like the Soviet domination of chess,
Bobby Fischer retiring prematurely, and so
forth. This is why he writes as though time
has stood still for the past forty years, and
it explains why he cannot move beyond the
Cold War mentality he adopted so long ago.
Younger players probably view such
people as relics of the distant past, quite
out of touch with the reality of today. Is it
any wonder then, that LE rarely -- if ever --
writes about the current grandmasters of
chess? The man is practically fossilized!
Ah, but living in Reno has its advantages.
I keep reading how there are 300 days of
sunshine per year-- that sort of thing. Oh,
and let us not forget that the state of
Nevada has no income taxes; it does not
need them, you see, because of all the
income from gambling casinos.
My own experience of Nevada amounts
to just passing through; a whole lot of
desert and heat, but apparently there are
areas with milder weather, where wealthy
retirees bask in sunshine without burning
up or drying out.
Chronic complainers like Larry Evans
are likely not "delighted" with their own
lives; to the contrary, they tend to dwell in
the past while the "delighted" live in the
moment, leaving the past behind them
where it belongs. Mr. Evans has some
serious "issues", as can be seen in his
holier-than-thou attitude toward critics;
even wrong-date corrections often lead
to a "High Noon" style showdown with
this poor fellow. I expect things to get
even worse as he continues to age... .
-- help bot
|
| |
VIVA LA DIFFERENCE
<He [Edward Winter] writes better than any of the Evans
ratpackers (except perhaps LE, back when he was still sane),
and he is obsessed with correct spelling and dates. > -- Help Bot
Greg Kennedy, who is emotionally challenged, is
the crackpot who is calling the kettle black when
questioning the sanity of GM Larry Evans.
Our psychoceramic is bitter about his entire life.
Larry Evans is largely delighted with his own life.
That's the difference.
Yours, Larry Parr
help bot wrote:
> On 4, 6:00 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > THE TOUGHEST INTERVIEW
>
> There is a BIG difference between interviewing
> an arch-enemy and what our Dr. Phil IMnes did.
> (Also, at that time, CL had a real editor, whereas
> Dr. IM Innes cannot spell to save his own life.)
>
> First of all, nearly-IMnes seemed to tweak many
> of his questions to slant in favor of the PT/SP duo,
> deliberately. Secondly, I seriously doubt that while
> Larry Evans was interviewing FC, he stopped to
> allow the latter to rant and rave much, the way PT
> was allowed -- even encouraged -- to regarding
> Sam Sloan (the unnamed sex maniac).
>
> What I noticed was the many inconsistencies;
> for instance, where PT boldly stated that SP
> *always* put chess first-- after having just finished
> telling us that she put chess aside in favor of
> being a good mother-- that sort of thing.
>
> Another thing I noted was the many attempts by
> the "interviewer" to put words -- even ideas -- into
> the mouthes of his interviewees; for instance, where
> Dr. IMnes whiffed in trying to get PT to take up
> the cause of ousting the current FIDE president.
> This is rekably similar to the many idiocies of
> Taylor Kingston, in his interviews. (Why are such
> attempts disguised as such, as "interviews", I
> wonder.)
>
> At one point, keter/promoter Paul Truong
> tossed out a claim to do something "150%", and
> this struck a familiar chord; the Susan Polgar
> Web site appears to exaggerate just about every
> thing she ever did (and some things she has not
> done) by at least that much! I suppose that to
> some people, this sort of thing is just routine
> "keting"; to me, it shows an appalling lack of
> integrity. Amazingly, PT had the gall to boast
> about the integrity of the dynamic duo, in spite of
> the obvious lack thereof.
>
> In sum, what Larry Evans did is not comparable
> to whatever it was that Phillip IMnes was trying
> to do. One similarity, perhaps, is that both
> interviewees were born in the Philippines. And
> another is that both PT and Mr. Campomanes
> were/are FIDE masters.
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 18:23:41
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Barbie and Ken take on
|
On 18, 7:47 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > You see, my boy (yes, my boy), there
> > will one day come a time when you are
> > /forced/ to rely upon your own abilities,
>
> I must inerupt help-bogs 'advice' column here since i seem to have been
> relying on my own abilities since aged 10, when i took up chess
Nay! I say you are *still* in the habit of
mindlessly parroting your mentors, sans
any due consideration of their, shall I say,
often loony opinions. It is precisely as
though you never grew up, but instead
just adopted "surrogate parents" like LP,
RK, and Monsieur Adorjan.
> > your own thinking; you won't have any
> > choice but to decide something for
> > yourself, and all these imaginary "friends"
> > of yours will be of no use.
> i think my contacts are hardly imaginary, whereas, who are yours?
Need to change subject duly noted. Now
tell, me, who are all these imagined friends,
and why do you allow them to so /dominate/
your thinking?
><yikes> in fact, who are you?
I would expect you to ask one of your
imaginary friends; Mr. Parr has done an
extensive study of sin and taxes, aka
"syntaxes", and it is his considered (well,
not actually /considered/) opinion that I
was three different people, then just a
fellow called Vince Hart, then I morphed
into a fellow called Greg Kennedy. Are
you going to /mindlessly/ adopt his
opinions as your own, or have you given
up on that old habit? By the way, he
never published his extensive study, so
if you beat him to print, you will gain all
the credit -- but only if you turn out to
be right!
As Dr. Blair has so often pointed out,
poor Mr. Parr gets confused quite easily,
but even so, you might consider hiding
behind /his thoughts/ and doing your
parrot impression, as always.
> Being rational is merely to prosecute one's ideas to their logical
> conclusion. But what and wherefrom are the ideas?
I expect we shall never know, as you
mindlessly allow other to do all your
"thinking" for you. Only if you can
overcome this habit will we ever know
*your* ideas, *your* thoughts. That is
why I encourage you to write your own
thoughts in an opinion/editorial piece--
so we can see what /you/ think, not
just a parrot act or a snip-and-paste of
some famous writer's words. Think it
over, my boy.
-- helpful bot
|
| | |
Date: 19 Mar 2008 09:40:19
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Barbie and Ken take on
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:70b6036a-d71d-4291-a3b1-770a7e2d2617@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 18, 7:47 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > You see, my boy (yes, my boy), there
>> > will one day come a time when you are
>> > /forced/ to rely upon your own abilities,
>>
>> I must inerupt help-bogs 'advice' column here since i seem to have been
>> relying on my own abilities since aged 10, when i took up chess
>
> Nay! I say you are *still* in the habit of
> mindlessly parroting your mentors, sans
This is Ken's idea of actually not saying your own opinion, and citing or
quoting others. That, he says, is mindlessly parroting - which I suppose [on
his behalf] needs to be differentiated from having a critical appreciation
thereon.
> any due consideration of their, shall I say,
> often loony opinions.
Whereas our Ken restricts himself to 'often' as a descriptor.
> It is precisely as
> though you never grew up, but instead
> just adopted "surrogate parents" like LP,
> RK, and Monsieur Adorjan.
This is quite amusing! And would be especially funny to the 3 people
mentioned.
>> > your own thinking; you won't have any
>> > choice but to decide something for
>> > yourself, and all these imaginary "friends"
>> > of yours will be of no use.
>
>> i think my contacts are hardly imaginary, whereas, who are yours?
>
> Need to change subject duly noted. Now
Ken suggests his comments are not the subject, whereas his opinions are the
subject. Heuch, what a rhetorical wag he is!
> tell, me, who are all these imagined friends,
> and why do you allow them to so /dominate/
> your thinking?
Of those mentioned above I see to have, since you have no life of your own
and need to live vicariously, some considerable differences with LP on such
instances as the Sloan-Ranger. And one of the others I called a
"sausage-eating twit" during a heated moment.
>><yikes> in fact, who are you?
>
> I would expect you to ask one of your
> imaginary friends; Mr. Parr has done an
> extensive study of sin and taxes, aka
> "syntaxes", and it is his considered (well,
> not actually /considered/) opinion that I
> was three different people, then just a
> fellow called Vince Hart, then I morphed
> into a fellow called Greg Kennedy. Are
> you going to /mindlessly/ adopt his
his... his question ?
Why should I believe anything Ken, when I can ask you directly? Come on our
Ken! We have known each other since you haunted rgcc with your commentaries
on people's sanity. Of course you lost the contest since to be able to get
away with that you needed to have real insight, like the Great Rolf! [ROFL!]
> opinions as your own, or have you given
> up on that old habit? By the way, he
> never published his extensive study, so
> if you beat him to print, you will gain all
> the credit -- but only if you turn out to
> be right!
Who? Sorry, I seem not to be as fixated on who he is, nor even know what
great study of what subject.
> As Dr. Blair has so often pointed out,
Dr. Blair does not point, he blunts, to attempt a neologism. In fact, even
though I hold Sam Sloan in small esteem, the Blair-Action at Wikipedia
needed an impartial challenge, since Dr. Blair was at the time about to
mount the throne of the USCF Forum Moderation Committee [bringing it to its
knees in 6 months, as I predicted!], and none other than the hated Lex
Which-Mitch and I challenged him under the very nostrils of the aforesaid
Sloan, to confront him with the evident fact that he couldn't come up with a
point to save his life.
The usual 30,000 words followed, and without the slightest irony, Dr. Blair
exited the conversation still not having made one, while of course declaring
victory.
This would be to impartially challenge real looney opinion, and is the very
opposite of any ad hominem instance, since the Sloan was not any favorite of
myself or said Lex. But his work did not deserve destruction.
I hope you note the difference between person and behavior in the above -
and there was nothing in the behavior of Lex and myself that admired the
person of the Sloan.
I wonder indeed if you can understand such a difference - it will, if you
achieve it, help you distinguish between holding a similar or same opinion,
to liking or disliking the holder of that opinion.
> poor Mr. Parr gets confused quite easily,
> but even so, you might consider hiding
> behind /his thoughts/ and doing your
> parrot impression, as always.
>
>
>> Being rational is merely to prosecute one's ideas to their logical
>> conclusion. But what and wherefrom are the ideas?
>
> I expect we shall never know, as you
> mindlessly allow other to do all your
> "thinking" for you.
The needle got stuck in Ken's groove.
> Only if you can
> overcome this habit will we ever know
> *your* ideas, *your* thoughts. That is
> why I encourage you to write your own
> thoughts in an opinion/editorial piece--
But I did! And see what a furor it caused!
I wrote my own thought about satire.
This is evidently not what any other person raised.
Then they became critical of it, but in doing so had to admit that their
opinion was not based on thought as we know it, and they even refused to
look at what I was thinking about.
And of course the Group of 4.5 couldn't attest if the FSS had American as
first language either, for the same reason - they declined to think. They
had no opinion therefore - besides, it wasn't relevant to them, since such
an approach would lead to a non-prescriptive result ~ and how can you become
emotional about that?
Thinking then, I reserve for others who do so. In most of these abuse
messages no thought enters in, and its all emotional materials,
frustrations, angers, dissapointment with outer heroes, inner stagnation.
> so we can see what /you/ think, not
> just a parrot act or a snip-and-paste of
> some famous writer's words. Think it
> over, my boy.
And the inevitable result of such extensive and continuous recommendation on
who other people should behave is to become entirely contentless, and
abstractly critical - which is to say cynical.
That is the process, aka 'behavior', which is inevitable for those who would
have others think, and think on subjects common to all, as some substitution
mechanism for their own lack of effort.
Phil Innes
>
> -- helpful bot
>
>
|
| |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 14:06:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Barbie and Ken take on
|
On 18, 4:45 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Ratings, my boy! The people
>
> which people?
The people who play chess, of course.
You may not know any of them, but they
like the game, and they want to know if
they are improving and how they stand
relative to other chess players. That is
where the USCF comes in, with their
Microsoft-like monopoly on ratings.
> > Got up the nerve to write a bold opinion/
> > editorial piece yet? Just pretend you are
> > doing one of your so-called interviews, but
> > say what you think using your own mouth,
> > without the shoehorn or the "celebrity"
> > victim. If you haven't the courage, try a
> > couple shots of corn whiskey.
>
> Even the interviewees do not seem to share your opinion, otherwise they
> would not bother to respond.
You need to stop thinking in terms of
letting /others/ think for you like this. Just
relax, try to focus your, um, mind, and see
what happens if you allow it to engage its
own cogs, let itself be the driver, the active
force behind your ramblings.
You see, my boy (yes, my boy), there
will one day come a time when you are
/forced/ to rely upon your own abilities,
your own thinking; you won't have any
choice but to decide something for
yourself, and all these imaginary "friends"
of yours will be of no use. Let's suppose
you fall off a boat into the water: are you
going to ask your imaginary friends to
swim for you? I certainly hope not, for
you will surely drown!
I know it's difficult with your limited
capabilities and all, but do /try/; try to
think for yourself. What, for instance, do
/you/, Phil Innes, think about writing an
opinion/editorial piece? What are you
afraid of, exactly, and why? Does it feel
"safer" to hide behind these other people?
What dangers do you imagine yourself to
be "safe" /from/, when you hide behind
others? Is the danger /real/, or is this
problem /irrational/?
-- helpful bot
|
| | |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 19:47:10
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Barbie and Ken take on
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:70d55600-d4af-475f-941b-f9d85d241e01@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On 18, 4:45 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> You see, my boy (yes, my boy), there
> will one day come a time when you are
> /forced/ to rely upon your own abilities,
I must inerupt help-bogs 'advice' column here since i seem to have been
relying on my own abilities since aged 10, when i took up chess
> your own thinking; you won't have any
> choice but to decide something for
> yourself, and all these imaginary "friends"
> of yours will be of no use.
i think my contacts are hardly imaginary, whereas, who are yours? <yikes > in
fact, who are you?
> Let's suppose
you suppose upon your self, that is, if you can admit your own name to your
self, but i think its clear that your suppositions are idiotic,
ill-informed, fixated and unlearned
who will assert othewise?
> you fall off a boat into the water: are you
> going to ask your imaginary friends to
> swim for you? I certainly hope not, for
> you will surely drown!
>
> I know it's difficult with your limited
> capabilities and all, but do /try/; try to
> think for yourself. What, for instance, do
> /you/, Phil Innes, think about writing an
> opinion/editorial piece? What are you
> afraid of, exactly, and why? Does it feel
> "safer" to hide behind these other people?
Your sense of what I write to other people is rather fantastical, and is
another psychic survey from the corn-fields.
> What dangers do you imagine yourself to
> be "safe" /from/, when you hide behind
> others? Is the danger /real/, or is this
> problem /irrational/?
What a psychological nonsense.
Being rational is merely to prosecute one's ideas to their logical
conclusion. But what and wherefrom are the ideas?
No one who writes to me gets more than a fair share of their own, since
maybe, I am not any Ken to any Barbie, and people write to me on that basis.
Wowa!
Perhaps this does not occur to our Ken, who cannot exist without his Barbie.
Whether he likes her or hates her is merely his own reactive pathology to
which he is but a pyschological toy-boy.
Phil Innes
> -- helpful bot
|
| |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 13:32:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 18, 2:50 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> > I think too chess does a poor job of exciting the masses. The WWE
> > knows how to exploit the lowest common denominator very well.
> > Children, at least for a limited period of time, can still be dazzled
> > a bit. Once they develop other interests , they are gone.
>
> Then the problem is that chess is a game holding little interest to an
> adult, or the things that make chess interesting are (1). limited to a
> few; (2). not properly presented.
>
> I tend to believe that only a few will ever find something like chess
> interesting. of course we do a bad job of even keeping those who find
> chess interesting with a punative rating system, etc.
>
> After all, it requires thought. Once these kids realize that the Fried
> Liver can't be played all the time, it's back to some gory video game.
Gory video games have a multitude of
different levels, each quite different from
the last -- unlike chess. Let's face facts
here: chess is a board game, and unless
someone intertwines it with something
more interesting, it's appeal is limited.
So how about a few "challenges",
placed inside a role-playing game, in
which one can only pass an obstacle by
solving a chess problem? Of course, this
would mean that hoards of players will
accumulate in front of the obstacle,
creating a sort of virtual traffic jam. You
see the flaw, don't you? Everybody
downloads Fritz and lets a computer
solve the problems for them, not even
learning how the pieces move... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 11:50:48
From: SBD
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 18, 6:48=A0am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 3, 2:59 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 3, 1:14 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> > . =A0Why would the lack of money in chess be
>
> > > traced to some Usenet postings?
>
> > The real reason is hidden from him: people do not want to invest in
> > chess. This old chestnut has been around for years that someone's
> > chess' bad image offends sponsosrs. Yeah, tell that to the WWF.
>
> Hi Stephen!
> I think too chess does a poor job of exciting the masses. The WWE
> knows how to exploit the lowest common denominator very well.
> Children, at least for a limited period of time, can still be dazzled
> a bit. Once they develop other interests , they are gone.
Then the problem is that chess is a game holding little interest to an
adult, or the things that make chess interesting are (1). limited to a
few; (2). not properly presented.
I tend to believe that only a few will ever find something like chess
interesting. of course we do a bad job of even keeping those who find
chess interesting with a punative rating system, etc.
After all, it requires thought. Once these kids realize that the Fried
Liver can't be played all the time, it's back to some gory video game.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 16:51:42
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:2fafbf6b-0378-4b86-9f70-a6f0ea6f639e@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 18, 6:48 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 3, 2:59 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 3, 1:14 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> > . Why would the lack of money in chess be
>
> > > traced to some Usenet postings?
>
> > The real reason is hidden from him: people do not want to invest in
> > chess. This old chestnut has been around for years that someone's
> > chess' bad image offends sponsosrs. Yeah, tell that to the WWF.
>
> Hi Stephen!
> I think too chess does a poor job of exciting the masses. The WWE
> knows how to exploit the lowest common denominator very well.
> Children, at least for a limited period of time, can still be dazzled
> a bit. Once they develop other interests , they are gone.
Then the problem is that chess is a game holding little interest to an
adult, or the things that make chess interesting are (1). limited to a
few; (2). not properly presented.
I tend to believe that only a few will ever find something like chess
interesting. of course we do a bad job of even keeping those who find
chess interesting with a punative rating system, etc.
After all, it requires thought. Once these kids realize that the Fried
Liver can't be played all the time, it's back to some gory video game.
**fair enough comment, though it disses kids who do perceive that f7 isn't
an instant win, and who look beyond that. what had uscf done for them to
suggest to non-f7-fixated-types, that there is more to the game?
**35 years after the Fischer-boom, they surely [lol] did something?
**that too requires some thought, and is there evidence of thought, as such,
at uscf? or is it all cynicism and kiddie-bucks still?
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 04:48:26
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 3, 2:59 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 3, 1:14 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> . Why would the lack of money in chess be
>
> > traced to some Usenet postings?
>
> The real reason is hidden from him: people do not want to invest in
> chess. This old chestnut has been around for years that someone's
> chess' bad image offends sponsosrs. Yeah, tell that to the WWF.
Hi Stephen!
I think too chess does a poor job of exciting the masses. The WWE
knows how to exploit the lowest common denominator very well.
Children, at least for a limited period of time, can still be dazzled
a bit. Once they develop other interests , they are gone.
|
| |
Date: 17 Mar 2008 21:55:05
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Barbie and Ken take on
|
On 17, 7:57 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> Since my readership is 65,000 people a month, then numbers that big must
> >> seem beyond the ken of Barbie and Ken[nedy] here.
>
> > You know, even Chess Lies has a big
> > number of readers (or subscribers, to be
> > more accurate); yet this in no way argues
> > for its high quality.
>
> Unique readers per month. All those people are not selecting quality either,
> says hell-bog!
>
> And maybe he is right? Maybe its desperation on their part?
Ratings, my boy! The people want numbers
that they can brag (or whine) about; this need
attracts them to the USCF, like bear attacks
to stupid people.
> Who is this masked man? Edwardo Winter, the super-sniper?
If I told you his secret identity, I would
have to kill you. But here's a hint: he
writes better than any of the Evans
ratpackers (except perhaps LE, back
when he was still sane), and he is
obsessed with correct spelling and dates.
> I would never call Barbie Brennan or yourself dogs, that would be literally
> dehumanising
*dehumanizing*
> - unless indeed you want to really be an Eeyore?
No, I think Eeyore was a sorry-looking cow.
A donkey? Not a pooh-bear, in any case.
> >> Hint- journalism can't be about your own fixations all the time
>
> > Expanded to include the fixations of one's
> > idols (read: GM Adorjan, Larry Parr, etc.),
>
> GM Parr?
Class A player, actually. Make that former
Class A player; when people grow old, they
invariably* get weaker at chess.
*(See: Victor Kortchnoi, who aged backwards,
much like Merlin.)
Got up the nerve to write a bold opinion/
editorial piece yet? Just pretend you are
doing one of your so-called interviews, but
say what you think using your own mouth,
without the shoehorn or the "celebrity"
victim. If you haven't the courage, try a
couple shots of corn whiskey.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 16:45:49
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Barbie and Ken take on
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:8cc61c1d-14c1-4135-903e-1f21243d3960@z38g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 17, 7:57 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> Since my readership is 65,000 people a month, then numbers that big
>> >> must
>> >> seem beyond the ken of Barbie and Ken[nedy] here.
>>
>> > You know, even Chess Lies has a big
>> > number of readers (or subscribers, to be
>> > more accurate); yet this in no way argues
>> > for its high quality.
>>
>> Unique readers per month. All those people are not selecting quality
>> either,
>> says hell-bog!
>>
>> And maybe he is right? Maybe its desperation on their part?
>
> Ratings, my boy! The people
which people?
> want numbers
> that they can brag (or whine) about;
almost no readers have a clue to the exposure of our chess site
snipped similar vagueries
> *(See: Victor Kortchnoi, who aged backwards,
> much like Merlin.)
>
>
> Got up the nerve to write a bold opinion/
> editorial piece yet? Just pretend you are
> doing one of your so-called interviews, but
> say what you think using your own mouth,
> without the shoehorn or the "celebrity"
> victim. If you haven't the courage, try a
> couple shots of corn whiskey.
Even the interviewees do not seem to share your opinion, otherwise they
would not bother to respond. This may not have occured to you, but then, who
would interview you?
But thank you for sharing your [hic!] wisdom. It must feel good from your
perspective to engage the chess public like this.
Phil Innes
>
> -- help bot
>
|
| |
Date: 17 Mar 2008 13:50:53
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Barbie and Ken take on
|
On 16, 10:04 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> With one proviso I would grant this statement its merit. If one /only/ read
> here.
Well, to gain a broader perspective, I suppose
it might be better to also read alt.shakespeare
and ent.homer.simpson groups as well.
> Since my readership is 65,000 people a month, then numbers that big must
> seem beyond the ken of Barbie and Ken[nedy] here.
You know, even Chess Lies has a big
number of readers (or subscribers, to be
more accurate); yet this in no way argues
for its high quality. Perhaps the credit for
such numbers belongs priily to the
respective keting departments?
> Isn't it interesting how Brennan 'reads' any statement?
I wouldn't try to extrapolate much from
that, as Mr. Brennen is paid good money
for what he does here; try to think of him
as the "Phil Innes" of the Winter ratpack,
if you will. You may not like the constant
hounding, but you have to admit that
because of it you are kept on the run and
hence, do not become seriously
overweight.
> Money and status oriented Brennan is envy-ridden, and of course, Brennan
I think he /might/ envy a few sane writers,
but as for the inveterate liars and goof-balls,
he must surely have only pity.
> Hint- journalism can't be about your own fixations all the time
Expanded to include the fixations of one's
idols (read: GM Adorjan, Larry Parr, etc.),
this is something the nearly-an-IM should
ponder. Indeed, I can think of very few who
are more fixated (aka: pixilated) than nearly-
IMnes.
> > If you take a look at the site you will
> > see that.much like Sanny's own chess
> > Web site, there is a lot of clutter on the
> > home page. While this has the
> > advantage of allowing "instant access"
> > to the site's contents, it looks horrible.
Specifically, too many "items", such as to
create a cluttered appearance. It was and
probably still is very popular among Web
site designers to have two different links to
each part of their site, which is of course
redundant and stupid; but placing direct
links to every part of a Web site on the very
first page makes for a messy appearance--
not unlike my living room.
-- helpful bot
|
| | |
Date: 17 Mar 2008 19:57:55
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Barbie and Ken take on
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:9fa1e333-c369-4d5b-86a9-c40c9af7cebc@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 16, 10:04 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> With one proviso I would grant this statement its merit. If one /only/
>> read
>> here.
>
> Well, to gain a broader perspective, I suppose
> it might be better to also read alt.shakespeare
> and ent.homer.simpson groups as well.
No, it would be better to read books, and then more... To make up your own
mind on things, neither is any substitute for Shakespeare of Homer Simpson.
>> Since my readership is 65,000 people a month, then numbers that big must
>> seem beyond the ken of Barbie and Ken[nedy] here.
>
> You know, even Chess Lies has a big
> number of readers (or subscribers, to be
> more accurate); yet this in no way argues
> for its high quality.
Unique readers per month. All those people are not selecting quality either,
says hell-bog!
And maybe he is right? Maybe its desperation on their part? But you see,
what would heil-bach! know about it? He is not writer and doesn't read. So
he asks others to perform to some level he does not attain himself, and this
is because of his ego. That ego would criticise 65,000 chess fans without a
blush ;)
Who is this masked man? Edwardo Winter, the super-sniper?
> Perhaps the credit for
> such numbers belongs priily to the
> respective keting departments?
Perhaps, he speculates.
>> Isn't it interesting how Brennan 'reads' any statement?
>
> I wouldn't try to extrapolate much from
> that, as Mr. Brennen is paid good money
> for what he does here; try to think of him
> as the "Phil Innes" of the Winter ratpack,
> if you will.
rat-pack = actual players of chess who write about the actual playing of
chess? or those who don't play much and have more opinions about chess than
those who do?
Come on Ken, take on! Let's hear it. Not just me you are challenging here
but 35,000 people per week. Come on Ken! Take on! What's the mater with all
those people Ken?
> You may not like the constant
> hounding, but you have to admit that
> because of it you are kept on the run and
> hence, do not become seriously
> overweight.
I would never call Barbie Brennan or yourself dogs, that would be literally
dehumanising - unless indeed you want to really be an Eeyore?
>> Money and status oriented Brennan is envy-ridden, and of course, Brennan
>
> I think he /might/ envy a few sane writers,
> but as for the inveterate liars and goof-balls,
> he must surely have only pity.
Let us not talk only of Barbie Baby, since the argument will degenerate into
his observable behavior and facts and all, this chroncicer of dead 'c'
correspondance players to the abstruse and apparently paying pop. of Penn!
All 17 of them which may include people dead these past 5 years = who can
tell?
>> Hint- journalism can't be about your own fixations all the time
>
> Expanded to include the fixations of one's
> idols (read: GM Adorjan, Larry Parr, etc.),
GM Parr?
Gosh, among my regular correspondents he is one of 50.
Some know chess very deeply, have proved it at the top levels, and say
what's what about it. Others have a context within which they teach chess
within a sensibility to the students reception of it, and yet others who
have a sense of the how whole shebang revolves.
Do not project your own range of correspondents onto others, since it makes
you seem a hick, a not very likeable hick and resentful hick, whose universe
is cornfield sized.
> this is something the nearly-an-IM should
> ponder. Indeed, I can think of very few who
> are more fixated (aka: pixilated) than nearly-
> IMnes.
Yet, how many people does corn-cob know? He can't even put his own name to
things! So who would corn-fed think on who actually discusses anything with
him to cause his thinking?
He is by these accounts unable to achieve that on his ownsome.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 16 Mar 2008 16:25:52
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Nunn vs. Evans (Sam's dreaful memory) (was: False identities)
|
On 14, 10:40=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
7 ...
7 The real fraud here is by Taylor Kingston who writes above, "Seeming
7 to reply to Evans in his foreword to 'Paul Keres: The Quest for
7 Perfection' (ICE, 1997)".
7
7 However, Grandmaster Evans wrote his article in 1999, two years
later.
7 Thus, Grandmaster John Nunn was not replying to Grandmaster Evans at
7 all.
7
7 Thus, this once again establishes that Taylor Kingston has LIED.
7 ...
_
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/f266195ebd7db1ff?hl=
=3Den
|
| |
Date: 16 Mar 2008 05:48:01
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 15, 7:34 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:758ffe3f-c0e6-458c-83b8-791f6886a32c@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 3, 8:06 am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 3, 4:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > Dear Reader,
>
> >> > 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now
> >> > published
> >> > athttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
>
> >> > There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 20
> >> > questions
> >> > session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry brought
> >> > about
> >> > by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCafe.
>
> >> > Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive detail, to
> >> > illustrate the context of reks made in the current interview.
>
> >> Mr. Truong:
>
> >> "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
>
> >> What kind of bs is that?!
>
> >> But yes, nobody in past had this kind of experience
> >> in criminal Internet behavior as Mr. Truong - in this
> >> respect he's unique.
>
> >> Phil:
>
> >> "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
> >> but satirizing another Board member,"
>
> >> Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
> >> (Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
> >> but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
> >> you write like this).
>
> >> Wlod
>
> > Reposted to remind everyone what the real subject of this thread
> > should be.
> Well done! Now, hands up if you can't tell the FSS from the real one. That's
> all its about, and I do apologize to everyone who thinks referring to the
> material in front of us causes them to lose respect for me, but frankly, its
> the same in chess games!
My hand is up! :-)
> I can ask a student why did they play that move, and they say its what you
> do in the King's Indian, and I point out that its only a King's Indian
> against certain White set-ups, and besides, the move loses the game at move
> 14.
I had hoped to only lose after move 16. :-)
> Brennan wants to rubbish the idea of looking at what's out there - that is
> a significant reason not to do so ;)
Correction. Delete the word "to and place a period after rubbish and
delete the rest of the sentence. :-)
> It is also the way that the newsgroup has treated the 'evidence' to date.
> Very selectively, and when matters that can be assessed by all people here
> are raised, they are discouraged by rubbish posts [how long was the Monkey
> list? 40+ items!]
There is "more" information than what has been shared in the
newsgroups. It should and must be kept quiet. Those who have been so
anxious to publicly condemn and assault peoples reputations without
knowing everything are very imprudent and vengeful.
> I am not trying to convince anyone of anything other than to look at what
> there is to see, and not play a KID when you are in a Pirc.
OKay, I will study the PIRC now. But that was in a different lesson
plan and I though I was brushing up on the Damiano !
> Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 15 Mar 2008 19:53:16
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 15, 6:59 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> Wlod might have been exercising charity in thinking P Innes was a
> journalist. Come to think of it, that's the only way one can think of
> P Innes as a journalist.
This idea makes no sense; it is obvious
to anyone who reads rgc that such a mind
could never become a real journalist.
> Or, as in his silly Adams interview, promote himself as 'important' in
> some way.
This is another example of what I was
talking about; clearly, all the name-
dropping and other droppings by our
nearly-an-IM Innes show that he has a
desperate need to somehow connect
with celebrity-status folk, to gain some
sort of credibility he sorely lacks in real
life.
> I nearly fell out of my chair when I read P Innes' comment
> to Adams that 'we both played' a certain female IM. GM Adams was
> polite enough to ignore P Innes' desperate attempt to put himself on
> Adams' level as a player.
No, I think he is satisfied to fool the
very naive into thinking he was a 2450
nearly-IM, while admitting that GM Adams
is the better of the two, now that Mr. IMnes
is beyond his peak years.
> P Innes probably thought Adorjan's comment was insightful.
Who told him to "think" that? Not the
Evans ratpack leaders, and as far as
I know, he only rarely thinks for himself.
> I find it interesting that P Innes hasn't been published anywhere
> aside from Chessville. I wonder what he pays them to let him post his
> drivel there.
If you take a look at the site you will
see that.much like Sanny's own chess
Web site, there is a lot of clutter on the
home page. While this has the
advantage of allowing "instant access"
to the site's contents, it looks horrible.
I found the same problem at another
chess site, chessmetrics.com, which
is not only a mess, but it is quite
difficult to find certain information due
to a very poor design. It reminded me
of the old Fritz interface.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 16 Mar 2008 10:04:28
From: Chess One
Subject: Barbie and Ken take on
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 15, 6:59 pm, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Wlod might have been exercising charity in thinking P Innes was a
>> journalist. Come to think of it, that's the only way one can think of
>> P Innes as a journalist.
>
> This idea makes no sense; it is obvious
> to anyone who reads rgc that such a mind
> could never become a real journalist.
With one proviso I would grant this statement its merit. If one /only/ read
here.
Since my readership is 65,000 people a month, then numbers that big must
seem beyond the ken of Barbie and Ken[nedy] here.
The funny thing is, these clowns deny what is plain fact, and they always
get off on it because its really about THEM. Otherwise they are just plain
liars, no? Its as much a lie to refuse to look at what you can review and
report honestly, as it is to assess if the FSS material is satire, by not
looking at that either.
But all their writings and opinions represent their own resentments and
their own failings in life - these are fixed motifs, on whatever limited
subjects they address. Now and again its necessary to put them in their
place, since otherwise their sort of attention continues to reduce real
chess conversation in these newsgroups [for example: the nominal topic of
this post was previous 20 questions with Mickey Adams]
>> Or, as in his silly Adams interview, promote himself as 'important' in
>> some way.
Isn't it interesting how Brennan 'reads' any statement? In fact I have
played about 50 people that Adams played, since we also played in the same
chess league. He was quite difficult to beat after he became 5' tall.
Brennan either loves or hates anyone who has accomplished things, and has to
put 'important' into inverted commas.
> This is another example of what I was
> talking about; clearly, all the name-
> dropping and other droppings by our
> nearly-an-IM Innes show that he has a
> desperate need to somehow connect
> with celebrity-status folk, to gain some
> sort of credibility he sorely lacks in real
> life.
And there is Kennedy's Complaint. Its like Portnoy's, only social. Must be
lonely as hell out there in the cornfields, especially if you only read
comic books. The reader will note that 'celebrity' and 'status' are
mentioned. And yet, here I am with plain people from the plains!
>> I nearly fell out of my chair when I read P Innes' comment
>> to Adams that 'we both played' a certain female IM. GM Adams was
>> polite enough to ignore P Innes' desperate attempt to put himself on
>> Adams' level as a player.
There you go again - 4th grade comprehension abilities cause accident in
home!
> No, I think he is satisfied to fool the
> very naive into thinking he was a 2450
> nearly-IM, while admitting that GM Adams
> is the better of the two, now that Mr. IMnes
> is beyond his peak years.
>
>
>> P Innes probably thought Adorjan's comment was insightful.
>
> Who told him to "think" that? Not the
> Evans ratpack leaders, and as far as
> I know, he only rarely thinks for himself.
Gosh! Since I seem to be the only celebrity that either of the clown-folk
actually know, then (a) we can understand why that is, since obviously it is
(b) they who must COMPULSIVELY mention celebrity and status, and all the
time!
ROFL!
>> I find it interesting that P Innes hasn't been published anywhere
>> aside from Chessville. I wonder what he pays them to let him post his
>> drivel there.
BRENNAN DISSES ENTIRE PUBLIC
Money and status oriented Brennan is envy-ridden, and of course, Brennan
disses the entire public who //read// such 'drivel' - the writer of the last
sentence is published to the Penn Woodchuckers Society who still use
postcards, annual distribution 17 copies, twice yearly. Wow!
This is not quite as funny as to make me fall off my chair, instead the
pathos of his writing makes me want to take a nap, but I suppose that could
have the same result.
Now, there is a connection between what Brennan writes and who reads him,
but since he never suspects that that is the case, cannot understand how
other people actually achieve more than he does.
Hint- journalism can't be about your own fixations all the time,
especially if you write and are a misanthrope to boot ,
it must be about them, most of the time.
But thanks to both these writers for sharing their views, which are very
like those 1600 players who offer over-strong advice to 1300 players, never
thinking that the advice will ensure the 1300 player never exceeds 1600.
But maybe that's why they do it ;) Fascinating psychology, no?
O! its so sad, isn't it. I feel almost poetic, and may yet compose a few
lines about lost pawns, rolling around on the floor, wondering where
everyone else went?
Cordially, Phil Innes
> If you take a look at the site you will
> see that.much like Sanny's own chess
> Web site, there is a lot of clutter on the
> home page. While this has the
> advantage of allowing "instant access"
> to the site's contents, it looks horrible.
>
> I found the same problem at another
> chess site, chessmetrics.com, which
> is not only a mess, but it is quite
> difficult to find certain information due
> to a very poor design. It reminded me
> of the old Fritz interface.
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 15 Mar 2008 19:34:06
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Nunn vs. Evans (was: False identities)
|
On 15, 6:40 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > I mean no disrespect to Evans by this; after Fischer he was probably
> > > America's best for many years.
>
> > Actually, Sammy Reshevsky was probably
> > America's second-best player during those
> > many years.
>
> A problematic issue.
Not really. The invention of the numerical
ratings system affords an unbiased look at
players' results (but not style) relative to
others.
> In a later post I modified the "probably" to
> "perhaps."
Thou Braveheart!
> One interesting comparison is the relative success of Evans
> and Reshevsky in US Championships during the Fischer era
The issue was originally regarding
Larry Evans' own "many years", and
it appears that his results were just
not quite as good as the results of
Sammy Reshevsky (whose own
peak years are a different matter
entirely).
> which I'l
> define somewhat arbitrarily as 1957-1972, from Fischer's first US
> Championship to the year he won the world title
Fischer this, Fischer that; if I didn't know
better, I'd say that TK has a thing for that
guy... .
> The above are not complete standings
No kidding; in fact, they seem to only
account for the U.S. Championship,
while ignoring all sorts of other crucial
results during the same period. I have
to wonder, why on Earth would anyone
do that?
> Not really a very clear pattern of superiority by Reshevsky over
> Evans, or vice versa, in that span of 16 years.\
Perhaps Mr. Kingston would not have
to struggle like this, if only he would have
a look-see at the two players' actual
chess ratings and their respective ranks.
> They both had their
> moments of success and relative failure. Certainly both were among
> America's best over that span, though of course not in Fischer's class.
Interesting /diversion/, this talk about a
third player; of course, my comment
pointed out the error regarding Sammy
Reshevky, in a simple, straightforward
manner (compare and contrast).
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 15 Mar 2008 15:59:17
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 15, 4:16 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 14, 8:09 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
> > > but satirizing another Board member,"
>
> > > Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
> > > (Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
> > > but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
> > > you write like this).
>
> > > Wlod
>
> > Reposted to remind everyone what the real subject of this thread
> > should be.
>
> The question is, how on Earth did Phil Innes
> ever earn the respect of "Wlod" in the first
> place? You cannot lose respect you never
> had to begin with, so I am left wondering in
> what manner "Wlod" was taken in, or fooled.
Wlod might have been exercising charity in thinking P Innes was a
journalist. Come to think of it, that's the only way one can think of
P Innes as a journalist.
> IMO, the style we see above is nothing new;
> our nearly-an-IM Phil Innes has always had
> such problems here, so perhaps "Wlod" was
> referring to his writing like this /at ChessVille/?
>
> As for me, I know nothing of nearly-IMnes'
> writings at ChessVille, except for his postings
> here which link to a few so-called interviews;
> these always seem to take the approach of
> thinly-disguised attempts to gain celebrity
> endorsements for some pet peeves.
Or, as in his silly Adams interview, promote himself as 'important' in
some way. I nearly fell out of my chair when I read P Innes' comment
to Adams that 'we both played' a certain female IM. GM Adams was
polite enough to ignore P Innes' desperate attempt to put himself on
Adams' level as a player.
> One example is the Evans ratpack attacks
> on the President of FIDE, who was determined
> vigilante-style to be guilty of the murder of one
> of his many critics. Another example is the
> complaint by GM Adorjan that "the young" are
> supposedly no longer X-- a complaint as old as
> the hills, and one which in this case probably
> preceded Mr. Adorjan's own birth.
P Innes probably thought Adorjan's comment was insightful.
> All of the space wasted on these "rehashings"
> could of course have been devoted to exploring
> the lives of the interviewees, but then, that does
> not seem to have been of much interest to the
> interviewer, relative to his quest for celebrity
> endorsements; it is sad to watch, in that no
> such endorsement would have any real value;
> much like an advertising agency, these efforts
> are just wasted except insofar as they bring in
> profits to wealthy shareholders... .
I find it interesting that P Innes hasn't been published anywhere
aside from Chessville. I wonder what he pays them to let him post his
drivel there.
|
| |
Date: 15 Mar 2008 15:40:59
From:
Subject: Re: Nunn vs. Evans (was: False identities)
|
On 15, 5:32=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 14, 9:33 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > =A0 I mean no disrespect to Evans by this; after Fischer he was probably=
> > America's best for many years.
>
> =A0 Actually, Sammy Reshevsky was probably
> America's second-best player during those
> many years.
A problematic issue. In a later post I modified the "probably" to
"perhaps." One interesting comparison is the relative success of Evans
and Reshevsky in US Championships during the Fischer era, which I'l
define somewhat arbitrarily as 1957-1972, from Fischer's first US
Championship to the year he won the world title:
1957-58: 1. Fischer (10=BD-2=BD), 2. Reshevsky 9=BD-3=BD. Evans did not
play.
1958-59: 1. Fischer (8=BD-2=BD), 2. Reshevsky 7=BD-3=BD, 3. Sherwin (6=BD-=
4=BD),
4-7. Evans, Bisguier, D. Byrne (6-5)
1959-60: 1. Fischer (9-2), 2. R. Byrne (8-3), 3. Reshevsky 7=BD-3=BD.
Evans did not play.
1960-61: 1. Fischer (9-2). 2. Lombardy (7-4), 3. Weinstein (6=BD-4=BD),
4.-6. Reshevsky, Bisguier, Sherwin (6-5). Evans did not play.
1961-62: 1. Evans (7=BD-3=BD). Neither Fischer nor Reshevsky played.
1962-63: 1. Fischer (8-3), 2. Bisguier (7-4), 3-5. Evans, Reshevsky,
Addison (6=BD-4=BD)
1963-64: 1. Fischer (11-0), 2. Evans 7=BD-3=BD, 3. Benko (7-4), 4-5.
Reshevsky, Saidy (6=BD-4=BD)
1965: 1. Fischer (8=BD-2=BD), 2-3. Reshevsky, R. Byrne (7=BD-3=BD), 4-5.
Addison, Zuckerman (6=BD-4=BD), 6. Rossolimo (6-5), 7-9. Evans, Benko,
Saidy (5-6)
1966: 1. Fischer 9=BD-1=BD, 2. Evans (7=BD-3=BD), 3-4. Benko, Sherwin (6-5=
),
5. Bisguier (5=BD-5=BD), 6-7. Addison, Saidy (5-6), 8-10. R. Byrne,
Rossolimo, Reshevsky (4=BD-6=BD)
1968: 1. Evans (8=BD-2=BD), 2. R. Byrne (8-3), 3. Reshevsky (7-4).
Fischer did not play.
1969: 1. Reshevsky (8-3), 2. Addison (7=BD-3=BD), 3. Benko (7-4), 4.
Lombardy (6-5), 5-8. Evans, Mednis, Zuckerman (5=BD-5=BD). Fischer did not
play.
1972: 1-3. R. Byrne, Kavalek, Reshevsky (9-4), 4. Evans (8=BD-4=BD).
Fischer did not play.
The above are not complete standings; they go only as far as the
placing of either Evans or Reshevsky, whichever was lower.
Not really a very clear pattern of superiority by Reshevsky over
Evans, or vice versa, in that span of 16 years. They both had their
moments of success and relative failure. Certainly both were among
America's best over that span, though of course not in Fischer's class.
|
| |
Date: 15 Mar 2008 14:54:44
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Nunn vs. Evans (Sam's dreaful memory) (was: False identities)
|
On 14, 12:06 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> For example, look at the position on my website at:http://www.samsloan.com/keres-bo.htm
>
> Has it ever happened in the entire history of chess that any master
> (much less a grandmaster) made a move as bad as 53. Rd3 in such an
> elementary endgame position?
Mr. Sloan has obviously failed to notice that
the world's strongest chessplayer, Rybka,
made just such an error in its most recent
match. The top program went on to lose a
theoretically-drawn endgame, by keeping its
Rook tied to the defense of a pawn which it
very unwisely advanced up the board-- thus
restricting the activity of its own Rook more
and more. Roman Dzindzichashvili -- an old
man, well beyond his peak years -- had no
trouble "cashing in".
It is also a fact that endgame maestro Pal
Benko once published an article in Chess
Lies magazine purporting to show how easy
it was to draw Rook endings, with the proper
technique; unfortunately, he picked a position
which was a known *book win* as his classic
example!
From my perspective, it makes no sense to
achieve a theoretically drawable position and
only then "throw" a game; far easier to make
a tactical error in the middlegame. In fact, it
was Bobby Fischer who achieved a winnable
endgame against this same opponent, MB,
but then went on to "only" draw. The fact is,
most folks simply weren't as good in the
endgame as MB was; I have yet to find even
one /from the same era/, but then, I haven't
studied GM Smyslov's games yet.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 15 Mar 2008 14:32:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Nunn vs. Evans (was: False identities)
|
On 14, 9:33 am, [email protected] wrote:
> I mean no disrespect to Evans by this; after Fischer he was probably
> America's best for many years.
Actually, Sammy Reshevsky was probably
America's second-best player during those
many years.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 15 Mar 2008 14:16:08
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 14, 8:09 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> > "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
> > but satirizing another Board member,"
>
> > Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
> > (Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
> > but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
> > you write like this).
>
> > Wlod
>
> Reposted to remind everyone what the real subject of this thread
> should be.
The question is, how on Earth did Phil Innes
ever earn the respect of "Wlod" in the first
place? You cannot lose respect you never
had to begin with, so I am left wondering in
what manner "Wlod" was taken in, or fooled.
IMO, the style we see above is nothing new;
our nearly-an-IM Phil Innes has always had
such problems here, so perhaps "Wlod" was
referring to his writing like this /at ChessVille/?
As for me, I know nothing of nearly-IMnes'
writings at ChessVille, except for his postings
here which link to a few so-called interviews;
these always seem to take the approach of
thinly-disguised attempts to gain celebrity
endorsements for some pet peeves.
One example is the Evans ratpack attacks
on the President of FIDE, who was determined
vigilante-style to be guilty of the murder of one
of his many critics. Another example is the
complaint by GM Adorjan that "the young" are
supposedly no longer X-- a complaint as old as
the hills, and one which in this case probably
preceded Mr. Adorjan's own birth.
All of the space wasted on these "rehashings"
could of course have been devoted to exploring
the lives of the interviewees, but then, that does
not seem to have been of much interest to the
interviewer, relative to his quest for celebrity
endorsements; it is sad to watch, in that no
such endorsement would have any real value;
much like an advertising agency, these efforts
are just wasted except insofar as they bring in
profits to wealthy shareholders... .
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 15 Mar 2008 19:03:01
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:470d1f58-8fbb-4374-a890-5cf2df6d027a@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On 14, 8:09 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>> > but satirizing another Board member,"
>>
>> > Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
>> > (Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
>> > but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
>> > you write like this).
>>
>> > Wlod
>>
>> Reposted to remind everyone what the real subject of this thread
>> should be.
>
> The question is, how on Earth did Phil Innes
> ever earn the respect of "Wlod" in the first
> place? You cannot lose respect you never
> had to begin with, so I am left wondering in
> what manner "Wlod" was taken in, or fooled.
He was fooled by the fact that I knew, and honored, more about the Polish
investigators of ENIGMA than he did, both technically and of their
biographical adventures pre, and during, WW2.
This was the result of reading a long and complicated book, wherin, the
bravery of these Poles was doubted by an official British history. Indeed,
they have never been honored sufficietnly for their audacity, courage, and
technical accomplishments.
Whereas the current writer is content to gaze around his cornfield and
speculate why nothing happened to him in his life, and why that is not to do
with his own very limited view. On other subjects he is content to
speculate - and delights in the idea that corn-fed folk is about the apex of
civilisation - so mocks all else.
pfft!
Phil Innes
> IMO, the style we see above is nothing new;
> our nearly-an-IM Phil Innes has always had
> such problems here, so perhaps "Wlod" was
> referring to his writing like this /at ChessVille/?
>
> As for me, I know nothing of nearly-IMnes'
> writings at ChessVille, except for his postings
> here which link to a few so-called interviews;
> these always seem to take the approach of
> thinly-disguised attempts to gain celebrity
> endorsements for some pet peeves.
>
> One example is the Evans ratpack attacks
> on the President of FIDE, who was determined
> vigilante-style to be guilty of the murder of one
> of his many critics. Another example is the
> complaint by GM Adorjan that "the young" are
> supposedly no longer X-- a complaint as old as
> the hills, and one which in this case probably
> preceded Mr. Adorjan's own birth.
>
> All of the space wasted on these "rehashings"
> could of course have been devoted to exploring
> the lives of the interviewees, but then, that does
> not seem to have been of much interest to the
> interviewer, relative to his quest for celebrity
> endorsements; it is sad to watch, in that no
> such endorsement would have any real value;
> much like an advertising agency, these efforts
> are just wasted except insofar as they bring in
> profits to wealthy shareholders... .
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 15 Mar 2008 13:41:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On 13, 8:26 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> LARRY EVANS rating 1/1/78 2530
> JONATHAN NUNN rating 1/1/78 2440
As I recall, the disagreement regarding the
alleged "throwing" of games did not occur in
calendar year 1978. In fact, it occurred when
Larry Evans had dropped substantially from
his peak rating, and the same applies to Dr.
Nunn.
Even though Dr. Nunn weighed in at two or
three hundred points higher than Larry Evans
at the time, my main point is that we should
not care, for only those dregs who are, for
one reaosn or another, unable to think for
themselves will bother over what the alleged
experts might think. For the rest of us, it is
an easy matter to formulate our own opinions
based on reason and (hopefully) leaving aside
personal biases.
Readers may recall that Larry Evans very
dishonestly attempted to claim the credit for
"future testimony" which was later found to
contradict his speculations entirely. This is
typical, for when hacks have nothing of
substance with which to build upon, they
are forced to resort to dishonesty and cheap
parlor tricks like that one. A much better try
was the one published on a Web site by
Taylor Kingston-- his latest attempt, in which
many of the obvious failings of the Evans/Parr
approach were skewered; unfortunately, TK
fell apart somewhere toward the endgame of
his article, but overall, it showed a far
superior grasp of the issue to that of LE.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 12:10:33
From: Rob
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On 14, 12:57=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 14, 12:46 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 13, 4:50 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I never call any chess player "weak" for the simple reason that chess
> > > strength is relative. A 1400 player is "strong" compared to the vast
> > > majority of non-tournament chess players. I think I have read or heard=
> > > that a 1600 rated chess player knows more about chess than the holder
> > > of most PhD degrees know about his respective field.
>
> > I would propose:
>
> > 1400 - HS grad
>
> > 1600 - BS
>
> > 1800 - MS
>
> > 2200 - PhD
>
> Thank you for replying but I disagree.
>
> How many holders of the PhD degree are there in America? I believe
> that the number is in the tens of thousands.
>
> By contrast, how many chess masters are there?
>
> Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Quite a few more, I should think.
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 10:57:48
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On 14, 12:46 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 13, 4:50 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I never call any chess player "weak" for the simple reason that chess
> > strength is relative. A 1400 player is "strong" compared to the vast
> > majority of non-tournament chess players. I think I have read or heard
> > that a 1600 rated chess player knows more about chess than the holder
> > of most PhD degrees know about his respective field.
>
> I would propose:
>
> 1400 - HS grad
>
> 1600 - BS
>
> 1800 - MS
>
> 2200 - PhD
Thank you for replying but I disagree.
How many holders of the PhD degree are there in America? I believe
that the number is in the tens of thousands.
By contrast, how many chess masters are there?
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 11:30:40
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On Fri, 14 2008 10:57:48 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
<[email protected] > wrote:
>On 14, 12:46 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 13, 4:50 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > I never call any chess player "weak" for the simple reason that chess
>> > strength is relative. A 1400 player is "strong" compared to the vast
>> > majority of non-tournament chess players. I think I have read or heard
>> > that a 1600 rated chess player knows more about chess than the holder
>> > of most PhD degrees know about his respective field.
>>
>> I would propose:
>>
>> 1400 - HS grad
>>
>> 1600 - BS
>>
>> 1800 - MS
>>
>> 2200 - PhD
>
>Thank you for replying but I disagree.
>
>How many holders of the PhD degree are there in America? I believe
>that the number is in the tens of thousands.
>
>By contrast, how many chess masters are there?
>
>Sam Sloan
How many people try for the PhD versus try to get a 2200 rating ?
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 10:46:34
From: SBD
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On 13, 4:50=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 13, 3:16 pm, Larry Tapper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 13, 1:50 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:[email protected]..=
.
>
> > > > =A0 =A0 Quick! =A0What was No. 46 on the 1978 annual rating
> > > > list for OTB? =A0Know it? =A0Quick! =A0What is the
> > > > approximate strength of a player claiming to be 2300+
> > > > ELO? =A0Any chess person can answer the latter question
> > > > -- a strongish master.
>
> > > Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well
> > > enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know
> > > the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes,
> > > honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack
> > > made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying
> > > credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of
> > > pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.
>
> > While we're reminiscing about the halcyon days of rgcp, when the
> > average poster was ginally saner than today, I'd like to point out
> > that the original "weak" charge was made not by Sloan but by Parr
> > himself:
>
> > > "Mr. Kingston, a weak player, simply was incapable of doing this kind
> > > of analysis." (5 June 2005, 1:31 PM).
>
> > This was the comment that provoked TK to protest that he was "a tad
> > better than weak". Not surprising that in the latest threads, Parr has
> > been portraying Sloan as the original provoker, a version of events
> > which Sloan is plainly happy to go along with. Makes a better story,
> > doesn't it?
>
> > Aside from this detail, I'd say that David Kane's take on the whole
> > matter is pretty much on the money.
>
> > LT
>
> Thank you for pointing this out.
>
> I never call any chess player "weak" for the simple reason that chess
> strength is relative. A 1400 player is "strong" compared to the vast
> majority of non-tournament chess players. I think I have read or heard
> that a 1600 rated chess player knows more about chess than the holder
> of most PhD degrees know about his respective field.
I would propose:
1400 - HS grad
1600 - BS
1800 - MS
2200 - PhD
|
| | |
Date: 15 Mar 2008 17:25:41
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: False identities
|
14.03.2008 18:46, SBD:
> I would propose:
>
> 1400 - HS grad
>
> 1600 - BS
>
> 1800 - MS
>
> 2200 - PhD
I don't think this is very reasonable. 2200 players are mostly amateurs
playing chess only in their spare time. Now, recall what you have to do
to reach a PhD: ca. 4 years of study to reach the MS and then about 3
more years afterwards (not counting school time to even reach the
entrance level). So we have at least 7 years of *fulltime* study before
one can get a PhD. You can only compare this to the dedication of
longtime professional chess players. So International Master is the
*miminum* we can talk about when comparing the amount of knowledge one
needs to reach a PhD, I would see it more like: IM - MS, GM - PhD.
Greetings,
Ralf
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2008 13:31:02
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On Sat, 15 2008 17:25:41 +0100, Ralf Callenberg
<[email protected] > wrote:
>14.03.2008 18:46, SBD:
>
>> I would propose:
>>
>> 1400 - HS grad
>>
>> 1600 - BS
>>
>> 1800 - MS
>>
>> 2200 - PhD
>I don't think this is very reasonable. 2200 players are mostly amateurs
>playing chess only in their spare time.
But I'd guess, even if chess has become a spare time avocation for
them, that there were several years of intense, dedicated effort in
the past of most 2200 players.
>Now, recall what you have to do
>to reach a PhD: ca. 4 years of study to reach the MS and then about 3
>more years afterwards (not counting school time to even reach the
>entrance level). So we have at least 7 years of *fulltime* study before
>one can get a PhD. You can only compare this to the dedication of
>longtime professional chess players. So International Master is the
>*miminum* we can talk about when comparing the amount of knowledge one
>needs to reach a PhD, I would see it more like: IM - MS, GM - PhD.
I remember reading (I think it was by Larry Evans) that, on the
average, it takes five years to make Master, five more to make GM.
Anyway, as long as we're comparing numerical benchks of
intellectual endeavors, what bowling average would correspond to a
2200 rating ?
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Mar 2008 00:41:03
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: False identities
|
Hello,
>> I don't think this is very reasonable. 2200 players are mostly amateurs
>> playing chess only in their spare time.
>
> But I'd guess, even if chess has become a spare time avocation for
> them, that there were several years of intense, dedicated effort in
> the past of most 2200 players.
It might take years - but intense, dedicated effort? I wouldn't say so.
> I remember reading (I think it was by Larry Evans) that, on the
> average, it takes five years to make Master, five more to make GM.
Starting from where?
Greetings,
Ralf
|
| | | | | |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 16:54:15
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On Fri, 21 2008 00:41:03 +0100, Ralf Callenberg
<[email protected] > wrote:
>> I remember reading (I think it was by Larry Evans) that, on the
>> average, it takes five years to make Master, five more to make GM.
>Starting from where?
As I remember, the starting point is where one begins to take chess
seriously -- joining a club or playing in one's first tournament.
Given the resources available to the student today, that schedule
might well be compressed.
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 10:40:35
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Nunn vs. Evans (Sam's dreaful memory) (was: False identities)
|
On 14, 12:18 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 14, 10:06 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > "Seeming to reply to Evans in his foreword to 'Paul Keres: The Quest
> > for Perfection' (ICE, 1997), Nunn says 'Attempts to analyze the games
> > themselves for evidence of Keres' suicidal efforts ... appear to be
> > misguided' and notes that Vishy Anand, in his 1995 title match with
> > Kasparov, committed two 'elementary errors far worse than any
> > committed by Keres in ... 1948 ... and nobody seriously suggests that
> > Anand deliberately lost'."
>
> If Nunn made the comment in 1997 then Parr quoting his 1978 rating,
> while trying to denigrate those who ask honest questions - well, Parr
> for the course. Larry comes out with a goose egg again.
The real fraud here is by Taylor Kingston who writes above, "Seeming
to reply to Evans in his foreword to 'Paul Keres: The Quest for
Perfection' (ICE, 1997)".
However, Grandmaster Evans wrote his article in 1999, two years later.
Thus, Grandmaster John Nunn was not replying to Grandmaster Evans at
all.
Thus, this once again establishes that Taylor Kingston has LIED.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 10:33:51
From:
Subject: Re: Nunn vs. Evans (Sam's dreadful memory) (was: False identities)
|
On 14, 1:08=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> This discussion has been going on for 9 years. It started in 1999.
> However, discussion about these particular games has been going on
> ever since the day they were played in 1948. You will find this
> controversy mentioned in issues of Chess Review back then.
>
> I have always assumed that since you keep invoking the name of John
> Nunn, that there was an article by Nunn published somewhere disputing
> the analysis by Grandmaster Evans.
I "keep invoking" Nunn?? I mentioned Nunn only once in my article.
He's much more of a bugaboo to you and Parr, Sam.
And why would you make an ASSUMPTION about what Nunn said, when you
supposedly have read my article on the K-B case, where Nunn was
quoted? You actually have never read it, have you Sam?
> Now, I find out that you cite Nunn for just a generalized statement
> that even grandmasters sometimes make terrible blunders. This is
> something everybody already knew.
>
> Back when they were played, I studied the games of the Anand-Kasparov
> Match and I can assure you than in none of those games was an
> elementary rook and two pawns against rook and one pawn position ever
> reached. Thus, it is not possible that Anand ever blundered in such an
> elementary position.
>
> A few months ago, the World Chess Champion blundered into a mate in
> one. That was a bad blunder, but the position was complex and unusual.
> Will you claim that it was a worse blunder because it caused the game
> to end quicker? What does it mean when Nunn says that other
> grandmasters have made "worse blunders"? What makes one blunder worse
> than another?
You're completely missing the point, Sam (No suprise there, since
you miss pretty much everything). I don't give a rat's rectum about
who analyzed what. You asked for Nunn's comments, saying YOU HAD NEVER
READ THEM BEFORE, and I gave them to you. I'm not interested in what
you think of Nunn's comments.
I'm asking you to explain how you can claim to have read my article,
WHEN IT INCLUDED THE NUUN QUOTE YOU NOW SAY YOU NEVER READ. You either
have the memory of an amnesiac, or you've been lying all these years.
Considering that you wrote this:
"Taylor Kingston wrote here that, based on his own analysis of the
games, the games were legitimate and not thrown." (13 ch 2008, 7:25
AM Eastern daylight time)
it's quite obvious that at best you have completely misunderstood my
articles, and at worst you have NEVER READ THEM. You are wrong on
every particular in that statement.
1. I never wrote what you claim I wrote, here or anywhere else.
2. My writings on the K-B case have appeared mainly in Chess Life
and at www.chesscafe.com, not on this forum.
3. I actually reached conclusions quite the opposite of what you
attribute to me.
4. Those conclusions were not based on analysis of any games.
This is at best horrendous carelessness, at worst utter mendacity,
complete fabrication, or to put it more simply, making stuff up,
LYING. How do you explain and justify this, Sam?
Oh, and how about our bet on whether I've ever beaten a master? Got
your $10K ready yet? Or would you like to bet more?
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 10:18:43
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Nunn vs. Evans (Sam's dreaful memory) (was: False identities)
|
On 14, 10:06=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On 14, 10:00=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14, 9:46 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On 14, 9:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > DOWD SHOULD LEARN TO READ (Continued)
>
> > > > >How does this make Nunn "not strong"?> SBD (Steven Dowd)
> > > > >Of course GM Nunn is a very strong player. When did I claim otherwi=
se?
>
> > > > It was Greg Kennedy who alleged that Nunn was "a much stronger
> > > > player"
> > > > than GM Evans.> -- Larry Parr
>
> > > > Where?
>
> > > > RIGHT HERE IN GREG KENNEDY'S POST ON CH 13 WHILE COMMENTING =A0ON=
THE
> > > > FIVE KERES-BOTVINNIK GAMES IN THE 1948 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP.
>
> > > > Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc
> > > > From: help bot <[email protected]>
> > > > Date: Thu, 13 2008 16:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > Subject: Re: False identities
>
> > > > <You will recall, of course, that after Larry Evans
> > > > rendered his speculative opinions, claiming to be
> > > > the only one st enough and strong enough to
> > > > "see" what he imagined he saw in the games,
> > > > A MUCH STRONGER PLAYER [my emphasis]
> > > > examined his thinking and rejected it as nonsense!
> > > > Naturally, even a player as strong as Dr. Nunn was
> > > > at that time, can be trumped by opinions from
> > > > "higher up"...> -- Greg Kennedy (aka help bot)
>
> > > > I replied by quoting THE RATING OF CHESSPLAYERS PAST AND PRESENT BY
> > > > ARPAD E. ELO IN 1978
>
> > > > LARRY EVANS =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0rating 1/1/78 2530
> > > > JONATHAN NUNN =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0rating 1/1/78 2440
>
> > > > Remedial reading 101.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 As k Twain said, statistics don't lie, but ... . Nunn was o=
nly
> > > 22 when the rating Parr cites was compiled. His peak came about 10-15
> > > years later, when he was among the world's top 10 or 12 players, a
> > > level Evans never reached. I don't know Nunn's exact peak Elo rating,
> > > but it was definitely well over 2600. As late as April 2005, Nunn was
> > > rated 2617, well above the 2440 Parr cites.
> > > =A0 I mean no disrespect to Evans by this; after Fischer he was perhap=
s
> > > America's best for many years. But objectively, Nunn was a bit better.=
> > > However, I would not agree with Greg Kennedy's characterization of him=
> > > as "much stronger."
>
> > > =A0 Remedial research 101
>
> > I have never seen a direct quote of what Nunn actually said.
>
> =A0 Really, Sam? Interesting -- you are thereby admitting that you have
> never actually read my articles on the Keres-Botvinnik case. I quoted
> the relevant statement by Nunn there:
>
> =A0 "Seeming to reply to Evans in his foreword to 'Paul Keres: The Quest
> for Perfection' (ICE, 1997), Nunn says 'Attempts to analyze the games
> themselves for evidence of Keres' suicidal efforts ... appear to be
> misguided' and notes that Vishy Anand, in his 1995 title match with
> Kasparov, committed two 'elementary errors far worse than any
> committed by Keres in ... 1948 ... and nobody seriously suggests that
> Anand deliberately lost'."
If Nunn made the comment in 1997 then Parr quoting his 1978 rating,
while trying to denigrate those who ask honest questions - well, Parr
for the course. Larry comes out with a goose egg again.
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 10:16:09
From: SBD
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On 14, 8:35=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> DOWD SHOULD LEARN TO READ (Continued)
>
> >How does this make Nunn "not strong"?> SBD (Steven Dowd)
> >Of course GM Nunn is a very strong player. When did I claim otherwise?
>
> It was Greg Kennedy who alleged that Nunn was "a much stronger
> player"
> than GM Evans.> -- Larry Parr
>
> Where?
>
> RIGHT HERE IN GREG KENNEDY'S POST ON CH 13 WHILE COMMENTING =A0ON THE
> FIVE KERES-BOTVINNIK GAMES IN THE 1948 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP.
>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc
> From: help bot <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 13 2008 16:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: False identities
>
> <You will recall, of course, that after Larry Evans
> rendered his speculative opinions, claiming to be
> the only one st enough and strong enough to
> "see" what he imagined he saw in the games,
> A MUCH STRONGER PLAYER [my emphasis]
> examined his thinking and rejected it as nonsense!
> Naturally, even a player as strong as Dr. Nunn was
> at that time, can be trumped by opinions from
> "higher up"...> -- Greg Kennedy (aka help bot)
>
> I replied by quoting THE RATING OF CHESSPLAYERS PAST AND PRESENT BY
> ARPAD E. ELO IN 1978
>
> LARRY EVANS =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0rating 1/1/78 2530
> JONATHAN NUNN =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0rating 1/1/78 2440
>
> Remedial reading 101.
Perhaps. Did Nunn make his commentary in 1978 or later?
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 10:08:57
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Nunn vs. Evans (Sam's dreadful memory) (was: False identities)
|
This discussion has been going on for 9 years. It started in 1999.
However, discussion about these particular games has been going on
ever since the day they were played in 1948. You will find this
controversy mentioned in issues of Chess Review back then.
I have always assumed that since you keep invoking the name of John
Nunn, that there was an article by Nunn published somewhere disputing
the analysis by Grandmaster Evans.
Now, I find out that you cite Nunn for just a generalized statement
that even grandmasters sometimes make terrible blunders. This is
something everybody already knew.
Back when they were played, I studied the games of the Anand-Kasparov
Match and I can assure you than in none of those games was an
elementary rook and two pawns against rook and one pawn position ever
reached. Thus, it is not possible that Anand ever blundered in such an
elementary position.
A few months ago, the World Chess Champion blundered into a mate in
one. That was a bad blunder, but the position was complex and unusual.
Will you claim that it was a worse blunder because it caused the game
to end quicker? What does it mean when Nunn says that other
grandmasters have made "worse blunders"? What makes one blunder worse
than another?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 09:30:39
From:
Subject: Re: Nunn vs. Evans (Sam's dreadful memory) (was: False identities)
|
On 14, 12:06=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 14, 10:06 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14, 10:00 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I have never seen a direct quote of what Nunn actually said.
>
> > =A0 Really, Sam? Interesting -- you are thereby admitting that you have
> > never actually read my articles on the Keres-Botvinnik case. I quoted
> > the relevant statement by Nunn there:
>
> > =A0 "Seeming to reply to Evans in his foreword to 'Paul Keres: The Quest=
> > for Perfection' (ICE, 1997), Nunn says 'Attempts to analyze the games
> > themselves for evidence of Keres' suicidal efforts ... appear to be
> > misguided' and notes that Vishy Anand, in his 1995 title match with
> > Kasparov, committed two 'elementary errors far worse than any
> > committed by Keres in ... 1948 ... and nobody seriously suggests that
> > Anand deliberately lost'."
>
> > =A0 Seehttp://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb1.txt,http://www.chesscafe.com/te=
xt/k...,
> > andhttp://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf
>
> > > What did he say about this controversy, and where did he say it?
>
> > =A0 You see, Sam has forgotten already!
>
> Is THAT what you mean?
So, you clearly have never read this before, Sam -- right? Please
explain to the people then how you can claim to have read my article
which included the above quote. You either have the memory of an
amnesiac, or you've been lying all these years. Considering that you
wrote this:
"Taylor Kingston wrote here that, based on his own analysis of the
games, the games were legitimate and not thrown." (13 ch 2008, 7:25
AM Eastern daylight time)
it's quite obvious that at best you have completely misunderstood my
articles, and at worst you have NEVER READ THEM. You are wrong on
every particular in that statement.
1. I never wrote what you claim I wrote, here or anywhere else.
2. My writings on the K-B case have appeared mainly in Chess Life
and at www.chesscafe.com, not on this forum.
3. I actually reached conclusions quite the opposite of what you
attribute to me.
4. Those conclusions were not based on analysis of any games.
This is at best horrendous carelessness, at worst utter mendacity,
complete fabrication, or to put it more simply, making stuff up,
LYING. How do you explain and justify this, Sam?
Oh, and how about our bet on whether I've ever beaten a master? Got
your $10K ready yet? Or would you like to bet more?
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 09:06:16
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Nunn vs. Evans (Sam's dreaful memory) (was: False identities)
|
On 14, 10:06 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On 14, 10:00 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > I have never seen a direct quote of what Nunn actually said.
>
> Really, Sam? Interesting -- you are thereby admitting that you have
> never actually read my articles on the Keres-Botvinnik case. I quoted
> the relevant statement by Nunn there:
>
> "Seeming to reply to Evans in his foreword to 'Paul Keres: The Quest
> for Perfection' (ICE, 1997), Nunn says 'Attempts to analyze the games
> themselves for evidence of Keres' suicidal efforts ... appear to be
> misguided' and notes that Vishy Anand, in his 1995 title match with
> Kasparov, committed two 'elementary errors far worse than any
> committed by Keres in ... 1948 ... and nobody seriously suggests that
> Anand deliberately lost'."
>
> Seehttp://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb1.txt,http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb2.txt,
> andhttp://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf
>
> > What did he say about this controversy, and where did he say it?
>
> You see, Sam has forgotten already!
Is THAT what you mean?
Nunn is clearly talking in a general way, not referring to any
specific position. It is not clear that he has even studied the
specific moves and positions to which Grandmaster Evans was referring.
For example, look at the position on my website at:
http://www.samsloan.com/keres-bo.htm
Has it ever happened in the entire history of chess that any master
(much less a grandmaster) made a move as bad as 53. Rd3 in such an
elementary endgame position? I do not believe that Nunn or anybody
else can cite a move by Anand approaching that. In the first place,
all games by Anand are complex with all kinds of pieces flying around.
Anybody can make an outright blunder in that kind of position.
Also, remember that the move 53. Rd3 came AFTER ADJOURNMENT. Keres and
his team of analysts had all night to stay up and study the position.
That makes it seem even more likely that Keres received a late night
call from Moscow telling him what to do.
Comparing the ratings of Grandmaster Evans and Grandmaster Nunn at
their peaks is absurd and ridiculous in this context. Any 2000 player
knows that playing 53. Rd3 followed by Ra3, putting your rook in a
completely passive position, is suicidal. This is basic beginners
Reinfeld and Horowitz.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 08:06:50
From:
Subject: Re: Nunn vs. Evans (Sam's dreaful memory) (was: False identities)
|
On 14, 10:00=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 14, 9:46 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14, 9:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > DOWD SHOULD LEARN TO READ (Continued)
>
> > > >How does this make Nunn "not strong"?> SBD (Steven Dowd)
> > > >Of course GM Nunn is a very strong player. When did I claim otherwise=
?
>
> > > It was Greg Kennedy who alleged that Nunn was "a much stronger
> > > player"
> > > than GM Evans.> -- Larry Parr
>
> > > Where?
>
> > > RIGHT HERE IN GREG KENNEDY'S POST ON CH 13 WHILE COMMENTING =A0ON T=
HE
> > > FIVE KERES-BOTVINNIK GAMES IN THE 1948 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP.
>
> > > Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc
> > > From: help bot <[email protected]>
> > > Date: Thu, 13 2008 16:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
> > > Subject: Re: False identities
>
> > > <You will recall, of course, that after Larry Evans
> > > rendered his speculative opinions, claiming to be
> > > the only one st enough and strong enough to
> > > "see" what he imagined he saw in the games,
> > > A MUCH STRONGER PLAYER [my emphasis]
> > > examined his thinking and rejected it as nonsense!
> > > Naturally, even a player as strong as Dr. Nunn was
> > > at that time, can be trumped by opinions from
> > > "higher up"...> -- Greg Kennedy (aka help bot)
>
> > > I replied by quoting THE RATING OF CHESSPLAYERS PAST AND PRESENT BY
> > > ARPAD E. ELO IN 1978
>
> > > LARRY EVANS =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0rating 1/1/78 2530
> > > JONATHAN NUNN =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0rating 1/1/78 2440
>
> > > Remedial reading 101.
>
> > =A0 =A0 As k Twain said, statistics don't lie, but ... . Nunn was onl=
y
> > 22 when the rating Parr cites was compiled. His peak came about 10-15
> > years later, when he was among the world's top 10 or 12 players, a
> > level Evans never reached. I don't know Nunn's exact peak Elo rating,
> > but it was definitely well over 2600. As late as April 2005, Nunn was
> > rated 2617, well above the 2440 Parr cites.
> > =A0 I mean no disrespect to Evans by this; after Fischer he was perhaps
> > America's best for many years. But objectively, Nunn was a bit better.
> > However, I would not agree with Greg Kennedy's characterization of him
> > as "much stronger."
>
> > =A0 Remedial research 101
>
> I have never seen a direct quote of what Nunn actually said.
Really, Sam? Interesting -- you are thereby admitting that you have
never actually read my articles on the Keres-Botvinnik case. I quoted
the relevant statement by Nunn there:
"Seeming to reply to Evans in his foreword to 'Paul Keres: The Quest
for Perfection' (ICE, 1997), Nunn says 'Attempts to analyze the games
themselves for evidence of Keres' suicidal efforts ... appear to be
misguided' and notes that Vishy Anand, in his 1995 title match with
Kasparov, committed two 'elementary errors far worse than any
committed by Keres in ... 1948 ... and nobody seriously suggests that
Anand deliberately lost'."
See http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb1.txt, http://www.chesscafe.com/text/k=
b2.txt,
and http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf
> What did he say about this controversy, and where did he say it?
You see, Sam has forgotten already!
|
| | |
Date: 15 Mar 2008 08:21:16
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Nunn vs. Evans (Sam's dreaful memory) (was: False identities)
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:00a39b61-bcc8-4fe4-a7de-a70c314b5407@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On 14, 10:00 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 14, 9:46 am, [email protected] wrote:
> I have never seen a direct quote of what Nunn actually said.
Really, Sam? Interesting -- you are thereby admitting that you have
never actually read my articles on the Keres-Botvinnik case. I quoted
the relevant statement by Nunn there:
"Seeming to reply to Evans in his foreword to 'Paul Keres: The Quest
for Perfection' (ICE, 1997), Nunn says 'Attempts to analyze the games
themselves for evidence of Keres' suicidal efforts ... appear to be
misguided' and notes that Vishy Anand, in his 1995 title match with
Kasparov, committed two 'elementary errors far worse than any
committed by Keres in ... 1948 ... and nobody seriously suggests that
Anand deliberately lost'."
---
Two Points:
1) Which is not to say that players do not throw games:
Chess Today just pointed the following quote from GM Hikaru Nakamura:
"My blitz record which was broken by Alexander Grischuk (Depressnyak)
although I wish I could applaud him on this record, it seems rather unfair
for players to make deals amongst themselves and toss games as is what
happened yesterday. Sadly, this is not the first time Rauf Mamedov (MLRaka,
Generalisimus, etc) has tossed games to Grischuk. Back in 2004, when
Grischuk became the first person to break 3600, it was none other than Rauf
who lost to him 5 games in a row!"
2) I see that Nunn /is/ talking about analysis. But is Evans /only/ talking
of analysis? When I brought this up in terms yesterday, it was O no! Not on
analysis! What is written above in fact does not say the basis of Nunn's
/own/ commentary, since it merely references the Evans matierial. To
continue to compare that directly with another instance does not quite take
into account two things [a] occassional cheating then and now, and [b] state
sponsored 'invigilation' of chess, where the /norm/ seems to have been to
apply pressure to players.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 07:00:50
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Nunn vs. Evans (was: False identities)
|
On 14, 9:46 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On 14, 9:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > DOWD SHOULD LEARN TO READ (Continued)
>
> > >How does this make Nunn "not strong"?> SBD (Steven Dowd)
> > >Of course GM Nunn is a very strong player. When did I claim otherwise?
>
> > It was Greg Kennedy who alleged that Nunn was "a much stronger
> > player"
> > than GM Evans.> -- Larry Parr
>
> > Where?
>
> > RIGHT HERE IN GREG KENNEDY'S POST ON CH 13 WHILE COMMENTING ON THE
> > FIVE KERES-BOTVINNIK GAMES IN THE 1948 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP.
>
> > Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc
> > From: help bot <[email protected]>
> > Date: Thu, 13 2008 16:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
> > Subject: Re: False identities
>
> > <You will recall, of course, that after Larry Evans
> > rendered his speculative opinions, claiming to be
> > the only one st enough and strong enough to
> > "see" what he imagined he saw in the games,
> > A MUCH STRONGER PLAYER [my emphasis]
> > examined his thinking and rejected it as nonsense!
> > Naturally, even a player as strong as Dr. Nunn was
> > at that time, can be trumped by opinions from
> > "higher up"...> -- Greg Kennedy (aka help bot)
>
> > I replied by quoting THE RATING OF CHESSPLAYERS PAST AND PRESENT BY
> > ARPAD E. ELO IN 1978
>
> > LARRY EVANS rating 1/1/78 2530
> > JONATHAN NUNN rating 1/1/78 2440
>
> > Remedial reading 101.
>
> As k Twain said, statistics don't lie, but ... . Nunn was only
> 22 when the rating Parr cites was compiled. His peak came about 10-15
> years later, when he was among the world's top 10 or 12 players, a
> level Evans never reached. I don't know Nunn's exact peak Elo rating,
> but it was definitely well over 2600. As late as April 2005, Nunn was
> rated 2617, well above the 2440 Parr cites.
> I mean no disrespect to Evans by this; after Fischer he was perhaps
> America's best for many years. But objectively, Nunn was a bit better.
> However, I would not agree with Greg Kennedy's characterization of him
> as "much stronger."
>
> Remedial research 101
I have never seen a direct quote of what Nunn actually said.
What did he say about this controversy, and where did he say it?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 06:46:58
From:
Subject: Nunn vs. Evans (was: False identities)
|
On 14, 9:35=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> DOWD SHOULD LEARN TO READ (Continued)
>
> >How does this make Nunn "not strong"?> SBD (Steven Dowd)
> >Of course GM Nunn is a very strong player. When did I claim otherwise?
>
> It was Greg Kennedy who alleged that Nunn was "a much stronger
> player"
> than GM Evans.> -- Larry Parr
>
> Where?
>
> RIGHT HERE IN GREG KENNEDY'S POST ON CH 13 WHILE COMMENTING =A0ON THE
> FIVE KERES-BOTVINNIK GAMES IN THE 1948 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP.
>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc
> From: help bot <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 13 2008 16:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: False identities
>
> <You will recall, of course, that after Larry Evans
> rendered his speculative opinions, claiming to be
> the only one st enough and strong enough to
> "see" what he imagined he saw in the games,
> A MUCH STRONGER PLAYER [my emphasis]
> examined his thinking and rejected it as nonsense!
> Naturally, even a player as strong as Dr. Nunn was
> at that time, can be trumped by opinions from
> "higher up"...> -- Greg Kennedy (aka help bot)
>
> I replied by quoting THE RATING OF CHESSPLAYERS PAST AND PRESENT BY
> ARPAD E. ELO IN 1978
>
> LARRY EVANS =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0rating 1/1/78 2530
> JONATHAN NUNN =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0rating 1/1/78 2440
>
> Remedial reading 101.
As k Twain said, statistics don't lie, but ... . Nunn was only
22 when the rating Parr cites was compiled. His peak came about 10-15
years later, when he was among the world's top 10 or 12 players, a
level Evans never reached. I don't know Nunn's exact peak Elo rating,
but it was definitely well over 2600. As late as April 2005, Nunn was
rated 2617, well above the 2440 Parr cites.
I mean no disrespect to Evans by this; after Fischer he was perhaps
America's best for many years. But objectively, Nunn was a bit better.
However, I would not agree with Greg Kennedy's characterization of him
as "much stronger."
Remedial research 101
|
| |
DOWD SHOULD LEARN TO READ (Continued)
>How does this make Nunn "not strong"?> SBD (Steven Dowd)
>Of course GM Nunn is a very strong player. When did I claim otherwise?
It was Greg Kennedy who alleged that Nunn was "a much stronger
player"
than GM Evans. > -- Larry Parr
Where?
RIGHT HERE IN GREG KENNEDY'S POST ON CH 13 WHILE COMMENTING ON THE
FIVE KERES-BOTVINNIK GAMES IN THE 1948 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP.
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc
From: help bot <[email protected] >
Date: Thu, 13 2008 16:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: False identities
<You will recall, of course, that after Larry Evans
rendered his speculative opinions, claiming to be
the only one st enough and strong enough to
"see" what he imagined he saw in the games,
A MUCH STRONGER PLAYER [my emphasis]
examined his thinking and rejected it as nonsense!
Naturally, even a player as strong as Dr. Nunn was
at that time, can be trumped by opinions from
"higher up"... > -- Greg Kennedy (aka help bot)
I replied by quoting THE RATING OF CHESSPLAYERS PAST AND PRESENT BY
ARPAD E. ELO IN 1978
LARRY EVANS rating 1/1/78 2530
JONATHAN NUNN rating 1/1/78 2440
Remedial reading 101.
SBD wrote:
> On 13, 10:50?pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > DOWD SHOULD LEARN TO READ
> >
> > >How does this make Nunn "not strong"?> SBD (Steven Dowd)
> >
> > Of course GM Nunn is a very strong player. When did I claim otherwise?
> > It was Greg Kennedy who alleged that Nunn was "a much stronger player"
> > than GM Evans.
>
> Where?
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 06:33:34
From:
Subject: Nunn vs. Evans (was: False identities)
|
On 13, 10:52=A0pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 13, 7:26=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > THE RATING OF CHESSPLAYERS PAST AND PRESENT BY ARPAD E. ELO
>
> > =A0<You will recall, of course, that after Larry
> > Evans rendered his speculative opinions,
> > claiming to be the only one st enough
> > and strong enough to "see" what he
> > imagined he saw in the games, a much
> > stronger player examined his thinking and
> > rejected it as nonsense! =A0Naturally, even a
> > player as strong as Dr. Nunn was at that
> > time, can be trumped by opinions from
> > "higher up"...> -- Greg Kennedy (aka help bot)
>
> > LARRY EVANS =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0rating 1/1/78 =A0 2530
> > JONATHAN NUNN =A0 =A0 =A0rating =A01/1/78 =A02440
>
> > Our friend from Indiana demonstrates once again that a little
> > knowledge is a dangerous thing.
>
> How does this make Nunn "not strong"?
>
> Simply because he was 90 points lower? Where does strong end? at 2510?
As k Twain said, statistics don't lie, but ... . Nunn was only 22
when the rating Parr cites was compiled. His peak came about 10-15
years later, when he was among the world's top 10 or 12 players, a
level Evans never reached. I don't know Nunn's exact peak Elo rating,
but it was definitely well over 2600. As late as April 2005, Nunn was
rated 2617, well above the 2440 Parr cites.
I mean no disrespect to Evans by this; after Fischer he was probably
America's best for many years. But objectively, Nunn was a bit
better.
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 05:09:00
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 3, 8:06 am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On 3, 4:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Dear Reader,
>
> > 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now
> > published athttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
>
> > There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 20 questions
> > session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry brought about
> > by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCafe.
>
> > Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive detail, to
> > illustrate the context of reks made in the current interview.
>
> Mr. Truong:
>
> "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
>
> What kind of bs is that?!
>
> But yes, nobody in past had this kind of experience
> in criminal Internet behavior as Mr. Truong - in this
> respect he's unique.
>
> Phil:
>
> "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
> but satirizing another Board member,"
>
> Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
> (Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
> but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
> you write like this).
>
> Wlod
Reposted to remind everyone what the real subject of this thread
should be.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Mar 2008 08:34:12
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:758ffe3f-c0e6-458c-83b8-791f6886a32c@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 3, 8:06 am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 3, 4:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Reader,
>>
>> > 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now
>> > published
>> > athttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
>>
>> > There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 20
>> > questions
>> > session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry brought
>> > about
>> > by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCafe.
>>
>> > Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive detail, to
>> > illustrate the context of reks made in the current interview.
>>
>> Mr. Truong:
>>
>> "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
>>
>> What kind of bs is that?!
>>
>> But yes, nobody in past had this kind of experience
>> in criminal Internet behavior as Mr. Truong - in this
>> respect he's unique.
>>
>> Phil:
>>
>> "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>> but satirizing another Board member,"
>>
>> Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
>> (Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
>> but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
>> you write like this).
>>
>> Wlod
>
> Reposted to remind everyone what the real subject of this thread
> should be.
Well done! Now, hands up if you can't tell the FSS from the real one. That's
all its about, and I do apologize to everyone who thinks referring to the
material in front of us causes them to lose respect for me, but frankly, its
the same in chess games!
I can ask a student why did they play that move, and they say its what you
do in the King's Indian, and I point out that its only a King's Indian
against certain White set-ups, and besides, the move loses the game at move
14.
Brennan wants to rubbish the idea of looking at what's out there - that is
a significant reason not to do so ;)
It is also the way that the newsgroup has treated the 'evidence' to date.
Very selectively, and when matters that can be assessed by all people here
are raised, they are discouraged by rubbish posts [how long was the Monkey
list? 40+ items!]
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything other than to look at what
there is to see, and not play a KID when you are in a Pirc.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 04:36:32
From: SBD
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On 13, 10:50=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> DOWD SHOULD LEARN TO READ
>
> >How does this make Nunn "not strong"?> SBD (Steven Dowd)
>
> Of course GM Nunn is a very strong player. When did I claim otherwise?
> It was Greg Kennedy who alleged that Nunn was "a much stronger player"
> than GM Evans.
Where?
|
| |
DOWD SHOULD LEARN TO READ
>How does this make Nunn "not strong"?> SBD (Steven Dowd)
Of course GM Nunn is a very strong player. When did I claim otherwise?
It was Greg Kennedy who alleged that Nunn was "a much stronger player"
than GM Evans. To refute this silly notion, I merely noted what Dr.
Elo wrote
in his 1978 book.
It really doesn't matter who was stronger anyway.
That's a red herring.
The five Keres-Botvinnik games speak for themselves.
When asked why he declined his invitation to the 1948
world championship, Reuben Fine told Evans he didn't
want to waste three months of his life watching the
Russians throw games to each other.
SBD wrote:
> On 13, 7:26?pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > THE RATING OF CHESSPLAYERS PAST AND PRESENT BY ARPAD E. ELO
> >
> > ?<You will recall, of course, that after Larry
> > Evans rendered his speculative opinions,
> > claiming to be the only one st enough
> > and strong enough to "see" what he
> > imagined he saw in the games, a much
> > stronger player examined his thinking and
> > rejected it as nonsense! ?Naturally, even a
> > player as strong as Dr. Nunn was at that
> > time, can be trumped by opinions from
> > "higher up"...> -- Greg Kennedy (aka help bot)
> >
> > LARRY EVANS ? ? ? ? ?rating 1/1/78 ? 2530
> > JONATHAN NUNN ? ? ?rating ?1/1/78 ?2440
> >
> > Our friend from Indiana demonstrates once again that a little
> > knowledge is a dangerous thing.
>
> How does this make Nunn "not strong"?
>
> Simply because he was 90 points lower? Where does strong end? at 2510?
|
| |
BOTVINNIK-KERES 1948
Dear Phil,
I would take you one step further. Although
Taylor Kingston employed illicit means in trying to
build up himself by claiming to be 2300+ Elo, he
performed generally well in his search for the truth
about Keres-Botvinnik. The validity of his quest, as
you noted, was not negated by dishonest means.
Nor was the overall balance of his quest dishonorable.
Two further points:
1. Kingston took only the most transitory of pleasures
when writing his 2300+ Elo lie; and I'm pretty sure he
regretted it almost immediately afterwards.
2. I thinkthe ultimate answer to Keres-Botvinnik 1948
still lies in Soviet archives. They are now closed, but were
rekable for their extent -- so far as could be determined
during the early Yeltsin years when researchers were able to
plumb and pump them.
I wouldn't worry too much about the
Keres-Botvinnik materials being lifted from those
archives. We chess people are simply not important
enough in the perspective of Weltpolitik to merit
searching and scourging of multiple files. That
takes a lot of costly manpower.
One day, possibly in our lifetime, those
archives will come open. Odds are we will then
find out in some detail precisely what happened.
If true, then the content of your suggested
East-West dialogue would be an exercise in refining
those findings. Moreover, when one considers the
revival of Russian historiography in the post-Soviet
period, the Western input would be sensibly less.
Yours, Larry
Chess One wrote:
> At length, a fair capsule, by Sam Sloan, who also bothers to identify the
> context of it all.
>
> This is not quite the all of it however, as I have just written Larry Parr,
> since TK needed something to substantiate his sense of things, and he chose
> a false means to do so, even if he were 2300+ Elo. This is quite other than
> to validate what Evans said, by dismissal of his critics.
>
> That would require a different means of discussion. Indeed, that would
> require half-a-book to interrogate.
>
> Where is that book?
>
> A sad factor of these affairs, first written me by a Russian about Russians,
> is to get after these old elephants before they go. And in chess we have not
> done that - well... chess publishers have not sufficiently honored this
> idea, since while it is important, it is not so very commercial.
>
> Kids these days hardly know what the cold war was, and ridiculously ascribe
> 'from each his means to each his contribution...' to the Founders, rather
> than the communist manifesto. And so we chess aficionados suffer our youth
> to know little, or as above, know trash about themselves and of others.
>
> We should all try to be human about this, since no man here did not lie
> here.
>
> AGREE?
>
> If chess has some role to play, and I think it does, in the difficult to
> fudge non-verbal nature of our art, let us together qualify these things. If
> these means challenging 'greats' such as Evans, then so be it. But we should
> challenge in the sense of 'engage with us', rather than this instance which
> is dismissive of him, and his like, based on inventing one's own footing in
> things.
>
> While hyperbolous statements issue from all sides, where is any will to
> consensus statement?
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:29ff1419-bb66-459a-b929-b4b3cac9fd33@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > On 13, 1:50 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well
> >> enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know
> >> the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes,
> >> honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack
> >> made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying
> >> credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of
> >> pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.
> >
> > Wait a second.
> >
> > Taylor Kingston has never in his entire life been rated as high or as
> > strong at chess as I am.
> >
> > However, that was not the issue. The issue was not whether Taylor
> > Kingston was as strong as Sam Sloan. It was whether Taylor Kingston
> > was as strong as Keres and Botvinnik, or whether he was strong enough
> > to analyze in a meaningful way the games of the four-game match played
> > in 1948 between the two strongest players in the world at that time,
> > Keres and Botvinnik, which Botvinnik won by 4-0.
> >
> > Taylor Kingston wrote here that, based on his own analysis of the
> > games, the games were legitimate and not thrown. I replied that Taylor
> > Kingston was too weak at chess to make that determination.
> >
> > That was what evoked his response that he had had a 2300+ Elo Rating
> > and had been the number 46 rated player in the country.
> >
> > And I was right. Taylor Kingston has never been in his entire life a
> > 2300+ Elo rated player, he has never been the number 46 rated player
> > in the country, and he had never been strong enough at chess to make a
> > meaningful determination that the games played between the two
> > strongest chess players in the world were legitimate or not.
> >
> > Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 08:30:48
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: False identities
|
Here below is the main perspective, from Larry Parr. I didn't read it before
saying something similar by other means, in my a-to-d sequencing and
deconstruction of the discussion. Here the issue remains with the priy
charge, (a), and does not diverge into commentaries and reactions to them.
As I believe I said before, 'records' in any archive may themselves be
sophisticated, and the Russian gentleman, a GM historian, I believe I
mentioned privately certainly has the goods on the whole 9 yards of Soviet
invigilation of chess, after 30 years of witnessing it, including the
interesting subject of who has gone on the record, but who may not be
entirely honest, being, you see, a bit culpable!
Taimanov managed to extract at least some of his /own/ KGB file. But getting
this other gent on the record about the wholesale systemic 'invigilation' is
very difficult ~ and to his credit, he does not want to celebrate any
scandal for its own sake. Though, beyond scandals there is another apt
point:-
I think the pity of suppressing that point of view is now become clear - and
less for Western benefit than for Russians themselves - with media in Russia
now becoming state controlled again; did they get enough sense of themselves
and the world in the interim since the Wall came down to actually experience
what light and air, and living without fear [!] of social sensorship, and
personal psychological sensorship [!] to be able to now make a choice of one
thing over another?
Evan though chess seems like small beer, if the relative innocence of issues
in chess cannot be aired, then the fatuity of attempting more socially
dynamic discussion is rather moot, no?
How sad the Russians had not understood what the Founders in the US knew the
new country must do! And which Europe had failed to achieve - you cannot
have greater outward democracy, than you have inner conscience. Without
permitting the fluency of an inner state, the outer one will be similarly
crabbed. This indeed is the origin of the Idea of Free Speech, which was not
to talk about what ever came into your silly head, but to speak one's
conscience without fear of reprisal from the State.
Cordially, Phil Innes
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> BOTVINNIK-KERES 1948
>
> Dear Phil,
>
> I would take you one step further. Although
> Taylor Kingston employed illicit means in trying to
> build up himself by claiming to be 2300+ Elo, he
> performed generally well in his search for the truth
> about Keres-Botvinnik. The validity of his quest, as
> you noted, was not negated by dishonest means.
> Nor was the overall balance of his quest dishonorable.
>
> Two further points:
>
> 1. Kingston took only the most transitory of pleasures
> when writing his 2300+ Elo lie; and I'm pretty sure he
> regretted it almost immediately afterwards.
>
> 2. I thinkthe ultimate answer to Keres-Botvinnik 1948
> still lies in Soviet archives. They are now closed, but were
> rekable for their extent -- so far as could be determined
> during the early Yeltsin years when researchers were able to
> plumb and pump them.
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about the
> Keres-Botvinnik materials being lifted from those
> archives. We chess people are simply not important
> enough in the perspective of Weltpolitik to merit
> searching and scourging of multiple files. That
> takes a lot of costly manpower.
>
> One day, possibly in our lifetime, those
> archives will come open. Odds are we will then
> find out in some detail precisely what happened.
>
> If true, then the content of your suggested
> East-West dialogue would be an exercise in refining
> those findings. Moreover, when one considers the
> revival of Russian historiography in the post-Soviet
> period, the Western input would be sensibly less.
>
> Yours, Larry
>
>
> Chess One wrote:
>> At length, a fair capsule, by Sam Sloan, who also bothers to identify the
>> context of it all.
>>
>> This is not quite the all of it however, as I have just written Larry
>> Parr,
>> since TK needed something to substantiate his sense of things, and he
>> chose
>> a false means to do so, even if he were 2300+ Elo. This is quite other
>> than
>> to validate what Evans said, by dismissal of his critics.
>>
>> That would require a different means of discussion. Indeed, that would
>> require half-a-book to interrogate.
>>
>> Where is that book?
>>
>> A sad factor of these affairs, first written me by a Russian about
>> Russians,
>> is to get after these old elephants before they go. And in chess we have
>> not
>> done that - well... chess publishers have not sufficiently honored this
>> idea, since while it is important, it is not so very commercial.
>>
>> Kids these days hardly know what the cold war was, and ridiculously
>> ascribe
>> 'from each his means to each his contribution...' to the Founders, rather
>> than the communist manifesto. And so we chess aficionados suffer our
>> youth
>> to know little, or as above, know trash about themselves and of others.
>>
>> We should all try to be human about this, since no man here did not lie
>> here.
>>
>> AGREE?
>>
>> If chess has some role to play, and I think it does, in the difficult to
>> fudge non-verbal nature of our art, let us together qualify these things.
>> If
>> these means challenging 'greats' such as Evans, then so be it. But we
>> should
>> challenge in the sense of 'engage with us', rather than this instance
>> which
>> is dismissive of him, and his like, based on inventing one's own footing
>> in
>> things.
>>
>> While hyperbolous statements issue from all sides, where is any will to
>> consensus statement?
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>>
>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:29ff1419-bb66-459a-b929-b4b3cac9fd33@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> > On 13, 1:50 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well
>> >> enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know
>> >> the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes,
>> >> honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack
>> >> made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying
>> >> credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of
>> >> pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.
>> >
>> > Wait a second.
>> >
>> > Taylor Kingston has never in his entire life been rated as high or as
>> > strong at chess as I am.
>> >
>> > However, that was not the issue. The issue was not whether Taylor
>> > Kingston was as strong as Sam Sloan. It was whether Taylor Kingston
>> > was as strong as Keres and Botvinnik, or whether he was strong enough
>> > to analyze in a meaningful way the games of the four-game match played
>> > in 1948 between the two strongest players in the world at that time,
>> > Keres and Botvinnik, which Botvinnik won by 4-0.
>> >
>> > Taylor Kingston wrote here that, based on his own analysis of the
>> > games, the games were legitimate and not thrown. I replied that Taylor
>> > Kingston was too weak at chess to make that determination.
>> >
>> > That was what evoked his response that he had had a 2300+ Elo Rating
>> > and had been the number 46 rated player in the country.
>> >
>> > And I was right. Taylor Kingston has never been in his entire life a
>> > 2300+ Elo rated player, he has never been the number 46 rated player
>> > in the country, and he had never been strong enough at chess to make a
>> > meaningful determination that the games played between the two
>> > strongest chess players in the world were legitimate or not.
>> >
>> > Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 19:52:50
From: SBD
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On 13, 7:26=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> THE RATING OF CHESSPLAYERS PAST AND PRESENT BY ARPAD E. ELO
>
> =A0<You will recall, of course, that after Larry
> Evans rendered his speculative opinions,
> claiming to be the only one st enough
> and strong enough to "see" what he
> imagined he saw in the games, a much
> stronger player examined his thinking and
> rejected it as nonsense! =A0Naturally, even a
> player as strong as Dr. Nunn was at that
> time, can be trumped by opinions from
> "higher up"...> -- Greg Kennedy (aka help bot)
>
> LARRY EVANS =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0rating 1/1/78 =A0 2530
> JONATHAN NUNN =A0 =A0 =A0rating =A01/1/78 =A02440
>
> Our friend from Indiana demonstrates once again that a little
> knowledge is a dangerous thing.
How does this make Nunn "not strong"?
Simply because he was 90 points lower? Where does strong end? at 2510?
|
| |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 17:47:23
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 13, 6:21 pm, Louis Blair <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 12, 10:54 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 7 ...
> 7 ... his employing fake identities in debates with this writer, ...
> 7 ...
>
> _
> What about those "others" who supposedly agreed with
> Larry Parr on the "highlighted" and "singled out" controversy?
> _
> "... Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906) is a famous
> game, and NM Kingston highlighted the best-known
> position in this famous game. Whereupon, he
> failed to tell the reader the most interesting thing
> about the best-known position in the famous game.
I was under the impression that the old
"Prove Parr Lies" contests had been
discontinued, due to running far over
budget via the overwhelming valid claims
to prizes? Anyway, this is yet another
clear-cut winner by Mr. Blair.
_
> Someone with a normal ego would write as follows:
> '... For purely illustrative purposes, I obviously ought
> to have chosen another position if I were not up to
> the k of pointing out the most important point in
> the position I singled out.'" - Larry Parr (26 Apr 2006
> 19:05:22 -0700)
Just for the record, was there a diagram
of the Rook-hanger move? I suspect that
*if* there was a diagram next to the text
introduction to this game, TK must have
seen it; must have missed the fact that
the obvious pxR refuted all the pundits who
blindly accepted this as an example of
brilliancy, not dufferdom.
> _
> "In reality, Taylor Kingston did not even mention the
> position. [In his review of the Soltis book, TK] simply
> selected a sentence from the [Soltis] introduction to
> the game as an example of the failure of GM Soltis
> to provide such information as the round in which the
> game was played" - Louis Blair (2 Jun 2006
> 01:03:30 -0700)
True, but this means he found a piece of
quartz crystal on the ground, then went
'round showing it off while the GOLD MINE
it came out of went undiscovered.
> _
> "This writer and others have argued that if one
> references Duras-Teichmann, as NM Kingston did
> in his review of the Soltis volume, then one is
> perforce highlighting ..." - Larry Parr (5 Jun 2006
> 20:29:53 -0700)
> _
> _
> "Who are these others?" - Louis Blair (5 Jun 2006
> 22:44:43 -0700)
Mr. Parr makes a habit of being just a part
of a confederacy of dunces; he automatically
assumes (and correctly so) that his dregs
will toe the line; will parrot his arguments and
opinions, without thinking. He also believes
that numbers -- or even the illusion of numbers
-- will have a tendency to add "heft" where his
intellectual efforts may be weak, vacuous (in
sum, nearly all the time).
It is amusing to see LP constantly parrot
Larry Evans, thinking that /his/ endorsement
somehow lends credibility to his mentor's
opinions, yet find himself standing all alone
when he gets caught using the term "we",
or as here, imagining "others".
One problem with the Evans ratpackers is
that they always get caught; they can't seem
to ever learn the proper techniques, the tricks
of their (propaganda) trade. Louis Blair has
no difficulty whatever in pinpointing many of
these careless gaffes by Larry Parr.
-- help bot, "the bot who saw pxR!"
|
| |
THE RATING OF CHESSPLAYERS PAST AND PRESENT BY ARPAD E. ELO
<You will recall, of course, that after Larry
Evans rendered his speculative opinions,
claiming to be the only one st enough
and strong enough to "see" what he
imagined he saw in the games, a much
stronger player examined his thinking and
rejected it as nonsense! Naturally, even a
player as strong as Dr. Nunn was at that
time, can be trumped by opinions from
"higher up"... > -- Greg Kennedy (aka help bot)
LARRY EVANS rating 1/1/78 2530
JONATHAN NUNN rating 1/1/78 2440
Our friend from Indiana demonstrates once again that a little
knowledge is a dangerous thing.
help bot wrote:
> On 13, 7:25 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well
> > > enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know
> > > the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes,
> > > honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack
> > > made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying
> > > credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of
> > > pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.
> >
> > Wait a second.
> >
> > Taylor Kingston has never in his entire life been rated as high or as
> > strong at chess as I am.
>
> You "forgot" to insert the qualifier, OTB.
>
>
> > However, that was not the issue. The issue was not whether Taylor
> > Kingston was as strong as Sam Sloan. It was whether Taylor Kingston
> > was as strong as Keres and Botvinnik, or whether he was strong enough
> > to analyze in a meaningful way the games of the four-game match played
> > in 1948 between the two strongest players in the world at that time,
> > Keres and Botvinnik, which Botvinnik won by 4-0.
>
> Some imbeciles have it that all the other
> Russians were pressured to "throw" their
> matches to GM Botvinnik, so how can you
> maintain that he was one of the two very
> strongest? Maybe you reject such idiotic
> speculations... .
>
>
> > Taylor Kingston wrote here that, based on his own analysis of the
> > games, the games were legitimate and not thrown. I replied that Taylor
> > Kingston was too weak at chess to make that determination.
>
> Fair enough. Obviously, all the Evans ratpackers
> are also too weak to comment, since they fall well
> short of the top-two rankings as well. By your
> "reasoning", the concept of thrown games requires
> an intimate familiarity with how the world's *top*
> players go about this kind of work, how they do
> what they do when they are tossing their games.
> Certainly, /very few/ have the required knowledge
> to judge.
>
>
> > That was what evoked his response that he had had a 2300+ Elo Rating
> > and had been the number 46 rated player in the country.
>
> Well, it is clear now that folks like TK and
> SS and LP should not even be discussing
> the issue, for they are all much too weak to
> understand anything about the throwing of
> top-level games. Let us therefore hear from
> the experts; I want to hear what Gary
> Kasparov has to say about this.
>
>
> > And I was right. Taylor Kingston has never been in his entire life a
> > 2300+ Elo rated player, he has never been the number 46 rated player
> > in the country, and he had never been strong enough at chess to make a
> > meaningful determination that the games played between the two
> > strongest chess players in the world were legitimate or not.
>
> That all sounds well and good, *if* you buy
> into the theory that only the world's *top*
> players would be able to look at the moves
> and determine if a game was thrown.
>
> Trouble is, such players *always disagree*,
> and in reviewing their rationales, we see that
> some of them are clueless idiots who let
> their personal biases rule the day! If only the
> top players were intelligent, rational folk like
> us, we could then trust them to render an
> expert opinion. Instead, they offer us biases
> and jealousies and excuses for their relative
> failures, much like kindergarten kiddies.
>
> You will recall, of course, that after Larry
> Evans rendered his speculative opinions,
> claiming to be the only one st enough
> and strong enough to "see" what he
> imagined he saw in the games, a much
> stronger player examined his thinking and
> rejected it as nonsense! Naturally, even a
> player as strong as Dr. Nunn was at that
> time, can be trumped by opinions from
> "higher up"; yet as we flip and flop through
> all these "expert" opinions, we are left
> wondering if the final word will have any
> real meaning; wondering if it would not
> make /more sense/ to reject opinions
> altogether, and instead rely upon *reason*.
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 17:11:51
From: help bot
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On 13, 5:50 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> I never call any chess player "weak" for the simple reason that chess
> strength is relative. A 1400 player is "strong" compared to the vast
> majority of non-tournament chess players. I think I have read or heard
> that a 1600 rated chess player knows more about chess than the holder
> of most PhD degrees know about his respective field.
LOL! IMO, a typical 1600 player may know
several opening moves by rote, but it is
precisely his *lack* of depth of knowledge
which makes him an easy k for really
good players (whoever they are).
OTOH, I keep reading about how some
Harvard-educated "geniuses" nearly brought
down our entire economic system, because
they basically gambled with leveraged
monies; a few of the writers who describe
those events seem to me to be far more
intelligent than other folks who are described
as Ivy-league school graduates.
> On the other hand, a 2550 rated chess player would be a "weak"
> grandmaster when compared to Kasparov.
>
> However, I believe that any rated expert and most class A and B
> players would be strong enough to look at the position on my website
> at:http://www.samsloan.com/keres-bo.htm
> and realize that the moves Keres played that just gave away the game
> were so weak that it must have been a dump.
Rather than selectively choosing which
games to examine, /looking for/ the throwing
of games, how about we agree to a more
objective approach? We can set standards,
program them into a computer, and then abide
by its purely objective findings, okay? We can
start with a few games played by Mr. Sloan;
how many will be determined to have been
thrown on purpose, by our chosen standards?
> Also, the final game, the game that Keres won, was an obvious dump
> too. At that point, Botvinnik had clenched first place. Keres needed
> to win to tie for third with Reshevsky. That last game was so poorly
> played that it looks like two drunk 1600 players bashing each other.
And yet, there are plenty of games in which
two GMs have made stupid mistakes; just
fairly recently, world champion Kramnik
walked into a mate-in-one with plenty of time
on his clock. It's hard to top that.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 16:19:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On 13, 7:25 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well
> > enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know
> > the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes,
> > honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack
> > made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying
> > credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of
> > pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.
>
> Wait a second.
>
> Taylor Kingston has never in his entire life been rated as high or as
> strong at chess as I am.
You "forgot" to insert the qualifier, OTB.
> However, that was not the issue. The issue was not whether Taylor
> Kingston was as strong as Sam Sloan. It was whether Taylor Kingston
> was as strong as Keres and Botvinnik, or whether he was strong enough
> to analyze in a meaningful way the games of the four-game match played
> in 1948 between the two strongest players in the world at that time,
> Keres and Botvinnik, which Botvinnik won by 4-0.
Some imbeciles have it that all the other
Russians were pressured to "throw" their
matches to GM Botvinnik, so how can you
maintain that he was one of the two very
strongest? Maybe you reject such idiotic
speculations... .
> Taylor Kingston wrote here that, based on his own analysis of the
> games, the games were legitimate and not thrown. I replied that Taylor
> Kingston was too weak at chess to make that determination.
Fair enough. Obviously, all the Evans ratpackers
are also too weak to comment, since they fall well
short of the top-two rankings as well. By your
"reasoning", the concept of thrown games requires
an intimate familiarity with how the world's *top*
players go about this kind of work, how they do
what they do when they are tossing their games.
Certainly, /very few/ have the required knowledge
to judge.
> That was what evoked his response that he had had a 2300+ Elo Rating
> and had been the number 46 rated player in the country.
Well, it is clear now that folks like TK and
SS and LP should not even be discussing
the issue, for they are all much too weak to
understand anything about the throwing of
top-level games. Let us therefore hear from
the experts; I want to hear what Gary
Kasparov has to say about this.
> And I was right. Taylor Kingston has never been in his entire life a
> 2300+ Elo rated player, he has never been the number 46 rated player
> in the country, and he had never been strong enough at chess to make a
> meaningful determination that the games played between the two
> strongest chess players in the world were legitimate or not.
That all sounds well and good, *if* you buy
into the theory that only the world's *top*
players would be able to look at the moves
and determine if a game was thrown.
Trouble is, such players *always disagree*,
and in reviewing their rationales, we see that
some of them are clueless idiots who let
their personal biases rule the day! If only the
top players were intelligent, rational folk like
us, we could then trust them to render an
expert opinion. Instead, they offer us biases
and jealousies and excuses for their relative
failures, much like kindergarten kiddies.
You will recall, of course, that after Larry
Evans rendered his speculative opinions,
claiming to be the only one st enough
and strong enough to "see" what he
imagined he saw in the games, a much
stronger player examined his thinking and
rejected it as nonsense! Naturally, even a
player as strong as Dr. Nunn was at that
time, can be trumped by opinions from
"higher up"; yet as we flip and flop through
all these "expert" opinions, we are left
wondering if the final word will have any
real meaning; wondering if it would not
make /more sense/ to reject opinions
altogether, and instead rely upon *reason*.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 15:21:05
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 12, 10:54=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
7 ...
7 ... his employing fake identities in debates with this writer, ...
7 ...
_
What about those "others" who supposedly agreed with
Larry Parr on the "highlighted" and "singled out" controversy?
_
"... Duras-Teichman (Ostend, 1906) is a famous
game, and NM Kingston highlighted the best-known
position in this famous game. Whereupon, he
failed to tell the reader the most interesting thing
about the best-known position in the famous game.
_
Someone with a normal ego would write as follows:
'... For purely illustrative purposes, I obviously ought
to have chosen another position if I were not up to
the k of pointing out the most important point in
the position I singled out.'" - Larry Parr (26 Apr 2006
19:05:22 -0700)
_
_
"In reality, Taylor Kingston did not even mention the
position. [In his review of the Soltis book, TK] simply
selected a sentence from the [Soltis] introduction to
the game as an example of the failure of GM Soltis
to provide such information as the round in which the
game was played" - Louis Blair (2 Jun 2006
01:03:30 -0700)
_
_
"This writer and others have argued that if one
references Duras-Teichmann, as NM Kingston did
in his review of the Soltis volume, then one is
perforce highlighting ..." - Larry Parr (5 Jun 2006
20:29:53 -0700)
_
_
"Who are these others?" - Louis Blair (5 Jun 2006
22:44:43 -0700)
|
| |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 14:50:41
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On 13, 3:16 pm, Larry Tapper <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 13, 1:50 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > Quick! What was No. 46 on the 1978 annual rating
> > > list for OTB? Know it? Quick! What is the
> > > approximate strength of a player claiming to be 2300+
> > > ELO? Any chess person can answer the latter question
> > > -- a strongish master.
>
> > Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well
> > enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know
> > the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes,
> > honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack
> > made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying
> > credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of
> > pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.
>
> While we're reminiscing about the halcyon days of rgcp, when the
> average poster was ginally saner than today, I'd like to point out
> that the original "weak" charge was made not by Sloan but by Parr
> himself:
>
> > "Mr. Kingston, a weak player, simply was incapable of doing this kind
> > of analysis." (5 June 2005, 1:31 PM).
>
> This was the comment that provoked TK to protest that he was "a tad
> better than weak". Not surprising that in the latest threads, Parr has
> been portraying Sloan as the original provoker, a version of events
> which Sloan is plainly happy to go along with. Makes a better story,
> doesn't it?
>
> Aside from this detail, I'd say that David Kane's take on the whole
> matter is pretty much on the money.
>
> LT
Thank you for pointing this out.
I never call any chess player "weak" for the simple reason that chess
strength is relative. A 1400 player is "strong" compared to the vast
majority of non-tournament chess players. I think I have read or heard
that a 1600 rated chess player knows more about chess than the holder
of most PhD degrees know about his respective field.
On the other hand, a 2550 rated chess player would be a "weak"
grandmaster when compared to Kasparov.
However, I believe that any rated expert and most class A and B
players would be strong enough to look at the position on my website
at:
http://www.samsloan.com/keres-bo.htm
and realize that the moves Keres played that just gave away the game
were so weak that it must have been a dump.
Also, the final game, the game that Keres won, was an obvious dump
too. At that point, Botvinnik had clenched first place. Keres needed
to win to tie for third with Reshevsky. That last game was so poorly
played that it looks like two drunk 1600 players bashing each other.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 14:20:52
From:
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On 13, 4:53=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> At length, a fair capsule, by Sam Sloan,
Come now, Phil, you know that what Sloan has written is nonsense.
Let's examine it in detail:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > Taylor Kingston has never in his entire life been rated as high or as
> > strong at chess as I am.
Well, that's debatable. I don't want to blow my own horn, but I did
attain USCF master rank in postal chess in the mid-1980s. I don't
think Sloan ever got to a master rating either postal or OTB.
> > However, that was not the issue. The issue was not whether Taylor
> > Kingston was as strong as Sam Sloan. It was whether Taylor Kingston
> > was as strong as Keres and Botvinnik,
Well, if that's the crux of the matter, we can certainly disqualify
Sam too.
> > or whether he was strong enough
> > to analyze in a meaningful way the games of the four-game match played
> > in 1948 between the two strongest players in the world at that time,
> > Keres and Botvinnik, which Botvinnik won by 4-0.
Wrong in almost every particular:
1. Keres and Botvinnik were never known to have played any official
match.
2. The event Sloan refers to is Hague-Moscow 1948, which was a five-
man *_tournament_*.
3. The score between B and K was 4-1, not 4-0.
4. I have never attempted much analyis of those games.
> > Taylor Kingston wrote here that, based on his own analysis of the
> > games, the games were legitimate and not thrown.
Completely wrong on both points:
1. I never reached any such conclusion -- quite the opposite.
2. Analysis had nothing to do with the conclusions I did reach.
> I replied that Taylor
> Kingston was too weak at chess to make that determination.
Quite irrelevant, since I never made the determination Sloan claims.
So rather than a "fair capsule," Phil, what we have here is a
completely fictitious product of Sam's fevered imagination and highly
faulty memory.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 08:02:14
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: False identities
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 13, 4:53 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> At length, a fair capsule, by Sam Sloan,
Come now, Phil, you know that what Sloan has written is nonsense.
Let's examine it in detail:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > Taylor Kingston has never in his entire life been rated as high or as
> > strong at chess as I am.
Well, that's debatable. I don't want to blow my own horn, but I did
attain USCF master rank in postal chess in the mid-1980s. I don't
think Sloan ever got to a master rating either postal or OTB.
> > However, that was not the issue. The issue was not whether Taylor
> > Kingston was as strong as Sam Sloan. It was whether Taylor Kingston
> > was as strong as Keres and Botvinnik,
Well, if that's the crux of the matter, we can certainly disqualify
Sam too.
**Actually not. The back of my hand to all this 'disqualify & expunge'
nonsense. All I meant above is that Sam Sloan kept more or less to the crux
of the issue, though of course every tenent of his commentary is equivocal.
SO - Not disqualify, but the simpler 'qualify'. And I think rating is the
crux of the newsnet issue, since that was to challenge a GM's analysis or
perhaps better said, his determinations.
<snippage to get at meat of things >
> I replied that Taylor
> Kingston was too weak at chess to make that determination.
Quite irrelevant, since I never made the determination Sloan claims.
So rather than a "fair capsule," Phil, what we have here is a
completely fictitious product of Sam's fevered imagination and highly
faulty memory.
**Sloan's vague 'the determination' can mean little or much, and so all that
is much of a nothing.
**To deconstruct the issue as it emerged we have in priy order (a) were
games thrown in Keres/Botvinnik? (b) Evans' opinion (c) other people's
opinion at first hand reacting to Evans (d) other peoples vicarious opinions
[opinion they represent of yet other people, eg Nunn].
**Somewhere in the process we see to have encounted item (c) in this
newsgroup - which did seem to be a challenge to Evans based on the technical
ability to 'analyse' the games ~ and that is the source of mentioning
ratings.
**Whether the ratings were intended false or 'ambiguous' this was at least
an openly attempt to establish credentials
**The false identify issue is seen by its opponents as attempts to falsely
establish credentials
---
BUT all that is just the argument here on the newsgroup, and was never as
big as the issues actually was, since there is a greater perspective:
In all this, we have come some distance from (a) above, and only a few
people examined that without going to (b). That is to say, they did not
simply react to Evans, and may not have mentioned Evans at all.
The newsgroup concentrated on (c) and the argument that certain levels of
playing skill would allow some equivalent analysis to that of Evans, thereby
contradicting him - this them moved from can you do this at 1800 or 2300.
While that was, I suppose, an exercise to keep everyone warm, I personally
wualify that aspect 'analysis' with less merit than others did here - since
I would increase Evans sense of the people, the times, the place more than
they would - and score Evans higher in that sense than those who disagree
with him.
Therefore I would not eliminate but discount Nunn, for example. Whereas
Keene, was also 'there' as Evans was, has written in support of these
perspectives, not just of analytical technique, but also strongly of the
weight of the 'atmosphere'.
Cordially, Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 13:04:18
From:
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On 13, 3:35=A0pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Once I determined that the "debate" was based upon the ridiculously
> flawed notion of trying to determine history by looking at a handful
> of chess moves, I wanted nothing to do with it.
Dave, that was never my approach to the Keres-Botvinnik case. Unlike
Evans, Parr or Sloan, I consider game analysis neither necessary nor
sufficient to establish whether Keres was coerced or not in 1948. You
can read my take on the subject here:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb1.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kb2.txt
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf
In fact, I agreed that Evans' analysis was largely accurate, insofar
as it found inferior moves by Keres. But did not agree that this
analysis, by itself, was at all sufficient to prove coercion.
Any attempt to cast the issue in terms of analytical ability, as
Sloan has been doing here for years, is totally beside the point.
|
| |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 12:16:57
From: Larry Tapper
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On 13, 1:50=A0am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > =A0 =A0 Quick! =A0What was No. 46 on the 1978 annual rating
> > list for OTB? =A0Know it? =A0Quick! =A0What is the
> > approximate strength of a player claiming to be 2300+
> > ELO? =A0Any chess person can answer the latter question
> > -- a strongish master.
>
> Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well
> enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know
> the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes,
> honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack
> made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying
> credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of
> pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.
While we're reminiscing about the halcyon days of rgcp, when the
average poster was ginally saner than today, I'd like to point out
that the original "weak" charge was made not by Sloan but by Parr
himself:
> "Mr. Kingston, a weak player, simply was incapable of doing this kind
> of analysis." (5 June 2005, 1:31 PM).
This was the comment that provoked TK to protest that he was "a tad
better than weak". Not surprising that in the latest threads, Parr has
been portraying Sloan as the original provoker, a version of events
which Sloan is plainly happy to go along with. Makes a better story,
doesn't it?
Aside from this detail, I'd say that David Kane's take on the whole
matter is pretty much on the money.
LT
|
| | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 12:35:49
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: False identities
|
"Larry Tapper" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:9b2187f4-7ab9-46d0-b81a-2397578867d4@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>While we're reminiscing about the halcyon days of rgcp, when the
>average poster was ginally saner than today, I'd like to point out
>that the original "weak" charge was made not by Sloan but by Parr
>himself:
I stand corrected. I must also admit that I have never followed this
debate closely and am blissfully unaware of exactly who said what,
when.
Once I determined that the "debate" was based upon the ridiculously
flawed notion of trying to determine history by looking at a handful
of chess moves, I wanted nothing to do with it.
|
| |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 04:44:21
From: Rob
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On 13, 6:25 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 13, 1:50 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well
> > enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know
> > the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes,
> > honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack
> > made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying
> > credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of
> > pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.
>
> Wait a second.
>
> Taylor Kingston has never in his entire life been rated as high or as
> strong at chess as I am.
>
> However, that was not the issue. The issue was not whether Taylor
> Kingston was as strong as Sam Sloan. It was whether Taylor Kingston
> was as strong as Keres and Botvinnik, or whether he was strong enough
> to analyze in a meaningful way the games of the four-game match played
> in 1948 between the two strongest players in the world at that time,
> Keres and Botvinnik, which Botvinnik won by 4-0.
>
> Taylor Kingston wrote here that, based on his own analysis of the
> games, the games were legitimate and not thrown. I replied that Taylor
> Kingston was too weak at chess to make that determination.
>
> That was what evoked his response that he had had a 2300+ Elo Rating
> and had been the number 46 rated player in the country.
>
> And I was right. Taylor Kingston has never been in his entire life a
> 2300+ Elo rated player, he has never been the number 46 rated player
> in the country, and he had never been strong enough at chess to make a
> meaningful determination that the games played between the two
> strongest chess players in the world were legitimate or not.
>
> Sam Sloan
Which Sloan? Mohammed Sloan?
|
| |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 04:25:25
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On 13, 1:50 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well
> enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know
> the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes,
> honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack
> made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying
> credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of
> pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.
Wait a second.
Taylor Kingston has never in his entire life been rated as high or as
strong at chess as I am.
However, that was not the issue. The issue was not whether Taylor
Kingston was as strong as Sam Sloan. It was whether Taylor Kingston
was as strong as Keres and Botvinnik, or whether he was strong enough
to analyze in a meaningful way the games of the four-game match played
in 1948 between the two strongest players in the world at that time,
Keres and Botvinnik, which Botvinnik won by 4-0.
Taylor Kingston wrote here that, based on his own analysis of the
games, the games were legitimate and not thrown. I replied that Taylor
Kingston was too weak at chess to make that determination.
That was what evoked his response that he had had a 2300+ Elo Rating
and had been the number 46 rated player in the country.
And I was right. Taylor Kingston has never been in his entire life a
2300+ Elo rated player, he has never been the number 46 rated player
in the country, and he had never been strong enough at chess to make a
meaningful determination that the games played between the two
strongest chess players in the world were legitimate or not.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 16:53:57
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: False identities
|
At length, a fair capsule, by Sam Sloan, who also bothers to identify the
context of it all.
This is not quite the all of it however, as I have just written Larry Parr,
since TK needed something to substantiate his sense of things, and he chose
a false means to do so, even if he were 2300+ Elo. This is quite other than
to validate what Evans said, by dismissal of his critics.
That would require a different means of discussion. Indeed, that would
require half-a-book to interrogate.
Where is that book?
A sad factor of these affairs, first written me by a Russian about Russians,
is to get after these old elephants before they go. And in chess we have not
done that - well... chess publishers have not sufficiently honored this
idea, since while it is important, it is not so very commercial.
Kids these days hardly know what the cold war was, and ridiculously ascribe
'from each his means to each his contribution...' to the Founders, rather
than the communist manifesto. And so we chess aficionados suffer our youth
to know little, or as above, know trash about themselves and of others.
We should all try to be human about this, since no man here did not lie
here.
AGREE?
If chess has some role to play, and I think it does, in the difficult to
fudge non-verbal nature of our art, let us together qualify these things. If
these means challenging 'greats' such as Evans, then so be it. But we should
challenge in the sense of 'engage with us', rather than this instance which
is dismissive of him, and his like, based on inventing one's own footing in
things.
While hyperbolous statements issue from all sides, where is any will to
consensus statement?
Phil Innes
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:29ff1419-bb66-459a-b929-b4b3cac9fd33@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On 13, 1:50 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well
>> enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know
>> the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes,
>> honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack
>> made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying
>> credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of
>> pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.
>
> Wait a second.
>
> Taylor Kingston has never in his entire life been rated as high or as
> strong at chess as I am.
>
> However, that was not the issue. The issue was not whether Taylor
> Kingston was as strong as Sam Sloan. It was whether Taylor Kingston
> was as strong as Keres and Botvinnik, or whether he was strong enough
> to analyze in a meaningful way the games of the four-game match played
> in 1948 between the two strongest players in the world at that time,
> Keres and Botvinnik, which Botvinnik won by 4-0.
>
> Taylor Kingston wrote here that, based on his own analysis of the
> games, the games were legitimate and not thrown. I replied that Taylor
> Kingston was too weak at chess to make that determination.
>
> That was what evoked his response that he had had a 2300+ Elo Rating
> and had been the number 46 rated player in the country.
>
> And I was right. Taylor Kingston has never been in his entire life a
> 2300+ Elo rated player, he has never been the number 46 rated player
> in the country, and he had never been strong enough at chess to make a
> meaningful determination that the games played between the two
> strongest chess players in the world were legitimate or not.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 09:49:17
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: False identities
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:29ff1419-bb66-459a-b929-b4b3cac9fd33@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> However, that was not the issue. The issue was not whether Taylor
> Kingston was as strong as Sam Sloan. It was whether Taylor Kingston
> was as strong as Keres and Botvinnik, or whether he was strong enough
> to analyze in a meaningful way the games of the four-game match played
> in 1948 between the two strongest players in the world at that time,
> Keres and Botvinnik, which Botvinnik won by 4-0.
It was not, as Sloan portrays, Kingston jumping into an
analysis of a chess position being conducted by Keres and Botvinnik.
The debate, in a nutshell, had one side claiming that Keres was
a cheater who lost his games on purpose, while the other side
arguing that Keres could simply have made mistakes under pressure.
The only "evidence", if you can call it that, is the games themselves.
It is my opinion that the most useful characteristic for participating
in a "debate" like that is mental illness. Surely it is not Taylor
Kingston's finest hour. However, he did establish that he had
sufficient chess skill to participate. That annoyed Parr, so he invented
his "moronic reader = dishonest writer" attack which he
has since repeated countless times. Ironically each time he
brings it up, he reminds everyone that Kingston was a very
good correspondence player.
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Mar 2008 08:58:09
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: False identities
|
"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:29ff1419-bb66-459a-b929-b4b3cac9fd33@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>> However, that was not the issue. The issue was not whether Taylor
>> Kingston was as strong as Sam Sloan. It was whether Taylor Kingston
>> was as strong as Keres and Botvinnik, or whether he was strong enough
>> to analyze in a meaningful way the games of the four-game match played
>> in 1948 between the two strongest players in the world at that time,
>> Keres and Botvinnik, which Botvinnik won by 4-0.
>
> It was not, as Sloan portrays, Kingston jumping into an
> analysis of a chess position being conducted by Keres and Botvinnik.
> The debate, in a nutshell, had one side claiming that Keres was
> a cheater who lost his games on purpose, while the other side
> arguing that Keres could simply have made mistakes under pressure.
> The only "evidence", if you can call it that, is the games themselves.
A tad Jesuitical!
It is a point to distinguish if Keres was [unusually] tired and so made
mistakes, or if the "pressure" was not chess pressure.
> It is my opinion that the most useful characteristic for participating
> in a "debate" like that is mental illness. Surely it is not Taylor
> Kingston's finest hour. However, he did establish that he had
> sufficient chess skill to participate.
But didn't we go over this yesterday - you see, you are now back to deciding
on 'analysis', and the question of Taylor Kingston's ability to analyse,
which was my issue (c) and even Taylor Kingstons "understanding" of Nunn's
analysis which was my point (d) - if indeed Nunn ONLY mentioned analysis.
But the argument of 'analysis only' is Tayulor Kingston's own frame for this
discussion, since for ecample, what if we go back up the chain to item (b)
and Evans' combined his analysis with other factors and influences which
furthermore are of a different nature than Nunn's [who was too young to know
cold-war chess firsthand]
Meanwhile, Larry Parr reverted to what I termed the (a) position, which is
to look at the issue itself, not what Evans said of it - and in his long
post, discussed how we should know from the general context of Russian
fixing, the specifics of this engagement.
Phil Innes
> That annoyed Parr, so he invented
> his "moronic reader = dishonest writer" attack which he
> has since repeated countless times. Ironically each time he
> brings it up, he reminds everyone that Kingston was a very
> good correspondence player.
>
>
>
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 08:32:05
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: False identities
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:29ff1419-bb66-459a-b929-b4b3cac9fd33@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On 13, 1:50 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well
>> enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know
>> the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes,
>> honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack
>> made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying
>> credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of
>> pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.
>
> Wait a second.
>
> Taylor Kingston has never in his entire life been rated as high or as
> strong at chess as I am.
>
Well he was more successful at correspondence chess than you
(or Parr) were OTB. And also "not weak". I'm sure that must
annoy you.
|
| |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 00:40:47
From: help bot
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On 13, 1:30 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > That is an odd way to put it. The postings by
> > jr, PolyGraf and Xylothist are real-- they exist
> > outside of the mind of Larry Parr. It makes
> > more sense to say that there is only circum-
> > stantial "evidence" that PolyGraf and Xylothist
> > were alter-egos of Taylor Kingston, and the
> > assertions by LP add nothing in the way of
> > proof. LP has been asked to provide proof or
> > evidence, and he simply failed to respond.
>
> I am not aware even of the so-called circumstantial
> "evidence" concerning Kingston.
From what I have just seen in this thread,
it has been discussed; for instance, LP has
whined that Poly Graf and Xylothist jumped
into what he imagined was a "debate",
praising TK. That is circumstantial stuff
(~evidence) linking TK to the posts, just as
the fake Sam Sloan is linked to PT or SP
by his obsession with women's-GM chess.
More circumstantial stuff would include
TK's refusal to flat-out deny that he made
those postings. It reminds me of the way
in which "jr" appeared *only* in praise of
LP, and only in LP's particular threads.
> Obviously
> Larry Parr's smears are not evidence of any
> kind. I do recall that Louis Blair put forth a
> very convincing array of evidence linking
> "jr" to Parr.
Yes, but although they are linked, the fact
remains that Larry Evans is afraid to post
here under his own name, and it was said
that Mr. Evans employs "aides" of some
sort who might post on his behalf; in sum,
the linkage is not sufficient evidence that
"jr" was LP, although it is very likely he was
(or was posting on behalf of) one of the
Evans ratpackers (who all "think" alike
anyway).
> My experience is that Kingston backs up his
> statements with data. In that regard he is completely
> unlike both Larry Parr and help bot, both
> self-proclaimed know-it-alls who know
> surprisingly little, despite often disagreeing
> with each other.
Look, kid: TK has been caught twice
just recently, giving answers to newbies
or in their threads, which were based on
his analysis of *the wrong positions*. He
is reckless, and has a decided tendency
to jump to unwarranted conclusions
without doing the required research and
well-considered thought. This is why he
flip-flops when writing letters to Chess
Lies magazine, for instance. He even got
his own peak rating wrong.
The mistake you are making is judging
him based on a few instances where
somebody asked a question, and he got
out a book and found the correct answer.
Trouble is, not all answers are found
quite so easily; sometimes, you have to
use your noggin, and this is where TK
comes up short.
-- help bot
|
| |
KINGSTON'S IMBECILIC LIE
Although Greg Kennedy contacted me in the past,
he has pretty much decided to reject efforts to build
a reading and study program for him.
I offered. He has likely declined.
For the moment, Greg's attempt to turn Taylor
Kingston into a master was absurd. NMnot Kingston was
never 2300+ Elo over the board. He was a Class A player.
David Kane, our Kanester, wrote that when NMnot
Kingston claimed to be 2300+ he was "unambiguously"
(love that lie!) referring to postal
ratings because he gave
his position as No. 46 in the
country. At the time someone
called it The Horsefeathers Defense.
For the record, NMnot Kingston referred to an
undefined time in his past without telling anyone his
age. Nor did he tell us how far above 2300 -- as he
was soaring in a fantasy -- he imagined himself to be.
Once again, we provide here precisely what NMnot
Kingston -- who perhaps hired an Elo service a la the
ex-gov of New York, who hired another kind of service
-- claimed on June 5, 2005:
"Still, on the subject of
playing strength, I have never claimed
o be any great
player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a
top ranking of, as I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better
than 'weak.'"
No one could know what year Taylor Kingston was
claiming to be the time frame of his "peak." The
average reader would have no idea what an OTB rating
for No. 46 in the country might be in some undefined
period of the past. We DO know that No. 46 OTB as of
30 or so years back, when NMnot might have been in his
mid-20s, was, yes, about 2300+.
STILL, THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
The point is that the average reader -- because
that is how chess players talk among themselves --
would have assumed without giving the matter further
thought that NMnot was claiming to be a strong OTB
master, replete with an official Elo rating to boot!
NMnot Kingston would have understood this point
when he wrote his low and, yes, very stupid lie.
Our MNnot is NOT a stupid man, in my estimation.
I have repeatedly written that his chess book
reviews, though not masterpieces of the art when
compared with reviews outside our little world of
chess, are better than 90 percent of what appears in
chess journals and, yes, not totally derisory when
placed against mainstream writing. In his article
writing, when he breaks away from imitating Edward
Winter's hideous neo-Victorian prose, he performs
creditably.
So, then, why did NMnot Kingston tell his
imbecilic lie, which was exploded within a few hours
by Sam Sloan and others? He broke down under the
pressure being applied to his ego by Sam Sloan, who
dogged him over his playing strength like Nemesis.
NMnot also acted the same way with this writer when
inventing fake names to create false followers during
our debates.
NMnot, if judged here on this forum, is the kind
ofman who snaps. Then he acts like a sneak or lies.
DAVID KANE'S LATEST FIB
David Kane's latest attempt to defend Taylor
Kingston's lie that he was rated "2300+" Elo is that
NMnot Kingston employed "the vague term" of "ELO" when
assessing his own strength at his peak.
(NMnot Kingston's actual OTB rating, we need to
keep in mind, was in the 1800s.)
So, then, when a gent, whom you don't know much
about and have never met, tells you that he is "2300+"
ELO, he is being vague. So, says, the Kanester.
ON THE OTHER HAND, avers the Kanester, when the
gent adds that he was No. 46 on an unspecified
player's list (NMnot Kingston was either too busy or,
ah, too lazy to write "postal rating" list) during an
unspecified period when the gent had hit his "peak,"
during an unspecified decade of a player who does not
provide his age -- well, then, the man is, as the
Kanester lies so delectably, speaking "unambiguously."
Quick! What was No. 46 on the 1978 annual rating
list for OTB? Know it? Quick! What is the
approximate strength of a player claiming to be 2300+
ELO? Any chess person can answer the latter question
-- a strongish master.
Imagine, then, NMnot walking into a local club:
"Hello, there. I am Taylor Kingston, and although not
a grandmaster, I ain't so shabby. I peaked at 2300+
Elo quite a few years back. That put me No. 46 on the
rating list nationally, you know."
OUR KANESTER -- THAT CHAPPIE DAVID KANE -- IS
TELLING US THE AVERAGE CHESS PLAYER HEARING THIS
RECITAL WOULD IMAGINE THAT KINGSTON WAS TALKING
ABOUT POSTAL CHESS.
Lord Almighty, what a boyo our Kanester must be!
And how petty the occasion for a fib. How cheaply Kanester
sells his innocence and finer feelings.
Yours, Larry Parr
David Kane wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:35636581-5b42-4209-9772-5511b87ef410@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >
> > The issue regarding Taylog Kingston involves
> > precisely the following: he engaged this writer in
> > debates under his own name; he invented such false
> > names as Paulie Graf and Xylothist and then PRAISED
> > HIMSELF in said debates; he also continued to post
> > under his own name; and he spoke also about having
> > these things called high "standards."
> >
> > I consider the invention of false names to
> > create non-existent supporters in a debate in which
> > one is still participating to be morally scabrous. It
> > betrays the character of a sneak. I further consider
> > the claim to have "standards" while inventing false
> > identities to PRAISE ONESELF to exhibit an awesome
> > and awful hypocrisy typical of people who are, in truth,
> > prime louses.
> >
> > David Kane condones such behavior while condemning
> > Paul Truong.
>
>
> I do think that inventing false names to praise oneself, e.g. "jr"
> does betray the character of a sneak. I do not condone it.
> I find no reason to believe that Taylor Kingston has ever
> engaged in any similar behavior - as the only "evidence"
> is the claim of Larry Parr, rgcp's very own congenital liar.
>
> But if he, or others, had behaved that way, I would not
> approve.
>
> The problem that Parr has in his attacks on Taylor
> Kingston is that TK posts carefully and does his
> research. It is easy to see why he was a good
> postal player - he is willing to spend a lot of time
> to find the truth. It is no wonder that a lazy know-it-all
> like Larry Parr finds that behavior objectionable.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 15:45:28
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: False identities
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> KINGSTON'S IMBECILIC LIE
<ye snippage >
> STILL, THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
<furtherance, ibid. >
> Our MNnot is NOT a stupid man, in my estimation.
> I have repeatedly written that his chess book
> reviews, though not masterpieces of the art when
> compared with reviews outside our little world of
> chess, are better than 90 percent of what appears in
> chess journals and, yes, not totally derisory when
> placed against mainstream writing. In his article
> writing, when he breaks away from imitating Edward
> Winter's hideous neo-Victorian prose, he performs
> creditably.
Agree.
> So, then, why did NMnot Kingston tell his
> imbecilic lie, which was exploded within a few hours
> by Sam Sloan and others?
Quaere, jacta est alea
[help-bot bullet - get this one because it comes up all the time; 'the die
is cast!]
> He broke down under the
> pressure being applied to his ego by Sam Sloan, who
> dogged him over his playing strength like Nemesis.
[Nemy was a Greek, bot, who brought people down to earth, he 'grounded' them
like a farma auhta]
> NMnot also acted the same way with this writer when
> inventing fake names to create false followers during
> our debates.
>
> NMnot, if judged here on this forum, is the kind
> ofman who snaps. Then he acts like a sneak or lies.
qui trop embrasse mal �treint
[note to bot, that means who grasps too much... homework is, resolve whole
sentence, eg, what happens to the grasper?]
---
But to Larry Parr I also offer a rebuke, bona fide, that such an analysis is
insufficient since it lacks the context of the original engagement. We are
to remember that TK 'overthought' the likes of Evans, contested his
judgement and, as many are, became intimidated by the demonstrated skill in
chess and chess experience of his responent's rank.
Now, doubtless TK had something to contest with, since people do not act
from a nothing, and chose the wrong means, which even if true would hardly
qualify.
Wherefore we now celebrate here the fatuity of these means, this does not of
itself refute the /basis/ of the contest. This is merely to transcend
expression on the subject, so that Sloan's comment, and all ours since, is
merely to examine the means of contest, not its fons et origo, [where it
springs, bot!] which may have, though ill-expressed, a virtue?
That is still an open matter intellectually. It is best informed by, in my
opinion, commentary of participants east and west. I do not know that my
opinion is even accepted by the hoi-polloi, neverthless, there it is to be
itself contested.
And so while I comment on the false means of establishing a verite of
commentary, I do not despise, pro se, the sense sponsoring that commentary,
albeit it is a naive one to one's experience.
Cordially, Phil Innes
> DAVID KANE'S LATEST FIB
>
> David Kane's latest attempt to defend Taylor
> Kingston's lie that he was rated "2300+" Elo is that
> NMnot Kingston employed "the vague term" of "ELO" when
> assessing his own strength at his peak.
>
> (NMnot Kingston's actual OTB rating, we need to
> keep in mind, was in the 1800s.)
>
> So, then, when a gent, whom you don't know much
> about and have never met, tells you that he is "2300+"
> ELO, he is being vague. So, says, the Kanester.
>
> ON THE OTHER HAND, avers the Kanester, when the
> gent adds that he was No. 46 on an unspecified
> player's list (NMnot Kingston was either too busy or,
> ah, too lazy to write "postal rating" list) during an
> unspecified period when the gent had hit his "peak,"
> during an unspecified decade of a player who does not
> provide his age -- well, then, the man is, as the
> Kanester lies so delectably, speaking "unambiguously."
>
> Quick! What was No. 46 on the 1978 annual rating
> list for OTB? Know it? Quick! What is the
> approximate strength of a player claiming to be 2300+
> ELO? Any chess person can answer the latter question
> -- a strongish master.
>
> Imagine, then, NMnot walking into a local club:
> "Hello, there. I am Taylor Kingston, and although not
> a grandmaster, I ain't so shabby. I peaked at 2300+
> Elo quite a few years back. That put me No. 46 on the
> rating list nationally, you know."
>
> OUR KANESTER -- THAT CHAPPIE DAVID KANE -- IS
> TELLING US THE AVERAGE CHESS PLAYER HEARING THIS
> RECITAL WOULD IMAGINE THAT KINGSTON WAS TALKING
> ABOUT POSTAL CHESS.
>
> Lord Almighty, what a boyo our Kanester must be!
>
> And how petty the occasion for a fib. How cheaply Kanester
> sells his innocence and finer feelings.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
>
> David Kane wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:35636581-5b42-4209-9772-5511b87ef410@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >
>> > The issue regarding Taylog Kingston involves
>> > precisely the following: he engaged this writer in
>> > debates under his own name; he invented such false
>> > names as Paulie Graf and Xylothist and then PRAISED
>> > HIMSELF in said debates; he also continued to post
>> > under his own name; and he spoke also about having
>> > these things called high "standards."
>> >
>> > I consider the invention of false names to
>> > create non-existent supporters in a debate in which
>> > one is still participating to be morally scabrous. It
>> > betrays the character of a sneak. I further consider
>> > the claim to have "standards" while inventing false
>> > identities to PRAISE ONESELF to exhibit an awesome
>> > and awful hypocrisy typical of people who are, in truth,
>> > prime louses.
>> >
>> > David Kane condones such behavior while condemning
>> > Paul Truong.
>>
>>
>> I do think that inventing false names to praise oneself, e.g. "jr"
>> does betray the character of a sneak. I do not condone it.
>> I find no reason to believe that Taylor Kingston has ever
>> engaged in any similar behavior - as the only "evidence"
>> is the claim of Larry Parr, rgcp's very own congenital liar.
>>
>> But if he, or others, had behaved that way, I would not
>> approve.
>>
>> The problem that Parr has in his attacks on Taylor
>> Kingston is that TK posts carefully and does his
>> research. It is easy to see why he was a good
>> postal player - he is willing to spend a lot of time
>> to find the truth. It is no wonder that a lazy know-it-all
>> like Larry Parr finds that behavior objectionable.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 22:50:37
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: False identities
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Quick! What was No. 46 on the 1978 annual rating
> list for OTB? Know it? Quick! What is the
> approximate strength of a player claiming to be 2300+
> ELO? Any chess person can answer the latter question
> -- a strongish master.
Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well
enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know
the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes,
honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack
made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying
credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of
pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 22:38:54
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: False identities
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> KINGSTON'S IMBECILIC LIE
>
> Although Greg Kennedy contacted me in the past,
> he has pretty much decided to reject efforts to build
> a reading and study program for him.
>
> I offered. He has likely declined.
>
> For the moment, Greg's attempt to turn Taylor
> Kingston into a master was absurd. NMnot Kingston was
> never 2300+ Elo over the board. He was a Class A player.
>
>
> David Kane, our Kanester, wrote that when NMnot
> Kingston claimed to be 2300+ he was "unambiguously"
> (love that lie!) referring to postal
> ratings because he gave
> his position as No. 46 in the
> country.
I said it was unambiguously not OTB,
making you a liar. It was (possibly
intentionally) ambiguous as to what it did mean.
Being ambiguous is not lying - never has been,
never will be. If you want an example of a lie,
read your own post above.
|
| |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 21:52:26
From: help bot
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On 12, 9:43 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I do think that inventing false names to praise oneself, e.g. "jr"
> does betray the character of a sneak. I do not condone it.
> I find no reason to believe that Taylor Kingston has ever
> engaged in any similar behavior - as the only "evidence"
> is the claim of Larry Parr, rgcp's very own congenital liar.
That is an odd way to put it. The postings by
jr, PolyGraf and Xylothist are real-- they exist
outside of the mind of Larry Parr. It makes
more sense to say that there is only circum-
stantial "evidence" that PolyGraf and Xylothist
were alter-egos of Taylor Kingston, and the
assertions by LP add nothing in the way of
proof. LP has been asked to provide proof or
evidence, and he simply failed to respond.
> The problem that Parr has in his attacks on Taylor
> Kingston is that TK posts carefully and does his
> research. It is easy to see why he was a good
> postal player - he is willing to spend a lot of time
> to find the truth.
LOL! You are hilarious. The truth is, TK
is very prone to careless mistakes-- as we
saw with his flip-flopping on the issue of the
Larry Evans article in Chess Lies, and his
habit of analyzing the wrong chess positions,
for instance.
One article where TK appeared to do some
real research was his latest revision of his
opinion on the LE article he formerly praised,
then later flip-flopped to a pan. However, that
article was not written for this forum; it was
"published" on a Web site, and on *that* forum
he certainly raised himself above the low level
of hacks like LP.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 22:30:53
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: False identities
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:1f6a0b3c-e894-4600-8393-11038177aab1@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 12, 9:43 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I do think that inventing false names to praise oneself, e.g. "jr"
>> does betray the character of a sneak. I do not condone it.
>> I find no reason to believe that Taylor Kingston has ever
>> engaged in any similar behavior - as the only "evidence"
>> is the claim of Larry Parr, rgcp's very own congenital liar.
>
>
> That is an odd way to put it. The postings by
> jr, PolyGraf and Xylothist are real-- they exist
> outside of the mind of Larry Parr. It makes
> more sense to say that there is only circum-
> stantial "evidence" that PolyGraf and Xylothist
> were alter-egos of Taylor Kingston, and the
> assertions by LP add nothing in the way of
> proof. LP has been asked to provide proof or
> evidence, and he simply failed to respond.
I am not aware even of the so-called circumstantial
"evidence" concerning Kingston. Obviously
Larry Parr's smears are not evidence of any
kind. I do recall that Louis Blair put forth a
very convincing array of evidence linking
"jr" to Parr.
>
>> The problem that Parr has in his attacks on Taylor
>> Kingston is that TK posts carefully and does his
>> research. It is easy to see why he was a good
>> postal player - he is willing to spend a lot of time
>> to find the truth.
>
> LOL! You are hilarious. The truth is, TK
> is very prone to careless mistakes-- as we
> saw with his flip-flopping on the issue of the
> Larry Evans article in Chess Lies, and his
> habit of analyzing the wrong chess positions,
> for instance.
>
> One article where TK appeared to do some
> real research was his latest revision of his
> opinion on the LE article he formerly praised,
> then later flip-flopped to a pan. However, that
> article was not written for this forum; it was
> "published" on a Web site, and on *that* forum
> he certainly raised himself above the low level
> of hacks like LP.
>
>
My experience is that Kingston backs up his
statements with data. In that regard he is completely
unlike both Larry Parr and help bot, both
self-proclaimed know-it-alls who know
surprisingly little, despite often disagreeing
with each other.
|
| |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 20:50:37
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Which Mitch? Re: 20 Questions
|
On 12, 11:27 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 12, 10:54 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > If I were kicking him out for the reasons you state, I would have
> > > kicked off Phil Innes too because he says the same things as Rob ("The
> > > Robber") Mitchell. Phil Innes is still a member of my group.
>
> > Untrue. I resigned my commission because is was 'your' group. I haven't
> > posted or received anything for 3 months. Any way your group waas far too
> > much about you. You didn't kick me off your group because then you would
> > have eliminated all critics [you also eliminated Steve from TN, no?] Other
> > people just stop posting and I presume they quit too.
Sloan doesn't know if anyone comes or goes. He is too busy talking to
himself. Belonging to his group is like checking in at the " Hotel
California"... you can never leave!
> I was not aware that you had left the group but in any case you were
> not kicked out and can rejoin at any time.
People leave their names on your list because you won't let them
leave.
> Steve TN has been a member of my group from the beginning, January
> 2002, although he has changed his name and user ID several times.
> However, he used to attack me every day. He no longer does so and now
> seems to be in agreement with me most of the time.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day Sloan. Eventually someone
will agree with you on something... Like the SUn rises in the East.
> The only chess person who has EVER been banned from my group is Rob
> ("The Robber") Mitchell.
You couldn't stand the direct questioning from "Lex" Mitchell .. so
you tried to silence me.. Coward.
> Sam Sloan
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 15:53:56
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 12, 6:31 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Here are my theories on why TK has now
> > fallen so "low" in his USCF OTB rating, when
> > he used to be so much better:
>
> > 1) He is likely a researcher type, who needs
> > his books handy during play.
>
> > 2) A simple lack of practice.
>
> > 3) Old age.
>
> > 4) All of the above.
>
> > -- help bot
>
> You forgot stupidity.
As in *recently-acquired* stupidity?
My view is that stupidity and high chess
ratings are far from mutually exclusive. Let
me give a halfway-decent example, /off the
cuff/: in the old days, many strong chess
players came to the conclusion that
certain chess positions could not be won.
We now know they were dead wrong, and
the reason was very simple: they did not
bother to consider /indirect/ attacks! In
other words, they went at things in a very
lame-brained manner, just as you might
expect of what they used to call the weak-
minded. Ever hear of the Trojan Horse?
Of course you have, just as those players
of old had; but *they* would have said "it
can't be done", because the walls were too
high to scale. "Um, but what about just
going through the front gate, disguised as
a giant chocolate bar?", I mumble.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 15:31:37
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 12, 5:27 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 12, 8:56 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Here is what Taylor Kingston wrote on June 5, 2005:
>
> > "Still, on the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be
> > any great player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top
> > ranking of, as I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than
> > 'weak.'"
>
> Thanks for reminding us all that TK was
> referring, not to his actual strength, but
> to his *peak* rating. In other words, we
> need to come down a bit in order to hit a
> number representing his actual strength
> at that time.
>
> > In the 1972 US Championship, a rating of 2390 was high enough to get
> > you invited to the championship.
>
> Okay, so where does the year "1972"
> come from? Is this supposed to be a
> /match/ to TK's peak rating, or just a
> special year for fans of Bobby Fischer?
> (We know that TK is not BF, because
> the latter is no longer able to post here,
> the way TK does.)
>
> > Players like Tibor Weinberger, Popovych and Larry Kaufman were invited
> > that year, and their ratings were never over 2400.
>
> > That was the time period to which Taylor Kingston was referring and a
> > Elo rating of 2300+ could easily have been #46 in the country over the
> > board.
>
> How about an exact date? Surely, we can
> figure out the exact date on which TK hit his
> "peak rating"? Then we need an actual list
> of rated players, not anecdotal memories of
> SS. Let's see an actual list of players, by
> rank, okay?
>
> > Also, there was more to Kingston's lie. His correspondence rating was
> > never 2300 either. His peak correspondence rating was only about 1850,
> > about the same as his over-the-board rating. He is claiming that a
> > correspondence rating of 1850 at that time is equivalent to a 2300
> > correspondence rating now.
>
> Mr. Sloan is either very confused, or else
> he just missed out completely in all the
> discussions here regarding conversion of
> ratings. In the final analysis, it was
> concluded that TK had miscalculated due
> to the complexity of it all, erring by around
> 50 USCF rating points. Some "expert" put
> him, not at 2300+ USCF, but around
> 2250ish. What this means is that critics
> can jab away at his erring on the high side,
> but those who attempted to twist this into
> something more look downright silly! After
> all, a 2250ish player is, just as TK claimed,
> "a tad better than weak". The fact remains
> that the ratpackers are -- except for GM
> Evans -- all well short of the k, even
> though several of them are or were strong
> club players.
>
> Here are my theories on why TK has now
> fallen so "low" in his USCF OTB rating, when
> he used to be so much better:
>
> 1) He is likely a researcher type, who needs
> his books handy during play.
>
> 2) A simple lack of practice.
>
> 3) Old age.
>
> 4) All of the above.
>
> -- help bot
You forgot stupidity.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 19:14:12
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You forgot stupidity.
No, its just cupidity, a sort of believable excursion to cheer oneself up by
saying something which seems to establish oneself beyond a certain achieved
level. Its not stupid, its quite understandable inhuman terms as a response
mechanism to a challenge which cannot be met in terms of the challenge
offered.
The context of it was to be able to rag a GM's analysis and experience
against strong SU players. That is far less creditable, even if it were
2300+ ELO.
But all players hike their performance in self-presentations, as so TK is no
different than anyone else. Here, the context is the bigger lie, than the
deliberated equivocal statement about playing skill.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 15:27:02
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 12, 8:56 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Here is what Taylor Kingston wrote on June 5, 2005:
>
> "Still, on the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be
> any great player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top
> ranking of, as I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than
> 'weak.'"
Thanks for reminding us all that TK was
referring, not to his actual strength, but
to his *peak* rating. In other words, we
need to come down a bit in order to hit a
number representing his actual strength
at that time.
> In the 1972 US Championship, a rating of 2390 was high enough to get
> you invited to the championship.
Okay, so where does the year "1972"
come from? Is this supposed to be a
/match/ to TK's peak rating, or just a
special year for fans of Bobby Fischer?
(We know that TK is not BF, because
the latter is no longer able to post here,
the way TK does.)
> Players like Tibor Weinberger, Popovych and Larry Kaufman were invited
> that year, and their ratings were never over 2400.
>
> That was the time period to which Taylor Kingston was referring and a
> Elo rating of 2300+ could easily have been #46 in the country over the
> board.
How about an exact date? Surely, we can
figure out the exact date on which TK hit his
"peak rating"? Then we need an actual list
of rated players, not anecdotal memories of
SS. Let's see an actual list of players, by
rank, okay?
> Also, there was more to Kingston's lie. His correspondence rating was
> never 2300 either. His peak correspondence rating was only about 1850,
> about the same as his over-the-board rating. He is claiming that a
> correspondence rating of 1850 at that time is equivalent to a 2300
> correspondence rating now.
Mr. Sloan is either very confused, or else
he just missed out completely in all the
discussions here regarding conversion of
ratings. In the final analysis, it was
concluded that TK had miscalculated due
to the complexity of it all, erring by around
50 USCF rating points. Some "expert" put
him, not at 2300+ USCF, but around
2250ish. What this means is that critics
can jab away at his erring on the high side,
but those who attempted to twist this into
something more look downright silly! After
all, a 2250ish player is, just as TK claimed,
"a tad better than weak". The fact remains
that the ratpackers are -- except for GM
Evans -- all well short of the k, even
though several of them are or were strong
club players.
Here are my theories on why TK has now
fallen so "low" in his USCF OTB rating, when
he used to be so much better:
1) He is likely a researcher type, who needs
his books handy during play.
2) A simple lack of practice.
3) Old age.
4) All of the above.
-- help bot
|
| |
WHEN KINGSTON PEAKED
Thanks Sam for some more info on ratings a few
decades back.
If Kingston is, say, about 55 years old today,
then an undefined 2300+ Elo at an undefined period
in his past could mean that he peaked in his 20s.
The POINT, though, is that the average reader of
Kingston's claim to be 2300+ ELO would assume
automatically he was speaking about tournament
ratings. The average reader could not tell you what
No. 46 on the OTB list a few decades back might be.
But almost any reader of his claim, even a casual
player, would understand what 2300+ ELO means.
Sam: you pressured and pressured Kingston
unmercifully and even brutally. In a weakminded
moment, he told a very stupid lie. You and others
immediately exposed it. AFTER you did so, we began
to hear various defenses of his lie from his apologists.
As far as I am concerned the moment Taylor
Kingston comes clean on this issue and his employing
fake identities in debates with this writer, it will
all be behind us. I believe not only in forgiveness
but also, as a Christian, in redemption.
None of this is either political or, personal (my
(judgments of him, as I have noted here so often,
are based strictly on what he writes on this forum
and a few other outlets). For all I know, he could treat
his dog Parrster splendidly and has never beaten his
wife Larissa. He may be the type who serves food to
the unfortunate at shelters and rescues people from
burning buildings.
Yours, Larry Parr
samsloan wrote:
> Here is what Taylor Kingston wrote on June 5, 2005:
>
> "Still, on the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be
> any great player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top
> ranking of, as I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than
> 'weak.'"
>
> In the 1972 US Championship, a rating of 2390 was high enough to get
> you invited to the championship.
>
> Players like Tibor Weinberger, Popovych and Larry Kaufman were invited
> that year, and their ratings were never over 2400.
>
> That was the time period to which Taylor Kingston was referring and a
> Elo rating of 2300+ could easily have been #46 in the country over the
> board.
>
> Also, there was more to Kingston's lie. His correspondence rating was
> never 2300 either. His peak correspondence rating was only about 1850,
> about the same as his over-the-board rating. He is claiming that a
> correspondence rating of 1850 at that time is equivalent to a 2300
> correspondence rating now.
>
> Sam SloanWHEN KINGSTON PEAKED
Thanks Sam for some more info on ratings a few
decades back.
If Kingston is, say, about 55 years old today,
then an undefined 2300+ Elo at an undefined period
in his past could mean that he peaked in his 20s.
The POINT, though, is that the average reader of
Kingston's claim to be 2300+ ELO would assume
automatically he was speaking about tournament
ratings. The average reader could not tell you what
No. 46 on the OTB list a few decades back might be.
But almost any reader of his claim, even a casual
player, would understand what 2300+ ELO means.
Sam: you pressured and pressured Kingston
unmercifully and even brutally. In a weakminded
moment, he told a very stupid lie. You and others
immediately exposed it. AFTER you did so, we began
to hear various defenses of his lie from his apologists.
As far as I am concerned, the moment Taylor
Kingston comes clean on this issue and his employing
fake identities in debates with this writer, it will
all be behind us. I believe not only in forgiveness
but also, as a Christian, in redemption.
None of this is either political or, personal (my
(judgments of him, as I have noted here so often,
are based strictly on what he writes on this forum
and a few other outlets). For all I know, he could treat
his dog Parrster splendidly and has never beaten his
wife Larissa. He may be the type who serves food to
the unfortunate at shelters and rescues people from
burning buildings.
Yours, Larry Parr
|
| | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 13:47:46
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:2078d2c0-872e-43ad-b671-aaf05201f0fe@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> The POINT, though, is that the average reader of
> Kingston's claim to be 2300+ ELO would assume
> automatically he was speaking about tournament
> ratings. The average reader could not tell you what
> No. 46 on the OTB list a few decades back might be.
But they would have known that 20 years ago a 2300
rating would not be anywhere near the top 50 OTB.
So they would *know* that the rating was NOT
OTB. .
Fact is, most of the people in the top 50 would
be known to somebody like Sloan, and
even casual players will recognize a heck a lot of those
names.
The fact that there are people incapable
or processing information in its entirety is not new.
There will always be morons who make
incorrect assumptions, even making assumptions
inconsistent with the given facts. That
fact has zero bearing on the honesty of those
presenting the information.
The lie has been yours, Liarry.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 19:03:00
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:2078d2c0-872e-43ad-b671-aaf05201f0fe@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> The POINT, though, is that the average reader of
>> Kingston's claim to be 2300+ ELO would assume
>> automatically he was speaking about tournament
>> ratings. The average reader could not tell you what
>> No. 46 on the OTB list a few decades back might be.
>
> But they would have known that 20 years ago a 2300
> rating would not be anywhere near the top 50 OTB.
> So they would *know* that the rating was NOT
> OTB. .
That's not true.
A 2300+ ELO is 2400 uscf, right? And circa 1985 or earlier ... well, you
look it up, then speak your piece. Phil Innes
> Fact is, most of the people in the top 50 would
> be known to somebody like Sloan, and
> even casual players will recognize a heck a lot of those
> names.
>
> The fact that there are people incapable
> or processing information in its entirety is not new.
> There will always be morons who make
> incorrect assumptions, even making assumptions
> inconsistent with the given facts. That
> fact has zero bearing on the honesty of those
> presenting the information.
>
> The lie has been yours, Liarry.
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 16:59:32
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:2078d2c0-872e-43ad-b671-aaf05201f0fe@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>> The POINT, though, is that the average reader of
>>> Kingston's claim to be 2300+ ELO would assume
>>> automatically he was speaking about tournament
>>> ratings. The average reader could not tell you what
>>> No. 46 on the OTB list a few decades back might be.
>>
>> But they would have known that 20 years ago a 2300
>> rating would not be anywhere near the top 50 OTB.
>> So they would *know* that the rating was NOT
>> OTB. .
>
> That's not true.
>
> A 2300+ ELO is 2400 uscf, right? And circa 1985 or earlier ... well, you look
> it up, then speak your piece. Phil Innes
Many ratings, USCF, FIDE, correspondence etc., are
ELO ratings. The very fact that Kingston used the
vague term "ELO" also harms Parr's ridiculous argument.
An argument based on the idea that that somewhere, sometime, an
OTB rating of 2300 was #45 means that he was claiming
that the rating was OTB is just plain stupid. Even for you.
Reader stupidity does not equate to author
dishonesty. It really is that simple.
>
>> Fact is, most of the people in the top 50 would
>> be known to somebody like Sloan, and
>> even casual players will recognize a heck a lot of those
>> names.
>>
>> The fact that there are people incapable
>> or processing information in its entirety is not new.
>> There will always be morons who make
>> incorrect assumptions, even making assumptions
>> inconsistent with the given facts. That
>> fact has zero bearing on the honesty of those
>> presenting the information.
>>
>> The lie has been yours, Liarry.
>>
>>
>
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 15:11:27
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:2078d2c0-872e-43ad-b671-aaf05201f0fe@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>> The POINT, though, is that the average reader of
>>>> Kingston's claim to be 2300+ ELO would assume
>>>> automatically he was speaking about tournament
>>>> ratings. The average reader could not tell you what
>>>> No. 46 on the OTB list a few decades back might be.
>>>
>>> But they would have known that 20 years ago a 2300
>>> rating would not be anywhere near the top 50 OTB.
>>> So they would *know* that the rating was NOT
>>> OTB. .
>>
>> That's not true.
>>
>> A 2300+ ELO is 2400 uscf, right? And circa 1985 or earlier ... well, you
>> look it up, then speak your piece. Phil Innes
>
> Many ratings, USCF, FIDE, correspondence etc., are
> ELO ratings.
You looked that up did you David, circa 1985?
> The very fact that Kingston used the
> vague term "ELO" also harms Parr's ridiculous argument.
Does that sentence have anything to do with your previous one?
> An argument based on the idea that that somewhere, sometime, an
> OTB rating of 2300 was #45 means that he was claiming
> that the rating was OTB is just plain stupid. Even for you.
Many people who know things appear stupid to those who do not, but think
they know everything.. 2300 elo was # 45 in USA when? That was your previous
homework, and I must tell you, you flunked the class by not doing any work
and instead mouthing off about those who do being stupid.
It is an orientation to life, sure. So is this reception to what is jejeune.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 09:42:21
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Which Mitch? Re: 20 Questions
|
On 12, 11:27=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 12, 10:54 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > If I were kicking him out for the reasons you state, I would have
> > > kicked off Phil Innes too because he says the same things as Rob ("The=
> > > Robber") Mitchell. Phil Innes is still a member of my group.
>
> > Untrue. I resigned my commission because is was 'your' group. I haven't
> > posted or received anything for 3 months. Any way your group waas far to=
o
> > much about you. You didn't kick me off your group because then you would=
> > have eliminated all critics [you also eliminated Steve from TN, no?] Oth=
er
> > people just stop posting and I presume they quit too.
> I was not aware that you had left the group but in any case you were
> not kicked out and can rejoin at any time.
> Steve TN has been a member of my group from the beginning, January
> 2002, although he has changed his name and user ID several times.
> However, he used to attack me every day. He no longer does so and now
> seems to be in agreement with me most of the time.
Maybe he is just tried of the "Mohammed Sloan World Revolves Around
Me" Show.
> The only chess person who has EVER been banned from my group is Rob
> ("The Robber") Mitchell.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 09:27:05
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Which Mitch? Re: 20 Questions
|
On 12, 10:54 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > If I were kicking him out for the reasons you state, I would have
> > kicked off Phil Innes too because he says the same things as Rob ("The
> > Robber") Mitchell. Phil Innes is still a member of my group.
>
> Untrue. I resigned my commission because is was 'your' group. I haven't
> posted or received anything for 3 months. Any way your group waas far too
> much about you. You didn't kick me off your group because then you would
> have eliminated all critics [you also eliminated Steve from TN, no?] Other
> people just stop posting and I presume they quit too.
I was not aware that you had left the group but in any case you were
not kicked out and can rejoin at any time.
Steve TN has been a member of my group from the beginning, January
2002, although he has changed his name and user ID several times.
However, he used to attack me every day. He no longer does so and now
seems to be in agreement with me most of the time.
The only chess person who has EVER been banned from my group is Rob
("The Robber") Mitchell.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 07:35:38
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 11, 7:54=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 11, 6:58 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > And why a USCF ID? Sloan admits foreigners to his group without challeng=
e.
> > Who does Sloan think he is fooling, with this crap? Mitchell challenged
> > Sloan's behaviors, and provided his personal contact information, and th=
at
> > was in accord with the way Sloan runs 'his' newsgroup.
>
> > And he was still thrown off 'Sloans' Fide-Chess group, because its all
> > bollocks from Sloan. The issues were why he was outing USCF personbel
> > records of Bill Hall, mentioning specifics of his medical condition, and=
> > also if he thought the porn on his website was entirely encouraging to
> > someone with a role to direct children's activities in chess.
>
> > Sloan is not just an ex board member with lotsa personal grudges, but is=
> > turning into a real Ring-Wraith. Sloan shudda read the whole book.
>
> > Phil Innes
> Every regular poster to my Yahoo email group is somebody that I know.
> There are no fake names there. If I find one I will kick him off my
> list, just like I kicked out "Rob".
Thats a lie. Bald faced and bold!
> If I were kicking him out for the reasons you state, I would have
> kicked off Phil Innes too because he says the same things as Rob ("The
> Robber") Mitchell. Phil Innes is still a member of my group.
Right!( NOT!) You knew who I was because we had exchanges both in your
forum and via private email. You always knew who I was. WHere I was.
My personal contact information and that I was , in fact, who I said I
was. What you didn't have was a USCF ID number to link to me. If I had
been someone outside of the US I would not have been a USCF member.
The Group is about FIDE CHESS, not USCF Chess by virtue of it's very
title and mission statement. You are lying Mohammed.
> As far as letting in "foreigners", you forget that I lived in the
> Middle East for a number of years and have attended several Chess
> Olympiads. I know all the "foreigners" on my group.
Again.... thats a lie as well. You do not know everyone on your group.
You may know several, many, or most... but not all. If you do... prove
it!
> Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 18:31:18
From: David Damerell
Subject: Re: Fischer's death again begs the question: Why is there no chess on TV now?
|
Quoting David Kane <[email protected] >:
>"David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>Any scheme that awards less than a half point for a draw just
>>encourages players in drawn positions to toss a coin to decide who
>>resigns.
>This theoretical argument is, of course, ridiculous as a practical
>objection. Not only do similar scoring systems in many other
>sports (including soccer) without a hint of a problem,
At what point in a football game is the position definitely drawn, such
that neither team might score a final goal, but it remains possible to
"toss a coin" and let one side win?
None. Hence the situation is not comparable.
--
David Damerell <[email protected] > flcl?
Today is Sunday, ch - a weekend.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 17:05:36
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Fischer's death again begs the question: Why is there no chess on TV now?
|
"David Damerell" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:ACB*[email protected]...
> Quoting David Kane <[email protected]>:
>>"David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>Any scheme that awards less than a half point for a draw just
>>>encourages players in drawn positions to toss a coin to decide who
>>>resigns.
>>This theoretical argument is, of course, ridiculous as a practical
>>objection. Not only do similar scoring systems in many other
>>sports (including soccer) without a hint of a problem,
>
> At what point in a football game is the position definitely drawn, such
> that neither team might score a final goal, but it remains possible to
> "toss a coin" and let one side win?
>
> None. Hence the situation is not comparable.
The teams agree that if the score is tied and there is one minute left
they toss a coin. Loser gives up a goal.
That strategy, though illegal and contrary to the tradition of the sport,
has a positive return with the scoring systems used in many soccer
leagues.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 13:25:16
From: David Damerell
Subject: Re: Fischer's death again begs the question: Why is there no chess on TV now?
|
Quoting David Kane <[email protected] >:
>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>At what point in a football game is the position definitely drawn, such
>>that neither team might score a final goal, but it remains possible to
>>"toss a coin" and let one side win?
>The teams agree that if the score is tied and there is one minute left
>they toss a coin. Loser gives up a goal.
Who's tossing this coin and communicating the decision to all the players
in considerably less than a minute, none of whom will blab or decline to
participate in the fiddle?
>That strategy, though illegal and contrary to the tradition of the sport,
>has a positive return with the scoring systems used in many soccer
>leagues.
West Germany v Austria, 1982 World Cup, is (an example of) another problem
with your argument that this sort of thing does not happen in football and
therefore would not happen in chess.
--
David Damerell <[email protected] > Distortion Field!
Today is First Gloucesterday, ch.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 08:54:53
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Fischer's death again begs the question: Why is there no chess on TV now?
|
"David Damerell" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:KyA*[email protected]...
> Quoting David Kane <[email protected]>:
>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>At what point in a football game is the position definitely drawn, such
>>>that neither team might score a final goal, but it remains possible to
>>>"toss a coin" and let one side win?
>>The teams agree that if the score is tied and there is one minute left
>>they toss a coin. Loser gives up a goal.
>
> Who's tossing this coin and communicating the decision to all the players
> in considerably less than a minute, none of whom will blab or decline to
> participate in the fiddle?
I think it would be in principle no more difficult for a soccer team to pull
this off without suspicion than it would be for chess players. Of course,
it would be difficult for both.
The point is that the current scoring system produces collusion
in chess that nobody disputes. It *is* part of chess' tradition to
have unplayed draws. While I might grant that people should be on the
look out for these far-fetched theoretical possibilities that Mr.
Richerby raises, they should not be considered as serious
objections absent *any* supporting evidence.
>
>>That strategy, though illegal and contrary to the tradition of the sport,
>>has a positive return with the scoring systems used in many soccer
>>leagues.
>
> West Germany v Austria, 1982 World Cup, is (an example of) another problem
> with your argument that this sort of thing does not happen in football and
> therefore would not happen in chess.
> --
In the chess world, the prearranged draw with the purpose of staying ahead of
the rest
of the field is routine with the *present* scoring system. Sadly it does not
elicit much outrage. There are also a few examples of players throwing games
but those are far rarer, and are condemned. That is why an argument based
on losing ~1/4 of your games on purpose in return for winning another ~1/4 by
fraud
is so ridiculous.
> David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
> Today is First Gloucesterday, ch.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 17:29:00
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Fischer's death again begs the question: Why is there no chess on TV now?
|
David Kane <[email protected] > wrote:
> While I might grant that people should be on the look out for these
> far-fetched theoretical possibilities that Mr. Richerby raises,
> they should not be considered as serious objections absent *any*
> supporting evidence.
If by `supporting evidence', you mean an occasion on which the method
of cheating that I described has been used, of course I can't provide
any supporting evidence! We are discussing a hypothetical change to
the rules of chess that, to the best of my knowledge, has never been
used in a high-level tournament.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Sadistic Unholy Cat (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a cuddly pet but it's also a crime
against nature and it wants to
hurt you!
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 10:46:40
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Fischer's death again begs the question: Why is there no chess on TV now?
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:4Qi*[email protected]...
> David Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> While I might grant that people should be on the look out for these
>> far-fetched theoretical possibilities that Mr. Richerby raises,
>> they should not be considered as serious objections absent *any*
>> supporting evidence.
>
> If by `supporting evidence', you mean an occasion on which the method
> of cheating that I described has been used, of course I can't provide
> any supporting evidence! We are discussing a hypothetical change to
> the rules of chess that, to the best of my knowledge, has never been
> used in a high-level tournament.
You are permitted to argue by analogy. Really I think if you think about it,
you will conclude that changing the scoring does not create cheating
possibilities
that aren't already present. So the absence of widespread cheating evidence
is meaningful.
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Sadistic Unholy Cat (TM): it's like
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a cuddly pet but it's also a crime
> against nature and it wants to
> hurt you!
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2008 01:54:34
From: Chris Mattern
Subject: Re: Fischer's death again begs the question: Why is there no chess on TV now?
|
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.games.board.]
On 2008-03-13, David Kane <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:4Qi*[email protected]...
>> David Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> While I might grant that people should be on the look out for these
>>> far-fetched theoretical possibilities that Mr. Richerby raises,
>>> they should not be considered as serious objections absent *any*
>>> supporting evidence.
>>
>> If by `supporting evidence', you mean an occasion on which the method
>> of cheating that I described has been used, of course I can't provide
>> any supporting evidence! We are discussing a hypothetical change to
>> the rules of chess that, to the best of my knowledge, has never been
>> used in a high-level tournament.
>
> You are permitted to argue by analogy. Really I think if you think about it,
As a matter of fact, no, you're not. Argument by analogy is a logical fallacy.
You can illustrate by analogy, but you cannot build an argument on it, because you
are equating two things that are not equal, and the differences may turn out
to be significant. Analogy can be a fruitful source of new ideas, but cannot
be regarded as solid evidence in favor of those ideas; that must be found
elsewhere.
> you will conclude that changing the scoring does not create cheating
> possibilities
> that aren't already present. So the absence of widespread cheating evidence
> is meaningful.
>
--
Christopher Mattern
NOTICE
Thank you for noticing this new notice
Your noticing it has been noted
And will be reported to the authorities
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 16:55:48
From: David Damerell
Subject: Re: Fischer's death again begs the question: Why is there no chess on TV now?
|
Quoting David Kane <[email protected] >:
>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>Who's tossing this coin and communicating the decision to all the players
>>in considerably less than a minute, none of whom will blab or decline to
>>participate in the fiddle?
>I think it would be in principle no more difficult for a soccer team to pull
>this off without suspicion than it would be for chess players.
Obviously it is just as easy for 22 players (plus the actual coinflippers)
some of whom are of limited intelligence to keep a secret as it is for
two.
>The point is that the current scoring system produces collusion
>in chess that nobody disputes. It *is* part of chess' tradition to
>have unplayed draws. While I might grant that people should be on the
>look out for these far-fetched theoretical possibilities that Mr.
>Richerby raises, they should not be considered as serious
>objections absent *any* supporting evidence.
As far as I can make out, this says "because chess players collude today
when the scoring system means it is to their mutual advantage, it is
ridiculous to suggest they would do so when a different scoring system had
such a consequence".
--
David Damerell <[email protected] > Distortion Field!
Today is First Gloucesterday, ch.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 10:43:12
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Fischer's death again begs the question: Why is there no chess on TV now?
|
"David Damerell" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:K6v*[email protected]...
> Quoting David Kane <[email protected]>:
>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>Who's tossing this coin and communicating the decision to all the players
>>>in considerably less than a minute, none of whom will blab or decline to
>>>participate in the fiddle?
>>I think it would be in principle no more difficult for a soccer team to pull
>>this off without suspicion than it would be for chess players.
>
> Obviously it is just as easy for 22 players (plus the actual coinflippers)
> some of whom are of limited intelligence to keep a secret as it is for
> two.
You simply haven't considered the difficulties in implementing the
cheating scheme that Mr. Richerby proposes in chess.
Imagine that I have an agreement with Mr. Richerby (both of us
being dishonorable people) so that whenever we reach a
drawn position, we agree to flip a coin and the loser throws
the game.
We reach such a position, implement our plan, and I lose the toss.
Both of us are near the top of the tournament, so it is going to cost
me prize money today when I lose on purpose. Sure, he will gain
a lot more than I lose, but that does me no good today. I don't
know the next time I will play him. It could be years from now.
I don't know that the next time I play him whether there will be
any money on the line. I don't know that the next time I play
him that I will win the toss. I don't know that the next time I play
him and win the toss with money on the line, that he will keep
his side of the deal and throw the game to me. No honor
among thieves, right? And of course, I will have to make
some really bad moves to lose. I'll lose rating points. If my bad
moves are too obvious, I might get caught.
Still sound like a reasonable cheating scheme?
What would more likely happen is a collusion of a different sort. I will
play aggressively with White to get an advantage. Suppose that he
sees a way to simplify into a drawish position where I have a slight
advantage but he can probably hold the draw. That "draw at best"
line doesn't look so good if draws don't count as much. So he uses
his chess skill to come up with a different plan, based on counterplay
elsewhere on the board, etc.
In short, we collude to play chess.
>
>>The point is that the current scoring system produces collusion
>>in chess that nobody disputes. It *is* part of chess' tradition to
>>have unplayed draws. While I might grant that people should be on the
>>look out for these far-fetched theoretical possibilities that Mr.
>>Richerby raises, they should not be considered as serious
>>objections absent *any* supporting evidence.
>
> As far as I can make out, this says "because chess players collude today
> when the scoring system means it is to their mutual advantage, it is
> ridiculous to suggest they would do so when a different scoring system had
> such a consequence".
It's saying that if you want to reduce dishonest collusion in chess, you
should reduce the value of draws. Of course, the main advantage to
reducing the value of draws is that the game will become more interesting
to play and watch!
rk.greenend.org.uk > Distortion Field!
> Today is First Gloucesterday, ch.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 12:16:16
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Fischer's death again begs the question: Why is there no chess
|
David Kane wrote:
>
> "David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:K6v*[email protected]...
>> Quoting David Kane <[email protected]>:
>>> "David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> Who's tossing this coin and communicating the decision to all the
>>>> players
>>>> in considerably less than a minute, none of whom will blab or
>>>> decline to
>>>> participate in the fiddle?
>>> I think it would be in principle no more difficult for a soccer team
>>> to pull
>>> this off without suspicion than it would be for chess players.
>>
>> Obviously it is just as easy for 22 players (plus the actual
>> coinflippers)
>> some of whom are of limited intelligence to keep a secret as it is for
>> two.
>
> You simply haven't considered the difficulties in implementing the
> cheating scheme that Mr. Richerby proposes in chess.
>
> Imagine that I have an agreement with Mr. Richerby (both of us
> being dishonorable people) so that whenever we reach a
> drawn position, we agree to flip a coin and the loser throws
> the game.
>
> We reach such a position, implement our plan, and I lose the toss.
> Both of us are near the top of the tournament, so it is going to cost
> me prize money today when I lose on purpose. Sure, he will gain
> a lot more than I lose, but that does me no good today.
Have you considered the remote possibility that the two players will
split the prize money right down the middle?
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 10:05:42
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Fischer's death again begs the question: Why is there no chess on TV now?
|
"Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David Kane wrote:
>>
>> "David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:K6v*[email protected]...
>>> Quoting David Kane <[email protected]>:
>>>> "David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> Who's tossing this coin and communicating the decision to all the players
>>>>> in considerably less than a minute, none of whom will blab or decline to
>>>>> participate in the fiddle?
>>>> I think it would be in principle no more difficult for a soccer team to
>>>> pull
>>>> this off without suspicion than it would be for chess players.
>>>
>>> Obviously it is just as easy for 22 players (plus the actual coinflippers)
>>> some of whom are of limited intelligence to keep a secret as it is for
>>> two.
>>
>> You simply haven't considered the difficulties in implementing the
>> cheating scheme that Mr. Richerby proposes in chess.
>>
>> Imagine that I have an agreement with Mr. Richerby (both of us
>> being dishonorable people) so that whenever we reach a
>> drawn position, we agree to flip a coin and the loser throws
>> the game.
>>
>> We reach such a position, implement our plan, and I lose the toss.
>> Both of us are near the top of the tournament, so it is going to cost
>> me prize money today when I lose on purpose. Sure, he will gain
>> a lot more than I lose, but that does me no good today.
>
> Have you considered the remote possibility that the two players will split the
> prize money right down the middle?
>
I have. Yes. There are far better ways to cheat than the idiotic
one suggested by Mr. Richerby, I don't deny. For example,
instead of tossing a coin in a drawn position, they could just
have a prearranged agreement to lose in alternate games.
As to your suggestion, an agreement to split the total prize might
not make sense, because one of of us was more likely to win
money in the first place, or the monetary value of the win is not
known exactly since it will depend on how we do in other games.
In any case, if you are talking about multiple parties collaborating
to manipulate results and increase their prizes, that is a strategy
that would be effective *today*, with the existing scoriing. Is there
evidence of this being a widespread practice? Not as far as I know.
I will grant that if we held a double round robin tournament with anti-draw
scoring, alternating losses would be fairly easy to implement, since
the benefit would be near term and faking a loss from the starting
position is easier than faking one from a drawn position. But the
tournament organizers can easily avoid that. Note that this cheating
method would be effective in many soccer leagues, but I've never heard
of it being implemented there, either.
> --
> Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
> Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
> University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
> Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 00:18:51
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Fischer's death again begs the question: Why is there no chess on TV now?
|
David Kane <[email protected] > wrote:
> Imagine that I have an agreement with Mr. Richerby (both of us being
> dishonorable people) so that whenever we reach a drawn position, we
> agree to flip a coin and the loser throws the game.
>
> We reach such a position, implement our plan, and I lose the toss.
> Both of us are near the top of the tournament, so it is going to
> cost me prize money today when I lose on purpose. Sure, he will
> gain a lot more than I lose, but that does me no good today. I don't
> know the next time I will play him. It could be years from now. I
> don't know that the next time I play him whether there will be any
> money on the line. I don't know that the next time I play him that I
> will win the toss.
You don't care when we next meet or what happens when we do. It
doesn't matter who you cheat with on any one occasion: all that
matters is that, half the times you cheat, you win and half the times,
you lose.
> I don't know that the next time I play him and win the toss with
> money on the line, that he will keep his side of the deal and throw
> the game to me.
It's to everybody's advantage, in the long term, to cheat.
> What would more likely happen is a collusion of a different sort. I
> will play aggressively with White to get an advantage. Suppose that
> he sees a way to simplify into a drawish position where I have a
> slight advantage but he can probably hold the draw. That "draw at
> best" line doesn't look so good if draws don't count as much. So he
> uses his chess skill to come up with a different plan, based on
> counterplay elsewhere on the board, etc.
You seem to believe that some position, White has `an advantage' but
Black can simplify to a position where White has only a `slight
advantage' and can also produce `counterplay'. One assumes that the
counterplay has winning chances or Black wouldn't contemplate it over
the guaranteed slight disadvantage. This is impossible. If Black can
produce counterplay with winning chances from a position, the
evaluation of that position is `Black has winning chances' or better;
not `White has an advantage.'
If a draw is worth 0<p<1 points, it is better to accept a near-certain p
points than trying to get a whole point with probability less than p.
If a draw is worth 0<=p<1/2 points, it is better to accept a fifty-fifty
chance of a whole point than a certain p points for a draw.
> Of course, the main advantage to reducing the value of draws is that
> the game will become more interesting to play and watch!
Draws are only prevalent at the highest levels of chess. We assume
that the world's top players already find chess interesting to play.
As for `more interesting to watch', well. It's possible that the
extra burden of playing games out to the bitter end and not being able
to take a half-point rest in the middle of a tournament will result in
lower-quality play. I can't tell whether it would or not but there's
no data on either side and all I'm saying here is that you can't be
certain that decreasing the score for draws will result in more
interesting chess.
Seemingly more significant is that you're removing the value of the
draw as a safety net. With a half point for a draw, a player can
sacrifice a pawn, say, for the attack, with the reasoning, `If this
works, I win; if it doesn't, I'll probably be able to hold the draw.'
Reducing the value of that safety net seems likely to lead to more
conservative, drawish play.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Pickled Adult T-Shirt (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fashion statement that you won't
want the children to see but it's
preserved in vinegar!
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 13:11:33
From: David Damerell
Subject: Re: Fischer's death again begs the question: Why is there no chess on TV now?
|
Quoting David Richerby <[email protected] >:
>David Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
>>I don't know that the next time I play him and win the toss with
>>money on the line, that he will keep his side of the deal and throw
>>the game to me.
>It's to everybody's advantage, in the long term, to cheat.
Which is why the trustworthy cheaters (er) will prosper, and find it easy
to make such arrangements in future.
--
David Damerell <[email protected] > Distortion Field!
Today is First Leicesterday, ch.
|
| |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 06:20:10
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 11, 7:54 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> If I were kicking him out for the reasons you state, I would have
> kicked off Phil Innes too because he says the same things as Rob ("The
> Robber") Mitchell. Phil Innes is still a member of my group.
It's good to see you are maintaining high moral and ethical standards
on your group, Mr. Sloan.
|
| |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 05:56:14
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
Here is what Taylor Kingston wrote on June 5, 2005:
"Still, on the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be
any great player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top
ranking of, as I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than
'weak.'"
In the 1972 US Championship, a rating of 2390 was high enough to get
you invited to the championship.
Players like Tibor Weinberger, Popovych and Larry Kaufman were invited
that year, and their ratings were never over 2400.
That was the time period to which Taylor Kingston was referring and a
Elo rating of 2300+ could easily have been #46 in the country over the
board.
Also, there was more to Kingston's lie. His correspondence rating was
never 2300 either. His peak correspondence rating was only about 1850,
about the same as his over-the-board rating. He is claiming that a
correspondence rating of 1850 at that time is equivalent to a 2300
correspondence rating now.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
KINGSTON'S "PEAK ELO OF 2300+"
<But since Parr has raised the issue of lying, and thrown me into an
alliance with Taylor Kingston, how does he rationalize his own lie
that Taylor Kingston lied about his rating?
Recall that Kingston gave not only his (correspondence) rating, but
also his ranking, and taken together those are a clear, unambiguous
statement that the rating was *not* an OTB
rating. > -- David Kane
Dear Phil and Rob,
The issues right now are, as a David Kane would
maintain (even as he lies unconscionably):
1. Taylor Kingston, who is rated 1800 or so OTB
was "obviously" referring to his postal rating when
baldly asserting that he was 2300+ Elo.
2. Taylor Kingston committed at worst a minor moral
infraction when PRAISING HIMSELF under false names
when debating this writer, even as he also posted
under his own name in the same debates!
I predicted that David Kane would condone Taylor
Kingston's employing false names to create fake supporters
IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF in a debate with this writer, even
as Kingston was also posting under his own name in the same
debates. To my mind, the incident suggests that Kingston is
hypocritical louse -- our version of a caissic Eliot Spitzer -- with
a weak character.
Hypocrisy enters the picture because Kingston also boasted
about having high "standards." Kanester agrees, one would
guess, that such activity comports with Kingston's claim to
have those "standards." If Kanester disagrees, he would have
to label Kingston a liar, and we know he won't do it. Heck,
even Larry Tapper initially admitted disappointment with
Kingston's behavior on the rating issue before clamming up.
Greg Kennedy has tried to insert himself into
the discussion, and his comments reflect the
distinction between being purely nasty and being
deeply embittered. Our Greg is embittered about
his factory work in Indiana and lost opportunities at
self-improvement.
MY OFFER TO GREG
In the past, Greg Kennedy contacted me privately when
feeling bruised a bit. I had hoped he might do the
same after my offering to work out an intensive
reading program for him. I felt a certain enthusiasm
that even at his age he could begin to upload
information and take the first steps on the path that
is called the life of the mind.
One guesses that in his bitterness, our Greg has
bottomed out intellectually. He has adopted the "I'm
all right, Jack!" mantra and will never make a serious
attempt at self-improvement while sniping at his
betters at chess such as Evans, Kasparov and Keene.
.
KANE SHOWS HIS TRUE STRIPES
Now, then, here is what Taylor Kingston wrote on June
5, 2005:
1. KINGSTON: "Still, on the subject of playing
strength, I have never claimed to be any great player,
but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top
ranking of, as I recall, #46 in the country, I was a
tad better than 'weak.'"
2. KANE on ch 8, 2008: "Please do post
it [the above rating claim by Kingston]. He posted
his ranking, which was 'obviously' not an OTB
ranking. That makes you [Larry Parr] a liar."
3. KANE on ch 9, 2009: "The point is
that the ranking was an unambiguous [please everyone:
note the word "unambiguous"] statement that the rating
was 'not' OTB given that Taylor Kingston is American.
Which leaves you, still, a liar."
Here, then, is what Kanester is now arguing: a
guy named Kingston of indeterminate age had a ranking
in an earlier period (date not given). The AVERAGE
reader would immediately know that this ranking of No.
46 would refer to postal play. He would thereby
discount the direct numerical reference of 2300+
Elo, converting it into his mind as somewhere in the
1800s in postal rankings, and even knowing the period
to which Kingston referred, since Kingston himself
gave no earlier date. That is the definition of "unambiguous"
in the Kanester Lexicon.
Here, then, is what I argue: Taylor Kingston,
under prolonged attack from Sam Sloan, wrote a stupid
lie, showing the same type of character weakness
he evinced when inventing personae in his debates with
this writer, so as to add fake supporters. When Kingston
claimed to be Elo 2300+ he understood that most
players would assume him to be an OTB master because
that is the way chess people talk among themselves.
You state an ELO and the average listener, without
giving the matter much further thought, assumes the
claim concerns OTB strength. The postal ranking was a
backup in case he got called on the first lie.
In, for example, the December 1966 Chess Life,
there is a top 50 OTB list. No. 45 is one Arnold
Denker at 2308. The 50th ranked player in OTB is
George Kramer at 2298. One wonders how far into the
1970s you could find OTB rating lists with the
players at 45-50 or thereabouts in the 2300 and 2400
range. The point here is that none of us has a clear
handle on the lower reaches of the top 50 lists for
this or that date in the past. Of course, the average
reader of this forum also has little idea about
Kingston's age.
Still, the real issue is what the average chess
listener and reader, who is not versed in the lower
rungs of top 50s lists, would assume when some person
he does not know comes up with a bald claim to have
had "a peak Elo of 2300+" in an undefined past period.
Our Kanester knows the answer to the above.
But he is the type of man who condones what he himself
understands to have been a weakminded lie by Kingston,
who is a forum ally. Kanester will lie for him. Why? Because
he's that kinda guy.
KANESTER AND KINGSTON ON FALSE IDENTITIES
David Kane argued correctly that there may be good
reasons to assume an anonymous monicker and, possibly,
good reasons to impersonate others (e.g., to save a
life, given certain circumstances). In this latter
instance, Kanester did not argue such directly, but I
give him the benefit of the doubt.
No one would or has argued differently.
The issue regarding Taylog Kingston involves
precisely the following: he engaged this writer in
debates under his own name; he invented such false
names as Paulie Graf and Xylothist and then PRAISED
HIMSELF in said debates; he also continued to post
under his own name; and he spoke also about having
these things called high "standards."
I consider the invention of false names to
create non-existent supporters in a debate in which
one is still participating to be morally scabrous. It
betrays the character of a sneak. I further consider
the claim to have "standards" while inventing false
identities to PRAISE ONESELF to exhibit an awesome
and awful hypocrisy typical of people who are, in truth,
prime louses.
David Kane condones such behavior while condemning
Paul Truong. He regards such double standards as unimportant morally.
And here Kanester and I may have some common
ground: we will both reach our conclusions about
Taylog Kingston based on our evaluation of such lies
and hypocrisy. WE BOTH AGREE THAT OUR CONCLUSIONS
WILL DIFFER.
Yours, Larry Parr
David Kane wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:a8dd365d-d96b-4263-af7d-69f1ab29336b@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > CONDONING PAUL TRUONG
> >
> I have nothing against anonymous posting. If, for example, a poster found that
> no one bought his
> idiotic arguments and created a persona, called "jr" to to heap mindless praise
> on them, I would not
> consider it a great wrong, though it does make a rather sad comment about the
> character
> of the poor fellow who behaves that way. If Taylor Kingston has any posting
> skeletons
> in his closet, they are of absolutely no interest to me.
>
> Surely even Parr is not so dim as to be unable to grasp that there is a
> difference between an anonymous
> post and posting 1000s of obscene posts in the name of others. For Rob to
> condone such
> behavior is noteworthy. His rationale for giving Truong a pass in face of
> overwhelming,
> not seriously contested evidence is not the least bit interesting. It seems odd
> that Parr (who seems to profess
> various libertarian positions without understanding them) would adopt Rob's
> latest position
> that misconduct can only be said to occur after the State has proven a case in a
> court of law. But
> intellectual consistency is not these folks' strong suit.
>
> But since Parr has raised the issue of lying, and thrown me into an alliance
> with Taylor Kingston,
> how does he rationalize his own lie that Taylor Kingston lied about his rating?
> Recall that
> Kingston gave not only his (correspondence) rating, but also his ranking, and
> taken together
> those are a clear, unambiguous statement that the rating was *not* an OTB
> rating. Yet Parr's
> lie, repeated at least hundreds of times in this newsgroup, is that Kingston was
> representing
> his rating as being OTB. I do not condone (look the word up, please!) Parr's
> dishonest behavior.
> I condemn it.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 18:51:50
From: help bot
Subject: Re: False identities
|
> > I remember reading (I think it was by Larry Evans) that, on the
> > average, it takes five years to make Master, five more to make GM.
If Larry Evans wrote it, it no longer applies.
Today, young players have access to such
things as *strong* computers and massive
databases and even training videos, each of
which can speed up the process of learning
about the game. None of these things were
available back when Larry Evans played;
back then, you had to learn from studying
books, and in truth, many chess books
were hack-jobs, written for rank beginners;
the hacks who churned out these potboilers
dominated the English language chess
book ket (today, we have a whole new
set of such hacks).
Back in the day, if you wanted to know
why Black could not safely hang on to the
Queen's Gambit pawn, you wrote a letter
to Chess Life. Today, you turn on your
computer, load Fritz and in a few seconds,
it easily refutes every conceivable attempt
(except the one your next opponent will
come up with, which you somehow
overlooked).
On top of all that, there is a small matter
of ratings inflation and deflation over time,
which complicates matters. I know of
several players who used to be over 2200,
but who now are Experts-- not because
they play worse than before, but because
the overall pool has receded after bonus
and feedback was discontinued. Go back
far enough and you will find the exact
reverse: players who suddenly gained
from the introduction of bonus and
feedback points or a sudden surge of
scholastic players.
One more item is what did LE mean
when he wrote "Master"-- USCF master
or FIDE master? At times, there has
been a significant difference. Someone
with access to the USCF's ratings data
could perhaps give us some averages:
how long before a random master gets
over 2200?; how long before a random
grandmaster attains that title, on
average?
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 18:43:43
From: David Kane
Subject: False identities
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:35636581-5b42-4209-9772-5511b87ef410@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> The issue regarding Taylog Kingston involves
> precisely the following: he engaged this writer in
> debates under his own name; he invented such false
> names as Paulie Graf and Xylothist and then PRAISED
> HIMSELF in said debates; he also continued to post
> under his own name; and he spoke also about having
> these things called high "standards."
>
> I consider the invention of false names to
> create non-existent supporters in a debate in which
> one is still participating to be morally scabrous. It
> betrays the character of a sneak. I further consider
> the claim to have "standards" while inventing false
> identities to PRAISE ONESELF to exhibit an awesome
> and awful hypocrisy typical of people who are, in truth,
> prime louses.
>
> David Kane condones such behavior while condemning
> Paul Truong.
I do think that inventing false names to praise oneself, e.g. "jr"
does betray the character of a sneak. I do not condone it.
I find no reason to believe that Taylor Kingston has ever
engaged in any similar behavior - as the only "evidence"
is the claim of Larry Parr, rgcp's very own congenital liar.
But if he, or others, had behaved that way, I would not
approve.
The problem that Parr has in his attacks on Taylor
Kingston is that TK posts carefully and does his
research. It is easy to see why he was a good
postal player - he is willing to spend a lot of time
to find the truth. It is no wonder that a lazy know-it-all
like Larry Parr finds that behavior objectionable.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 12:13:44
From: Rob
Subject: Re: False identities
|
On 14, 1:30=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 14 2008 10:57:48 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 14, 12:46 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 13, 4:50 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > I never call any chess player "weak" for the simple reason that chess=
> >> > strength is relative. A 1400 player is "strong" compared to the vast
> >> > majority of non-tournament chess players. I think I have read or hear=
d
> >> > that a 1600 rated chess player knows more about chess than the holder=
> >> > of most PhD degrees know about his respective field.
>
> >> I would propose:
>
> >> 1400 - HS grad
>
> >> 1600 - BS
>
> >> 1800 - MS
>
> >> 2200 - PhD
>
> >Thank you for replying but I disagree.
>
> >How many holders of the PhD degree are there in America? I believe
> >that the number is in the tens of thousands.
>
> >By contrast, how many chess masters are there?
>
> >Sam Sloan
>
> How many people try for the PhD versus try to get a 2200 rating ?- Hide qu=
oted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mike, we can create a rating system and include three or four people.
You can be a GM if you like, I will be a master, Phil and Taylor can
be GM's if they like. We can give a title to anyone in our closed
group of whatever we like.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 13:38:26
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:35636581-5b42-4209-9772-5511b87ef410@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> KINGSTON'S "PEAK ELO OF 2300+"
A small slip
> In, for example, the December 1966 Chess Life,
> there is a top 50 OTB list. No. 45 is one Arnold
> Denker at 2308. The 50th ranked player in OTB is
> George Kramer at 2298. One wonders how far into the
> 1970s you could find OTB rating lists with the
> players at 45-50 or thereabouts in the 2300 and 2400
> range. The point here is that none of us has a clear
> handle on the lower reaches of the top 50 lists for
> this or that date in the past. Of course, the average
> reader of this forum also has little idea about
> Kingston's age.
2300+ /ELO/ is USCF 2400+
And if the un-named date for being 45th in the nation is considered that
way, that places it in the 1980s.
> KANESTER AND KINGSTON ON FALSE IDENTITIES
>
> David Kane argued correctly that there may be good
> reasons to assume an anonymous monicker and, possibly,
> good reasons to impersonate others (e.g., to save a
> life, given certain circumstances). In this latter
> instance, Kanester did not argue such directly, but I
> give him the benefit of the doubt.
Our TK was saving someone's life?
For sure, post anonymously, but have the decency to not attack people who
can own their names. There are no life and death situations here! Except
possible the demise of decency in public dialog, which this practise tends
to abet rather than abate. I term it Bot-U-Lism. or BUL for short.
Phil Innes
> David Kane condones such behavior while condemning
> Paul Truong. He regards such double standards as unimportant morally.
>
> And here Kanester and I may have some common
> ground: we will both reach our conclusions about
> Taylog Kingston based on our evaluation of such lies
> and hypocrisy. WE BOTH AGREE THAT OUR CONCLUSIONS
> WILL DIFFER.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
|
| | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 09:37:41
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:35636581-5b42-4209-9772-5511b87ef410@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> KINGSTON'S "PEAK ELO OF 2300+"
>
> <But since Parr has raised the issue of lying, and thrown me into an
> alliance with Taylor Kingston, how does he rationalize his own lie
> that Taylor Kingston lied about his rating?
> Recall that Kingston gave not only his (correspondence) rating, but
> also his ranking, and taken together those are a clear, unambiguous
> statement that the rating was *not* an OTB
> rating.> -- David Kane
>
> Dear Phil and Rob,
>
> The issues right now are, as a David Kane would
> maintain (even as he lies unconscionably):
>
> 1. Taylor Kingston, who is rated 1800 or so OTB
> was "obviously" referring to his postal rating when
> baldly asserting that he was 2300+ Elo.
>
No, I didn't say it was "obviously" postal, only that
it was obviously NOT OTB.
Remember, the other part of his claim was that he
was "a tad better than weak" and "not a great player",
hardly boastful. The evidence that he supplied supported his
claims. In fact, Kingston has always been modest
about his chessplaying. I suspect that my reaction
was typical - I was surprised that he had been
successful enough to achieve a top-50 ranking
and wondered in what form of chess it occurred.
It's really irrelevant that he got it in a highly respected
form of chess (correspondence), since he would
be strong enough for the purposes of this argument,
no matter where it came from.
Walter Browne is ranked around #50. Ever heard of him?
Would anyone describe him as "no great player" and "a tad
better than weak"? When I was playing our club had
an occasional 2400 player who hovered near the 100
spot. So, which is a more reasonable assumption:
that "2300+" means :"2485" or that the rating referred
to something other than OTB?
|
| |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 17:54:17
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 11, 6:58 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> And why a USCF ID? Sloan admits foreigners to his group without challenge.
> Who does Sloan think he is fooling, with this crap? Mitchell challenged
> Sloan's behaviors, and provided his personal contact information, and that
> was in accord with the way Sloan runs 'his' newsgroup.
>
> And he was still thrown off 'Sloans' Fide-Chess group, because its all
> bollocks from Sloan. The issues were why he was outing USCF personbel
> records of Bill Hall, mentioning specifics of his medical condition, and
> also if he thought the porn on his website was entirely encouraging to
> someone with a role to direct children's activities in chess.
>
> Sloan is not just an ex board member with lotsa personal grudges, but is
> turning into a real Ring-Wraith. Sloan shudda read the whole book.
>
> Phil Innes
Every regular poster to my Yahoo email group is somebody that I know.
There are no fake names there. If I find one I will kick him off my
list, just like I kicked out "Rob".
If I were kicking him out for the reasons you state, I would have
kicked off Phil Innes too because he says the same things as Rob ("The
Robber") Mitchell. Phil Innes is still a member of my group.
As far as letting in "foreigners", you forget that I lived in the
Middle East for a number of years and have attended several Chess
Olympiads. I know all the "foreigners" on my group.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 11:54:32
From: Chess One
Subject: Which Mitch? Re: 20 Questions
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 11, 6:58 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> And why a USCF ID? Sloan admits foreigners to his group without
>> challenge.
>> Who does Sloan think he is fooling, with this crap? Mitchell challenged
>> Sloan's behaviors, and provided his personal contact information, and
>> that
>> was in accord with the way Sloan runs 'his' newsgroup.
>>
>> And he was still thrown off 'Sloans' Fide-Chess group, because its all
>> bollocks from Sloan. The issues were why he was outing USCF personbel
>> records of Bill Hall, mentioning specifics of his medical condition, and
>> also if he thought the porn on his website was entirely encouraging to
>> someone with a role to direct children's activities in chess.
>>
>> Sloan is not just an ex board member with lotsa personal grudges, but is
>> turning into a real Ring-Wraith. Sloan shudda read the whole book.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> Every regular poster to my Yahoo email group is somebody that I know.
> There are no fake names there. If I find one I will kick him off my
> list, just like I kicked out "Rob".
>
> If I were kicking him out for the reasons you state, I would have
> kicked off Phil Innes too because he says the same things as Rob ("The
> Robber") Mitchell. Phil Innes is still a member of my group.
Untrue. I resigned my commission because is was 'your' group. I haven't
posted or received anything for 3 months. Any way your group waas far too
much about you. You didn't kick me off your group because then you would
have eliminated all critics [you also eliminated Steve from TN, no?] Other
people just stop posting and I presume they quit too.
> As far as letting in "foreigners", you forget that I lived in the
> Middle East for a number of years and have attended several Chess
> Olympiads. I know all the "foreigners" on my group.
What's the nonsense about USCF membership then ~ If it is not a factor then
why mention it?
I do not believe Sam Sloan reasons above. He asked Mitchell to identify
himself, which Sloan says a person who Sloan doesn't name asked him to do
[irony-challenged?]. Mitchell then provided his telephone number [which I
wouldn't have done!]
Then Sloan // doesn't // call it, because... from his previous comments I
think he was afraid that someone would pick up the phone and say;
"Hi, Rob Mitchell here."
And then the Sloan would have to ask;
'Which Mitch are you?'
<guffaw! >
This is like the x Brothers Day at the Newsgroups.
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
>
|
| |
On 10, 8:22=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 10, 8:13 am, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 9, 9:41 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On 9, 3:59 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > I think you have to make a distinction in your use of the word
> > > > condemn. Most people who "condemn" anonymous posting would not feel
> > > > that a person discovered to have made anonymous posts should be
> > > > punished severely for this. Condemning seems to mean in this case th=
at
> > > > you do not like that form of discussion, but I doubt that you would
> > > > want someone removed from office if you simply found that they had
> > > > made an innocuous anonymous post. If I have mischaracterized your us=
e
> > > > of the word condemn in this case, let me know; I am not attempting t=
o
> > > > twist your words to make it appear you are saying something you are
> > > > not.
>
> > > > However, many people "condemn" the FSS postings in a much stronger
> > > > sense, feeling that if a person is discovered to have made the FSS
> > > > posts, they should be removed from office because of their behavior.=
> > > > Do you "condemn" the FSS posts in this sense?
>
> > > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > > On 9, 3:27 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 9, 2:06 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > > > >news:[email protected]=
s.com...
>
> > > > > > > On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrot=
e:
> > > > > > >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > >>news:[email protected]=
oups.com...
>
> > > > > > >> > David,
> > > > > > >> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someon=
e on your
> > > > > > >> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting unde=
r any name
> > > > > > >> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say,=
say it!
> > > > > > >> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be =
changed by
> > > > > > >> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less te=
nable
> > > > > > >> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts w=
hile others
> > > > > > >> > you do.
> > > > > > >> > Rob
>
> > > > > > >> There is a big difference between being anonymous and imperso=
nating
> > > > > > >> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for=
> > > > > > >> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
> > > > > > >> for posting as others. You haven't.
>
> > > > > > > David,
> > > > > > > You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true.
>
> > > > > This is categorically untrue.
>
> > > > > > Trolgar is the only party known to have posted 1000s of
> > > > > > obscene messages while pretending to be others.
>
> > > > > This is categorically untrue. You are telling me that no other per=
son
> > > > > in the history of the usnet, internet or the written langusge has =
ever
> > > > > submitted false statements and atributed them to someone else? Ple=
ase
> > > > > review 20th century history.
>
> > > > > > Yet you have not condemned them for it.
>
> > > > > I condemn the practice of not identifying yourself and of posting
> > > > > under the names of others.
>
> > > > > > I will grant that both of us may be consistent in our approach
> > > > > > to anonymity. The point was that it would not make
> > > > > > sense to attack Taylor Kingston for his (alleged) anonymous
> > > > > > postings, when I haven't attacked Larry Parr (and others)
> > > > > > for theirs. My view is that posts should be evaluated on their
> > > > > > merit. If some people have reasons to post anonymously,
> > > > > > that is their business and not mine.
>
> > > > > I tend to be a bit more draconian. I believe anyone wishing to hav=
e an
> > > > > honest discussion should clearly make known who they are and from =
what
> > > > > position they base their points of view upon.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Hi Jerry,
> > > My position is really rather simple. I developed it from my first
> > > attempts almost four years ago while beginning my posting in the
> > > newsgroup. I found that people tended to be much less honest and less
> > > guarded when they posted under some false persona. It makes them a
> > > more difficult target to hit back at. =A0I have always posted honestly=
> > > and owned what I have said. When I am wrong, I will post a retraction.=
> > > I do not find it necessary to hide my identity or attack others
> > > through a surrogate persona. To do so is cowardly.
>
> > Yes, you condemn these people, in that you view them as cowardly.
> > However, do you agree or disagree that the FSS postings are worthy of
> > condemnation in a stronger sense?
>
> > > I limit conversations with people whose identity I cannot discern. I
> > > too have been a victim of attacks from the FSS. I will almost always
> > > defend any attack vigorously, I felt it useless to debate with the
> > > FSS. I would have pursued the matter in more depth had I felt that
> > > such action would have proven fruitful.
>
> > > There now exists a lawsuit. I am not a computer expert. I have no
> > > access to the original files and original logs. From what I understand=
> > > from listening with an open mind to both sides: experts disagree.
>
> > Here you are making a statement which I feel cannot pass. Experts, who
> > have been willing to sign their names on reports and thus put their
> > professional reputations on the line, have all agreed that the posts
> > come from Truong. A few anonymous posters tried to claim that these
> > experts had retracted their statements; I got a mail from one of the
> > experts emphasizing that he stood completely behind his post. Can you
> > show me a single expert who disagrees? I believe you can't, and that
> > you are buying into someone's phony tactics in trying to present this
> > as an issue where the scientists can't make up their minds. I think if
> > you look at the reports, they are completely convincing, and NO
> > experts have presented theories giving another explanation.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> Lest we forget, Dr. Jerry Spinrad (Princeton, class of '82) has some
> experience with computers as well. While he hasn't issued an analysis
> of the Mottershead report, his opinion does carry some weight.- Hide quote=
d text -
Although I thank Neil for the vote of confidence, I do not feel my
analysis should carry special weight. Since one of my pet peeves is
using scientific credentials in places where they are not appropriate,
I feel that I have to disclaim any special expertise here. When I
studied any topics related to this, the computer world was so much
different than it is now that I have no extra insight into what is and
is not currently possible. I like to think that if I really wanted to,
I could as a CS PhD understand the issues more deeply, but between my
own research in algorithms and my side interest in chess history, I do
not often deal with issues so far outside of my own field. I would not
put myself up as an expert here; I feel it would be a misuse of my
academic credentials.
Jerry Spinrad
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 18:56:48
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 8:16 pm, p944dc <[email protected] > wrote:
> > A street address and phone number is meaningless, unless I planned to
> > go knock on his door to see if he was there.
>
> They are not meaningless when those whose identities have been
> established verify and vouch for the data's veracity.
Perhaps the intended purpose of RM's
information was to ridicule him on the
basis of a low chess rating? (In this case,
all of SS's comments would seem to
make some sense.)
In addition to establishing the identities
of those who might vouch for RM's own
identity, a crucial aspect is that those
vouchers have real credibility, and this
may be where things fall apart; it is
obvious that nearly-an-IM types haven't
got any credibility on which to support
their vouchers. It's akin to building on
a shaky foundation which is in turn built
upon quicksand... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 18:16:10
From: p944dc
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 4:30 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > This from a man who repeatedly refused to identify himself on my FIDE-
> > > chess Yahoo Group and then after I suspended him for that reason
>
> > This is a false assertion from Sam Sloan. Not only did Rob Mitchell
> > identify himself, at Mitchell's request I sent Sloan Mitchell's
> > business address and phone number here in Nashville. That information
> > was ignored by Sloan.
>
> That is not what I asked for.
>
> I asked for his USCF ID Number.
No, you ask for real names. Per the fide-chess yahoogroups page,
"This group does not allow anonymous postings or postings under fake
names." It is and has been clearly evident that Rob Mitchell was not
posting anonymous or under a fake name.
> He has one, but refused to reveal it.
He was under no such obligation under your previous rules. It seems
to me and many others that you changed the rules when you did not like
what he was posting. His identity was established when he posted what
you did like. Your actions in this matter were specious at best.
> A street address and phone number is meaningless, unless I planned to
> go knock on his door to see if he was there.
They are not meaningless when those whose identities have been
established verify and vouch for the data's veracity. Your actions do
not seem to have anything to do with identifying the commenter, but
instead appear directed at the comments.
Of course, in a world where Peter Leko was killed in a taxi, anything
is possible...
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 17:47:34
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 7:24 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> A USCF ID number is only relevant if one is a member of the USCF.
> WHich I am not. SO it serves no practical purpose in identifying
> anything except what USCF rating if any, that I have. You are a
> transparent fraud, Sloan.
My newly revised plan:
You (Sam Sloan) were supposed to call
when Rob da robber Mitchell wasn't home,
get his wife on the phone and tell her you
(impersonating Phil IMnes) are having a
chess tournament for *unrated* players.
She then tells you that her husband may
be interested, since he is and always has
been unrated. "Once unrated, always
unrated", she quips. That is how you
were supposed to find out which-Mitch
of all those USCF-rated Rob-xxx M's
he was, from his telephone number which
was provided. (The address was only to
be used for sending mail-bombs,
strychnine-laced chocolates, advance
payments, etc.)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 17:24:04
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 4:30 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 10, 4:44 pm, p944dc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 10, 12:07 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On 9, 10:41 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Rob Mitchell
>
> > > This from a man who repeatedly refused to identify himself on my FIDE-
> > > chess Yahoo Group and then after I suspended him for that reason
>
> > This is a false assertion from Sam Sloan. Not only did Rob Mitchell
> > identify himself, at Mitchell's request I sent Sloan Mitchell's
> > business address and phone number here in Nashville. That information
> > was ignored by Sloan.
>
> That is not what I asked for.
>
> I asked for his USCF ID Number.
>
> He has one, but refused to reveal it.
>
> A street address and phone number is meaningless, unless I planned to
> go knock on his door to see if he was there.
>
> Sam Sloan
A USCF ID number is only relevant if one is a member of the USCF.
WHich I am not. SO it serves no practical purpose in identifying
anything except what USCF rating if any, that I have. You are a
transparent fraud, Sloan.
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 17:12:45
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 5:33 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> What evidence are we missing? The only evidence that
> >> we don't have is evidence that would apportion the blame
> >> withing the Truong-Polgar household. It is unlikely that
> >> we will ever have that evidence. But that missing evidence
> >> is really not that important. We're not a court of law
> >> seeking to punish an individual, but a society hoping
> >> to maintain at least some kind of minimal standards of
> >> behavior - standards which uncontested evidence tells
> >> us that the couple did not meet.
>
> > I disagree. Both Paul Truong and Susan
> > Polgar are on the USCF board, so it is just
> > the opposite; it is very important to "apportion"
> > the blame correctly among these two, if they
> > are in fact responsible.
>
> Why? What would be the practical difference?
Well, you can't just toss SP off the board
if PT made all the FSS postings, can you?
You need to know which one is responsible,
if either, so the right person can be held
responsible for his own actions.
> As long as they remain ried, how would it
> be possible to determine the degree of involvement
> of each (barring some miraculous development
Truth serum. An injection of sodium
pentathol should do the trick; and if not,
there is always water torture, pins under
the fingernails, that thing they did in a
recent James Bond movie (OUCH!!!), etc.
> such as them becoming truthful)?
Brain transplants? I knew about the
advances in DNA, but I had no idea
things had progressed so far. Now
even for Dr. Phil IMnes there is hope!
(We just need to find a chimpanzee
that is dying of something which
doesn't affect the brain, for a donor.)
> In any case, Innes is not interested in *real* missing
> evidence such as the above, but rather in *imaginary*
> missing evidence that manages to divert attention to
> other parties.
Personally, I think Mr. IMnes cannot
see anything "wrong" in what the FSS
did-- unless it turned out that the "real"
FSS was someone he doesn't like.
All of nearly-IMnes' thinking seems to
base itself upon his personal biases,
his desperate desire to associate
himself in some way with someone
with celebrity status-- even remotely,
as with PT, who is in turn connected
to SP, who is somewhat famous
among chess players. In sum, there
is no "right" or "wrong" in the mind of
nearly-IMnes, which is why he cannot
escape his quagmire of lies and self-
deception.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 16:52:03
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 4:30 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> That is not what I asked for.
>
> I asked for his USCF ID Number.
>
> He has one, but refused to reveal it.
>
> A street address and phone number is meaningless, unless I planned to
> go knock on his door to see if he was there.
You were supposed to call when Rob da robber
Mitchell wasn't home, and ask to speak to his
wife. Impersonating Phil IMnes, you tell her you
are setting up a chess tournament, and need to
know RM's USCF rating and ID number. She
picks up his latest issue of Chess Life and reads
off: 1100, ID# 13707502. You see, he's on his
rating floor because of the scholastic players
who all now have Fritz11 and Chessbase Pro... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 14:30:54
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 4:44 pm, p944dc <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 10, 12:07 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 9, 10:41 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Rob Mitchell
>
> > This from a man who repeatedly refused to identify himself on my FIDE-
> > chess Yahoo Group and then after I suspended him for that reason
>
> This is a false assertion from Sam Sloan. Not only did Rob Mitchell
> identify himself, at Mitchell's request I sent Sloan Mitchell's
> business address and phone number here in Nashville. That information
> was ignored by Sloan.
That is not what I asked for.
I asked for his USCF ID Number.
He has one, but refused to reveal it.
A street address and phone number is meaningless, unless I planned to
go knock on his door to see if he was there.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 19:58:36
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:66dcb555-8cb3-4766-88ed-a142327ddc48@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On 10, 4:44 pm, p944dc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 10, 12:07 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > On 9, 10:41 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > Rob Mitchell
>>
>> > This from a man who repeatedly refused to identify himself on my FIDE-
>> > chess Yahoo Group and then after I suspended him for that reason
>>
>> This is a false assertion from Sam Sloan. Not only did Rob Mitchell
>> identify himself, at Mitchell's request I sent Sloan Mitchell's
>> business address and phone number here in Nashville. That information
>> was ignored by Sloan.
>
> That is not what I asked for.
>
> I asked for his USCF ID Number.
>
> He has one, but refused to reveal it.
>
> A street address and phone number is meaningless, unless I planned to
> go knock on his door to see if he was there.
Sloan wants to knock on his telephone too? How can that be meaningless? What
...
R
O
F
L
!
!
<splatt! >
...was Sloan intending to do - visit? send a registered letter? Have people
prove their existance to him, ask the neighbours? the great Sloan, because
he /says/ that someone else [naturally not named] on 'his' newsgroup didn't
know which Mitch it was, all of a sudden?
R
O
F
L
!
!
!
And why a USCF ID? Sloan admits foreigners to his group without challenge.
Who does Sloan think he is fooling, with this crap? Mitchell challenged
Sloan's behaviors, and provided his personal contact information, and that
was in accord with the way Sloan runs 'his' newsgroup.
And he was still thrown off 'Sloans' Fide-Chess group, because its all
bollocks from Sloan. The issues were why he was outing USCF personbel
records of Bill Hall, mentioning specifics of his medical condition, and
also if he thought the porn on his website was entirely encouraging to
someone with a role to direct children's activities in chess.
Sloan is not just an ex board member with lotsa personal grudges, but is
turning into a real Ring-Wraith. Sloan shudda read the whole book.
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 13:47:39
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 2:43 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> What evidence are we missing? The only evidence that
> we don't have is evidence that would apportion the blame
> withing the Truong-Polgar household. It is unlikely that
> we will ever have that evidence. But that missing evidence
> is really not that important. We're not a court of law
> seeking to punish an individual, but a society hoping
> to maintain at least some kind of minimal standards of
> behavior - standards which uncontested evidence tells
> us that the couple did not meet.
I disagree. Both Paul Truong and Susan
Polgar are on the USCF board, so it is just
the opposite; it is very important to "apportion"
the blame correctly among these two, if they
are in fact responsible. It has nothing to do
with punishment, since being kicked off the
board is no punishment at all, except to
those who actually control it.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 15:33:16
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 10, 2:43 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> What evidence are we missing? The only evidence that
>> we don't have is evidence that would apportion the blame
>> withing the Truong-Polgar household. It is unlikely that
>> we will ever have that evidence. But that missing evidence
>> is really not that important. We're not a court of law
>> seeking to punish an individual, but a society hoping
>> to maintain at least some kind of minimal standards of
>> behavior - standards which uncontested evidence tells
>> us that the couple did not meet.
>
> I disagree. Both Paul Truong and Susan
> Polgar are on the USCF board, so it is just
> the opposite; it is very important to "apportion"
> the blame correctly among these two, if they
> are in fact responsible.
Why? What would be the practical difference?
As long as they remain ried, how would it
be possible to determine the degree of involvement
of each (barring some miraculous development
such as them becoming truthful)?
In any case, Innes is not interested in *real* missing
evidence such as the above, but rather in *imaginary*
missing evidence that manages to divert attention to
other parties.
> It has nothing to do
> with punishment, since being kicked off the
> board is no punishment at all, except to
> those who actually control it.
>
>
> -- help bot
>
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 13:44:38
From: p944dc
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 12:07 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 9, 10:41 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Rob Mitchell
>
> This from a man who repeatedly refused to identify himself on my FIDE-
> chess Yahoo Group and then after I suspended him for that reason
This is a false assertion from Sam Sloan. Not only did Rob Mitchell
identify himself, at Mitchell's request I sent Sloan Mitchell's
business address and phone number here in Nashville. That information
was ignored by Sloan.
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 13:12:59
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 8:42 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have no evidence one way or the other. I will condemn the actions of
> the FSS whoever that is. When that has been determined in the proper
> fashion. It has been taken to a higher court and suits have been
> filed. Whoever the courts determine to be guilty, I will stand by my
> word to condemn those actions. I will not do so without it bening
> settled to my satisfaction in a court of law. Rational people , I
> think, will come to the same conclusion.
It seems that Rob Mitchell has complete
confidence that the courts of our land will
always find the truth; that they are not in
fact magnificent examples of bureaucracy
which operate in archaic fashion -- hear ye,
hear ye, and all that silliness. (I'll grant you
that the whigs are no longer worn, but just
look at the silly language still in use, as
shown in Mr. Sloan's postings.)
IMO, it is very possible that the court
will "toss" Mr. Sloan's lawsuit on some
technicality, easily rendering Mr. Mitchell's
confidence in its truth-finding-mission as
sorely misguided. In reality, the courts do
not function as truth-finders at all, and by
adopting a position of "let's let the courts
decide", the odds are tilted in favor of PT
by just letting him off, if say, Mr. Sloan
makes any technical error. I think we all
know why RM would "lean that way". It's
sort of like giving PT draw odds... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 11:17:43
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 11:51=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 10, 12:06 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Wrong. Have not posted to your group. Have not read your group. I
> > started my own to give people a choice. I don't promote it and I
> > seldom post there myself. But it is a welcome option to Sloan's tripehtt=
p://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/FIDE_CHESS/join
>
> Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell is lying again. (The old joke: How do you
> know when Rob the Robber is Lying. Answer: When you see his lips
> moving.)
>
> In one of these fake name posts, Rob The Robber referred to himself as
> "I".
>
> (This is the sort of slip-up that eventually catches most fake-name
> posters.)
>
> See:http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28195
>
> Sam Sloan
Who would I be if not I? Are you really this ignorant?
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 09:58:38
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 12:24 pm, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> It's refreshing to see you provide evidence for one of your claims for
> once. (This puts you far ahead of Innes and Mitchell.) So we've
> established that, in two instances at least, Rob Mitchell has created
> new screen names to post.
>
> Now, regarding the unwanted videos, what led you to declare that Rob
> Mitchell is responsible for their being sent to your FIDE Yahoo group?
A valid question. In this case my evidence is largely circumstantial.
Every thing I post something to this group that is unfavorable about
Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell, there are a spate of these unwanted
videos posted to my email group. Only a few days ago, I had to delete
40 of them. (I usually leave one behind undeleted so as to preserve a
record of this.)
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 09:51:45
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 12:06 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> Wrong. Have not posted to your group. Have not read your group. I
> started my own to give people a choice. I don't promote it and I
> seldom post there myself. But it is a welcome option to Sloan's tripe http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/FIDE_CHESS/join
Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell is lying again. (The old joke: How do you
know when Rob the Robber is Lying. Answer: When you see his lips
moving.)
In one of these fake name posts, Rob The Robber referred to himself as
"I".
(This is the sort of slip-up that eventually catches most fake-name
posters.)
See:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28195
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 09:24:58
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 10:49 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 10, 8:04 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 10, 12:07 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > This from a man who repeatedly refused to identify himself on my FIDE-
> > > chess Yahoo Group and then after I suspended him for that reason
> > > joined under two fake names to get around the ban.
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > Any evidence that the group owner might share with the newsgroup that
> > Mr. Mitchell posted under fake names "to get around the ban?"
>
> Yes. I have evidence.
>
> First I asked Rob Mitchell to identify himself several times, after
> other members of my group had complained about his postings. See, for
> example:
>
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28120
>
> Finally, I suspended him from posting. See:
>
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28135
>
> Then, Phil Innes called me a "coward" for doing this:
>
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28137
>
> Then, Rob Mitchell joined under the Fake Name of "muskraattt"
> <[email protected]>
>
> and posted seven times, saying the same things that Rob Mitchell had
> been saying, including the following, giving a website address for Rob
> Mitchell:
>
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28150
>
> So, I banned that user name and then he joined under a slightly
> different name:
> "muskraatt" <muskraatt @ yahoo.com>
>
> Please note the difference between "muskraatt" and "muskraattt" .
> There is one less "t".
>
> and posted three times including this:
>
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28189http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28195
>
> Consequently I was forced to ban "muskraatt" <[email protected]> on
> April 18, 2007
>
> I pointed out that he had not joined under two fake names here:
>
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28206
>
> So, I banned him again. Seeing that this plan was not working, he
> started sending unwanted videos into my group.
>
> Sam Sloan
It's refreshing to see you provide evidence for one of your claims for
once. (This puts you far ahead of Innes and Mitchell.) So we've
established that, in two instances at least, Rob Mitchell has created
new screen names to post.
Now, regarding the unwanted videos, what led you to declare that Rob
Mitchell is responsible for their being sent to your FIDE Yahoo group?
|
| | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 16:38:49
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:c19ad494-e32b-4f0e-9c59-defcf3972296@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> So, I banned him again. Seeing that this plan was not working, he
>> started sending unwanted videos into my group.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>
> It's refreshing to see you provide evidence for one of your claims for
> once. (This puts you far ahead of Innes and Mitchell.) So we've
> established that, in two instances at least, Rob Mitchell has created
> new screen names to post.
>
> Now, regarding the unwanted videos, what led you to declare that Rob
> Mitchell is responsible for their being sent to your FIDE Yahoo group?
What prompts the nearest profiler to the FSS to ask? Isn't this the person
who likes to use others' names? Who doesn't like Sloan or Polgar? Who
doesn't write about chess. Who mocks strong players. Who doesn't like women?
Who writes under a great variety of names and monikers? Whose own anon
follower used foul language about me, no-one else and only in defense of
himself? Who writes consistently to agitate among other people?
pfft!
Out of the woodwork! Like flies to [not honey!]
Where are the bloody great investigators now? have they been having a nap
for 5 years?
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 09:06:39
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 10:49=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 10, 8:04 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 10, 12:07 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > This from a man who repeatedly refused to identify himself on my FIDE-=
> > > chess Yahoo Group and then after I suspended him for that reason
> > > joined under two fake names to get around the ban.
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > Any evidence that the group owner might share with the newsgroup that
> > Mr. Mitchell posted under fake names "to get around the ban?"
>
> Yes. I have evidence.
>
> First I asked Rob Mitchell to identify himself several times, after
> other members of my group had complained about his postings. See, for
> example:
>
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28120
>
> Finally, I suspended him from posting. See:
>
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28135
>
> Then, Phil Innes called me a "coward" for doing this:
>
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28137
>
> Then, Rob Mitchell joined under the Fake Name of "muskraattt"
> <[email protected]>
Didn't hide who I was. It was not a fake or anonymous.
> and posted seven times, saying the same things that Rob Mitchell had
> been saying, including the following, giving a website address for Rob
> Mitchell:
>
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28150
>
> So, I banned that user name and then he joined under a slightly
> different name:
> "muskraatt" <muskraatt @ yahoo.com>
Didn't hide who I was. It was not a fake or anonymous
> Please note the difference between "muskraatt" and "muskraattt" .
> There is one less "t".
>
> and posted three times including this:
>
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28189http://games.g=
roups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28195
>
> Consequently I was forced to ban "muskraatt" <[email protected]> on
> April 18, 2007
>
> I pointed out that he had not joined under two fake names here:
Didn't hide who I was. It was not a fake or anonymous
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28206
>
> So, I banned him again. Seeing that this plan was not working, he
> started sending unwanted videos into my group.
Wrong. Have not posted to your group. Have not read your group. I
started my own to give people a choice. I don't promote it and I
seldom post there myself. But it is a welcome option to Sloan's tripe
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/FIDE_CHESS/join
> Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 23:00:29
From: Anonymous Fake
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
Rob <[email protected] > sez...
>samsloan wrote:
>> Then, Rob Mitchell joined under the Fake Name of "muskraattt"
>> <[email protected]>
>
>Didn't hide who I was. It was not a fake or anonymous.
>> So, I banned that user name and then he joined under a slightly
>> different name:
>> "muskraatt" <muskraatt @ yahoo.com>
>
>Didn't hide who I was. It was not a fake or anonymous
did you imagine that nobody would follow the links?
you did hide who you were, and you were anonymous you picked a handle
(muskraatt) that isn't your name, and you referred to yourself as `he'
rather than `i'
why deny it? it is a minor `crime' and slippery sloan deserves all the
unwanted posts you can manage to get into his group, after him sending
so many unwanted posts to this board and all
-- the real anonymous fake
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 04:20:02
From: Nomen Nescio
Subject: BL trips up badly was re: 20 Questions
|
On Mon, 10 2008, Anonymous Fake <[email protected] >
wrote in <[email protected] >:
> Rob <[email protected]> sez...
>
> >samsloan wrote:
>
> >> Then, Rob Mitchell joined under the Fake Name of "muskraattt"
> >> <[email protected]>
> >
> >Didn't hide who I was. It was not a fake or anonymous.
>
> >> So, I banned that user name and then he joined under a slightly
> >> different name:
> >> "muskraatt" <muskraatt @ yahoo.com>
> >
> >Didn't hide who I was. It was not a fake or anonymous
>
> did you imagine that nobody would follow the links?
>
> you did hide who you were, and you were anonymous you picked a handle
> (muskraatt) that isn't your name, and you referred to yourself as `he'
> rather than `i'
>
> why deny it? it is a minor `crime' and slippery sloan deserves all the
> unwanted posts you can manage to get into his group, after him sending
> so many unwanted posts to this board and all
>
>
> -- the real anonymous fake
When I read this I thought the poster was Sam using one of his socks.
I apologize for my wrong thought. It took a spoof DMCA complaint to
giganews
but I now have the results of the decode tool that they make available to
newsmasters investigating alleged copyright complaints :-)
profiler: giganews 3.23.1
trace header:
sv3-IkzNUfqW+qoSImQBpYrzxiOuIckaSqrb6/1OWNMUW9whjn27sydqH/Q4rFjXA2sQ0N74okv
J8LG9vAA!xENfK73rNOJDU2PsA91uWz40phEnk+xOUy/HMbF2TRNNB6CreXKiFq/YH+VKCA==
MID: [email protected]
Originating IP (last octet suppressed): 9948053
Unless my calculator is busted, that 9948053 is verizon.
BL's rattled by Brock and so has switched to posting his libels
anonymously.
When he was posting hot sauce libels against PT anonymously using the name
"Hal" <[email protected] > and posting via pronews BL showed his capabilities. So
now he has switched to giganews after he was outed as [email protected].
Here's the headers from BL's latest offering:
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: trndny02 1205148132 151.203.149.122 (Mon, 10 2008 07:22:12
EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 2008 07:22:12 EDT
Do the math yourself. "the real anonymous fake" = BL. Or maybe someone who
happens to use BL's computer or internet connection.
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 08:49:11
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 8:04 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 10, 12:07 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This from a man who repeatedly refused to identify himself on my FIDE-
> > chess Yahoo Group and then after I suspended him for that reason
> > joined under two fake names to get around the ban.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Any evidence that the group owner might share with the newsgroup that
> Mr. Mitchell posted under fake names "to get around the ban?"
Yes. I have evidence.
First I asked Rob Mitchell to identify himself several times, after
other members of my group had complained about his postings. See, for
example:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28120
Finally, I suspended him from posting. See:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28135
Then, Phil Innes called me a "coward" for doing this:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28137
Then, Rob Mitchell joined under the Fake Name of "muskraattt"
<[email protected] >
and posted seven times, saying the same things that Rob Mitchell had
been saying, including the following, giving a website address for Rob
Mitchell:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28150
So, I banned that user name and then he joined under a slightly
different name:
"muskraatt" <muskraatt @ yahoo.com >
Please note the difference between "muskraatt" and "muskraattt" .
There is one less "t".
and posted three times including this:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28189
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28195
Consequently I was forced to ban "muskraatt" <[email protected] > on
April 18, 2007
I pointed out that he had not joined under two fake names here:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/message/28206
So, I banned him again. Seeing that this plan was not working, he
started sending unwanted videos into my group.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 08:42:13
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 9, 9:15 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> For a huge contrasst, look at Phil's statement
> in his interview with PT, and his false comment
> about it here - false on about every account (I have
> not even bothered to respond).
Did you expect anything else from such a self-described 'journalist'?
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 14:42:17
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
Rob wrote:
>
>Guy Macon wrote:
>
>> Rob wrote:
>
>> >There now exists a lawsuit. I am not a computer expert. I have no
>> >access to the original files and original logs. From what I understand
>> >from listening with an open mind to both sides: experts disagree.
>>
>> Name two experts on each side of this supposed disagreement,
>> and name where I can see and analyse their reports. �I believe
>> that I have reviewed all available evidence and what I found
>> was agreement among the experts.
>>
>> And no, I am not going to pay attention to claims of alleged
>> experts who never revealed their findings.
>
>I have no names of experts. As I said I have read reports from both
>sides and there are claims of dissent.
You read reports from both sides but are unable to tell me who
wrote the reports from oneon of those sides?
>Read more at www.chessdiscussion.com
I do not have time to read over 3000 posts looking for the one
which you claim backs up your assertion that experts disagree.
Point me to a particular thread and I will be happy to look at it.
>Since I have stated that I will wait to hear a legal decision before
>condemning an individual asking more from me is rather pointless.
That's not true. If that's all you did - saying you would wait for
a legal decision -- we wouldn't be having this discussion. You made
a quite specific claim; that experts disagree. That's not true.
You later ammended the claim to be that you have seen claims of such
dissent. Yes, we all have seen such claims, always without any
actual report by an actual expert. Thus my comment:
"And no, I am not going to pay attention to claims
of alleged experts who never revealed their findings."
Unless you tell me otherwise, I will leave it at that; you appear
to have admitted that you misspoke when you claimed that experts
disagree, and you appear to have corrected that to a true claim
that you have read reports claiming that experts disagree without
naming any of the alleged experts.
BTW, I have no problem with that. It is easy to mispeak when
posting to a newsgroup.
>I have remained consistent. I think this lynch mob mentality is the
>worst example of humanity there exists. It is however very familar to
>the "pack" mentality that is demonstrated in adolescent behaivor in
>schools.
As am I. I flatly deny having any such mentality. I have offered
an unbiased and technically sound analysis of all of the evidence
presented by both sides.
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 14:20:28
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
samsloan wrote:
>This from a man who repeatedly refused to identify himself on my FIDE-
>chess Yahoo Group and then after I suspended him for that reason
>joined under two fake names to get around the ban.
Given your long history of imagining that you can identify the
real identity of various people on the net without a shred of
evidence, I will need something more than your assertion before
accepting what you say as truth.
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 07:09:53
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 8:59=A0am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> >There now exists a lawsuit. I am not a computer expert. I have no
> >access to the original files and original logs. From what I understand
> >from listening with an open mind to both sides: experts disagree.
>
> Name two experts on each side of this supposed disagreement,
> and name where I can see and analyse their reports. =A0I believe
> that I have reviewed all available evidence and what I found
> was agreement among the experts.
>
> And no, I am not going to pay attention to claims of alleged
> experts who never revealed their findings.
Guy,
I have no names of experts. As I said I have read reports from both
sides and there are claims of dissent. Read more at www.chessdiscussion.com
Since I have stated that I will wait to hear a legal decision before
condemning an individual asking more from me is rather pointless.
I have remained consistent. I think this lynch mob mentality is the
worst example of humanity there exists. It is however very familar to
the "pack" mentality that is demonstrated in adolescent behaivor in
schools.
In this country we do not condemn people before they have been tried
and convicted in a court of law. In my opinion, much time,effort and
money are being wasted. Let the machinations play themselves out. Let
everyone who wants to improve chess improve it. Keep the personal
battles private.
Rob
|
| | |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 10:56:06
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On Mon, 10 2008 07:09:53 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:
>I have no names of experts. As I said I have read reports from both
>sides and there are claims of dissent. Read more at www.chessdiscussion.com
The content of that forum is reviewed and controlled by Truong, and,
AFAIK, the website is owned by Polgar and Truong. It's preposterous
to suggest that house organ as an honest broker of opinion.
>Since I have stated that I will wait to hear a legal decision before
>condemning an individual asking more from me is rather pointless.
>I have remained consistent. I think this lynch mob mentality is the
>worst example of humanity there exists. It is however very familar to
>the "pack" mentality that is demonstrated in adolescent behaivor in
>schools.
To characterize the considered, formal, written opinions of
professionals evaluating material in their field of expertise as mere
"lynch mob" mentality is insulting to them and doesn't reflect well on
your own judgment, Rob.
But while we're on the subject of pack mentality and adolescent
behavior, let's also consider hero-worship and the tendency to excuse
anti-social behavior on the part of star athletes. I think those are
fairly relevant to those blindly supporting PT.
>In this country we do not condemn people before they have been tried
>and convicted in a court of law.
People are commonly dismissed, denied hiring, fired and demoted
without aid of the courts.
> In my opinion, much time,effort and
>money are being wasted. Let the machinations play themselves out. Let
>everyone who wants to improve chess improve it. Keep the personal
>battles private.
>Rob
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 13:59:12
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
Rob wrote:
>There now exists a lawsuit. I am not a computer expert. I have no
>access to the original files and original logs. From what I understand
>from listening with an open mind to both sides: experts disagree.
Name two experts on each side of this supposed disagreement,
and name where I can see and analyse their reports. I believe
that I have reviewed all available evidence and what I found
was agreement among the experts.
And no, I am not going to pay attention to claims of alleged
experts who never revealed their findings.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 16:33:16
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> Rob wrote:
>
>>There now exists a lawsuit. I am not a computer expert. I have no
>>access to the original files and original logs. From what I understand
>>from listening with an open mind to both sides: experts disagree.
>
> Name two experts on each side of this supposed disagreement,
> and name where I can see and analyse their reports. I believe
> that I have reviewed all available evidence and what I found
> was agreement among the experts.
>
> And no, I am not going to pay attention to claims of alleged
> experts who never revealed their findings.
What a nonsense! Macon KNOWS 2 things which are public - that (a) USCF is
withholding the other side of the data from public purview, the material
that he wishes to compare, and (b) the only people who make their minds up
in newsgroups are those like himself, ignoring that 'the other side', as it
must seem to him, prefer to pursue this issue through the courts!
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 06:42:15
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 8:13=A0am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On 9, 9:41=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9, 3:59 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I think you have to make a distinction in your use of the word
> > > condemn. Most people who "condemn" anonymous posting would not feel
> > > that a person discovered to have made anonymous posts should be
> > > punished severely for this. Condemning seems to mean in this case that=
> > > you do not like that form of discussion, but I doubt that you would
> > > want someone removed from office if you simply found that they had
> > > made an innocuous anonymous post. If I have mischaracterized your use
> > > of the word condemn in this case, let me know; I am not attempting to
> > > twist your words to make it appear you are saying something you are
> > > not.
>
> > > However, many people "condemn" the FSS postings in a much stronger
> > > sense, feeling that if a person is discovered to have made the FSS
> > > posts, they should be removed from office because of their behavior.
> > > Do you "condemn" the FSS posts in this sense?
>
> > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > On 9, 3:27 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On 9, 2:06 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:[email protected].=
com...
>
> > > > > > On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:=
> > > > > >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > > > >>news:[email protected]=
ps.com...
>
> > > > > >> > David,
> > > > > >> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone =
on your
> > > > > >> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under =
any name
> > > > > >> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say, s=
ay it!
> > > > > >> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be ch=
anged by
> > > > > >> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tena=
ble
> > > > > >> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts whi=
le others
> > > > > >> > you do.
> > > > > >> > Rob
>
> > > > > >> There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersona=
ting
> > > > > >> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
> > > > > >> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
> > > > > >> for posting as others. You haven't.
>
> > > > > > David,
> > > > > > You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true.
>
> > > > This is categorically untrue.
>
> > > > > Trolgar is the only party known to have posted 1000s of
> > > > > obscene messages while pretending to be others.
>
> > > > This is categorically untrue. You are telling me that no other perso=
n
> > > > in the history of the usnet, internet or the written langusge has ev=
er
> > > > submitted false statements and atributed them to someone else? Pleas=
e
> > > > review 20th century history.
>
> > > > > Yet you have not condemned them for it.
>
> > > > I condemn the practice of not identifying yourself and of posting
> > > > under the names of others.
>
> > > > > I will grant that both of us may be consistent in our approach
> > > > > to anonymity. The point was that it would not make
> > > > > sense to attack Taylor Kingston for his (alleged) anonymous
> > > > > postings, when I haven't attacked Larry Parr (and others)
> > > > > for theirs. My view is that posts should be evaluated on their
> > > > > merit. If some people have reasons to post anonymously,
> > > > > that is their business and not mine.
>
> > > > I tend to be a bit more draconian. I believe anyone wishing to have =
an
> > > > honest discussion should clearly make known who they are and from wh=
at
> > > > position they base their points of view upon.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Hi Jerry,
> > My position is really rather simple. I developed it from my first
> > attempts almost four years ago while beginning my posting in the
> > newsgroup. I found that people tended to be much less honest and less
> > guarded when they posted under some false persona. It makes them a
> > more difficult target to hit back at. =A0I have always posted honestly
> > and owned what I have said. When I am wrong, I will post a retraction.
> > I do not find it necessary to hide my identity or attack others
> > through a surrogate persona. To do so is cowardly.
>
> Yes, you condemn these people, in that you view them as cowardly.
> However, do you agree or disagree that the FSS postings are worthy of
> condemnation in a stronger sense?
>
>
>
> > I limit conversations with people whose identity I cannot discern. I
> > too have been a victim of attacks from the FSS. I will almost always
> > defend any attack vigorously, I felt it useless to debate with the
> > FSS. I would have pursued the matter in more depth had I felt that
> > such action would have proven fruitful.
>
> > There now exists a lawsuit. I am not a computer expert. I have no
> > access to the original files and original logs. From what I understand
> > from listening with an open mind to both sides: experts disagree.
>
> Here you are making a statement which I feel cannot pass. Experts, who
> have been willing to sign their names on reports and thus put their
> professional reputations on the line, have all agreed that the posts
> come from Truong. A few anonymous posters tried to claim that these
> experts had retracted their statements; I got a mail from one of the
> experts emphasizing that he stood completely behind his post. Can you
> show me a single expert who disagrees? I believe you can't, and that
> you are buying into someone's phony tactics in trying to present this
> as an issue where the scientists can't make up their minds. I think if
> you look at the reports, they are completely convincing, and NO
> experts have presented theories giving another explanation.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
> The
>
>
>
> > best that can be determined may be the appearance of know author. It
> > is now in the hands of a court to make a determination. In American
> > there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty after have
> > been afforded your day in court.
>
> > I believe posters in this newsgroup and members of the USCF board
> > should go about business as usual and stop all of this conjecture and
> > posturing. They wanted to take this to court, so I think we should
> > stop trying to try and convict in the forum of public opinion. To do
> > so is a mean and indefensible act designed only to destroy the
> > reputation of another without affording them the due process that they
> > deserve.
>
> > You are from here in Nashville Jerry. I feel certain that you have
> > heard the statement" hate the sin but not the sinner".
> > Best Wishes,
> > Rob Mitchell- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jerry,
I have no evidence one way or the other. I will condemn the actions of
the FSS whoever that is. When that has been determined in the proper
fashion. It has been taken to a higher court and suits have been
filed. Whoever the courts determine to be guilty, I will stand by my
word to condemn those actions. I will not do so without it bening
settled to my satisfaction in a court of law. Rational people , I
think, will come to the same conclusion.
Rob
|
| | |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 10:43:58
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On Mon, 10 2008 06:42:15 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Jerry,
>I have no evidence one way or the other.
There's plenty of evidence. You may choose to disregard it. That's
your right. But you place yourself in opposition to those experts who
have evaluated the evidence.
>I will condemn the actions of
>the FSS whoever that is. When that has been determined in the proper
>fashion. It has been taken to a higher court and suits have been
>filed. Whoever the courts determine to be guilty, I will stand by my
>word to condemn those actions. I will not do so without it bening
>settled to my satisfaction in a court of law. Rational people , I
>think, will come to the same conclusion.
Patience doesn't always equate to rationality. For example, say a
director of a major corporation has been accused of some breach of
duty and suits are filed. Do you think for a minute that major
stockholders and investors will wait patiently for the court to issue
its opinion and all appeals to be resolved before taking action? Not
on your life. They will evaluate the evidence themselves, and may
well begin action to suspend or remove that official well before the
wheels of justice have finished grinding.
>Rob
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 06:28:28
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 9, 9:41 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> You are from here in Nashville Jerry. I feel certain that you have
> heard the statement" hate the sin but not the sinner".
I've usually heard it as "love the sinner but hate the sin." However,
connected with that is the sinner's repentance. I haven't seen Mr.
Truong attempt any such action. Nor has he provided any evidence
clearing him other than his word that he didn't commit the crimes he
stands accused of.
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 06:22:34
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 8:13 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On 9, 9:41 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 9, 3:59 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I think you have to make a distinction in your use of the word
> > > condemn. Most people who "condemn" anonymous posting would not feel
> > > that a person discovered to have made anonymous posts should be
> > > punished severely for this. Condemning seems to mean in this case that
> > > you do not like that form of discussion, but I doubt that you would
> > > want someone removed from office if you simply found that they had
> > > made an innocuous anonymous post. If I have mischaracterized your use
> > > of the word condemn in this case, let me know; I am not attempting to
> > > twist your words to make it appear you are saying something you are
> > > not.
>
> > > However, many people "condemn" the FSS postings in a much stronger
> > > sense, feeling that if a person is discovered to have made the FSS
> > > posts, they should be removed from office because of their behavior.
> > > Do you "condemn" the FSS posts in this sense?
>
> > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > On 9, 3:27 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On 9, 2:06 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:ae2ffa30-c1a4-447b-8d12-108306c416c7@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > > > >>news:a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-ad0b-29a50a1446af@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > >> > David,
> > > > > >> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on your
> > > > > >> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any name
> > > > > >> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say it!
> > > > > >> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be changed by
> > > > > >> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenable
> > > > > >> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while others
> > > > > >> > you do.
> > > > > >> > Rob
>
> > > > > >> There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersonating
> > > > > >> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
> > > > > >> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
> > > > > >> for posting as others. You haven't.
>
> > > > > > David,
> > > > > > You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true.
>
> > > > This is categorically untrue.
>
> > > > > Trolgar is the only party known to have posted 1000s of
> > > > > obscene messages while pretending to be others.
>
> > > > This is categorically untrue. You are telling me that no other person
> > > > in the history of the usnet, internet or the written langusge has ever
> > > > submitted false statements and atributed them to someone else? Please
> > > > review 20th century history.
>
> > > > > Yet you have not condemned them for it.
>
> > > > I condemn the practice of not identifying yourself and of posting
> > > > under the names of others.
>
> > > > > I will grant that both of us may be consistent in our approach
> > > > > to anonymity. The point was that it would not make
> > > > > sense to attack Taylor Kingston for his (alleged) anonymous
> > > > > postings, when I haven't attacked Larry Parr (and others)
> > > > > for theirs. My view is that posts should be evaluated on their
> > > > > merit. If some people have reasons to post anonymously,
> > > > > that is their business and not mine.
>
> > > > I tend to be a bit more draconian. I believe anyone wishing to have an
> > > > honest discussion should clearly make known who they are and from what
> > > > position they base their points of view upon.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Hi Jerry,
> > My position is really rather simple. I developed it from my first
> > attempts almost four years ago while beginning my posting in the
> > newsgroup. I found that people tended to be much less honest and less
> > guarded when they posted under some false persona. It makes them a
> > more difficult target to hit back at. I have always posted honestly
> > and owned what I have said. When I am wrong, I will post a retraction.
> > I do not find it necessary to hide my identity or attack others
> > through a surrogate persona. To do so is cowardly.
>
> Yes, you condemn these people, in that you view them as cowardly.
> However, do you agree or disagree that the FSS postings are worthy of
> condemnation in a stronger sense?
>
>
>
> > I limit conversations with people whose identity I cannot discern. I
> > too have been a victim of attacks from the FSS. I will almost always
> > defend any attack vigorously, I felt it useless to debate with the
> > FSS. I would have pursued the matter in more depth had I felt that
> > such action would have proven fruitful.
>
> > There now exists a lawsuit. I am not a computer expert. I have no
> > access to the original files and original logs. From what I understand
> > from listening with an open mind to both sides: experts disagree.
>
> Here you are making a statement which I feel cannot pass. Experts, who
> have been willing to sign their names on reports and thus put their
> professional reputations on the line, have all agreed that the posts
> come from Truong. A few anonymous posters tried to claim that these
> experts had retracted their statements; I got a mail from one of the
> experts emphasizing that he stood completely behind his post. Can you
> show me a single expert who disagrees? I believe you can't, and that
> you are buying into someone's phony tactics in trying to present this
> as an issue where the scientists can't make up their minds. I think if
> you look at the reports, they are completely convincing, and NO
> experts have presented theories giving another explanation.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
Lest we forget, Dr. Jerry Spinrad (Princeton, class of '82) has some
experience with computers as well. While he hasn't issued an analysis
of the Mottershead report, his opinion does carry some weight.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 16:30:00
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:5eeee074-6fa0-46cd-9e78-2088144aed81@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 10, 8:13 am, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 9, 9:41 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lest we forget, Dr. Jerry Spinrad (Princeton, class of '82) has some
> experience with computers as well. While he hasn't issued an analysis
> of the Mottershead report, his opinion does carry some weight.
What is the habitu� of Nassau Street's experience of the /content/ of the
e-mails? Can /he/ tell the false Sloan from the real one? Does he think that
if he cannot, others cannot?
Or does Princeton these days, simply enumerate such 'datum' as shows up, no
matter what proportion that is to the total sum, avoiding the awkward factor
of what's in them?
If so, Princeton has certainly changed since my visiting days at that
institution, and since Einstein used to holler across the street to my
mother in law.
Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 16:32:55
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On Tue, 11 2008 16:30:00 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>If so, Princeton has certainly changed since my visiting days at that
>institution, and since Einstein used to holler across the street to my
>mother in law.
"Not everything is relative", he screamed, "Your daughter's husband is
an absolute idiot".
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 06:16:58
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 7:00 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 10, 12:07 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 9, 10:41 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Hi Jerry,
> > > My position is really rather simple. I developed it from my first
> > > attempts almost four years ago while beginning my posting in the
> > > newsgroup. I found that people tended to be much less honest and less
> > > guarded when they posted under some false persona. It makes them a
> > > more difficult target to hit back at. I have always posted honestly
> > > and owned what I have said. When I am wrong, I will post a retraction.
> > > I do not find it necessary to hide my identity or attack others
> > > through a surrogate persona. To do so is cowardly.
> > > Best Wishes,
> > > Rob Mitchell
> > This from a man who repeatedly refused to identify himself on my FIDE-
> > chess Yahoo Group and then after I suspended him for that reason
> > joined under two fake names to get around the ban.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Sloan,
> You are an idiot. I posted under my own name, gave you my personal
> contact information. You are a liar and a fraud.
> Rob Mitchell
Not true. There are 37 persons named Rob Mitchell in the USCF
database. (That includes those named Robert, Robin and Robby
Mitchell.) I asked you repeatedly to identify which one you were,
because that information is required by the publicly posted rules of
my email group.
When you stated that you were not going to provide that information,
after I had issued several warnings, I was left with no choice but to
suspend you from membership in my group.
Giving me "contact information" does not tell me who you are. If could
be anybody's telephone number.
Perhaps the reason you did not want to identify yourself is that you
did not want us to know that you had applied repeatedly for jobs
working for the USCF and had been turned down.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 15:00:06
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 10, 7:00 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 10, 12:07 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sloan,
>> You are an idiot. I posted under my own name, gave you my personal
>> contact information. You are a liar and a fraud.
>> Rob Mitchell
>
> Not true. There are 37 persons named Rob Mitchell in the USCF
> database.
That's not what he said Sloan. Personnal information is a phone number and
an e-mail address.
> (That includes those named Robert, Robin and Robby
> Mitchell.) I asked you repeatedly to identify which one you were,
> because that information is required by the publicly posted rules of
> my email group.
>
> When you stated that you were not going to provide that information,
> after I had issued several warnings, I was left with no choice but to
> suspend you from membership in my group.
>
> Giving me "contact information" does not tell me who you are. If could
> be anybody's telephone number.
Did you call it?
> Perhaps the reason you did not want to identify yourself is that you
> did not want us to know that you had applied repeatedly for jobs
> working for the USCF and had been turned down.
Who is us? This week I wrote in the Parrot that I resented your outing of
applicants for jobs at USCF. I gave the board plenty of time to address the
issue and only one person replied, a minority view, it seems, and that was
Susan Polgar.
The reason Rob Mitchell was banned from Sloan's group is that Rob Mitchell
was critical of Sloan's behavior. Period.
This Fall-Down-Laughing excuse that Sloan didn't know which of 47 Rob
Mitchell's it was, EVEN THOUGH Rob Mitchell had provided his phone number,
and EVEN THOUGH I attested it was the Rob Mitchell I knew for sure - is such
a CROCK of an excuse, it is entirley asinine as if uttered by someone
unhinged.
Sloan dis not check out information provided him, did not check the person's
references [via myself in this instance] and furthermore condemns and bans
the person without doing any research himself.
Maybe Rob Mitchell is secretly Paul Truong, in paranoia land? Really, this
instance explains much of what is currently crippling USCF - that and the
not 2 millions of missing money, just the $200,000 adrift this year.
That's 7 salaries right there just to keep afloat. What is the excuse for
this year's big disaster; Distracted by law-suits from doing the job?
Anyway, now everyone knows that there are no procedures at USCF to protect
applicants from having their personal stuff blasted around the internet.
Maybe USCF don't actually care, and only want to hire unemployed
crack-heads?
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
On 9, 9:41=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 9, 3:59 pm, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I think you have to make a distinction in your use of the word
> > condemn. Most people who "condemn" anonymous posting would not feel
> > that a person discovered to have made anonymous posts should be
> > punished severely for this. Condemning seems to mean in this case that
> > you do not like that form of discussion, but I doubt that you would
> > want someone removed from office if you simply found that they had
> > made an innocuous anonymous post. If I have mischaracterized your use
> > of the word condemn in this case, let me know; I am not attempting to
> > twist your words to make it appear you are saying something you are
> > not.
>
> > However, many people "condemn" the FSS postings in a much stronger
> > sense, feeling that if a person is discovered to have made the FSS
> > posts, they should be removed from office because of their behavior.
> > Do you "condemn" the FSS posts in this sense?
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > On 9, 3:27 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On 9, 2:06 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:[email protected]=
m...
>
> > > > > On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > > >>news:[email protected]=
.com...
>
> > > > >> > David,
> > > > >> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on=
your
> > > > >> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under an=
y name
> > > > >> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say=
it!
> > > > >> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be chan=
ged by
> > > > >> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenabl=
e
> > > > >> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while=
others
> > > > >> > you do.
> > > > >> > Rob
>
> > > > >> There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersonati=
ng
> > > > >> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
> > > > >> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
> > > > >> for posting as others. You haven't.
>
> > > > > David,
> > > > > You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true.
>
> > > This is categorically untrue.
>
> > > > Trolgar is the only party known to have posted 1000s of
> > > > obscene messages while pretending to be others.
>
> > > This is categorically untrue. You are telling me that no other person
> > > in the history of the usnet, internet or the written langusge has ever=
> > > submitted false statements and atributed them to someone else? Please
> > > review 20th century history.
>
> > > > Yet you have not condemned them for it.
>
> > > I condemn the practice of not identifying yourself and of posting
> > > under the names of others.
>
> > > > I will grant that both of us may be consistent in our approach
> > > > to anonymity. The point was that it would not make
> > > > sense to attack Taylor Kingston for his (alleged) anonymous
> > > > postings, when I haven't attacked Larry Parr (and others)
> > > > for theirs. My view is that posts should be evaluated on their
> > > > merit. If some people have reasons to post anonymously,
> > > > that is their business and not mine.
>
> > > I tend to be a bit more draconian. I believe anyone wishing to have an=
> > > honest discussion should clearly make known who they are and from what=
> > > position they base their points of view upon.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hi Jerry,
> My position is really rather simple. I developed it from my first
> attempts almost four years ago while beginning my posting in the
> newsgroup. I found that people tended to be much less honest and less
> guarded when they posted under some false persona. It makes them a
> more difficult target to hit back at. =A0I have always posted honestly
> and owned what I have said. When I am wrong, I will post a retraction.
> I do not find it necessary to hide my identity or attack others
> through a surrogate persona. To do so is cowardly.
Yes, you condemn these people, in that you view them as cowardly.
However, do you agree or disagree that the FSS postings are worthy of
condemnation in a stronger sense?
>
> I limit conversations with people whose identity I cannot discern. I
> too have been a victim of attacks from the FSS. I will almost always
> defend any attack vigorously, I felt it useless to debate with the
> FSS. I would have pursued the matter in more depth had I felt that
> such action would have proven fruitful.
>
> There now exists a lawsuit. I am not a computer expert. I have no
> access to the original files and original logs. From what I understand
> from listening with an open mind to both sides: experts disagree.
Here you are making a statement which I feel cannot pass. Experts, who
have been willing to sign their names on reports and thus put their
professional reputations on the line, have all agreed that the posts
come from Truong. A few anonymous posters tried to claim that these
experts had retracted their statements; I got a mail from one of the
experts emphasizing that he stood completely behind his post. Can you
show me a single expert who disagrees? I believe you can't, and that
you are buying into someone's phony tactics in trying to present this
as an issue where the scientists can't make up their minds. I think if
you look at the reports, they are completely convincing, and NO
experts have presented theories giving another explanation.
Jerry Spinrad
The
> best that can be determined may be the appearance of know author. It
> is now in the hands of a court to make a determination. In American
> there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty after have
> been afforded your day in court.
>
> I believe posters in this newsgroup and members of the USCF board
> should go about business as usual and stop all of this conjecture and
> posturing. They wanted to take this to court, so I think we should
> stop trying to try and convict in the forum of public opinion. To do
> so is a mean and indefensible act designed only to destroy the
> reputation of another without affording them the due process that they
> deserve.
>
> You are from here in Nashville Jerry. I feel certain that you have
> heard the statement" hate the sin but not the sinner".
> Best Wishes,
> Rob Mitchell- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 05:04:16
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 12:07 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 9, 10:41 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jerry,
> > My position is really rather simple. I developed it from my first
> > attempts almost four years ago while beginning my posting in the
> > newsgroup. I found that people tended to be much less honest and less
> > guarded when they posted under some false persona. It makes them a
> > more difficult target to hit back at. I have always posted honestly
> > and owned what I have said. When I am wrong, I will post a retraction.
> > I do not find it necessary to hide my identity or attack others
> > through a surrogate persona. To do so is cowardly.
> > Best Wishes,
> > Rob Mitchell
>
> This from a man who repeatedly refused to identify himself on my FIDE-
> chess Yahoo Group and then after I suspended him for that reason
> joined under two fake names to get around the ban.
>
> Sam Sloan
Any evidence that the group owner might share with the newsgroup that
Mr. Mitchell posted under fake names "to get around the ban?"
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 04:00:41
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 10, 12:07 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 9, 10:41 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jerry,
> > My position is really rather simple. I developed it from my first
> > attempts almost four years ago while beginning my posting in the
> > newsgroup. I found that people tended to be much less honest and less
> > guarded when they posted under some false persona. It makes them a
> > more difficult target to hit back at. I have always posted honestly
> > and owned what I have said. When I am wrong, I will post a retraction.
> > I do not find it necessary to hide my identity or attack others
> > through a surrogate persona. To do so is cowardly.
> > Best Wishes,
> > Rob Mitchell
> This from a man who repeatedly refused to identify himself on my FIDE-
> chess Yahoo Group and then after I suspended him for that reason
> joined under two fake names to get around the ban.
>
> Sam Sloan
Sloan,
You are an idiot. I posted under my own name, gave you my personal
contact information. You are a liar and a fraud.
Rob Mitchell
|
| |
EDUCATING GREG KENNEDY
>My theory is that help-bot is a maliciously uneducated dunce.> -- Phil Innes
Dear Phil,
Greg Kennedy is not so much malicious as
undernourished. True, he envies his betters at
chess, which bespeaks a kind of malice in his nature,
but he has tried to be better. Or, at least, he did upon
initially returning to these precincts as "help bot."
Greg has neither learned history nor read the
classics. He had no idea that Poland was part of the
Russian empire during WWI, and he earlier gave
evidence of not understanding the origins of either
Italy or modern Germany. And, to be sure, he had no
inkling that Steinitz became an American citizen.
Greg has always tossed up the brave front
of claiming that his deficiencies were the
result of living in what he imagined to be the
cultural wasteland of Indiana. Yet his attempts to
read beyond the comic books that he spoke about
earlier tell us he understands his own culpability.
Lest I be misunderstood, there is nothing wrong
with being an autodidact (quite the opposite, in
fact) but you have to grow enough to drop the envy of
those who understood early in life that you had to
read, say, Samuel Flagg Bemis's Diplomatic History of
the United States as a starting point for understanding
America's role in the world (rather than issues of Mad
magazine) with pictures and captions about our various
wars, both justified and njustified.
I think that our Greg needs two to five years of
intense reading, and I would not be averse to
providing him with a selected bibliography if he were
ever seriously to undertake such a project. He could
begin with academically astute popularizers of the
ancients (Edith Hamilton, H.D.F. Kitto, Jerome
Carcopino) and move on to the likes of Harold Lamb,
George Macaulay Trevelyan (his texts, not his serious
histories) Barbara Tuchman and a half dozen others.
Once Greg has gotten past the popularizers (a
month or so of day-and-night reading and notetaking),
he should hit the classic textbooks. For obvious
reasons, one hesitates to recommend Will and Ariel
Durant or Arnold Toynbee (boy, has his star fallen!)
or H. G. Wells, but he needs grounding in textbook
reading. I suppose he should read the Durants --
twice through. That would be six weeks of intensive
application.
The next step is to read specialized textbooks
that are nonetheless interesting. The works of
Chester Starr, A.J.P. Taylor, Rene Albrecht-Carrie,
Michael Grant, Churchill's History of the
English-Speaking Peoples, and a half dozen others will
fill in the gaps. This must be the period when Greg
also keyboards hundreds of pages of his personal notes
on what he is reading. Three to four months.
By now, Greg will have spent a half year in
serious study. (To spare the man, there is no need
for him to try and learn European dynastic histories
beyond the basics, since no living being could, for
example, unravel the said histories of the
pre-unification German states -- not even, one dares
to say it, von Ranke.)
Then comes the next six months, which is the
deep and abiding JOY, rather than the fun that was the
first month of reading the popularizers. Phil: as
you well know, I refer to Greg's reading a selected
bibliography of great monographs, about 100 to 150 of
them. He will be burying himself in Runciman on the
Crusades, Albertini on the origins of WWI, Kennan on
the Allied intervention, Mattingly on the Spanish
Armada, Prescott on the conquest of Mexico, Trevelyan
on the Stuarts, Tawney and Weber on the rise of
capitalism, Smith's Wealth of Nations, Froude on the
Tudors (or at least from the fall of Wolsey), Carlyle
on the French Revolution, Gibbon on Rome, Catton on
the Civil War, and so many others. And think of the
memoirs he would be reading -- there would be great
old friends such as Lord Moran and his Diaries or
Sidney Hook's Out of Step or Kennan's two volumes of
diplomatic memoirs, and so on. The KEY is selectivity.
His 100 to 150 monographs must be representative of
human history and the cream in both academic and
literary terms.
Then we start him in literature. And not with
Richardson's novels. We need to gentle him along. I
say, start him with the dazzlers, Dickens and
Dostoevsky, though he will require plenty of
commentary and help with Dostoevsky when attacking The
Brothers Karamazov and The Possessed (he would
probably need to read Semyon Frank's essay in Vekhi
and a few chapters from Berdyaev's Origins of Russian
Communism). Oh, yes, yes, yes, how did I forget the
book -- back up among the monographs. Edmund Wilson's
To the Finland Station.
Please don't despair. Phil, I am feeling a bit excited for
Greg were he to set out on the path of self-improvement.
Yours, Larry Parr
Chess One wrote:
> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On 8, 5:18 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> To whom is it obvious that an ELO rating is obviously postal rather than
> >> OTB?
> >
> >
> > That would be... anyone who has any familiarity
> > at all with chess rankings.
>
> Really? I never heard anyone in my life use an ELO attached to their rating
> for correspondance chess. So, I would say /nobody/ does that. And whether it
> was inadvertent or not by TK, it created the impression in the post that it
> was OTB.
>
> The rest of this is Rant-Bot's answer to all questions, except of course the
> ones actually put to him, like refusing to admit the difference between 1800
> and 2300 is 500 and not 50 points.
>
> What he calls a lie below, is the accretion of his own indomitable
> ignornance.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
> > As we know, a ranking of "45" would land TK
> > among the professional chess players-- but the
> > real issue was whether or not TK had sufficient
> > ability to comment, which he had. Even Class
> > A players like nearly-IMnes and Mr. Parr pass
> > muster here.
> >
> > I think the Evans ratpackers would do better to
> > stick to the areas where Mr. Kingston is *weak*.
> > One such area is logic and reason-- which
> > explains how he was able to praise Larry Evans'
> > speculations to the skies one minute, then turn
> > around and claim they were unfounded, then do
> > an abut-face and decide they were correct after
> > all. Such flipping and flopping about is a sure
> > sign of an inability to reason properly, which is
> > why the "conclusions" can change from one
> > minute to the next.
> >
> > It just seems obvious that the ratpack is
> > outclassed -- apart from GM Evans himself --
> > and thus, they look silly every time they go on
> > a tear regarding Taylor Kingston's chess rating.
> >
> > What is more, just about everybody here is
> > keenly aware that of all the posters here, one
> > stands alone in making unfounded claims to
> > greatness: nearly-an-IM Innes. After getting
> > caught lying about his rating and title, the
> > best he could hope for is to put that incident
> > behind him, but Larry Parr keeps dredging it
> > back up. With "friends" like that, who needs
> > enemies?
> >
> >
> > -- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 12:34:28
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:84b44358-78b7-486a-bd73-cb3efaa10572@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> EDUCATING GREG KENNEDY
>
>>My theory is that help-bot is a maliciously uneducated dunce.> -- Phil
>>Innes
>
> Dear Phil,
> I think that our Greg needs two to five years of
> intense reading, and I would not be averse to
> providing him with a selected bibliography if he were
> ever seriously to undertake such a project. He could
> begin with academically astute popularizers of the
> ancients (Edith Hamilton, H.D.F. Kitto, Jerome
> Carcopino) and move on to the likes of Harold Lamb,
> George Macaulay Trevelyan (his texts, not his serious
> histories)
Dear Larry,
Indeed! The Trevelyan name seems synonymous with serious education which is
neverthless not 'merely' academic. As you know, I knew his son, Sir George.
Founder of serious adult education in England with the Wrekin Trust.
Though I think Our Greg might prefer the 3 volume The American Revolution
[which I recently obtained in good condition cloth covers] by Sir George
Otto Trevelyan [who is also author of The Life and Times or Lord Macaulay
and also The Early History of Charles James Fox] in beautiful letterpress
editions, Longmans, Green, 1905. First copyright 1898. It even has old
fold-out maps in the back. (I am uncertain how they made them and
researching it.)
"Anim�, quales neque candidores
Terra tulit, neque queis me sit devinctior alter."
> Barbara Tuchman and a half dozen others.
Shall we take him under our wing? He is not ready for chessic advice yet,
since he already knows more than me [and Kasparov and Fischer combined] and
some real struggle with comprehending texts may be a useful interim
procedure.
> Once Greg has gotten past the popularizers (a
> month or so of day-and-night reading and notetaking),
> he should hit the classic textbooks. For obvious
> reasons, one hesitates to recommend Will and Ariel
> Durant or Arnold Toynbee (boy, has his star fallen!)
Indeed, just last night I was reading in Buchan recommending him at Oxford,
before passing to T. E. Lawrence and the phenomena which Our Greg may not
understand the fullness or even the slightest aspect thereof, this original
scholar almost beyond compare who shucked being a Colonel, and joined the
ranks, an original translator from the Greek, whose knowledge of detail was
utterly rekable, and 'whose eyes could stop a war'.
> or H. G. Wells, but he needs grounding in textbook
> reading. I suppose he should read the Durants --
> twice through. That would be six weeks of intensive
> application.
But he is not going to like that low diet of historical materials - and will
no doubt prefer some anthropology. garet Mead's book on Ruth Benedict
might assess the 'how we know what we know' question. Then something more
terse on Russia to dispell the fog, like Testimony by Volkov on
Shostakovitch [to which could be added Zamyatin's Soviet Heretic to
reinforce the context of the times]. And to complete a trio, The Trivium by
Sister Miriam Joesph, C.S.C., Ph. D., so he can learn how to talk; logic,
gram and rhetoric.
> The next step is to read specialized textbooks
> that are nonetheless interesting. The works of
> Chester Starr, A.J.P. Taylor, Rene Albrecht-Carrie,
> Michael Grant, Churchill's History of the
> English-Speaking Peoples, and a half dozen others will
> fill in the gaps. This must be the period when Greg
> also keyboards hundreds of pages of his personal notes
> on what he is reading. Three to four months.
I have read wider than you Larry, which is not to say so deep, but he needs
to get more than histories into him, and attend somewhat upon more modern
works on the life of our times, so I insert here a title by Sir Laurens van
der Post, [who i was also privileged to meet] Jung & The Story of our Time.
> By now, Greg will have spent a half year in
> serious study. (To spare the man, there is no need
> for him to try and learn European dynastic histories
> beyond the basics, since no living being could, for
> example, unravel the said histories of the
> pre-unification German states -- not even, one dares
> to say it, von Ranke.)
Since he is a corn-poke he might try English anthropology instead of
histories, and Lost Country Life by that good woman Dorothy Hartley.
> Then comes the next six months, which is the
> deep and abiding JOY, rather than the fun that was the
> first month of reading the popularizers. Phil: as
> you well know, I refer to Greg's reading a selected
> bibliography of great monographs, about 100 to 150 of
> them.
"Characters" they used to be called.
> He will be burying himself in Runciman on the
> Crusades, Albertini on the origins of WWI, Kennan on
> the Allied intervention, Mattingly on the Spanish
> Armada, Prescott on the conquest of Mexico, Trevelyan
> on the Stuarts, Tawney and Weber on the rise of
> capitalism, Smith's Wealth of Nations, Froude on the
> Tudors (or at least from the fall of Wolsey), Carlyle
> on the French Revolution, Gibbon on Rome, Catton on
> the Civil War, and so many others. And think of the
> memoirs he would be reading -- there would be great
> old friends such as Lord Moran and his Diaries or
> Sidney Hook's Out of Step or Kennan's two volumes of
> diplomatic memoirs, and so on. The KEY is selectivity.
> His 100 to 150 monographs must be representative of
> human history and the cream in both academic and
> literary terms.
And [are we competing] the complimentary cultural anthrpologies to match the
life and times of what moved whole societies of people. Coming Into Being,
Artifacts and Texts in the Evolution of Consciousness, by William Irwin
Thompson is highly recommended. For textual comprehension alone I would also
recommend by the same author [who, abusrdly, I also know] The Time Falling
Bodies Take to Light.
You think he would like some poetry? We have hardly started. A gloss which
may interest him is by Edward Hirsch, "the demon and the angel", which also
has as sub-title 'searching for the source of artistic inspiration.' Yeats
Daimon; The Rilkean Angel; La Duende!
This is a similar reader to The Light Inside the Dark, John Tarrant.
> Then we start him in literature. And not with
> Richardson's novels. We need to gentle him along. I
> say, start him with the dazzlers, Dickens and
> Dostoevsky, though he will require plenty of
> commentary and help with Dostoevsky when attacking The
> Brothers Karamazov and The Possessed (he would
> probably need to read Semyon Frank's essay in Vekhi
> and a few chapters from Berdyaev's Origins of Russian
> Communism).
Do you not like any women authors? There are a couple worth mentioning. I
particularly like 4 sequenced novels by A. S. Byatt. Then, regressing,
Elizabeth Bowen, and to intercept Dickens, George Eliot.
> Oh, yes, yes, yes, how did I forget the
> book -- back up among the monographs. Edmund Wilson's
> To the Finland Station.
Int that case, I forgot to mention John Cowper Powys, who Elizabethan
scholar Dr. Knight in The Saturnian Quest sucessfully compares with
Shakespeare.
> Please don't despair. Phil, I am feeling a bit excited for
> Greg were he to set out on the path of self-improvement.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
Of course no despair, and we should conduct this education for free,
naturally, or as academics say, pro-bonehead.
Lux! Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 22:20:55
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 9, 9:20 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On 8, 1:37 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Obviously, it is not possible to be
> > ranked at or near "45" if one's USCF rating
> > were about 2300. Today, it is hardly possible
> > to gain such a ranking without virtually spilling
> > over with titles (NM, SM, FM, IM, etc.), but if
> > you go back far enough in time, I suppose it
> > may have once been.
>
> I think that around 1973 (thirty five years ago
> or a couple more) a rating of 2330 was easily
> inside the USCF top fifty. But withing 10 years
> the situation had changed a lot. I am talking
> from the top of my head, possibly I am off
> a few years or a hundred USCF points :-)
While I cannot recall the time frame of TK's
correspondence play, I do recall that he gave
us examples indicating there was a huge
difference between the rankings of such
players and the rankings of OTB players at
the time.
But all this misses the point: Sinister Parr
was and still is a liar, who systematically ad
hominizes anyone who dares to differ with
the numerous strong opinions of the Evans
ratpack. Obviously, Taylor Kingston's error
was nothing more than a handy excuse,
seized upon by a lowlife who was desperate
for some way to undermine the credibility of
someone who happened to admire Edward
Winter's work, as opposed to say, the stuff
churned out by the ratpack-endorsed Ray
Keene.
In the original discussion, what came out
was that GM Andy Soltis had claimed to
have carefully examined every game he
chose to include in /his/ book, and the fact
that an obvious blunder was included as a
brilliancy debunked that claim. Mr. Parr, in
some attempt to /appear/ generous, at one
point exempted reviewers from examining
every game in such a book as that one,
which let TK off the hook except that as
we know, the ratpackers have no integrity
and thus, they cannot be held to *any*
standards which might apply to decent
human beings.
Mr. Parr's lunacy has evolved into a sort
of persecution complex in which a sinister
Edward Winter "leads" a counter-rat-pack,
represented here by anyone who differs
in opinion with the Evans party line. It
makes no difference to a lunatic that EW
does not post here, or that so many
posters might differ on account of some
of the Evans ratpack positions being silly
self-delusions. The poor fellows actually
believe that all of their speculations are
"logical" conclusions-- even when refuted
outright. I still recall Larry Evans trying
to argue that some time in the future,
some hearsay evidence would invariably
surface in support a part of his guesswork;
when it finally did, the person in question
stated exactly the opposite of what we
had been told he would say. It is a sad
thing to observe... .
-- help bot
|
| |
RAISING KANE
Dear Rob,
As I predicted, David Kane would indeed condone
Taylor Kingston posting under other names in debates
with this writer.
Please note, Rob, that the Kanester tries to
reduce the issue to anonymity versus impersonation.
He tells you that anonymity may be okay in certain
circumstances (and he is correct here, though
dishonest, as we shall see, in his advocacy), but
impersonation is wrong in all circumstances, except,
we will assume in an attempt to be fair to the
Kanester's capacity for careful if not casuistical
distinctions, cases of force majeure, totally innocent
jest among friends, service to a greater good (e.g.,
an attempt to save a life) and so on.
Please note, Rob, what our Kanester has decided
to condone: Taylor Kingston's practice under the
names of Xylothist and Paulie Graf to PRAISE HIMSELF
when debating this writer. Please note, Rob, that
since Kingston also appeared under his own name in our
debates, he was evidently not creating personae for
fear of self or property. Which is to say, he created
false personae so as to create supporters of his
positions -- positions which he then continued to
support under his own name. How deliciously low our
NMnot could be! And, too, how delectably low the Kanester.
Please note, Rob, that the Kanester told you that
this writer lied when stating that NMnot Kingston
claimed to be a strong chess master. Here, then, is
what our NMnot wrote. It bears requoting because of
the Kanester's mendacious statement:
NMnot KINGSTON'S STATEMENT OF JUNE 5, 2005:
"Still, on the subject of playing strength, I have
never claimed to be any great player, but I think with
a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as I
recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than 'weak.'"
The Kanester says I lie when stating that NMnot
claimed to be a master when his actual OTB rating
was around 1800 -- a difference of 500 points --
not 50 as unehlpful bog claims..
Now, Rob, imagine that someone walks into your
hometown chess club. You have never played the person
and have, indeed, never seen him before. You have
never seen a game of his. He tells everyone in the
club that although he is no great shakes as a player,
he did, after all, peak at somewhere above 2300 Elo.
How far above 2300 Elo he does not say, though
reks that he was -- so far as he could "recall"
(how sumptuously NMnot Kingston retails his lie,
even the arrantly stupid ones) -- No. 45 in the country.
What would be the natural assumption among a
representative group of chess people?
I argue that any of us here -- including the
dishonest Kanester -- would assume that NMnot was
claiming to be a master, pure and simple. When the
Kanester says I lied about what NMnot Kingston wrote,
he knowingly lies himself. That, Rob, is why the man
is not only a liar, but a vicious one to boot. He
lies when there is no weight of necessity to do so.
Rob: for your further information. Taylor Kingston
himself did not attempt the kind of defense summoned
by our Kanester here. He came up with another line,
which amounted to this: to claim to be a master was
stupid because he would have known that the lie would
be outed by his enemies almost immediately. Indeed,
Sam Sloan produced the facts quickly thereafter.
The Kanester, who was not so clever, tried to
defend NMnot's lie by suggesting that being rated No.
45 OTB would not place one in the 2300s, but higher.
Rob: think about that defense for a moment. The
Kanester is saying that your representative group of
players would know the ratings of the No. 45 player in
the country OTB, even though NMnot Kingston never
provided information about the years when he claimed
to be at his "peak Elo of 2300+".
So, Rob, when it comes to David Kane, you are
dealing with a man who condones not only creating a
false identity during a debate but using that identity
TO PRAISE ONESELF in the third person. (The Kanester
tells us that he takes into account the quality of
anonymouse writing.) You are dealingwith a guy
who will try to argue that someone such as
NMnot Kingston, who straightforwardly and without a
tinge of irony claims to have had a "peak Elo of
2300+" was really talking about postal chess ratings --
even at a time when Elo ratings probably were not
applicable to postal chess.
.
Rob, you have to ask yourself. Does David Kane
really believe his own arguments. or will he
teleologically suspend the ethical to defend an ally.
In short, is the man genuinely mistaken and
loose in his thinking, or he is a prime moral louse?
Kingston and Kane are two peas in the same pod.
Yours, Larry Parr
Rob wrote:
> On 9, 3:59 pm, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I think you have to make a distinction in your use of the word
> > condemn. Most people who "condemn" anonymous posting would not feel
> > that a person discovered to have made anonymous posts should be
> > punished severely for this. Condemning seems to mean in this case that
> > you do not like that form of discussion, but I doubt that you would
> > want someone removed from office if you simply found that they had
> > made an innocuous anonymous post. If I have mischaracterized your use
> > of the word condemn in this case, let me know; I am not attempting to
> > twist your words to make it appear you are saying something you are
> > not.
> >
> > However, many people "condemn" the FSS postings in a much stronger
> > sense, feeling that if a person is discovered to have made the FSS
> > posts, they should be removed from office because of their behavior.
> > Do you "condemn" the FSS posts in this sense?
> >
> > Jerry Spinrad
> >
> > On 9, 3:27 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 9, 2:06 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > > >news:ae2ffa30-c1a4-447b-8d12-108306c416c7@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > > > On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > > > >>news:a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-ad0b-29a50a1446af@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > > >> > David,
> > > > >> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on your
> > > > >> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any name
> > > > >> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say it!
> > > > >> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be changed by
> > > > >> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenable
> > > > >> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while others
> > > > >> > you do.
> > > > >> > Rob
> >
> > > > >> There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersonating
> > > > >> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
> > > > >> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
> > > > >> for posting as others. You haven't.
> >
> > > > > David,
> > > > > You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true.
> >
> > > This is categorically untrue.
> >
> > > > Trolgar is the only party known to have posted 1000s of
> > > > obscene messages while pretending to be others.
> >
> > > This is categorically untrue. You are telling me that no other person
> > > in the history of the usnet, internet or the written langusge has ever
> > > submitted false statements and atributed them to someone else? Please
> > > review 20th century history.
> >
> > > > Yet you have not condemned them for it.
> >
> > > I condemn the practice of not identifying yourself and of posting
> > > under the names of others.
> >
> > > > I will grant that both of us may be consistent in our approach
> > > > to anonymity. The point was that it would not make
> > > > sense to attack Taylor Kingston for his (alleged) anonymous
> > > > postings, when I haven't attacked Larry Parr (and others)
> > > > for theirs. My view is that posts should be evaluated on their
> > > > merit. If some people have reasons to post anonymously,
> > > > that is their business and not mine.
> >
> > > I tend to be a bit more draconian. I believe anyone wishing to have an
> > > honest discussion should clearly make known who they are and from what
> > > position they base their points of view upon.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hi Jerry,
> My position is really rather simple. I developed it from my first
> attempts almost four years ago while beginning my posting in the
> newsgroup. I found that people tended to be much less honest and less
> guarded when they posted under some false persona. It makes them a
> more difficult target to hit back at. I have always posted honestly
> and owned what I have said. When I am wrong, I will post a retraction.
> I do not find it necessary to hide my identity or attack others
> through a surrogate persona. To do so is cowardly.
>
> I limit conversations with people whose identity I cannot discern. I
> too have been a victim of attacks from the FSS. I will almost always
> defend any attack vigorously, I felt it useless to debate with the
> FSS. I would have pursued the matter in more depth had I felt that
> such action would have proven fruitful.
>
> There now exists a lawsuit. I am not a computer expert. I have no
> access to the original files and original logs. From what I understand
> from listening with an open mind to both sides: experts disagree. The
> best that can be determined may be the appearance of know author. It
> is now in the hands of a court to make a determination. In American
> there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty after have
> been afforded your day in court.
>
> I believe posters in this newsgroup and members of the USCF board
> should go about business as usual and stop all of this conjecture and
> posturing. They wanted to take this to court, so I think we should
> stop trying to try and convict in the forum of public opinion. To do
> so is a mean and indefensible act designed only to destroy the
> reputation of another without affording them the due process that they
> deserve.
>
> You are from here in Nashville Jerry. I feel certain that you have
> heard the statement" hate the sin but not the sinner".
> Best Wishes,
> Rob Mitchell
|
| | |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 23:30:18
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:30ad2e3d-559a-4ea0-bc9c-04cb206edba6@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> RAISING KANE
The point is that the ranking was an unambiguous statement that the rating was
*not* OTB
given that Taylor Kingston is American.
Which leaves you, still, a liar.
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 22:07:37
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 9, 10:41 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> Hi Jerry,
> My position is really rather simple. I developed it from my first
> attempts almost four years ago while beginning my posting in the
> newsgroup. I found that people tended to be much less honest and less
> guarded when they posted under some false persona. It makes them a
> more difficult target to hit back at. I have always posted honestly
> and owned what I have said. When I am wrong, I will post a retraction.
> I do not find it necessary to hide my identity or attack others
> through a surrogate persona. To do so is cowardly.
> Best Wishes,
> Rob Mitchell
This from a man who repeatedly refused to identify himself on my FIDE-
chess Yahoo Group and then after I suspended him for that reason
joined under two fake names to get around the ban.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 21:49:51
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 9, 10:15 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> help bot wrote:
> >You need to take a closer look at the top
> >paragraph: it is quite clear that somebody (I
> >don't care who) has strongly implied that there
> >exists "overwhelming" evidence linking PT to
> >the murder of Sam Sloan. All we need is the
> >dead body.
>
> I find it difficult to reconcile your current claim
> that you are disagreeing with someone else with the
> actual words you wrote:
I think maybe you would not have as much
trouble if you were more honest with
yourself, and instead of snipping the part I
referred to above, had another look at it.
In that paragraph (which for some reason
you felt compelled to snip), it was crystal
clear that the writer strongly implied guilt,
even if he was afraid to boldly just say it.
My criticism is that a court of law may
perhaps jump to what it deems is a
reasonable conclusion, but I don't make
the same mistake; to wit: that it might be
that PT is protecting, say, SP, or that
there is more than one FSS, including the
possibility that PT and SP made the posts
in question from PT's computer. Put
another way: the court should not convict
a person because of where his computer
was, unless there is no other possibility
(and here, I believe there are several).
> flaws in what *I* wrote or with *my* conclusions
> ("the FSS posts came from the same physical location
> as the Truong posts").
My comments applied, not to that tiny part
of what was written, but mainly to the
paragraph that was snipped by a dishonest
coward, in his attempt to avoid damage to
his apparently very fragile ego. Just read the
part which fits what I wrote, and stop
deceiving yourself and you will be fine! It's
okay to be wrong, to err on occasion; only
the gods are supposed to be perfect.
> >Okay, now as for the several experts who all
> >came to the same conclusion: Q: how many
> >"experts" does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
> >A: *only one*! If it takes more than one, they
> >are not experts.
>
> That is an invalid argument.
You need to go back to school, kid. It was
not an "argument", let alone a valid or invalid
one.
> The fact that the Times hired
> an independant expert who verified the finding of the USCF
> expert strengthens the conclusion of the first expert.
> It in no way weakens it.
I agree.
My observation is this: let us say that we have
a chess position and we hire a nearly-an-IM to
assess it for us, and he thinks it is a dead draw.
Next, we feel it necessary to hire a 2300+ to
re-examine the position, and he tells us it is a
hopeless draw. Then we hire an IM and he says
the first two were both right. Do you see where
this is going? All it takes for the opposition is
*one* GM "expert" to disagree, and three of our
guys' efforts are thwarted, because it is merely
a matter of opinion, multiplied by our opinions
on the value of each of the experts.
But suppose a different approach were to be
taken? Suppose that we could overrule mere
opinions, that we could consult a fool-proof
source? Then all the opinions are rendered
moot, trumped. I expect that very few people
in this forum have anything whatever to go by
other than the opinion of one poster, who
wrote that the first "expert" was pretty good,
the second "expert" was pretty good, and the
third "expert" was very good-- this is not the
sort of hard evidence I want. Remember,
Clint Eastwood can saddle up his horse and
find us, no matter where we might try to hide.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 14:08:49
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
help bot wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>> help bot wrote:
>
>> >You need to take a closer look at the top
>> >paragraph: it is quite clear that somebody (I
>> >don't care who) has strongly implied that there
>> >exists "overwhelming" evidence linking PT to
>> >the murder of Sam Sloan. All we need is the
>> >dead body.
>>
>> I find it difficult to reconcile your current claim
>> that you are disagreeing with someone else with the
>> actual words you wrote:
Why did yiou snip those words? Because they clearly showed
you as addressing *me* and saying that *I* was wrong?
> I think maybe you would not have as much
>trouble if you were more honest with
>yourself,
Try leading by example.
and instead of snipping the part I
>referred to above, had another look at it.
Irony of you accusing me of improper snipping while
yourself engaging in improper snipping noted.
>In that paragraph (which for some reason
>you felt compelled to snip), it was crystal
>clear that the writer strongly implied guilt,
>even if he was afraid to boldly just say it.
Snipping it was proper. You said *I* was wrong.
Material showing someone else who is wrong is
irrelevant.
[blather about courts deleted because, once again, it
has nothing to do with what *I* wrote]
>> flaws in what *I* wrote or with *my* conclusions
>> ("the FSS posts came from the same physical location
>> as the Truong posts").
>
> My comments applied, not to that tiny part
>of what was written, but mainly to the
>paragraph that was snipped by a dishonest
>coward, in his attempt to avoid damage to
>his apparently very fragile ego. Just read the
>part which fits what I wrote, and stop
>deceiving yourself and you will be fine! It's
>okay to be wrong, to err on occasion; only
>the gods are supposed to be perfect.
I deleted the rest of your post unread, and am now
killfiling you for engaging in personal attacks.
*plonk*
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 21:21:21
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 9, 7:52 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> To whom is it obvious that an ELO rating is obviously postal rather than
> >> OTB?
>
> > That would be... anyone who has any familiarity
> > at all with chess rankings.
>
> Really? I never heard anyone in my life use an ELO attached to their rating
> for correspondance chess.
There are always going to be clueless newbies
who don't know anything about chess, but that
is beside the point.
> So, I would say /nobody/ does that. And whether it
> was inadvertent or not by TK, it created the impression in the post that it
> was OTB.
Ah, here we see a "softening" of the stance
taken by ratpack leader Larry Parr; now I ask
you: are you man enough to take your own
position on this, or not? No fence-sitting is
allowed.
Here is my position, clearly stated: Taylor
Kingston probably erred on the high side by
50 rating points, and (on which side I do not
recall) by about two positions in rank. Then
Larry Parr decided he could not handle the
intellectual heat and got his panties in a wad
over this as a way of furthering his usual ad
hominem approach to everyone who does
not agree with "his" opinions on anything.
Ever since, the majority of posters here
have recognized the fact that LP lied, and
that TK's error was irrelevant in that he
would have had to err by *hundreds* of
rating points before slipping low enough to
matter in that particular discussion, which
related to his ability to comment /as a
reasonably strong chess player/.
> > What is more, just about everybody here is
> > keenly aware that of all the posters here, one
> > stands alone in making unfounded claims to
> > greatness: nearly-an-IM Innes. After getting
> > caught lying about his rating and title, the
> > best he could hope for is to put that incident
> > behind him, but Larry Parr keeps dredging it
> > back up. With "friends" like that, who needs
> > enemies?
>
> > -- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 11:45:43
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:1f5e6739-a49f-4a2f-b9c5-72e2cea06fe5@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 9, 7:52 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> To whom is it obvious that an ELO rating is obviously postal rather
>> >> than
>> >> OTB?
>>
>> > That would be... anyone who has any familiarity
>> > at all with chess rankings.
>>
>> Really? I never heard anyone in my life use an ELO attached to their
>> rating
>> for correspondance chess.
>
>
> There are always going to be clueless newbies
> who don't know anything about chess, but that
> is beside the point.
>
>
>> So, I would say /nobody/ does that. And whether it
>> was inadvertent or not by TK, it created the impression in the post that
>> it
>> was OTB.
>
> Ah, here we see a "softening" of the stance
> taken by ratpack leader Larry Parr; now I ask
> you: are you man enough to take your own
> position on this, or not? No fence-sitting is
> allowed.
You are merely projecting your own state onto others Kennedy! You cannot own
your own name, and all who think as you do are in some 'pack'.
But you already skip the item above about ELO and correspondance chess,
circa, what was it, 1990s - as if it were nothing, yet your reply actually
says nothing - do you see how this projection mechanism works?
> Here is my position, clearly stated: Taylor
> Kingston probably erred on the high side by
> 50 rating points,
As Rob Mitchell has just written elsewhere - forgive the sinner, detest the
sin! Which they say in TN. Elsewhere people say Be tough on the principle
and easy on the people.
Taylor Kingston is actually publicly modest about his OTB skill, since in
about 2003 he seems to have scored a tournament rating of 2000 +
But I hope you note that that is not 2000 ELO, but USCF, which is maybe 1900
ELO. I have no idea what is inflated 50 points, the OTB or the corres
rating.
> and (on which side I do not
> recall) by about two positions in rank.
Rather depending on the period that claim is made, being 46th in the US
could very well be OTB, since it was not 2300, but 2300+
> Then
> Larry Parr decided he could not handle the
> intellectual heat and got his panties in a wad
> over this as a way of furthering his usual ad
> hominem approach to everyone who does
> not agree with "his" opinions on anything.
As I understand Larry Parr, a fib is a fib; and a simple correction
admitting 'loose-talk' about ratings would have sufficed. I loose-talked
about my rating, which did not suffice, but at least it was a direct
rejoinder to trouble-makers who willfully misunderstood a statement made to
a non-chess newsgroup.
Larry Parr's point, right or wrong, is that our TK then 'suffered' a few
completely new personas to show up and support the 'error' rather than
redress it. These personas were, other than token notice of anything else,
only concerned with direct replies to TK, and on this issue alone. This
causes our bot no curiosity whatever ;))
That, I suggest to Name-Not is not 'intellectual heat'. That is, if true,
simply all wet!
> Ever since, the majority of posters here
> have recognized the fact that LP lied, and
> that TK's error was irrelevant in that he
> would have had to err by *hundreds* of
> rating points before slipping low enough to
> matter in that particular discussion, which
> related to his ability to comment /as a
> reasonably strong chess player/.
There is a compound sentence which brings water to the eyes - I wonder if
any of its clauses relate to others, or if indeed it suggests that Taylor
Kingston rated 1800 uscf, or about 1700 ELO, could tell not just if a game
was thrown by a grandmaster, but by world champion candidates. And I don't
mean just 'could tell' but could tell enough to contradict Evans and Keene
who have actually sat in the hot seat, and just maybe know something more
about the pressure of play at that level.
And just maybe, since they both played lots of Russians, if just maybe they
know enough to respect of the atmosphere of playing chess against cold-chess
warriors?
Dammit! Even Topalov said about his 'engagement' in Kalmykia last year, that
the place was swarming with hard-eyed secret police, and he never wanted to
go there again [and that's long after the Wall came down.]
Of course Taylor Kingston may comment on what he thinks. What I think was
missing is due credit to such as Keene and Evans, [Evans particularly for
having 'been there', and Ray Keene too has written about smuggling stuff out
of the USSR under the noses of the KGB in order to tell about conditions of
refuseniks there, played against Botvinnik (won!)].
But dismissal of all this stuff as if it were nothing at all is offensive to
anyone's intelligence, and actually offensive to the witness of their own
lives. What are we trying to do here - put a pretty face on Sovietism?
I would suggest that the stronger the player the greater the experience and
also the qualification of any certainties, rather than the other way
around - and perhaps that is the relevance of the phrase "related to his
ability to comment".
In other words, not much!
>> > What is more, just about everybody here is
>> > keenly aware that of all the posters here, one
>> > stands alone in making unfounded claims to
>> > greatness: nearly-an-IM Innes. After getting
>> > caught lying about his rating and title,
I don't seem to have lied about anything. Of course, only willful
misunderstanding on behalf of Kennedy and Brennan would make what I said a
lie. How absurd this pair are!
After a 20+ year layoff from serious rated chess I can still score 2200, and
in Vermont! ROFL!
Perhaps 'nobody' knows how I could have slipped 100 points in the previous
20 years, and maybe 'everybody' knows that it is impossible to play 100
points higher when surrounded by very strong players [and a German
girlfriend!] ?
>>> the
>> > best he could hope for is to put that incident
>> > behind him, but Larry Parr keeps dredging it
>> > back up. With "friends" like that, who needs
>> > enemies?
Greg Kennedy needs to feel that others cheat. That's who needs what. Since
otherwise he has no excuse for his obsessions about strong players and can
scarcely put his resentment and evident paranoia aside long enough to pay
attention to other people's experiences in chess, so as to actually even
understand them, nevermind converse with them on chess topics.
Despite his interest in computers and chess, he didn't even want to discuss
with Dr. Alberts any MAMS issues, nor even receive a free copy of the title
to review it.
All the chess has gone out of Kennedy, and so his aggression has no place to
go that really engages other people in a non-destructive way, and all is woe
woe! and very low.
Phil Innes
>> > -- help bot
>
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 20:53:44
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
Ah... yes I created the sin of mis-editing when trying not to toppost.
Well lets attack me for being dyslectic too. Or attack me for the
color of my skin. Or attack me for the misspelling that happens from
time to time.Try to pick apart the petty aspects of a usenet post in
order to belittle the discussion points.All fine and dandy tools for a
usenet bigot.
On 9, 7:42 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> Post quoted in full, including headers, to preserve example of Rob
> Mitchell arguing with his own post.
>
> Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
> z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Rob <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
> Subject: Re: 20 Questions
> Date: Sun, 9 2008 13:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
> Organization:http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 59
> Message-ID: <6591f5f7-3adf-4ace-
> [email protected]>
> References: <[email protected]>
> <e2b553da-c058-4014-a696-2786a2bff258@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
> <[email protected]>
> <f5831cb4-0791-4342-8c1b-a8ec26d95...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
> <[email protected]> <a8dd365d-d96b-4263-
> [email protected]>
> <[email protected]> <RaidnS6jbpM-
> [email protected]>
> <[email protected]> <f9097056-120a-4e24-
> [email protected]>
> <[email protected]> <a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-
> [email protected]>
> <[email protected]> <ae2ffa30-
> [email protected]>
> <[email protected]>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.52.81.2
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1205094423 24261 127.0.0.1 (9 2008
> 20:27:03 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 2008 20:27:03 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: [email protected]
> Injection-Info: z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com; posting-
> host=68.52.81.2;
> posting-account=PGLZxQkAAADlS-khR6d7892fziugg3CU
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:
> 1.8.1.12)
> Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
>
> On 9, 2:06 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:ae2ffa30-c1a4-447b-8d12-108306c416c7@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-ad0b-29a50a1446af@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> > David,
> > >> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on your
> > >> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any name
> > >> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say it!
> > >> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be changed by
> > >> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenable
> > >> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while others
> > >> > you do.
> > >> > Rob
>
> > >> There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersonating
> > >> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
> > >> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
> > >> for posting as others. You haven't.
>
> > > David,
> > > You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true.
>
> This is categorically untrue.
>
> > Trolgar is the only party known to have posted 1000s of
> > obscene messages while pretending to be others.
>
> This is categorically untrue. You are telling me that no other person
> in the history of the usnet, internet or the written langusge has ever
> submitted false statements and atributed them to someone else? Please
> review 20th century history.
>
> > Yet you have not condemned them for it.
>
> I condemn the practice of not identifying yourself and of posting
> under the names of others.
>
> > I will grant that both of us may be consistent in our approach
> > to anonymity. The point was that it would not make
> > sense to attack Taylor Kingston for his (alleged) anonymous
> > postings, when I haven't attacked Larry Parr (and others)
> > for theirs. My view is that posts should be evaluated on their
> > merit. If some people have reasons to post anonymously,
> > that is their business and not mine.
>
> I tend to be a bit more draconian. I believe anyone wishing to have an
> honest discussion should clearly make known who they are and from what
> position they base their points of view upon.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 11:24:02
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:3978b7d0-d55a-4a07-9f62-f4a1afef7c3c@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Ah... yes I created the sin of mis-editing when trying not to toppost.
> Well lets attack me for being dyslectic too. Or attack me for the
> color of my skin. Or attack me for the misspelling that happens from
> time to time.Try to pick apart the petty aspects of a usenet post in
> order to belittle the discussion points.All fine and dandy tools for a
> usenet bigot.
The thing of it is, Mr. Mitchell, the same old stuff gets trotted out,
watering down the collective issue, making it only personal orientation, and
therefore intended as dismissive of who speaks rather than any nominal
topic. And the point is that no matter what the topic, the same fixated
nonsense gets trotted out, by the same crew.
And the contention of it all rests in maintaining a status quo in chess
which active minds don't even care about as worth preservation.
Other things are afoot, as you well know. And that is the stuff worthy of
attention, whereas resolution of some of these issues here will have hardly
any effect whatever.
That is not to dismiss these issues, but rather to put them in their right
perspective.
Cordially, Phil Innes
>
>
> On 9, 7:42 pm, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Post quoted in full, including headers, to preserve example of Rob
>> Mitchell arguing with his own post.
>>
>> Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
>> z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
>> From: Rob <[email protected]>
>> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
>> Subject: Re: 20 Questions
>> Date: Sun, 9 2008 13:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
>> Organization:http://groups.google.com
>> Lines: 59
>> Message-ID: <6591f5f7-3adf-4ace-
>> [email protected]>
>> References: <[email protected]>
>>
>> <e2b553da-c058-4014-a696-2786a2bff258@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
>> <[email protected]>
>> <f5831cb4-0791-4342-8c1b-a8ec26d95...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
>> <[email protected]>
>> <a8dd365d-d96b-4263-
>> [email protected]>
>> <[email protected]> <RaidnS6jbpM-
>> [email protected]>
>> <[email protected]> <f9097056-120a-4e24-
>> [email protected]>
>> <[email protected]>
>> <a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-
>> [email protected]>
>> <[email protected]> <ae2ffa30-
>> [email protected]>
>> <[email protected]>
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.52.81.2
>> Mime-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1205094423 24261 127.0.0.1 (9 2008
>> 20:27:03 GMT)
>> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 2008 20:27:03 +0000 (UTC)
>> Complaints-To: [email protected]
>> Injection-Info: z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com; posting-
>> host=68.52.81.2;
>> posting-account=PGLZxQkAAADlS-khR6d7892fziugg3CU
>> User-Agent: G2/1.0
>> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:
>> 1.8.1.12)
>> Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
>>
>> On 9, 2:06 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:ae2ffa30-c1a4-447b-8d12-108306c416c7@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> > >>news:a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-ad0b-29a50a1446af@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > >> > David,
>> > >> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on
>> > >> > your
>> > >> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any
>> > >> > name
>> > >> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say
>> > >> > it!
>> > >> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be changed
>> > >> > by
>> > >> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenable
>> > >> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while
>> > >> > others
>> > >> > you do.
>> > >> > Rob
>>
>> > >> There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersonating
>> > >> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
>> > >> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
>> > >> for posting as others. You haven't.
>>
>> > > David,
>> > > You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true.
>>
>> This is categorically untrue.
>>
>> > Trolgar is the only party known to have posted 1000s of
>> > obscene messages while pretending to be others.
>>
>> This is categorically untrue. You are telling me that no other person
>> in the history of the usnet, internet or the written langusge has ever
>> submitted false statements and atributed them to someone else? Please
>> review 20th century history.
>>
>> > Yet you have not condemned them for it.
>>
>> I condemn the practice of not identifying yourself and of posting
>> under the names of others.
>>
>> > I will grant that both of us may be consistent in our approach
>> > to anonymity. The point was that it would not make
>> > sense to attack Taylor Kingston for his (alleged) anonymous
>> > postings, when I haven't attacked Larry Parr (and others)
>> > for theirs. My view is that posts should be evaluated on their
>> > merit. If some people have reasons to post anonymously,
>> > that is their business and not mine.
>>
>> I tend to be a bit more draconian. I believe anyone wishing to have an
>> honest discussion should clearly make known who they are and from what
>> position they base their points of view upon.
>
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 20:47:06
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 9, 9:45 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:fe1edd9a-eda0-45b4-a88e-5f1322b90251@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 9, 7:34 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> This is categorically untrue.
>
> >>> Now you are arguing with yourself, like your mentor Innes.
>
> >> >> Trolgar is the only party known to have posted 1000s of
> >> >> obscene messages while pretending to be others.
>
> >> > This is categorically untrue. You are telling me that no other person
> >> > in the history of the usnet, internet or the written langusge has ever
> >> > submitted false statements and atributed them to someone else? Please
> >> > review 20th century history.
>
> >> Trolgar's the only that I'm aware of.
>
> > If a "made up name" is the only person you are aware of; that is a sad
> > commentary.
> And, of course, you don't cite a single example of anyone doing anything
> like Trolgar, let alone an example that I should be aware of.
David,
You use a made up name to describe two people and condemn each
equally. That is something I hope you are faced with personally.
Do you think the grouping of people under a single name and condemning
them all is just and fair? that is what you have done.
> Trolgar is a convenient way to refer to the couple. Of course, I
> admit to not knowing to what degree each member of the
> couple is culpable. To me, that is a largely uninteresting question,
> because, regardless of the answer, it is inappropriate for either
> of them to be involved in the governance of a national chess
> organization.
>" It is just sad that we live in a world where standards are
> so low that people can behave like they have, and feel
> no sense of shame."
I agree with that statement but I would be more likely to apply it to
those who condemn someone in a kangaroo court on the usenet.
> But I'm sure you'll do a google search and find someone
> else who had done some bad stuff, thereby, in your
> world of low standards, making Trolgars' actions
> just peachy.
David,
You simply cannot read. If you do read, you don't comprehend. If you
do comprehend you consciously ignore what I have said and simply wish
to continue to lie about it. Fine. Lie away. I can continue to point
out you are lying about me all day long.
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 19:54:42
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 9, 9:42 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 9, 7:44 pm, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 9, 7:34 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:6591f5f7-3adf-4ace-b076-565ea1ac4732@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On 9, 2:06 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > >>news:ae2ffa30-c1a4-447b-8d12-108306c416c7@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >> > On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > >> >>news:a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-ad0b-29a50a1446af@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >> >> > David,
> > > >> >> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on your
> > > >> >> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any name
> > > >> >> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say it!
> > > >> >> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be changed by
> > > >> >> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenable
> > > >> >> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while others
> > > >> >> > you do.
> > > >> >> > Rob
>
> > > >> >> There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersonating
> > > >> >> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
> > > >> >> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
> > > >> >> for posting as others. You haven't.
>
> > > >> > David,
> > > >> > You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true.
>
> > > > This is categorically untrue.
>
> > > Now you are arguing with yourself, like your mentor Innes.
>
> > Nice catch, David.
>
> And you stutter when you post. One post saying the same thing was not
> enough?
I've posted twice to this thread, with different content and purposes
in each post. I'll let others evaluate the irony of the SOUP-chanter
criticizing another poster for alleged repetition.
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 19:42:26
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 9, 7:44 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 9, 7:34 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:6591f5f7-3adf-4ace-b076-565ea1ac4732@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On 9, 2:06 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:ae2ffa30-c1a4-447b-8d12-108306c416c7@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> > On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >> >>news:a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-ad0b-29a50a1446af@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> >> > David,
> > >> >> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on your
> > >> >> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any name
> > >> >> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say it!
> > >> >> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be changed by
> > >> >> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenable
> > >> >> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while others
> > >> >> > you do.
> > >> >> > Rob
>
> > >> >> There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersonating
> > >> >> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
> > >> >> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
> > >> >> for posting as others. You haven't.
>
> > >> > David,
> > >> > You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true.
>
> > > This is categorically untrue.
>
> > Now you are arguing with yourself, like your mentor Innes.
>
> Nice catch, David.
And you stutter when you post. One post saying the same thing was not
enough?
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 19:41:17
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 9, 3:59 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> I think you have to make a distinction in your use of the word
> condemn. Most people who "condemn" anonymous posting would not feel
> that a person discovered to have made anonymous posts should be
> punished severely for this. Condemning seems to mean in this case that
> you do not like that form of discussion, but I doubt that you would
> want someone removed from office if you simply found that they had
> made an innocuous anonymous post. If I have mischaracterized your use
> of the word condemn in this case, let me know; I am not attempting to
> twist your words to make it appear you are saying something you are
> not.
>
> However, many people "condemn" the FSS postings in a much stronger
> sense, feeling that if a person is discovered to have made the FSS
> posts, they should be removed from office because of their behavior.
> Do you "condemn" the FSS posts in this sense?
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
> On 9, 3:27 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 9, 2:06 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:ae2ffa30-c1a4-447b-8d12-108306c416c7@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > >>news:a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-ad0b-29a50a1446af@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >> > David,
> > > >> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on your
> > > >> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any name
> > > >> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say it!
> > > >> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be changed by
> > > >> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenable
> > > >> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while others
> > > >> > you do.
> > > >> > Rob
>
> > > >> There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersonating
> > > >> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
> > > >> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
> > > >> for posting as others. You haven't.
>
> > > > David,
> > > > You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true.
>
> > This is categorically untrue.
>
> > > Trolgar is the only party known to have posted 1000s of
> > > obscene messages while pretending to be others.
>
> > This is categorically untrue. You are telling me that no other person
> > in the history of the usnet, internet or the written langusge has ever
> > submitted false statements and atributed them to someone else? Please
> > review 20th century history.
>
> > > Yet you have not condemned them for it.
>
> > I condemn the practice of not identifying yourself and of posting
> > under the names of others.
>
> > > I will grant that both of us may be consistent in our approach
> > > to anonymity. The point was that it would not make
> > > sense to attack Taylor Kingston for his (alleged) anonymous
> > > postings, when I haven't attacked Larry Parr (and others)
> > > for theirs. My view is that posts should be evaluated on their
> > > merit. If some people have reasons to post anonymously,
> > > that is their business and not mine.
>
> > I tend to be a bit more draconian. I believe anyone wishing to have an
> > honest discussion should clearly make known who they are and from what
> > position they base their points of view upon.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
Hi Jerry,
My position is really rather simple. I developed it from my first
attempts almost four years ago while beginning my posting in the
newsgroup. I found that people tended to be much less honest and less
guarded when they posted under some false persona. It makes them a
more difficult target to hit back at. I have always posted honestly
and owned what I have said. When I am wrong, I will post a retraction.
I do not find it necessary to hide my identity or attack others
through a surrogate persona. To do so is cowardly.
I limit conversations with people whose identity I cannot discern. I
too have been a victim of attacks from the FSS. I will almost always
defend any attack vigorously, I felt it useless to debate with the
FSS. I would have pursued the matter in more depth had I felt that
such action would have proven fruitful.
There now exists a lawsuit. I am not a computer expert. I have no
access to the original files and original logs. From what I understand
from listening with an open mind to both sides: experts disagree. The
best that can be determined may be the appearance of know author. It
is now in the hands of a court to make a determination. In American
there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty after have
been afforded your day in court.
I believe posters in this newsgroup and members of the USCF board
should go about business as usual and stop all of this conjecture and
posturing. They wanted to take this to court, so I think we should
stop trying to try and convict in the forum of public opinion. To do
so is a mean and indefensible act designed only to destroy the
reputation of another without affording them the due process that they
deserve.
You are from here in Nashville Jerry. I feel certain that you have
heard the statement" hate the sin but not the sinner".
Best Wishes,
Rob Mitchell
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 19:23:49
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 9, 7:34 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:6591f5f7-3adf-4ace-b076-565ea1ac4732@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 9, 2:06 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:ae2ffa30-c1a4-447b-8d12-108306c416c7@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-ad0b-29a50a1446af@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > David,
> >> >> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on your
> >> >> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any name
> >> >> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say it!
> >> >> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be changed by
> >> >> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenable
> >> >> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while others
> >> >> > you do.
> >> >> > Rob
>
> >> >> There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersonating
> >> >> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
> >> >> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
> >> >> for posting as others. You haven't.
> >> > David,
> >> > You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true.
> This is categorically untrue.
>
>> Now you are arguing with yourself, like your mentor Innes.
>
> >> Trolgar is the only party known to have posted 1000s of
> >> obscene messages while pretending to be others.
> > This is categorically untrue. You are telling me that no other person
> > in the history of the usnet, internet or the written langusge has ever
> > submitted false statements and atributed them to someone else? Please
> > review 20th century history.
> Trolgar's the only that I'm aware of.
>
If a "made up name" is the only person you are aware of; that is a sad
commentary.
>
>
>
> >> Yet you have not condemned them for it.
>
> > I condemn the practice of not identifying yourself and of posting
> > under the names of others.
>
> >> I will grant that both of us may be consistent in our approach
> >> to anonymity. The point was that it would not make
> >> sense to attack Taylor Kingston for his (alleged) anonymous
> >> postings, when I haven't attacked Larry Parr (and others)
> >> for theirs. My view is that posts should be evaluated on their
> >> merit. If some people have reasons to post anonymously,
> >> that is their business and not mine.
>
> > I tend to be a bit more draconian. I believe anyone wishing to have an
> > honest discussion should clearly make known who they are and from what
> > position they base their points of view upon.
> You clearly pay no attention to the merits of peoples' contributions,
> that's for sure.
You pay no attention to anything at all if it doesn't fit into your
narrow definition of events.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 12:49:03
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:fe1edd9a-eda0-45b4-a88e-5f1322b90251@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 9, 7:34 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:6591f5f7-3adf-4ace-b076-565ea1ac4732@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 9, 2:06 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:ae2ffa30-c1a4-447b-8d12-108306c416c7@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>news:a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-ad0b-29a50a1446af@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> > David,
>> >> >> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on
>> >> >> > your
>> >> >> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any
>> >> >> > name
>> >> >> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say
>> >> >> > it!
>> >> >> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be
>> >> >> > changed by
>> >> >> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenable
>> >> >> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while
>> >> >> > others
>> >> >> > you do.
>> >> >> > Rob
>>
>> >> >> There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersonating
>> >> >> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
>> >> >> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
>> >> >> for posting as others. You haven't.
>
>
>> >> > David,
>> >> > You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true.
>
>
>> This is categorically untrue.
>>
>>> Now you are arguing with yourself, like your mentor Innes.
>>
>> >> Trolgar is the only party known to have posted 1000s of
>> >> obscene messages while pretending to be others.
>
>
>
>
>> > This is categorically untrue. You are telling me that no other person
>> > in the history of the usnet, internet or the written langusge has ever
>> > submitted false statements and atributed them to someone else? Please
>> > review 20th century history.
>
>
>> Trolgar's the only that I'm aware of.
>>
>
> If a "made up name" is the only person you are aware of; that is a sad
> commentary.
And that is the case for the prosecution, which is now reduced to be
psychic. They are aware of. Guy Macon is also aware of things, but at least
he has analyzed 73% of the evidence, or is it 17%? He doesn't know. But he
is still pretty sure, just like a psychic's gotta be sure! :)
The trap is to forget that all sureties are the result of something. That
something is a process. When people can't say their process then just maybe
their results are suspect?
"How much of the evidence did you look at?"
"Everything that is available"
"And how much of the total is that?"
"Dunno"
Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 12:43:04
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:fe1edd9a-eda0-45b4-a88e-5f1322b90251@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On 9, 7:34 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:6591f5f7-3adf-4ace-b076-565ea1ac4732@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 9, 2:06 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> >>news:ae2ffa30-c1a4-447b-8d12-108306c416c7@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> >> > On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >> >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> >> >>news:a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-ad0b-29a50a1446af@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> >> >> > David,
>>> >> >> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on your
>>> >> >> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any
>>> >> >> > name
>>> >> >> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say it!
>>> >> >> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be changed
>>> >> >> > by
>>> >> >> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenable
>>> >> >> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while
>>> >> >> > others
>>> >> >> > you do.
>>> >> >> > Rob
>>>
>>> >> >> There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersonating
>>> >> >> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
>>> >> >> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
>>> >> >> for posting as others. You haven't.
>>
>>
>>> >> > David,
>>> >> > You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true.
>>
>>
>>> This is categorically untrue.
>>>
>>>> Now you are arguing with yourself, like your mentor Innes.
>>>
>>> >> Trolgar is the only party known to have posted 1000s of
>>> >> obscene messages while pretending to be others.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> > This is categorically untrue. You are telling me that no other person
>>> > in the history of the usnet, internet or the written langusge has ever
>>> > submitted false statements and atributed them to someone else? Please
>>> > review 20th century history.
>>
>>
>>> Trolgar's the only that I'm aware of.
>>>
>>
>> If a "made up name" is the only person you are aware of; that is a sad
>> commentary.
>
> And that is the case for the prosecution, which is now reduced to be psychic.
> They are aware of. Guy Macon is also aware of things, but at least he has
> analyzed 73% of the evidence, or is it 17%? He doesn't know. But he is still
> pretty sure, just like a psychic's gotta be sure! :)
What evidence are we missing? The only evidence that
we don't have is evidence that would apportion the blame
withing the Truong-Polgar household. It is unlikely that
we will ever have that evidence. But that missing evidence
is really not that important. We're not a court of law
seeking to punish an individual, but a society hoping
to maintain at least some kind of minimal standards of
behavior - standards which uncontested evidence tells
us that the couple did not meet.
> The trap is to forget that all sureties are the result of something. That
> something is a process. When people can't say their process then just maybe
> their results are suspect?
>
> "How much of the evidence did you look at?"
> "Everything that is available"
> "And how much of the total is that?"
> "Dunno"
>
> Phil Innes
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 19:46:35
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> And that is the case for the prosecution, which is now reduced to be
>> psychic. They are aware of. Guy Macon is also aware of things, but at
>> least he has analyzed 73% of the evidence, or is it 17%? He doesn't know.
>> But he is still pretty sure, just like a psychic's gotta be sure! :)
>
>
>
> What evidence are we missing?
Quite! And do you know?
> The only evidence that
> we don't have is evidence that would apportion the blame
> withing the Truong-Polgar household.
That doesn't sound like an inquiry, that sounds like blame itself. Does
David Kane think USCF is withholding evidence to protect Paul Truong?
> It is unlikely that
> we will ever have that evidence. But that missing evidence
> is really not that important.
Not important to "we" <snore.... >
It's not important to David Kane, but David Kane can't say that, since David
Kane can't admit his own opinion and needs a group to shelter in, so he can
issue out from the flock.
> We're not a court of law
> seeking to punish an individual, but a society hoping
> to maintain at least some kind of minimal standards of
> behavior - standards which uncontested evidence tells
> us that the couple did not meet.
It is precisely /not/ uncontested. What Kane does not admit is that he
doesn't know if what he has decided upon is a little or a lot. All he knows
is that he has heard one side of it, another side is legally barred from
currently saying their own piece, but that's enough for him to make up his
mind. Or is it "our" mind?
>> The trap is to forget that all sureties are the result of something. That
>> something is a process. When people can't say their process then just
>> maybe their results are suspect?
>>
>> "How much of the evidence did you look at?"
>> "Everything that is available"
>> "And how much of the total is that?"
>> "Dunno"
David Kane is a Dunno kinda guy.
Phil Innes
>> Phil Innes
>>
>
|
| | |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 19:45:40
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:fe1edd9a-eda0-45b4-a88e-5f1322b90251@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 9, 7:34 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This is categorically untrue.
>>
>>> Now you are arguing with yourself, like your mentor Innes.
>>
>> >> Trolgar is the only party known to have posted 1000s of
>> >> obscene messages while pretending to be others.
>
>
>
>
>> > This is categorically untrue. You are telling me that no other person
>> > in the history of the usnet, internet or the written langusge has ever
>> > submitted false statements and atributed them to someone else? Please
>> > review 20th century history.
>
>
>> Trolgar's the only that I'm aware of.
>>
>
> If a "made up name" is the only person you are aware of; that is a sad
> commentary.
>
And, of course, you don't cite a single example of anyone doing anything
like Trolgar, let alone an example that I should be aware of.
Trolgar is a convenient way to refer to the couple. Of course, I
admit to not knowing to what degree each member of the
couple is culpable. To me, that is a largely uninteresting question,
because, regardless of the answer, it is inappropriate for either
of them to be involved in the governance of a national chess
organization.
It is just sad that we live in a world where standards are
so low that people can behave like they have, and feel
no sense of shame.
But I'm sure you'll do a google search and find someone
else who had done some bad stuff, thereby, in your
world of low standards, making Trolgars' actions
just peachy.
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 19:20:31
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 8, 1:37 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> Obviously, it is not possible to be
> ranked at or near "45" if one's USCF rating
> were about 2300. Today, it is hardly possible
> to gain such a ranking without virtually spilling
> over with titles (NM, SM, FM, IM, etc.), but if
> you go back far enough in time, I suppose it
> may have once been.
I think that around 1973 (thirty five years ago
or a couple more) a rating of 2330 was easily
inside the USCF top fifty. But withing 10 years
the situation had changed a lot. I am talking
from the top of my head, possibly I am off
a few years or a hundred USCF points :-)
Regards,
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 19:17:15
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 9, 7:34 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:6591f5f7-3adf-4ace-b076-565ea1ac4732@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 9, 2:06 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:ae2ffa30-c1a4-447b-8d12-108306c416c7@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-ad0b-29a50a1446af@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > David,
> >> >> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on your
> >> >> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any name
> >> >> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say it!
> >> >> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be changed by
> >> >> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenable
> >> >> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while others
> >> >> > you do.
> >> >> > Rob
>
> >> >> There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersonating
> >> >> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
> >> >> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
> >> >> for posting as others. You haven't.
>
> >> > David,
> >> > You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true.
>
> > This is categorically untrue.
>
> Now you are arguing with yourself, like your mentor Innes.
>
> >> Trolgar is the only party known to have posted 1000s of
> >> obscene messages while pretending to be others.
>
> > This is categorically untrue. You are telling me that no other person
> > in the history of the usnet, internet or the written langusge has ever
> > submitted false statements and atributed them to someone else? Please
> > review 20th century history.
>
> Trolgar's the only that I'm aware of.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Yet you have not condemned them for it.
>
> > I condemn the practice of not identifying yourself and of posting
> > under the names of others.
>
> >> I will grant that both of us may be consistent in our approach
> >> to anonymity. The point was that it would not make
> >> sense to attack Taylor Kingston for his (alleged) anonymous
> >> postings, when I haven't attacked Larry Parr (and others)
> >> for theirs. My view is that posts should be evaluated on their
> >> merit. If some people have reasons to post anonymously,
> >> that is their business and not mine.
>
> > I tend to be a bit more draconian. I believe anyone wishing to have an
> > honest discussion should clearly make known who they are and from what
> > position they base their points of view upon.
> You clearly pay no attention to the merits of peoples' contributions,
> that's for sure.
David,
you are more aptly described by your statement than I.
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 19:15:09
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 8, 8:29 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> You walk into a club and say,
> "I'm no mean player, rated 2300+ Elo and ranked No. 45
> in the country. You don't mention postal chess at all.
> What conclusion will the average chess player draw
> other than that the guy is calling himself a strong master?
But he didn't walk into a chess club, etc.
There was a context, and the whole thing
was casual and no big deal, Nobody was fighting
for a stypend or placing in an interzonal.
This is supposed to be a place where we have fun,
where we don't have to tip-toe carefully like in a mine
field. There was so much of true dishonesty around
here that it is dishonest to pick on irrelevant triviality.
For a huge contrasst, look at Phil's statement
in his interview with PT, and his false comment
about it here - false on about every account (I have
not even bothered to respond).
We can have fun about light things,
we can be serious about serious things,
but I don't understand that obsessive
grand waste of time and energy on trivial
things.
Regards,
Wlod
|
| | |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 12:42:54
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:c6f80efc-6907-4e47-8f80-ea58be9c7866@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On 8, 8:29 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You walk into a club and say,
>> "I'm no mean player, rated 2300+ Elo and ranked No. 45
>> in the country. You don't mention postal chess at all.
>> What conclusion will the average chess player draw
>> other than that the guy is calling himself a strong master?
>
> But he didn't walk into a chess club, etc.
> There was a context, and the whole thing
> was casual and no big deal, Nobody was fighting
> for a stypend or placing in an interzonal.
>
> This is supposed to be a place where we have fun,
> where we don't have to tip-toe carefully like in a mine
> field. There was so much of true dishonesty around
> here that it is dishonest to pick on irrelevant triviality.
>
> For a huge contrasst, look at Phil's statement
> in his interview with PT, and his false comment
> about it here - false on about every account (I have
> not even bothered to respond).
Maybe that's because you can't repond, since recently you know all things,
and as above, don't mind a bit of public deception, since its all fun.
> We can have fun about light things,
> we can be serious about serious things,
> but I don't understand that obsessive
> grand waste of time and energy on trivial
> things.
If you have something to say negatively about other people, but can't 'be
bothered' to actually mention what it is - then that is some sad fun!
Speak up or shut up?
Phil Innes
> Regards,
>
> Wlod
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 17:44:13
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 9, 7:34 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:6591f5f7-3adf-4ace-b076-565ea1ac4732@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 9, 2:06 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:ae2ffa30-c1a4-447b-8d12-108306c416c7@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-ad0b-29a50a1446af@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > David,
> >> >> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on your
> >> >> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any name
> >> >> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say it!
> >> >> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be changed by
> >> >> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenable
> >> >> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while others
> >> >> > you do.
> >> >> > Rob
>
> >> >> There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersonating
> >> >> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
> >> >> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
> >> >> for posting as others. You haven't.
>
> >> > David,
> >> > You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true.
>
> > This is categorically untrue.
>
> Now you are arguing with yourself, like your mentor Innes.
Nice catch, David.
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 17:42:56
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
Post quoted in full, including headers, to preserve example of Rob
Mitchell arguing with his own post.
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Rob <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
Date: Sun, 9 2008 13:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <6591f5f7-3adf-4ace-
[email protected] >
References: <[email protected] >
<e2b553da-c058-4014-a696-2786a2bff258@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >
<[email protected] >
<f5831cb4-0791-4342-8c1b-a8ec26d951d0@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >
<[email protected] > <a8dd365d-d96b-4263-
[email protected] >
<[email protected] > <RaidnS6jbpM-
[email protected] >
<[email protected] > <f9097056-120a-4e24-
[email protected] >
<[email protected] > <a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-
[email protected] >
<[email protected] > <ae2ffa30-
[email protected] >
<[email protected] >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.52.81.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1205094423 24261 127.0.0.1 (9 2008
20:27:03 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 2008 20:27:03 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: [email protected]
Injection-Info: z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=68.52.81.2;
posting-account=PGLZxQkAAADlS-khR6d7892fziugg3CU
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:
1.8.1.12)
Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
On 9, 2:06 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:ae2ffa30-c1a4-447b-8d12-108306c416c7@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-ad0b-29a50a1446af@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > David,
> >> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on your
> >> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any name
> >> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say it!
> >> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be changed by
> >> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenable
> >> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while others
> >> > you do.
> >> > Rob
>
> >> There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersonating
> >> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
> >> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
> >> for posting as others. You haven't.
>
> > David,
> > You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true.
This is categorically untrue.
> Trolgar is the only party known to have posted 1000s of
> obscene messages while pretending to be others.
This is categorically untrue. You are telling me that no other person
in the history of the usnet, internet or the written langusge has ever
submitted false statements and atributed them to someone else? Please
review 20th century history.
> Yet you have not condemned them for it.
I condemn the practice of not identifying yourself and of posting
under the names of others.
> I will grant that both of us may be consistent in our approach
> to anonymity. The point was that it would not make
> sense to attack Taylor Kingston for his (alleged) anonymous
> postings, when I haven't attacked Larry Parr (and others)
> for theirs. My view is that posts should be evaluated on their
> merit. If some people have reasons to post anonymously,
> that is their business and not mine.
I tend to be a bit more draconian. I believe anyone wishing to have an
honest discussion should clearly make known who they are and from what
position they base their points of view upon.
|
| |
I think you have to make a distinction in your use of the word
condemn. Most people who "condemn" anonymous posting would not feel
that a person discovered to have made anonymous posts should be
punished severely for this. Condemning seems to mean in this case that
you do not like that form of discussion, but I doubt that you would
want someone removed from office if you simply found that they had
made an innocuous anonymous post. If I have mischaracterized your use
of the word condemn in this case, let me know; I am not attempting to
twist your words to make it appear you are saying something you are
not.
However, many people "condemn" the FSS postings in a much stronger
sense, feeling that if a person is discovered to have made the FSS
posts, they should be removed from office because of their behavior.
Do you "condemn" the FSS posts in this sense?
Jerry Spinrad
On 9, 3:27=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 9, 2:06 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:ae2ffa30-c1a4-447b-8d12-108306c416c7@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...=
>
> > > On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-ad0b-29a50a1446af@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com=
...
>
> > >> > David,
> > >> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on you=
r
> > >> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any na=
me
> > >> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say it!=
> > >> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be changed =
by
> > >> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenable
> > >> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while oth=
ers
> > >> > you do.
> > >> > Rob
>
> > >> There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersonating
> > >> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
> > >> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
> > >> for posting as others. You haven't.
>
> > > David,
> > > You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true.
>
> This is categorically untrue.
>
> > Trolgar is the only party known to have posted 1000s of
> > obscene messages while pretending to be others.
>
> This is categorically untrue. You are telling me that no other person
> in the history of the usnet, internet or the written langusge has ever
> submitted false statements and atributed them to someone else? Please
> review 20th century history.
>
> > Yet you have not condemned them for it.
>
> I condemn the practice of not identifying yourself and of posting
> under the names of others.
>
> > I will grant that both of us may be consistent in our approach
> > to anonymity. The point was that it would not make
> > sense to attack Taylor Kingston for his (alleged) anonymous
> > postings, when I haven't attacked Larry Parr (and others)
> > for theirs. My view is that posts should be evaluated on their
> > merit. If some people have reasons to post anonymously,
> > that is their business and not mine.
>
> I tend to be a bit more draconian. I believe anyone wishing to have an
> honest discussion should clearly make known who they are and from what
> position they base their points of view upon.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 13:27:03
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 9, 2:06 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:ae2ffa30-c1a4-447b-8d12-108306c416c7@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-ad0b-29a50a1446af@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > David,
> >> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on your
> >> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any name
> >> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say it!
> >> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be changed by
> >> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenable
> >> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while others
> >> > you do.
> >> > Rob
>
> >> There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersonating
> >> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
> >> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
> >> for posting as others. You haven't.
>
> > David,
> > You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true.
This is categorically untrue.
> Trolgar is the only party known to have posted 1000s of
> obscene messages while pretending to be others.
This is categorically untrue. You are telling me that no other person
in the history of the usnet, internet or the written langusge has ever
submitted false statements and atributed them to someone else? Please
review 20th century history.
> Yet you have not condemned them for it.
I condemn the practice of not identifying yourself and of posting
under the names of others.
> I will grant that both of us may be consistent in our approach
> to anonymity. The point was that it would not make
> sense to attack Taylor Kingston for his (alleged) anonymous
> postings, when I haven't attacked Larry Parr (and others)
> for theirs. My view is that posts should be evaluated on their
> merit. If some people have reasons to post anonymously,
> that is their business and not mine.
I tend to be a bit more draconian. I believe anyone wishing to have an
honest discussion should clearly make known who they are and from what
position they base their points of view upon.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 17:34:41
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:6591f5f7-3adf-4ace-b076-565ea1ac4732@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 9, 2:06 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ae2ffa30-c1a4-447b-8d12-108306c416c7@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-ad0b-29a50a1446af@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > David,
>> >> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on your
>> >> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any name
>> >> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say it!
>> >> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be changed by
>> >> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenable
>> >> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while others
>> >> > you do.
>> >> > Rob
>>
>> >> There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersonating
>> >> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
>> >> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
>> >> for posting as others. You haven't.
>>
>> > David,
>> > You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true.
>
> This is categorically untrue.
Now you are arguing with yourself, like your mentor Innes.
>> Trolgar is the only party known to have posted 1000s of
>> obscene messages while pretending to be others.
>
> This is categorically untrue. You are telling me that no other person
> in the history of the usnet, internet or the written langusge has ever
> submitted false statements and atributed them to someone else? Please
> review 20th century history.
Trolgar's the only that I'm aware of.
>
>
>> Yet you have not condemned them for it.
>
> I condemn the practice of not identifying yourself and of posting
> under the names of others.
>
>
>
>
>> I will grant that both of us may be consistent in our approach
>> to anonymity. The point was that it would not make
>> sense to attack Taylor Kingston for his (alleged) anonymous
>> postings, when I haven't attacked Larry Parr (and others)
>> for theirs. My view is that posts should be evaluated on their
>> merit. If some people have reasons to post anonymously,
>> that is their business and not mine.
>
> I tend to be a bit more draconian. I believe anyone wishing to have an
> honest discussion should clearly make known who they are and from what
> position they base their points of view upon.
You clearly pay no attention to the merits of peoples' contributions,
that's for sure.
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 15:15:59
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
help bot wrote:
>You need to take a closer look at the top
>paragraph: it is quite clear that somebody (I
>don't care who) has strongly implied that there
>exists "overwhelming" evidence linking PT to
>the murder of Sam Sloan. All we need is the
>dead body.
I find it difficult to reconcile your current claim
that you are disagreeing with someone else with the
actual words you wrote:
GM: I again ask you and anyone else here to please
GM: knock holes in my analysis if they can.
HB: You just did that yourself! By your own
HB: "reasoning", the guilty party is an unknown
I cannot speak for what "somebody (you don't care who)"
wrote. I am, once again, asking if anyone seess any
flaws in what *I* wrote or with *my* conclusions
("the FSS posts came from the same physical location
as the Truong posts").
>I disagree, in that a court needs to pinpoint
>PT /specifically/, not just his computer or his
>traveling group/family.
That's a valid observation. Would you be so kind as to
refrain from acting as if it has anything to do with my
conclusion as clearly stated above?
>Okay, now as for the several experts who all
>came to the same conclusion: Q: how many
>"experts" does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
>A: *only one*! If it takes more than one, they
>are not experts.
That is an invalid argument. The fact that the Times hired
an independant expert who verified the finding of the USCF
expert strengthens the conclusion of the first expert.
It in no way weakens it.
--
misc.business.product-dev: a Usenet newsgroup
about the Business of Product Development.
-- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 21:51:31
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-ad0b-29a50a1446af@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > David,
> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on your
> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any name
> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say it!
> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be changed by
> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenable
> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while others
> > you do.
> > Rob
> There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersonating
> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
> for posting as others. You haven't.
David,
You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true. You attack
him for wearing white shoes before Easter.You attack him for the color
of his ties. Yes, you do always attack Paul truong. You seem to search
for reasons to do so. But as for me?
Again you are wrong. I am sure a cursory search if done by you, would
turn up numerous instances where I have requested people who do not
post under their own name or who fail to identify themselves. I have
also had disagreements with the FSS. You contend that I have supported
the actions of the FSS. I say I have not and defy you to prove
otherwise.
However I have provided you with the post where you admit you support
anonymous posting.
> You have nothing to be proud of.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 12:06:40
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:ae2ffa30-c1a4-447b-8d12-108306c416c7@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On 8, 10:36 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-ad0b-29a50a1446af@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > David,
>> > You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on your
>> > attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any name
>> > other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say it!
>> > My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be changed by
>> > you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenable
>> > because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while others
>> > you do.
>> > Rob
>
>
>> There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersonating
>> someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
>> posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
>> for posting as others. You haven't.
>
> David,
> You have consistently attacked Truong. That is quite true.
Trolgar is the only party known to have posted 1000s of
obscene messages while pretending to be others.
Yet you have not condemned them for it.
I will grant that both of us may be consistent in our approach
to anonymity. The point was that it would not make
sense to attack Taylor Kingston for his (alleged) anonymous
postings, when I haven't attacked Larry Parr (and others)
for theirs. My view is that posts should be evaluated on their
merit. If some people have reasons to post anonymously,
that is their business and not mine.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 17:47:43
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 11, 6:32 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 11 2008 16:30:00 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >If so, Princeton has certainly changed since my visiting days at that
> >institution, and since Einstein used to holler across the street to my
> >mother in law.
>
> "Not everything is relative", he screamed, "Your daughter's husband is
> an absolute idiot".
Did Einstein really say that, or is that a joke?
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 18:05:28
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On Tue, 11 2008 17:47:43 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
<[email protected] > wrote:
>On 11, 6:32 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 2008 16:30:00 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >If so, Princeton has certainly changed since my visiting days at that
>> >institution, and since Einstein used to holler across the street to my
>> >mother in law.
>> "Not everything is relative", he screamed, "Your daughter's husband is
>> an absolute idiot".
>Did Einstein really say that, or is that a joke?
Sometimes myth or parable has a deeper meaning than mere fact.
When really impatient and frustrated, Einstein sometimes lapsed into
German. So he may have yelled, "Nicht alles ist relativ. Der Ehemann
von Ihre Tochter ein absoluter Idiot ist." Or something else. Or
not.
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 20:40:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 8, 10:27 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> >> Nor should he be. What matters is the strenth of the evidence
> >> itself, not how someone feels about it. I posted my analysis
> >> of the evidence and asked for anyone who could find a hole in
> >> my logic to do so. Nobody, including you, has found a flaw
> >> in the chain of reasoning that led me to conclude that the FSS
> >> posts came from the same physical location as the Truong posts.
> >> I have no reason to be biased against Truong, and many reasons
> >> to be biased against Sloan, but the evidence is what it is, and
> >> what it is is [A] overwhelming, and [B] not seriously contested.
>
> >> I again ask you and anyone else here to please knock holes in my
> >> analysis if they can.
> > You just did that yourself! By your own
> >"reasoning", the guilty party is an unknown
> >entity which appears to have traveled along
> >with Paul Truong; whereas the charges are
> >filed against Paul Truong /specifically/.
>
> You appear to be having trouble keeping track of who
> claimed what.
>
> *SAM SLOAN* is the one who filed a lawsuit accusing Truong.
>
> *GUY MACON* is the one who posted an analysis concluding
> that (direct quote) "the FSS posts came from the same
> physical location as the Truong posts."
>
> Those are not the same thing.
Nothing gets past this guy.
> I stand by my conclusion until someone shows me evidence
> or gives e a logical reason to conclude otherwise. (Note:
> personal attacks and name-calling are not evidence).
You need to take a closer look at the top
paragraph: it is quite clear that somebody (I
don't care who) has strongly implied that there
exists "overwhelming" evidence linking PT to
the murder of Sam Sloan. All we need is the
dead body.
I disagree, in that a court needs to pinpoint
PT /specifically/, not just his computer or his
traveling group/family. Odds are good that
he may have been the culprit who utilized
his own computer, from which the FSS posts
apparently came, but I want more than a good
gamble. Do you recall the movie "Hang 'em
High", starring Clint Eastwood? I don't want
to have to deal with some guy hunting me
down for convicting PT for stealing cattle,
just because I am too lazy to check out his
story first, and only THEN hang him! I say
tie him up and send somebody to check out
his story, and meanwhile, we can sing songs
around the campfire and eat beans and
cornbread.
Okay, now as for the several experts who all
came to the same conclusion: Q: how many
"experts" does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: *only one*! If it takes more than one, they
are not experts. Seriously, I think the PT/SP
duo and their ratpacker apologists are just
blowing hot air, which is normal for them. I
also think there is a good chance the Sloan
lawsuit will get tossed on some random
technicality. Judging from the slant taken by
PT and his apologists, it's the old story of
"I didn't do it; nobody /saw/ me do it; you
can't prove anything". These guys are about
as credible as Bart Simpson, but not nearly
as st.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 03:27:35
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
help bot wrote:
>
>Guy Macon wrote:
>
>> Nor should he be. What matters is the strenth of the evidence
>> itself, not how someone feels about it. I posted my analysis
>> of the evidence and asked for anyone who could find a hole in
>> my logic to do so. Nobody, including you, has found a flaw
>> in the chain of reasoning that led me to conclude that the FSS
>> posts came from the same physical location as the Truong posts.
>> I have no reason to be biased against Truong, and many reasons
>> to be biased against Sloan, but the evidence is what it is, and
>> what it is is [A] overwhelming, and [B] not seriously contested.
>>
>> I again ask you and anyone else here to please knock holes in my
>> analysis if they can.
> You just did that yourself! By your own
>"reasoning", the guilty party is an unknown
>entity which appears to have traveled along
>with Paul Truong; whereas the charges are
>filed against Paul Truong /specifically/.
You appear to be having trouble keeping track of who
claimed what.
*SAM SLOAN* is the one who filed a lawsuit accusing Truong.
*GUY MACON* is the one who posted an analysis concluding
that (direct quote) "the FSS posts came from the same
physical location as the Truong posts."
Those are not the same thing.
I stand by my conclusion until someone shows me evidence
or gives e a logical reason to conclude otherwise. (Note:
personal attacks and name-calling are not evidence).
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 03:17:32
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
Rob wrote:
>I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any name
>other than their own.
The above could be interpreted two ways:
"I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any
other person's name."
or
"I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any
alias or pseudomym."
Which did you mean?
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 03:13:04
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
Rob wrote:
>
>Guy Macon wrote:
>
>> Chess One wrote:
>
>> >David Kane is not the least interested in how uncompelling
>> >the 'overwhelming, not seriously contested evidence' might
>> >seem to others.
>>
>> Nor should he be. What matters is the strenth of the evidence
>> itself, not how someone feels about it. I posted my analysis
>> of the evidence and asked for anyone who could find a hole in
>> my logic to do so. Nobody, including you, has found a flaw
>> in the chain of reasoning that led me to conclude that the FSS
>> posts came from the same physical location as the Truong posts.
>> I have no reason to be biased against Truong, and many reasons
>> to be biased against Sloan, but the evidence is what it is, and
>> what it is is [A] overwhelming, and [B] not seriously contested.
>>
>> I again ask you and anyone else here to please knock holes in my
>> analysis if they can.
>
>Guy,
>
>I have no desire to to dispute or review what you have posted. I am
>simply not qualified to make a determination. Since this has been
>pressed into a legal realm with lawsuits being bandied about; I
>reserve judgment until such time as these matters are resolved in a
>court of law. But I feel save in reiterating I do not condone fake
>postings by anyone. Something David has admitted in a prior post he
>finds nothing wrong with.
I killfiled David Kane long ago for engaging in personal attacks,
and no longer see his posts, but I seriously doubt that he ever
stated that he finds nothing wrong with the sort of fake postings
we have been discussing.
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 16:59:48
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 8, 5:27 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> You walk into a club and say,
> >> "I'm no mean player, rated 2300+ Elo and ranked No. 45
> >> in the country. You don't mention postal chess at all.
> >> What conclusion will the average chess player draw
> >> other than that the guy is calling himself a strong master?
>
> > A lunatic? Obviously, it is not possible to be
> > ranked at or near "45" if one's USCF rating
> > were about 2300.
>
> Would that not rather depend on when the rating was achieved and the
> understanding of the reader of how many people [45 of them] were better?
Nerarly-IMnes is right; this would depend on
those things. Sorry, but I was thinking of my
local club, which is made up of players who
have been around for quite some time-- not
clueless newbies, who might not know enough
about the chess world to figure such things out
easily.
> It is alarming to me that I have in 800 games of cc in the past 12 months
> found a couple of cheats, one 1450 and the tohter 2030. But these are far
> from typical - since most players dont't even know the first 12 moves of
> anything, and do not play like lions on the middle game. In other words -
> the overwhelming majority of opponents are honest.
In my games at ChessWorld, I found that not
one of them cheated against me; however, they
were, like me, unrateds. It is likely that the
cheaters are congregated near the top of the
rating lists, whereas my opponents were drawn
at random from newbies.
BTW, even IM Innes is allowed to supply the
quote for LP. We will even pay rubles, diamonds,
whatever, to Rob da robber Mitchell if he can find
the quote which seems to exist only in the mind
of Larry Parr. If the entire Evans ratpack fails in
this, it will be obvious to even the dimmest minds
that LP is, once again, back in the "fabrication"
business. You know who that hurts most: the
Evans ratpack, of course, for they are its main
constituency. LOL!
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 08:54:38
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:cb58e249-3c4e-4c3f-98e2-8d3d00501991@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 8, 5:27 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> You walk into a club and say,
>> >> "I'm no mean player, rated 2300+ Elo and ranked No. 45
>> >> in the country. You don't mention postal chess at all.
>> >> What conclusion will the average chess player draw
>> >> other than that the guy is calling himself a strong master?
>>
>> > A lunatic? Obviously, it is not possible to be
>> > ranked at or near "45" if one's USCF rating
>> > were about 2300.
>>
>> Would that not rather depend on when the rating was achieved and the
>> understanding of the reader of how many people [45 of them] were better?
>
>
> Nerarly-IMnes is right; this would depend on
> those things. Sorry, but I was thinking of my
Okay! Now lets pass back to the topic, and not one's pathic discourse,
which I have read 500 times :)
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 16:48:56
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 8, 5:18 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> To whom is it obvious that an ELO rating is obviously postal rather than
> OTB?
That would be... anyone who has any familiarity
at all with chess rankings.
As we know, a ranking of "45" would land TK
among the professional chess players-- but the
real issue was whether or not TK had sufficient
ability to comment, which he had. Even Class
A players like nearly-IMnes and Mr. Parr pass
muster here.
I think the Evans ratpackers would do better to
stick to the areas where Mr. Kingston is *weak*.
One such area is logic and reason-- which
explains how he was able to praise Larry Evans'
speculations to the skies one minute, then turn
around and claim they were unfounded, then do
an abut-face and decide they were correct after
all. Such flipping and flopping about is a sure
sign of an inability to reason properly, which is
why the "conclusions" can change from one
minute to the next.
It just seems obvious that the ratpack is
outclassed -- apart from GM Evans himself --
and thus, they look silly every time they go on
a tear regarding Taylor Kingston's chess rating.
What is more, just about everybody here is
keenly aware that of all the posters here, one
stands alone in making unfounded claims to
greatness: nearly-an-IM Innes. After getting
caught lying about his rating and title, the
best he could hope for is to put that incident
behind him, but Larry Parr keeps dredging it
back up. With "friends" like that, who needs
enemies?
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 08:52:59
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 8, 5:18 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> To whom is it obvious that an ELO rating is obviously postal rather than
>> OTB?
>
>
> That would be... anyone who has any familiarity
> at all with chess rankings.
Really? I never heard anyone in my life use an ELO attached to their rating
for correspondance chess. So, I would say /nobody/ does that. And whether it
was inadvertent or not by TK, it created the impression in the post that it
was OTB.
The rest of this is Rant-Bot's answer to all questions, except of course the
ones actually put to him, like refusing to admit the difference between 1800
and 2300 is 500 and not 50 points.
What he calls a lie below, is the accretion of his own indomitable
ignornance.
Phil Innes
> As we know, a ranking of "45" would land TK
> among the professional chess players-- but the
> real issue was whether or not TK had sufficient
> ability to comment, which he had. Even Class
> A players like nearly-IMnes and Mr. Parr pass
> muster here.
>
> I think the Evans ratpackers would do better to
> stick to the areas where Mr. Kingston is *weak*.
> One such area is logic and reason-- which
> explains how he was able to praise Larry Evans'
> speculations to the skies one minute, then turn
> around and claim they were unfounded, then do
> an abut-face and decide they were correct after
> all. Such flipping and flopping about is a sure
> sign of an inability to reason properly, which is
> why the "conclusions" can change from one
> minute to the next.
>
> It just seems obvious that the ratpack is
> outclassed -- apart from GM Evans himself --
> and thus, they look silly every time they go on
> a tear regarding Taylor Kingston's chess rating.
>
> What is more, just about everybody here is
> keenly aware that of all the posters here, one
> stands alone in making unfounded claims to
> greatness: nearly-an-IM Innes. After getting
> caught lying about his rating and title, the
> best he could hope for is to put that incident
> behind him, but Larry Parr keeps dredging it
> back up. With "friends" like that, who needs
> enemies?
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 12:47:19
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 8, 11:41 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> Nor should he be. What matters is the strenth of the evidence
> itself, not how someone feels about it. I posted my analysis
> of the evidence and asked for anyone who could find a hole in
> my logic to do so. Nobody, including you, has found a flaw
> in the chain of reasoning that led me to conclude that the FSS
> posts came from the same physical location as the Truong posts.
> I have no reason to be biased against Truong, and many reasons
> to be biased against Sloan, but the evidence is what it is, and
> what it is is [A] overwhelming, and [B] not seriously contested.
>
> I again ask you and anyone else here to please knock holes in my
> analysis if they can.
You just did that yourself! By your own
"reasoning", the guilty party is an unknown
entity which appears to have traveled along
with Paul Truong; whereas the charges are
filed against Paul Truong /specifically/. If
it should turn out that his wife or a child
made some or all of the FSS postings, PT
would be akin to the poor, wrongly-accused
man who had a TV series and later, a
Hollywood movie made based on his plight.
In that case, the lawsuit ought to have
fingered the one-armed man, not PT. I
really don't see how they can convict a
specific person unless the court presumes
the right to compel a witness to turn on his
own wife/etc. (Maybe it is as in gambling:
just a good "probability" of getting the right
guy?)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 12:45:50
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 8, 2:01 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:f9097056-120a-4e24-b035-4371a99a5910@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 8, 10:41 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
> >> Chess One wrote:
> >> >David Kane is not the least interested in how uncompelling
> >> >the 'overwhelming, not seriously contested evidence' might
> >> >seem to others.
>
> >> Nor should he be. What matters is the strenth of the evidence
> >> itself, not how someone feels about it. I posted my analysis
> >> of the evidence and asked for anyone who could find a hole in
> >> my logic to do so. Nobody, including you, has found a flaw
> >> in the chain of reasoning that led me to conclude that the FSS
> >> posts came from the same physical location as the Truong posts.
> >> I have no reason to be biased against Truong, and many reasons
> >> to be biased against Sloan, but the evidence is what it is, and
> >> what it is is [A] overwhelming, and [B] not seriously contested.
>
> >> I again ask you and anyone else here to please knock holes in my
> >> analysis if they can.
>
> > Guy,
> > I have no desire to to dispute or review what you have posted. I am
> > simply not qualified to make a determination. Since this has been
> > pressed into a legal realm with lawsuits being bandied about; I
> > reserve judgment until such time as these matters are resolved in a
> > court of law. But I feel save in reiterating I do not condone fake
> > postings by anyone. Something David has admitted in a prior post he
> > finds nothing wrong with.
> > Rob
>
> No such thing was admitted. I have no problem with anonymous
> posting. What Truong did, posting 1000s of obscene messages using
> other names, I do have a problem with. Unlike you.
Posted By David Kane:
"I have nothing against anonymous posting. <snipped > I would not
consider it a great wrong, though it does make a rather sad comment
about the
character
of the poor fellow who behaves that way. If Taylor Kingston has any
posting
skeletons
in his closet, they are of absolutely no interest to me."
David,
You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on your
attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any name
other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say it!
My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be changed by
you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenable
because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while others
you do.
Rob
|
| | |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 20:36:10
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:a827a1b4-e1c6-4c9b-ad0b-29a50a1446af@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> David,
> You selectively condone so long as the poster is not someone on your
> attack list. I uniformly DO NOT CONDONE anyone posting under any name
> other than their own. I think it you have something to say, say it!
> My position is quite clear on this subject and will not be changed by
> you misstating what I have posted. Your position is less tenable
> because you do not disapprove of some people faking posts while others
> you do.
> Rob
There is a big difference between being anonymous and impersonating
someone else. I have *consistently* never attacked anyone for
posting anonymously. I have *consistently* attacked Truong
for posting as others. You haven't.
You have nothing to be proud of.
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 12:37:15
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 8, 10:29 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> You walk into a club and say,
> "I'm no mean player, rated 2300+ Elo and ranked No. 45
> in the country. You don't mention postal chess at all.
> What conclusion will the average chess player draw
> other than that the guy is calling himself a strong master?
A lunatic? Obviously, it is not possible to be
ranked at or near "45" if one's USCF rating
were about 2300. Today, it is hardly possible
to gain such a ranking without virtually spilling
over with titles (NM, SM, FM, IM, etc.), but if
you go back far enough in time, I suppose it
may have once been.
Here's the problem with correspondence
chess ratings: even long before the advent of
strong chess computers, there existed the
*possibility* -- however small -- of cheating;
of consulting others during play.
> But Kanester tells us an average bloke will assume
> Kingston was talking about postal, not over-the-board chess.
Please supply a quotation, for this looks
for all the world like a dishonest fabrication
to me. Given Larry Parr's long history of
fabricating and manufacturing of goods, it's
only good business practice to supply the
quote. Okay, okay-- we will agree to pay in
gold or yen or whatever, but first we need to
*see* the goods.
-- business bot
|
| | |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 17:27:06
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:4f29c99d-696c-4927-8691-526fdf01353e@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 8, 10:29 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> You walk into a club and say,
>> "I'm no mean player, rated 2300+ Elo and ranked No. 45
>> in the country. You don't mention postal chess at all.
>> What conclusion will the average chess player draw
>> other than that the guy is calling himself a strong master?
>
>
> A lunatic? Obviously, it is not possible to be
> ranked at or near "45" if one's USCF rating
> were about 2300.
Would that not rather depend on when the rating was achieved and the
understanding of the reader of how many people [45 of them] were better?
> Today,
Quite!
> it is hardly possible
> to gain such a ranking without virtually spilling
> over with titles (NM, SM, FM, IM, etc.), but if
> you go back far enough in time, I suppose it
> may have once been.
>
> Here's the problem with correspondence
> chess ratings: even long before the advent of
> strong chess computers, there existed the
> *possibility* -- however small -- of cheating;
> of consulting others during play.
I admit that this obsession of yours overwhelems your sense of what goes on.
But that it because you don't know much, since you don't play much.
It is alarming to me that I have in 800 games of cc in the past 12 months
found a couple of cheats, one 1450 and the tohter 2030. But these are far
from typical - since most players dont't even know the first 12 moves of
anything, and do not play like lions on the middle game. In other words -
the overwhelming majority of opponents are honest.
>
>> But Kanester tells us an average bloke will assume
>> Kingston was talking about postal, not over-the-board chess.
>
>
> Please supply a quotation, for this looks
> for all the world like a dishonest fabrication
> to me. Given Larry Parr's long history of
> fabricating and manufacturing of goods, it's
> only good business practice to supply the
> quote. Okay, okay-- we will agree to pay in
> gold or yen or whatever, but first we need to
> *see* the goods.
"We" who does not play chess in the open ket, and "we" who for a hundred
posts protested that the difference betwwen 1800 and 2300 is 50 points
:)
Cordially, We, the Real Players
>
> -- business bot
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 12:26:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 8, 9:59 am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> Is this what's been confusing you Phil??
>
> Your interview question to PT:
>
> "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating, but satirizing
> another Board member,"
>
> My critique:
>
> "Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been accused
> of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director of
> the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
> although various apologists have tried unsuccessfully to argue that
> all the FSS filth was satire."
>
> Had I intended to include Phil Innes among the "various apologists",
> in this paragraph, believe me, I would have been specific about it.
It looks like nearly-IMnes has successfully
managed to "change the subject" from his
inability to admit he lied (see above quote),
to the question of whether or not somebody
else did something afterward. Still, I don't
think congratulations are in order just yet,
for in discussing the other thing, Nearly-
IMnes' lie keeps getting mentioned; that is
hardly a success, in my view.
I find it interesting that the Evans ratpack
continues in trying to take credit for the
presentation of "both sides" of the FSS
issue, though from what I have seen thus
far, only one side has been favored-- that
of the accused. Perhaps there is a clash
of egos, wherein nearly-IMnes and Sam
Sloan just can't both "fit" in the same
small world... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 09:49:43
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 8, 10:41 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> >David Kane is not the least interested in how uncompelling
> >the 'overwhelming, not seriously contested evidence' might
> >seem to others.
>
> Nor should he be. What matters is the strenth of the evidence
> itself, not how someone feels about it. I posted my analysis
> of the evidence and asked for anyone who could find a hole in
> my logic to do so. Nobody, including you, has found a flaw
> in the chain of reasoning that led me to conclude that the FSS
> posts came from the same physical location as the Truong posts.
> I have no reason to be biased against Truong, and many reasons
> to be biased against Sloan, but the evidence is what it is, and
> what it is is [A] overwhelming, and [B] not seriously contested.
>
> I again ask you and anyone else here to please knock holes in my
> analysis if they can.
Guy,
I have no desire to to dispute or review what you have posted. I am
simply not qualified to make a determination. Since this has been
pressed into a legal realm with lawsuits being bandied about; I
reserve judgment until such time as these matters are resolved in a
court of law. But I feel save in reiterating I do not condone fake
postings by anyone. Something David has admitted in a prior post he
finds nothing wrong with.
Rob
|
| | |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 12:01:25
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:f9097056-120a-4e24-b035-4371a99a5910@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On 8, 10:41 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>> Chess One wrote:
>> >David Kane is not the least interested in how uncompelling
>> >the 'overwhelming, not seriously contested evidence' might
>> >seem to others.
>>
>> Nor should he be. What matters is the strenth of the evidence
>> itself, not how someone feels about it. I posted my analysis
>> of the evidence and asked for anyone who could find a hole in
>> my logic to do so. Nobody, including you, has found a flaw
>> in the chain of reasoning that led me to conclude that the FSS
>> posts came from the same physical location as the Truong posts.
>> I have no reason to be biased against Truong, and many reasons
>> to be biased against Sloan, but the evidence is what it is, and
>> what it is is [A] overwhelming, and [B] not seriously contested.
>>
>> I again ask you and anyone else here to please knock holes in my
>> analysis if they can.
>
> Guy,
> I have no desire to to dispute or review what you have posted. I am
> simply not qualified to make a determination. Since this has been
> pressed into a legal realm with lawsuits being bandied about; I
> reserve judgment until such time as these matters are resolved in a
> court of law. But I feel save in reiterating I do not condone fake
> postings by anyone. Something David has admitted in a prior post he
> finds nothing wrong with.
> Rob
No such thing was admitted. I have no problem with anonymous
posting. What Truong did, posting 1000s of obscene messages using
other names, I do have a problem with. Unlike you.
|
| |
I TOLD YOU SO
<If Taylor Kingston has any posting skeletons in his closet,
they are of absolutely no interest to me. > -- David Kane
Dear Rob,
Heh, heh, heh. I told you David Kane would end up
condoning Taylor Kingston PRAISING HIMSELF in
postings written under false names. Kanester tells us
he does not have much against such stuff, and we now
know that he does not.
Rob: Kanester lies when he states that Taylor
Kingston initially gave his rating as a postal one.
Not at all. If he tries once again to defend this lie, I
will post Kingston's original claim in which he baldly
makes himself a strong master without mentioning
correspondence chess at all.
We will then discuss what it means among chess
players to give your rating straightforwardly as 2300+
Elo and tell us no more. You walk into a club and say,
"I'm no mean player, rated 2300+ Elo and ranked No. 45
in the country. You don't mention postal chess at all.
What conclusion will the average chess player draw
other than that the guy is calling himself a strong master?
But Kanester tells us an average bloke will assume
Kingston was talking about postal, not over-the-board chess.
That's our Kanester -- as we have come to know and love him.
As we shall see, his idiotic defense was NOT the one later
offered by Taylor Kingston himself for his weakminded lie.
Once again, Rob, you have condoned no
misbehavior by Paul Truong because, as I understand
your position, you want to see more than has been
presented. Kanester tries to bring in libertarian
categories, but to no avail. The poor blighter is
unaware that minarchism is not anarchism -- but more
about that later as this discussion weaves its way
to a weary end.
Yours, Larry Parr
|
| | |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 11:59:04
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:e599cf71-b291-487c-8c9f-b8609e98439b@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>I TOLD YOU SO
>
> <If Taylor Kingston has any posting skeletons in his closet,
> they are of absolutely no interest to me.> -- David Kane
>
> Dear Rob,
>
> Heh, heh, heh. I told you David Kane would end up
> condoning Taylor Kingston PRAISING HIMSELF in
> postings written under false names. Kanester tells us
> he does not have much against such stuff, and we now
> know that he does not.
That is correct. I condone anonymous posting. I don't
believe that Taylor Kingston has posted anonymously
in praise of himself. I do believe that you have. However,
whether I am right or wrong on either count is not
of interest to me, because the misdeed is minor.
On the contrary, I *know* that you routinely
post falsehoods, because you do so under your
own name. "Taylor Kingston" poster does not
post such falsehoods.
> Rob: Kanester lies when he states that Taylor
> Kingston initially gave his rating as a postal one.
> Not at all. If he tries once again to defend this lie, I
> will post Kingston's original claim in which he baldly
> makes himself a strong master without mentioning
> correspondence chess at all.
Please do post it. He posted his ranking, which was
*obviously* not an OTB ranking. That makes you a liar.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 17:18:29
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Please do post it. He posted his ranking, which was
> *obviously* not an OTB ranking. That makes you a liar.
>
To whom is it obvious that an ELO rating is obviously postal rather than
OTB?
Phil Innes
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 20:28:36
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Please do post it. He posted his ranking, which was
>> *obviously* not an OTB ranking. That makes you a liar.
>>
>
> To whom is it obvious that an ELO rating is obviously postal rather than OTB?
>
It was obviously *not* OTB, because OTB the quoted ranking would
not get you anywhere near #45.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 20:31:35
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Please do post it. He posted his ranking, which was
>>> *obviously* not an OTB ranking. That makes you a liar.
>>>
>>
>> To whom is it obvious that an ELO rating is obviously postal rather than OTB?
>>
> It was obviously *not* OTB, because OTB the quoted ranking
sorry, should be "rating".
would
> not get you anywhere near #45.
>
|
| |
CONDONING PAUL TRUONG
>That is another lie, David. I demand you to prove
anywhere where I have condoned the faking of posts.
You can't because I never have. You can repeat a lie
as many times as you like but it still won't be the
truth. > -- Rob Mitchell to David Kane
Rob Mitchell demands that David Kane back up
his charge -- which has proven to be a LIE -- that the
former condones posting messages under false names
that are also obscene.
Mr. Mitchell demanded chapter and verse.
Kanester said that Mr. Mitchell was taking Paul
Truong's side. But correctly or mistakenly, Rob
reckons that Mr. Truong is not guilty until proven
beyond a shadow of a doubt. Rob is guilty of
condoning nothing in terms of intent, which is
what counts in this instance, since there is not
yet any final disposition of this case.
In any event, the Winter ratpackers have posted
numerous messages under pseudonyms. Taylor
Kingston, for example, posted under false names
IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF. He and the Kanester are
thick as ... peeves.
Mr. Mitchell: David Kane LIED when he attacked
you for condoning obscene messages delivered under
false names. It is he who is chummy with the
types who play those tricks.
Paul Truong, truthfully or otherwise, has denied
posting as fake Sam. Taylor Kingston has not denied
posting under Paulie Graf and Xylothist when it was
his practice to praise his own work while debating with
this writer.
That's the kind of intellectual excretions
produced by a Kanester ally. Does Kanester condone
such behavior by his ally? The answer will be obvious
in his next few postings.
Yours, Larry Parr
David Kane wrote:
> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:f5831cb4-0791-4342-8c1b-a8ec26d951d0@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > On 7, 7:59 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:e2b553da-c058-4014-a696-2786a2bff258@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > That is a lie and a slander.You afford proof of nothing so you result
> >> > to making things up. SO me a quote where I have done what you say.
> >
> >
> >> You need to buy a dictionary and learn the meaning of words like
> >> "condone" and "censure" etc. To prove me wrong about you condoning
> >> the FSS posts, *you* will have to supply the posts. You've had
> >> ample opportunity to condemn them, but all we hear from you
> >> is the "blind monkey" nonsense. If you don't like being of low
> >> character, then do something about it.
> >
> > David,
> > Once again you prove you understand nothing. You said I condoned an
> > action. I said prove it. You cannot produce any evidence as it does
> > not exist. No one can produce evidence that does not exist. I do not
> > need to consult a dictionary for any reason. Again, what you have
> > said about me and my position is a lie and slander. I do not now nor
> > have I ever said I condone the fake posts.
>
> It's what you don't say that condones Truong's behavior. If 1000's
> of obscene posts is fine with you, is there *any* behavior that
> is not? Please be specific.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Mar 2008 23:18:17
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:a8dd365d-d96b-4263-af7d-69f1ab29336b@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> CONDONING PAUL TRUONG
>
I have nothing against anonymous posting. If, for example, a poster found that
no one bought his
idiotic arguments and created a persona, called "jr" to to heap mindless praise
on them, I would not
consider it a great wrong, though it does make a rather sad comment about the
character
of the poor fellow who behaves that way. If Taylor Kingston has any posting
skeletons
in his closet, they are of absolutely no interest to me.
Surely even Parr is not so dim as to be unable to grasp that there is a
difference between an anonymous
post and posting 1000s of obscene posts in the name of others. For Rob to
condone such
behavior is noteworthy. His rationale for giving Truong a pass in face of
overwhelming,
not seriously contested evidence is not the least bit interesting. It seems odd
that Parr (who seems to profess
various libertarian positions without understanding them) would adopt Rob's
latest position
that misconduct can only be said to occur after the State has proven a case in a
court of law. But
intellectual consistency is not these folks' strong suit.
But since Parr has raised the issue of lying, and thrown me into an alliance
with Taylor Kingston,
how does he rationalize his own lie that Taylor Kingston lied about his rating?
Recall that
Kingston gave not only his (correspondence) rating, but also his ranking, and
taken together
those are a clear, unambiguous statement that the rating was *not* an OTB
rating. Yet Parr's
lie, repeated at least hundreds of times in this newsgroup, is that Kingston was
representing
his rating as being OTB. I do not condone (look the word up, please!) Parr's
dishonest behavior.
I condemn it.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 09:34:30
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
<snipped >
>
> > I wonder who Brennan thinks of all posters here, is the closest to the FSS?
>
> P Innes and Rob Mitchell. After all, they've worked with him.
>
Please come out and post the name you claim to KNOW 100% to be the
FSS, Neil. Post that name with the charge.
Rob
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 07:58:58
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On 14, 9:08 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:4d83e444-50af-4643-b9a1-56230e709b91@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 14, 7:10 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Here again is the issue, if you can tell the difference it is satire,
> >> so...
>
> > No, it isn't. I can tell the difference between your posts and those
> > of a sane man. That doesn't make your posts satiric.
>
> Neil Brennan avoids the question, and instead makesFSS-like comments! ;)))
The fact you think my prose reads at all like the semi-literate
'English as a second language' spewing of the FSS tells the world you
are not only tone-deaf, but blind as well.
> The very odd thing about any investigation which /refuses/ to look at
> priy evidence, which /is/ available to review, is how shy certain people
> are of doing so. This rather casts their own 'investigation' into the
> shadows.
Priy evidence are the newsgroup postings. I recall someone by the
name of Brian Mottershead looked at them. Perhaps you've read his
report?
> > The question is, of all the FSS material can you [personally] tell the
> >> FSS from the Sloan?
>
> > Is there an example of P Innes replying to the "FSS" as if it were the
> > "RSS?" There are plenty of examples of P Innes mixing up other
> > posters.
>
> There we have proof that Neil Brennan refuses /to look/ at the issue, and
> diverts like Mike Murray.
It's not a diversion to question your judgment, since you are
notorious for mixing up posters - Dowd with Tapper, "seaker" and Matt
Nemmers with me, and, most famously, P Innes with David Kane.
And naturally must attack the question and the
> questioner, since he must be concerned over what people would make of it!
>
> On another occasion I went just a little deeper into the syntax of the FSS,
> and suggested that it was in American idiom and by a native speaker.
I've examined many of the posts and I humbly suggest English was not
the first language of the FSS. Of course, as Mike Murray points out,
that could be an act.
> Profiling that with both Sloan and Truong is another interesting measure of
> comparison. Brennan showed up to try and squelch that issue too - you would
> almost think that wider comparison was something he wanted to subvert, no?
No, not at all. If Donald Foster wants to stop by and 'profile' the
FSS, I would be happy to see his work. But Foster's record in such
identification is worlds better than yours.
> I often mix up other posters, since so very many of them don't sign their
> names, plus also the snip and cut brigade admix one thing with another.
There are other reasons you mix up people.
But
> let us not divert with Brennan.
>
> I WONDER WHY?
>
> I wonder who Brennan thinks of all posters here, is the closest to the FSS?
P Innes and Rob Mitchell. After all, they've worked with him.
> He is at some disadvantage in not reading that material when it was at its
> hottest, since he was absent at the time... but :)
>
> But textual analysis is a more advanced subject than the one I raised above,
> which is simply to do with spotting the swear-words and associated crapulous
> terminologies which Sloan does not use, and counting.
You still don't know the meaning of "crapulous", do you?
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Mar 2008 16:51:22
From: Chess One
Subject: End Game, the FSS
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:a1f98a3e-7968-4be1-82a1-92ad5740db86@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On 14, 9:08 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4d83e444-50af-4643-b9a1-56230e709b91@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On 14, 7:10 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> Here again is the issue, if you can tell the difference it is satire,
>> >> so...
>>
>> > No, it isn't. I can tell the difference between your posts and those
>> > of a sane man. That doesn't make your posts satiric.
>>
>> Neil Brennan avoids the question, and instead makesFSS-like comments!
>> ;)))
>
> The fact you think my prose reads at all like the semi-literate
> 'English as a second language' spewing of the FSS tells the world you
> are not only tone-deaf, but blind as well.
Ah - here is something for the Watchers to note. Brennan thinks the FSS has
English as a second language, while I assert that the English is the same as
his own. Notably, Neil Brennan does not say he states his opinion, and I do
not need to say why, since I am content that any first language American
speaker can figure it out for themselves.
But why does Brennan suggest otherwise ')))
>> The very odd thing about any investigation which /refuses/ to look at
>> priy evidence, which /is/ available to review, is how shy certain
>> people
>> are of doing so. This rather casts their own 'investigation' into the
>> shadows.
>
> Priy evidence are the newsgroup postings.
An idiocy. Those are by way of another's reporting. Brennan pretends he
doesn't know that priy reporting is via his own wit. Priy reportinig
is FIRST HAND EVIDENCE.
BUT, this is only a pretence of idiocy on his part, no? not a real
indication that he is a nitwit.
Priy evidence would be if you could tell satire or not, eg.
> I recall someone by the
> name of Brian Mottershead looked at them. Perhaps you've read his
> report?
>
>> > The question is, of all the FSS material can you [personally] tell the
>> >> FSS from the Sloan?
>>
>> > Is there an example of P Innes replying to the "FSS" as if it were the
>> > "RSS?" There are plenty of examples of P Innes mixing up other
>> > posters.
>>
>> There we have proof that Neil Brennan refuses /to look/ at the issue, and
>> diverts like Mike Murray.
>
> It's not a diversion to question your judgment, since you are
> notorious for mixing up posters - Dowd with Tapper, "seaker" and Matt
> Nemmers with me, and, most famously, P Innes with David Kane.
By whose recording? Brennan's?
ROFL.
Brennan cannot, will not, answer the question, so of course must resort to
trashing the quesitoner and attempting diversions. What it new about this in
his 5 year history of appearance here?
Brennan is such an authority that he avoids the question if he, as first
language American, can tell another who is the same, by the gigantic give
away factor of swear words. FUCKING HELL! Get it?
This is not an innocent representation by Brennan = who wants to SINK this
issue of who is most like the FSS. I wonder why that is ;)()
Get it, dear reader?
> And naturally must attack the question and the
>> questioner, since he must be concerned over what people would make of it!
>>
>> On another occasion I went just a little deeper into the syntax of the
>> FSS,
>> and suggested that it was in American idiom and by a native speaker.
>
> I've examined many of the posts and I humbly suggest English was not
> the first language of the FSS. Of course, as Mike Murray points out,
> that could be an act.
An obfustication! Brennan says 'many', Murray says 'some' neither of these
facetious clowns say how many is some, instead they speculate on further
acting - that Sam Slaon would slight himself by malignant self-satire to
gain sympathy for himself.
R
O
F
L
!
!
What I, Phil Innes, think, is that the person most like the FSS is here in
this very newsgroup, remonstrating on such as 'some' and 'many' and has
always not liked Sloan or Polgar, nor any strong players, certainly not any
wimmin! nor anyone who works with them. This is someone who likes to
use/abuse other people's names, and has as a routine sought to satirise
them.
Any competent person in the English language can tell that the FSS material
is satire, that is, anyone honest who is not a dunce! and furthermore it is
by a native American speaker of English since it lacks any of the tropes and
avoidance phrases used by ESL speakers. 2,500 instances!
These pair of crapulous bozos are not innocent reporters! Think on that,
dear reader. They are invested agents, psychogically or even /incudi
redere/.
---
There have only ever been 2 possible scenarios, that Pual Truong did it, or
he was set up.
After reading the crap from the prosecution who ask the jury to decide
before even any defence is made, I truly think the prosectuion is covering
up the perp, and may even be the perp!
There you have it all. The only difference between the 'sides' who contest
the issue publicly is that some would persecute it here, and some would in a
court with rules of evidence and 2 [not 1] advocates, and that some here may
actually show up in that court, which I sincerely hope they do ~ since if
they think anything else is to occur, they are still, pathetically wrong.
:))
This will bring down USCF for absolute and damn sure, but don't be
hysterical, dear reader, it would have happened anyway, and from this or
other reason.
Phil Innes
>> Profiling that with both Sloan and Truong is another interesting measure
>> of
>> comparison. Brennan showed up to try and squelch that issue too - you
>> would
>> almost think that wider comparison was something he wanted to subvert,
>> no?
>
> No, not at all. If Donald Foster wants to stop by and 'profile' the
> FSS, I would be happy to see his work. But Foster's record in such
> identification is worlds better than yours.
>
>> I often mix up other posters, since so very many of them don't sign their
>> names, plus also the snip and cut brigade admix one thing with another.
>
> There are other reasons you mix up people.
>
> But
>> let us not divert with Brennan.
>>
>> I WONDER WHY?
>>
>> I wonder who Brennan thinks of all posters here, is the closest to the
>> FSS?
>
> P Innes and Rob Mitchell. After all, they've worked with him.
>
>> He is at some disadvantage in not reading that material when it was at
>> its
>> hottest, since he was absent at the time... but :)
>>
>> But textual analysis is a more advanced subject than the one I raised
>> above,
>> which is simply to do with spotting the swear-words and associated
>> crapulous
>> terminologies which Sloan does not use, and counting.
>
> You still don't know the meaning of "crapulous", do you?
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 05:29:53
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On 14, 7:10 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Here again is the issue, if you can tell the difference it is satire,
> so...
No, it isn't. I can tell the difference between your posts and those
of a sane man. That doesn't make your posts satiric.
The question is, of all the FSS material can you [personally] tell the
> FSS from the Sloan?
Is there an example of P Innes replying to the "FSS" as if it were the
"RSS?" There are plenty of examples of P Innes mixing up other
posters.
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 10:08:52
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:4d83e444-50af-4643-b9a1-56230e709b91@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 14, 7:10 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Here again is the issue, if you can tell the difference it is satire,
>> so...
>
> No, it isn't. I can tell the difference between your posts and those
> of a sane man. That doesn't make your posts satiric.
Neil Brennan avoids the question, and instead makesFSS-like comments! ;)))
The very odd thing about any investigation which /refuses/ to look at
priy evidence, which /is/ available to review, is how shy certain people
are of doing so. This rather casts their own 'investigation' into the
shadows.
> The question is, of all the FSS material can you [personally] tell the
>> FSS from the Sloan?
>
> Is there an example of P Innes replying to the "FSS" as if it were the
> "RSS?" There are plenty of examples of P Innes mixing up other
> posters.
There we have proof that Neil Brennan refuses /to look/ at the issue, and
diverts like Mike Murray. And naturally must attack the question and the
questioner, since he must be concerned over what people would make of it!
On another occasion I went just a little deeper into the syntax of the FSS,
and suggested that it was in American idiom and by a native speaker.
Profiling that with both Sloan and Truong is another interesting measure of
comparison. Brennan showed up to try and squelch that issue too - you would
almost think that wider comparison was something he wanted to subvert, no?
I often mix up other posters, since so very many of them don't sign their
names, plus also the snip and cut brigade admix one thing with another. But
let us not divert with Brennan.
I WONDER WHY?
I wonder who Brennan thinks of all posters here, is the closest to the FSS?
He is at some disadvantage in not reading that material when it was at its
hottest, since he was absent at the time... but :)
But textual analysis is a more advanced subject than the one I raised above,
which is simply to do with spotting the swear-words and associated crapulous
terminologies which Sloan does not use, and counting.
Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 14:47:50
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On 13, 4:17=A0pm, Louis Blair <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 11, 5:42=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > See if you can understand this,
>
> > =A0 =A0 You can tell by inclusion of swear words that its not Sloan <rig=
ht? >
> > ...
>
> _
> Does Phil Innes claim that this is a FSS post?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/e15216262...
I had forgotten this post. I think it is an example of a real Mohammed
Sloan post.
But he Sloan does swear, does that make it more likely that he faked
himself?
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 14:59:30
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On Thu, 13 2008 14:47:50 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:
>On 13, 4:17�pm, Louis Blair <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 11, 5:42�pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > See if you can understand this,
>> > � � You can tell by inclusion of swear words that its not Sloan <right?>
>> Does Phil Innes claim that this is a FSS post?
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/e15216262...
>I had forgotten this post. I think it is an example of a real Mohammed
>Sloan post.
>But he Sloan does swear, does that make it more likely that he faked
>himself?
While it's gratifying to see Phil, as it were, hoist by his own
canard, it really doesn't make much difference. A faker could play
it either way. Phil never presented anything indicating that Sloan
couldn't swear if he chose to.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 14:17:29
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On 11, 5:42=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> ...
> See if you can understand this,
>
> =A0 =A0 You can tell by inclusion of swear words that its not Sloan <right=
? >
> ...
_
Does Phil Innes claim that this is a FSS post?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/e152162625f82e50=
?hl=3Den
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 08:10:15
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
"Louis Blair" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:ef030a95-83af-4c12-8af0-10e7250cd010@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On 11, 5:42 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> ...
> See if you can understand this,
>
> You can tell by inclusion of swear words that its not Sloan <right?>
> ...
_
Does Phil Innes claim that this is a FSS post?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/e152162625f82e50?hl=en
Look! Here's Louis to immediately become confused, and share it!
The question is, of all the FSS material can you [personally] tell the FSS
from the Sloan?
That has proved to be not a difficult question to answer, since people avoid
the question and talk all over the shop about further sophistications of the
posted material, including from Murray the idea that Sloan faked himself by
adding swearwords.
In that spirit of things, Louis shows up and wishes to argue by exception,
or his famous 'selections'.
:)))
Here again is the issue, if you can tell the difference it is satire,
so...The question is, of all the FSS material can you [personally] tell the
FSS from the Sloan?
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 07:16:58
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On Fri, 14 2008 08:10:15 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Look! Here's Louis to immediately become confused, and share it!
>The question is, of all the FSS material can you [personally] tell the FSS
>from the Sloan?
>That has proved to be not a difficult question to answer, since people avoid
>the question and talk all over the shop about further sophistications of the
>posted material, including from Murray the idea that Sloan faked himself by
>adding swearwords.
It's not a difficult question to answer. It's misleading.
Does the question mean, "someone who regularly follows rgc* and who is
reasonably familiar with Sloan's website, and who is alert about
checking metadata on posts, can that person distinguish the FSS' posts
from the RSS', Gordon's and others' posts"?
When directed *personally* to Blair, or to me, this is the real
meaning of the question.
It's worth nothing that the RSS felt obliged to respond to many of the
FSS posts warning the reader about the fake. It the difference were
all that obvious, it's hard to see why he would have done that.
BTW, the fact that your textual analysis doesn't address the
*possibility* of Sloan faking himself and deliberately adding some
swear words as cover demonstrates the weakness of your analysis. It
doesn't mean I believe Sloan faked himself.
>In that spirit of things, Louis shows up and wishes to argue by exception,
>or his famous 'selections'.
Just as analogy can put a problem in perspective, the exception is
useful in deflating claims of universality.
>Here again is the issue, if you can tell the difference it is satire,
>so...The question is, of all the FSS material can you [personally] tell the
>FSS from the Sloan?
Can the watch dealer identify the fake Rolex ?
If I call a number of people randomly on the phone and pretend to be
Phil Innes, does the fact that Phil's family and friends can tell by
the voice that the call is fraudulent lessen my deception?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 15 Mar 2008 15:44:55
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 14 2008 08:10:15 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Look! Here's Louis to immediately become confused, and share it!
>>The question is, of all the FSS material can you [personally] tell the FSS
>>from the Sloan?
>
>>That has proved to be not a difficult question to answer, since people
>>avoid
>>the question and talk all over the shop about further sophistications of
>>the
>>posted material, including from Murray the idea that Sloan faked himself
>>by
>>adding swearwords.
>
> It's not a difficult question to answer. It's misleading.
Murray jumps in to avoid Blair having to answer, and says 'its misleading'
but not to whom? Murray raised the issue of satire, and when asked if he
could tell satire, avoided the issue. ROFL!
If Murray can't answer the question, what is he doing here intercepting the
same question to Blair?
That is the importance of this question, and such as Murray and Help-Sot and
Brennan and Dr. Jimminy Crikkit from Chesscafe, cannot, will not, notice the
issue.
All Murray does is try to subvert ANY other question of who the FSS is, and
this is example #49. You'd think he had some horse in this race, no?
Meanwhile, the fantasical mind of Dr. Blair considers how to answer a
straight question without appearing to be a twit.
Phil Innes
> Does the question mean, "someone who regularly follows rgc* and who is
> reasonably familiar with Sloan's website, and who is alert about
> checking metadata on posts, can that person distinguish the FSS' posts
> from the RSS', Gordon's and others' posts"?
>
> When directed *personally* to Blair, or to me, this is the real
> meaning of the question.
>
> It's worth nothing that the RSS felt obliged to respond to many of the
> FSS posts warning the reader about the fake. It the difference were
> all that obvious, it's hard to see why he would have done that.
>
> BTW, the fact that your textual analysis doesn't address the
> *possibility* of Sloan faking himself and deliberately adding some
> swear words as cover demonstrates the weakness of your analysis. It
> doesn't mean I believe Sloan faked himself.
>
>>In that spirit of things, Louis shows up and wishes to argue by exception,
>>or his famous 'selections'.
>
> Just as analogy can put a problem in perspective, the exception is
> useful in deflating claims of universality.
>
>>Here again is the issue, if you can tell the difference it is satire,
>>so...The question is, of all the FSS material can you [personally] tell
>>the
>>FSS from the Sloan?
>
> Can the watch dealer identify the fake Rolex ?
>
> If I call a number of people randomly on the phone and pretend to be
> Phil Innes, does the fact that Phil's family and friends can tell by
> the voice that the call is fraudulent lessen my deception?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2008 13:46:36
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On Sat, 15 2008 15:44:55 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>If Murray can't answer the question, what is he doing here intercepting the
>same question to Blair?
I've answered it several times. And explained several times why the
question is overly simplistic and meaningless without considering
context.
Phil would like to trumpet that if *anyone* can distinguish a RSS post
from a FSS posts, the answer somehow applies to *everyone*.
Which is why Phil resolutely turns his eyes from the host of analogies
that highlight how ridiculous is the inference he'd like to draw from
having an rgc* regular answer his question.
Can a jeweler identify the fake Rolex? If so, implies Phil, the guy
selling them is merely making a whimsical statement on timepieces.
Can a bank teller identify the counterfeit twenty? If so, the hapless
7-11 clerk just accepted a satire on the currency.
P Innes' McCarthy-like bullying, demanding that one answer the
question "personally" and leave it at that (as if he's conducting a
cross-examination at a trial) reveals that, deep down, for all his
thick-headedness, he realizes the fundamental dishonesty of his
question.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2008 19:16:50
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 15 2008 15:44:55 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>If Murray can't answer the question, what is he doing here intercepting
>>the
>>same question to Blair?
>
> I've answered it several times. And explained several times why the
> question is overly simplistic and meaningless without considering
> context.
>
> Phil would like to trumpet that if *anyone*
No Murray, for the umpteenth time, it is you, your perception! And for the
umpteenth time you display what you would like me to be, rather than what I
put to you. As such, you are a miserable interpreter of any subject.
If you can't even repeat the question to which you respond, then you are a
what? You sort-of dismiss the questions, but are caught here, since other
readers will not dismiss it, no matter how many times you repeat your
aversion to plain facts, and declare them 'meaningless'. I presume you mean
to you, and such 'overly simplistic' material such as the plainest of facts
is not to your liking:?
The question is NOT if a bank teller can tell a counterfiet twenty, but it
Murray or Spinrad, whatever their precedents, will even LOOK at the 'twenty'
to assess if there isn't a picure of Mickey Mouse on it instead of a dead
president.
That's all. :))
PI
> can distinguish a RSS post
> from a FSS posts, the answer somehow applies to *everyone*.
>
> Which is why Phil resolutely turns his eyes from the host of analogies
> that highlight how ridiculous is the inference he'd like to draw from
> having an rgc* regular answer his question.
>
> Can a jeweler identify the fake Rolex? If so, implies Phil, the guy
> selling them is merely making a whimsical statement on timepieces.
>
> Can a bank teller identify the counterfeit twenty? If so, the hapless
> 7-11 clerk just accepted a satire on the currency.
>
> P Innes' McCarthy-like bullying, demanding that one answer the
> question "personally" and leave it at that (as if he's conducting a
> cross-examination at a trial) reveals that, deep down, for all his
> thick-headedness, he realizes the fundamental dishonesty of his
> question.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 14:27:35
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On Thu, 13 2008 14:17:29 -0700 (PDT), Louis Blair
<[email protected] > wrote:
>On 11, 5:42�pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...
>> See if you can understand this,
>>
>> � � You can tell by inclusion of swear words that its not Sloan <right?>
>> ...
>
>_
>Does Phil Innes claim that this is a FSS post?
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/e152162625f82e50?hl=en
Hey, it's totally unfair to counter Innes' diatribes with FACTS! But
good catch.
Let's see how long it takes him to change the subject.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Mar 2008 09:03:19
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 13 2008 14:17:29 -0700 (PDT), Louis Blair
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 11, 5:42 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> See if you can understand this,
>>>
>>> You can tell by inclusion of swear words that its not Sloan <right?>
>>> ...
>>
>>_
>>Does Phil Innes claim that this is a FSS post?
>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/e152162625f82e50?hl=en
>
> Hey, it's totally unfair to counter Innes' diatribes with FACTS! But
> good catch.
>
> Let's see how long it takes him to change the subject.
As you see Mike, I keep my own subject going, which is a DIRECT response to
challenges made to me about the use of the word satire. Although people can
accuse me of being false, they cannot themselves seem bothered to look at
the same thing I did. They put their names to a charge, but when it comes
down to it, they dunno themselves ;)
I believe this current diversion, which is an attempt to argue by a singular
exception, is a sort of desperation measure, absurd on its face.
The reason to subvert the whole idea of Satire is OF COURSE that it would
identify or profile the sort of person who can ACHIEVE satire.
:)))
Which is another Taboo subject among the brave procecutors!
Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 13:31:45
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Two Questions was Re: 20 Questions
|
On 11, 2:18=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 11 2008 14:35:19 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >>>so was the fss material satire? that is the question
> >> No, that was NOT the question.
> >Do you mean it was not THE question?
>
> It was just the first question. =A0I said I wasn't going to let you
> gambol off on more rabbit trails until we'd =A0dealt with your first
> untrue claim. =A0So far, your attempts at ducking,dodging and
> obfuscation haven't fooled anybody, AFAIK.
>
> >> You said PT had been "accused" of satire. =A0No one *accused* him of
> >> satire. =A0You may argue that what he wrote was satire.
> >I may /not/ argue it, I can plain say so!
>
> That you "plain say so" is not in dispute. =A0What is in dispute is the
> truth of what you say. =A0Anyway, the particular untruth with which we
> were dealing was your claim that PT had been *accused* of satire.
>
> > =A0 =A0ONE QUESTION
> >When asked if Murray himself could tell it was satire he replied
> >'sometimes'. And sometimes as we know is not never, and not always. That'=
s
> >as close as Mike Murray could get to answering anything. Sometimes is 10%=
of
> >the time, and sometimes sometimes is 90%.
>
> And sometimes "sometimes" is irrelevant. =A0Example: =A0some dude's been
> accused of assault. =A0His apologist twitters, "Sometimes he gave her
> flowers". =A0The accuser says, "Sometimes he hit her on the head with a
> hammer. ". =A0Think the judge will split hairs on percentages? 10%? 90%?
> Who cares?
>
> >Now, who is trivializing anything here?
>
> Well, Phil Innes, =A0of course.
>
> > =A0 =A0T'OTHER QUESTION
> >That was, since Sloan doesn't swear, how often did swear words appear in =
the
> >FSS material? While Murray is content to repeat suppositions from yet oth=
er
> >people, I thought this would actually allow him to not suppose anything,
> >since he could review the actual material itself, and count em!
Thats Right Phil, to SLoans credit is is verbally cautious. If the FSS
had truely been interestated in an accouate impersonation they would
not have ascribed a trait to Sloan that does not exist. Implying he
swears in his posts is like saying he has high moral standards.
> Phil, it's not wise to keep bringing up this idiotic example of your
> textual "analysis". =A0It cuts whatever shred of credibility you might
> have left. =A0Don't =A0you think a poster who is trying to fake out the
> audience could add a little swearing to disguise himself? =A0Or add some
> grammatical or spelling errors to disguise himself? =A0
Mike,
Here it sounds as if you are trying to make a case that Sloan
impersonated himself.
> >Even a sample count would be interesting, no?
>
> No.
>
> >But no - that would be work, and actually provide Answers to Questions,
>
> Yes, it would be work, just as counting the grains of sand in an
> hourglass would be work. =A0And, if done thoroughly and well, it would
> answer the question as to how many swear words were in the set of
> posts commonly ascribed to the FSS.
>
> And other than that, utterly without significance.
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 20:33:09
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Two Questions was Re: 20 Questions
|
"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 11, 2:18 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 11 2008 14:35:19 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >>>so was the fss material satire? that is the question
> >> No, that was NOT the question.
> >Do you mean it was not THE question?
>
> It was just the first question. I said I wasn't going to let you
> gambol off on more rabbit trails until we'd dealt with your first
> untrue claim. So far, your attempts at ducking,dodging and
> obfuscation haven't fooled anybody, AFAIK.
>
> >> You said PT had been "accused" of satire. No one *accused* him of
> >> satire. You may argue that what he wrote was satire.
> >I may /not/ argue it, I can plain say so!
>
> That you "plain say so" is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the
> truth of what you say. Anyway, the particular untruth with which we
> were dealing was your claim that PT had been *accused* of satire.
>
> > ONE QUESTION
> >When asked if Murray himself could tell it was satire he replied
> >'sometimes'. And sometimes as we know is not never, and not always.
> >That's
> >as close as Mike Murray could get to answering anything. Sometimes is 10%
> >of
> >the time, and sometimes sometimes is 90%.
>
> And sometimes "sometimes" is irrelevant. Example: some dude's been
> accused of assault. His apologist twitters, "Sometimes he gave her
> flowers". The accuser says, "Sometimes he hit her on the head with a
> hammer. ". Think the judge will split hairs on percentages? 10%? 90%?
> Who cares?
>
> >Now, who is trivializing anything here?
>
> Well, Phil Innes, of course.
>
> > T'OTHER QUESTION
> >That was, since Sloan doesn't swear, how often did swear words appear in
> >the
> >FSS material? While Murray is content to repeat suppositions from yet
> >other
> >people, I thought this would actually allow him to not suppose anything,
> >since he could review the actual material itself, and count em!
Thats Right Phil, to SLoans credit is is verbally cautious. If the FSS
had truely been interestated in an accouate impersonation they would
not have ascribed a trait to Sloan that does not exist. Implying he
swears in his posts is like saying he has high moral standards.
**This is merely the most obvious aspect to any plain dealer. It is hardly
subtle, well... but neither is the attack!
> Phil, it's not wise to keep bringing up this idiotic example of your
> textual "analysis". It cuts whatever shred of credibility you might
> have left. Don't you think a poster who is trying to fake out the
> audience could add a little swearing to disguise himself? Or add some
> grammatical or spelling errors to disguise himself?
Mike,
Here it sounds as if you are trying to make a case that Sloan
impersonated himself.
**As much as I know that this would be massively out of character for Paul
Truong, I admit the exact same thing of Sam Sloan. The problem, Rob
Mitchell, is that these presentations of plain logic, observation over
years, in and out of stressful situations, are not of the slightest
'evidential' interest to some people. Presenting their own fallacies and
obsessional emotional responses to them is not to their interest either.
**They really don't care. But because they write as they do, there is pain
in them, its just that they can't own their own opinions, nevermind say what
actually irks them, which to speak their mind [they can't themselves] is a
general sense of betrayal. That is their pain, and they want to get someone
for it. I reject out of hand any idea on behalf of these folks that they
have some sympathy for Sloan's life and works, which is a similar bi-polar
revenge-triumphing on the egoic level of things.
**This has naught to do with chess for anyone else at all.
Phil Innes
> >Even a sample count would be interesting, no?
>
> No.
>
> >But no - that would be work, and actually provide Answers to Questions,
>
> Yes, it would be work, just as counting the grains of sand in an
> hourglass would be work. And, if done thoroughly and well, it would
> answer the question as to how many swear words were in the set of
> posts commonly ascribed to the FSS.
>
> And other than that, utterly without significance.
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 16:17:59
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Two Questions was Re: 20 Questions
|
On Tue, 11 2008 13:31:45 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> Phil, it's not wise to keep bringing up this idiotic example of your
>> textual "analysis". �It cuts whatever shred of credibility you might
>> have left. �Don't �you think a poster who is trying to fake out the
>> audience could add a little swearing to disguise himself? �Or add some
>> grammatical or spelling errors to disguise himself? �
>Mike,
>Here it sounds as if you are trying to make a case that Sloan
>impersonated himself.
Some have made that claim. I believe Phil offered it as a possibility
at least once.
But, no, I'm emphatically not making that claim. I'm just saying that
Phil's textual "analysis" of swear words in the FSS' posts versus
their absence in the RSS' posts doesn't prove anything. If Sloan had
been faking himself, he could easily have done that to throw people
off the track. If someone wanted to make the posts appear as if
written by someone for whom English was not a first language, a few
subtle grammatical errors could be been tossed in. If someone for
whom English was not a first language wanted to disguise the fact,
that person could have run the posts through a style checker,
carefully inserted some slang etc.
I'm not saying any of these things actually happened. Just that their
possibility precludes any primitive style check analysis such as Phil
attempted.
The fact that many of the posts copied large chunks of material with
only a few words added or deleted makes a style analysis even more
difficult.
Could a stylistic analysis give us any information? Possibly. AFAIK,
there are some very sophisticated software-driven tools out there that
may spot usage patterns in the FSS posts which would correlate with
usage patterns in some known person's posting. But these would be a
lot more subtle than the stuff Phil has presented.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 09:20:17
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:a8dd365d-d96b-4263-af7d-69f1ab29336b@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> CONDONING PAUL TRUONG
cutting to the quick:-
> Surely even Parr is not so dim as to be unable to grasp that there is a
> difference between an anonymous
> post and posting 1000s of obscene posts in the name of others. For Rob to
> condone such
> behavior is noteworthy.
As with another instance this week, where Mike Murray does not apologise for
changing my 'some to 'all' I must conclude that MM is content with that sort
of lie, or that he can't read. In this instance David Kane, who previously
did the same to LP as MM did to me, insists on his word 'condone', but is
shy of presenting any reason for doing so.
> His rationale for giving Truong a pass in face of overwhelming,
> not seriously contested evidence is not the least bit interesting.
David Kane is not the least interested in how uncompelling the
'overwhelming, not seriously contested evidence' might seem to others. It
does not occur to him that most people will want to hear two sides of any
issue, and the reason to not contest is thereby twofold: (a) its not worth
contesting, and (b) attempts at discussion are rubbished.
Is it fair to say that the likes of Kane and Murray do not 'condone' letting
others make up their own fully informed minds? I think so!
> It seems odd that Parr (who seems to profess
> various libertarian positions without understanding them) would adopt
> Rob's latest position
> that misconduct can only be said to occur after the State has proven a
> case in a court of law. But
> intellectual consistency is not these folks' strong suit.
Nor exposition yours, Mr. Kane. For example what is not consistent about
your own paraphrase? Perhaps consistency lies only in being accused, without
any rules of evidence and without an impartial jurer assessing that, and
also that no jury should attend and render their own opinion.
For I can tell Mr. Kane that his p.o.v. is consistent with a kangaroo court
or a show-trial on MacCarthy lines.
> But since Parr has raised the issue of lying, and thrown me into an
> alliance with Taylor Kingston,
> how does he rationalize his own lie that Taylor Kingston lied about his
> rating? Recall that
> Kingston gave not only his (correspondence) rating, but also his ranking,
> and taken together
> those are a clear, unambiguous statement that the rating was *not* an OTB
> rating. Yet Parr's
> lie, repeated at least hundreds of times in this newsgroup, is that
> Kingston was representing
> his rating as being OTB.
That would be a very fair point indeed, if only TK had not written "ELO" and
had on being challenged said right away that his USCF OTB rating was 1900.
But a good try by David Kane at what's fair and what not in any argument.
The issue at hand is a bit more serious than kiting your chess rating, and
therefore more formal and established means are necessary to resolve them.
How odd that Larry Parr on one side of the Sloan advocacy issue, and I [and
Rob Mitchell] on the other, should all agree with each other on the proper
level of investigation, and eshew less.
Phil Innes
> I do not condone (look the word up, please!) Parr's dishonest behavior.
> I condemn it.
>
>
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 16:41:47
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
Chess One wrote:
>David Kane is not the least interested in how uncompelling
>the 'overwhelming, not seriously contested evidence' might
>seem to others.
Nor should he be. What matters is the strenth of the evidence
itself, not how someone feels about it. I posted my analysis
of the evidence and asked for anyone who could find a hole in
my logic to do so. Nobody, including you, has found a flaw
in the chain of reasoning that led me to conclude that the FSS
posts came from the same physical location as the Truong posts.
I have no reason to be biased against Truong, and many reasons
to be biased against Sloan, but the evidence is what it is, and
what it is is [A] overwhelming, and [B] not seriously contested.
I again ask you and anyone else here to please knock holes in my
analysis if they can.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 16:09:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>>David Kane is not the least interested in how uncompelling
>>the 'overwhelming, not seriously contested evidence' might
>>seem to others.
>
> Nor should he be.
Who ha! A moral imperative for Guy. I wonder why Guy thinks Kane should
think that other opinion is dissmissable?
> What matters is the strenth of the evidence
> itself, not how someone feels about it. I posted my analysis
> of the evidence and asked for anyone who could find a hole in
> my logic to do so.
We seem, absent logic, to be skipping subjects here from those who think the
'evidence' not so compelling to the irrefutable logic of Guy Macon, who
fails to note that Kane's topic is just one side of things. Sure, one can be
'logical' about singular perspectives, yet is one sane in proposing that
this is the /only/ perspective?
We do not know if this poster will apply his logic, or even his attention to
any other perspective.
> Nobody, including you, has found a flaw
> in the chain of reasoning that led me to conclude that the FSS
> posts came from the same physical location as the Truong posts.
Surely I didn't mention any flaw, since I never addressed the subject.
> I have no reason to be biased against Truong, and many reasons
> to be biased against Sloan, but the evidence is what it is, and
> what it is is [A] overwhelming, and [B] not seriously contested.
The evidence is of one side only, no?
> I again ask you and anyone else here to please knock holes in my
> analysis if they can.
You are too pleased with your logic to notice its basis is partial on what
/you/ chose to be logical about.
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 03:45:50
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
Chess One (Phil Innes) wrote:
>I wonder why Guy thinks Kane should think that other opinion
>is dissmissable?
Because all opinions are dissmissable when evidence is available.
Truth isn't something we vote on. What matters is the strenth of
the evidence itself, not how someone feels about it.
>We seem, absent logic, to be skipping subjects here from those
>who think the 'evidence' not so compelling
I have repeatedly asked for the reasoning behind the above
opinion. What about the evidence do you find not compelling?
I and two independent experts came to the same conclusion.
*WHY* do you think that that conclusion is wrong?
>to the irrefutable logic of Guy Macon,
My logic is not irrefutable, but it is sound.
>who fails to note that Kane's topic is just one side of things.
>Sure, one can be 'logical' about singular perspectives, yet is
>one sane in proposing that this is the /only/ perspective?
Please respond to what was actually claimed, not to a straw man.
I never wrote that nobody else has any other opinion/perspective.
I merely noted that those who have other opinions/perspectives
have, so far, failed to present a logical argument based upon
evidence. I even made specific note that Truong himself claims
to have evidence that he has not revealed and that my conclusions
may change depending on waht, if any, evidence he has.
>We do not know if this poster will apply his logic, or even
>his attention to any other perspective.
Give me some evidence and I will analyse it. Give me a line
of logical reasoning and I will evaluate its soundness.
>The evidence is of one side only, no?
I can only analyse the evidence presented. Nobody, including
you, has presented any other evidence.
>You are too pleased with your logic to notice its basis is
>partial on what /you/ chose to be logical about.
Again I say, I have analysed all the evidence presented by
either side. It's not my fault that one side refuses to
present any.
By the way, personal attacks and sarcasm do not strengthen your
arguments. Rather the contrary, actually.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 09:55:29
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> Chess One (Phil Innes) wrote:
>
>>I wonder why Guy thinks Kane should think that other opinion
>>is dissmissable?
>
> Because all opinions are dissmissable when evidence is available.
> Truth isn't something we vote on. What matters is the strenth of
> the evidence itself, not how someone feels about it.
I agree with your conclusions, but in order to evaluate what evidence has
'strength' we should not 'dismiss' it, no? We should instead qualify it.
>>We seem, absent logic, to be skipping subjects here from those
>>who think the 'evidence' not so compelling
>
> I have repeatedly asked for the reasoning behind the above
> opinion. What about the evidence do you find not compelling?
(a) That it is not all the evidence. And more pertinently, (b) some of the
people professing this evidence seem to have rekably similar orientations
to the FSS himself.
> I and two independent experts came to the same conclusion.
> *WHY* do you think that that conclusion is wrong?
Actually, more independent experts than that have been engaged with this
material, including the first 2 USCF hired. They did not come to that
conclusion.
And secondly, the frame of the question put to independent experts is to ask
them to decide upon probability, rather than certainty of Truong's
involvement.
If I framed a non-leading question to any 'independent' [and are they
really? experts, I would ask them to investigate "who is the FSS". That
would a frame which would include the potential culpability of Truong and
also the potential stiching up of Truong.
What any truly independent investigation must take account of is both
possibilities, right?
If the same independent experts have access to the information that we know
USCF are witholding - I got them to admit it - what would they conclude
then? With all the information, could they tell for certain?
And that's it! I don't have a bigger view than that - and because //like
everyone else// I literally don't know the half of it, then I simply
withhold my judgement until I do! More than that, so that everyone can
fairly assess 'who is clean and who is not'.
I do not want to anticipate your response, yet it does seem to me that your
certainties below do not accommodate my perspectives above - and are
therefore partial ones, and a truly independent investigation will need to
attend to more than that.
Otherwise you might as well admit that your investigation is into Paul
Truong, and he you can't prove anything, you lack any further interest.
That is not my orientation. Fromt he get-go I have said the same thing. I am
interested in investigating the FSS, whoever that is.
The difference between these two stances is not subtle.
Cordially, Phil Innes
>>to the irrefutable logic of Guy Macon,
>
> My logic is not irrefutable, but it is sound.
>
>>who fails to note that Kane's topic is just one side of things.
>>Sure, one can be 'logical' about singular perspectives, yet is
>>one sane in proposing that this is the /only/ perspective?
>
> Please respond to what was actually claimed, not to a straw man.
> I never wrote that nobody else has any other opinion/perspective.
> I merely noted that those who have other opinions/perspectives
> have, so far, failed to present a logical argument based upon
> evidence. I even made specific note that Truong himself claims
> to have evidence that he has not revealed and that my conclusions
> may change depending on waht, if any, evidence he has.
>
>>We do not know if this poster will apply his logic, or even
>>his attention to any other perspective.
>
> Give me some evidence and I will analyse it. Give me a line
> of logical reasoning and I will evaluate its soundness.
>
>>The evidence is of one side only, no?
>
> I can only analyse the evidence presented. Nobody, including
> you, has presented any other evidence.
>
>>You are too pleased with your logic to notice its basis is
>>partial on what /you/ chose to be logical about.
>
> Again I say, I have analysed all the evidence presented by
> either side. It's not my fault that one side refuses to
> present any.
>
> By the way, personal attacks and sarcasm do not strengthen your
> arguments. Rather the contrary, actually.
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 15:56:03
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
Chess One wrote:
>That it is not all the evidence.
Provide me with this additional evidence and I will give
it a fair analysis.
>more independent experts than that have been engaged with this
>material, including the first 2 USCF hired. They did not come
>to that conclusion.
Show me where I can access the conclusions of these other
experts and I will give them a fair analysis.
>'independent' [and are they really? experts,
Yes. They are.
>If the same independent experts have access to the information
>that we know USCF are witholding
They, like me, have only analysed the information available.
>With all the information, could they tell for certain?
Nobody can say for sure what the results of an analysis of
unknown information will be. All any of us can do is to
analyse the information that is available.
>I don't have a bigger view than that - and because //like
>everyone else// I literally don't know the half of it, then I simply
>withhold my judgement until I do! More than that, so that everyone can
>fairly assess 'who is clean and who is not'.
There is a problem with the above. It makes it impossible to
analyse anything that someone deosn't want to be analysed. All
they have to do is to claim to have additional information that
they are withholding, and then sit back as you refuse to examine
the information that *is* available.
>I do not want to anticipate your response, yet it does seem to
>me that your certainties below do not accommodate my perspectives
>above
As I have repeatedly told you, I don't care about anyone's
perspectives. All I care about is evidence and logic. Truth
is not determined by taking a vote. I don't accommodate.
I analyse.
> - and are therefore partial ones,
Following the data available is the opposite of being partial.
>and a truly independent investigation will need to attend
>to more than that.
I cannot "attend to" information that someone is withholding.
>Otherwise you might as well admit that your investigation
>is into Paul Truong,
My ANALYSIS (note: Analysis is not the same as investigation)
was of all data provided by both sides.
>you can't prove anything,
I stand by the results of my analysis. I believe it to be
sound. I am, of course, open to evidence or logic showing
errors in it. I invite you, or anyone else here, to show
me any such evidence or logic.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 12:37:48
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>If the same independent experts have access to the information
>>that we know USCF are witholding
>
> They, like me, have only analysed the information available.
>
>>With all the information, could they tell for certain?
>
> Nobody can say for sure what the results of an analysis of
> unknown information will be. All any of us can do is to
> analyse the information that is available.
Exactly so, Mr. Macon.
But actually the danger is not in analysis of the information - the danger
is concluding on partial information <right? > without even knowing how
partial it is.
>>I don't have a bigger view than that - and because //like
>>everyone else// I literally don't know the half of it, then I simply
>>withhold my judgement until I do! More than that, so that everyone can
>>fairly assess 'who is clean and who is not'.
>
> There is a problem with the above. It makes it impossible to
> analyse anything that someone deosn't want to be analysed.
Let us name our pronouns: The problem is whose? And the someone is... as we
know, USCF.
so :: there is a problem for /someone/ because it is impossible to analyse
what is kept out of the light of day
> All
> they have to do is to claim to have additional information that
> they are withholding, and then sit back as you refuse to examine
> the information that *is* available.
>
>>I do not want to anticipate your response, yet it does seem to
>>me that your certainties below do not accommodate my perspectives
>>above
>
> As I have repeatedly told you, I don't care about anyone's
> perspectives.
Yes - you see, I admit that you do not care. But that does not exempt you
from error! Since it is not only analysis you perform, but you conclude on
what you know is partial information - which may not even be the half of it.
I merely note that factor of things, and to such and such an extent discount
conclusions - certainly absolutist ones as we have been reading for months.
> All I care about is evidence and logic. Truth
> is not determined by taking a vote. I don't accommodate.
> I analyse.
>
>> - and are therefore partial ones,
>
> Following the data available is the opposite of being partial.
Concluding on partial data without massive caveat seems to me to be the
issue.
>>and a truly independent investigation will need to attend
>>to more than that.
>
> I cannot "attend to" information that someone is withholding.
You can attend to saying that you have no idea if what you analysed is 10%
or 90%. Is that not a concommitant responsibility if you chose to do more
than analyse, as you do?
You are making conclusions on what is known to be partial, and since
logically you don't know how partial that information is, then should you
not cover your intellectual merit with an equal attention to fairly
representing any epistemiology?
>>Otherwise you might as well admit that your investigation
>>is into Paul Truong,
>
> My ANALYSIS (note: Analysis is not the same as investigation)
> was of all data provided by both sides.
>
>>you can't prove anything,
>
> I stand by the results of my analysis. I believe it to be
> sound. I am, of course, open to evidence or logic showing
> errors in it. I invite you, or anyone else here, to show
> me any such evidence or logic.
You have not understood what you are doing, and in fact are willfully rather
deaf to the fact that you may be analyzing a small part of something, then
concluding on the whole.
Asking for all information is utterly fatuous, since you know that it is
being withheld, from you and from me.
But if you wish to insist on concluding as you do, I can't do anything about
that, except to note that it is partial information, which is what I have
done.
Cordially, Phil Innes
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 06:38:01
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On Sat, 8 2008 09:20:17 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>As with another instance this week, where Mike Murray does not apologise for
>changing my 'some to 'all' I must conclude that MM is content with that sort
>of lie,
Ummmm, Phil, would you mind citing where I changed your "some to
'all'" ??
And I'm asking not for your deconstruction of an argument's subtext
but for an exact quote.
Or, is there no quote but only your interpretation cum hallucination?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 16:02:43
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 8 2008 09:20:17 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>As with another instance this week, where Mike Murray does not apologise
>>for
>>changing my 'some to 'all' I must conclude that MM is content with that
>>sort
>>of lie,
>
> Ummmm, Phil, would you mind citing where I changed your "some to
> 'all'" ??
Was it some or most that you converted to all? And do you dare deny you did?
You reprorbate! - you even cut the thing to which you reply in order to
misrepresent others. The issue was, if you recall your own words, that you
could detect satire 'some' o f the time in the FSS posts, whereas I remeber
I said for myself, 'most'.
And still you blather on... as if you can't think of what you yourself
wrote - which is blatently fase - since you cut the reference. Now Honest
Mike wants me to push it up his nose :)
> And I'm asking not for your deconstruction of an argument's subtext
> but for an exact quote.
>
> Or, is there no quote but only your interpretation cum hallucination?
Thank you Mike Murray, for your fascinating contributions to your own
intelligence on these maters, honesty, decency and so on, and how typical
you are of a certain genre!
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 20:43:24
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Rash Attack, foiled again!
|
On 11, 7:49 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> Rash attack foiled? Been taking Valacyclovir or something, Phil?
Mike, congratulations on having the patience to put up with the
Brattleboro Bedlam's hissing fairy temper-tantrum. And thank you. It's
provoked some of his richest nonsense in a long time.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 13:56:58
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On Sat, 8 2008 16:02:43 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> Ummmm, Phil, would you mind citing where I changed your "some to
>> 'all'" ??
>Was it some or most that you converted to all? And do you dare deny you did?
>You reprorbate! - you even cut the thing to which you reply in order to
>misrepresent others. The issue was, if you recall your own words, that you
>could detect satire 'some' o f the time in the FSS posts, whereas I remeber
>I said for myself, 'most'.
So, you can't cite a quote or provide a link. Why am I not surprised?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 19:21:10
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 8 2008 16:02:43 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Ummmm, Phil, would you mind citing where I changed your "some to
>>> 'all'" ??
>
>>Was it some or most that you converted to all? And do you dare deny you
>>did?
>>You reprorbate! - you even cut the thing to which you reply in order to
>>misrepresent others. The issue was, if you recall your own words, that you
>>could detect satire 'some' o f the time in the FSS posts, whereas I
>>remeber
>>I said for myself, 'most'.
>
> So, you can't cite a quote or provide a link. Why am I not surprised?
Another lie from Murray, who thinks I can't be bothered to repeat the
public obvious statement he made, means can't. And besides, Murray is not
surprised ever about his own orientation to anything, certainly not to just
a few days ago.
Such numbskulls display their wit and integrity here on other people, at
extraordinary length, while being obviously dishonest about even simple
subject :)
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Mar 2008 13:56:59
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub Master level plays like real Master.
|
On 14, 2:55 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> The time Taylor Kingston used to beat Master Level the strength of
> Master Level was very low even lower than current Beginner Level.
>
> Now, GetClub Master level plays like real Master in the Middle game.
> But Now, I think Master Level will play as good as real Master?
>
> Help Bot have you ever tried playing with Master Level at GetClub
> recently. I feel if you do that then Master Levels rating will improve
> a lot. As now I am confident that Master Level will give a strong
> opposition to you.
In order for me to defeat your Master level
now, I would have to adopt anti-computer
strategies, such as hiding behind a wall of
central pawns and waiting for the inevitable
mistakes. I know, for instance, that I can
win theoretically-drawn endings, sometimes
with ease.
But the main reason I don't play the top
levels anymore is that it requires days to
finish, and on top of that, if I get into a
drawn position, I will eventually have to
"resign" to escape the endless loop. If you
want people to play the top levels, you
might want to consider fixing that... .
> In recent game with IVAN, GetClub Normal level was a Bishop up but
> when End Game came it started loosing. I think there need to be
> something done about the end game. Else it will not be able to win
> even after hard earning a Bishop in Middle game.
I can still recall the old tabletop chess
computers by Fidelity, which were all
booked-up in the openings, played the
middle game well due to check and
capture extensions along with trying to
control/occupy the center, yet which
would speed up *dramatically* in the
endgame because they were
programmed to look to a fixed depth.
This made them an easy target in
boring endgame positions, where the
human opponents could focus on
strategy, not tactics.
But your GetClub program is by far the
worst I've ever seen in the endgame. Its
only strength is that the opponent may
decide to "resign" rather than die of old
age repeating the same positions, back
and forth when losing or drawing.
-- help bot
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Mar 2008 07:41:51
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On 14, 9:16 am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> If I call a number of people randomly on the phone and pretend to be
> Phil Innes, does the fact that Phil's family and friends can tell by
> the voice that the call is fraudulent lessen my deception?
NO, Mike NO! DON'T DO IT! That way madness lies. "Lies", of course,
being the most common word to describe P Innes' postings.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 23:55:54
From: Sanny
Subject: GetClub Master level plays like real Master.
|
> > > The fact is that Taylor Kingston has never beaten a master.
>
> > =A0 =A0Really, Sam? How much are you willing to bet on that?
>
> =A0 For the record, beating the Master level
> at GetClub does not count! =A0That is just a
> name, a moniker, for that particular level.
The time Taylor Kingston used to beat Master Level the strength of
Master Level was very low even lower than current Beginner Level.
Now, GetClub Master level plays like real Master in the Middle game.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
But Now, I think Master Level will play as good as real Master?
Help Bot have you ever tried playing with Master Level at GetClub
recently. I feel if you do that then Master Levels rating will improve
a lot. As now I am confident that Master Level will give a strong
opposition to you.
Yes you may be lucky to kill it in the End Game.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
In recent game with IVAN, GetClub Normal level was a Bishop up but
when End Game came it started loosing. I think there need to be
something done about the end game. Else it will not be able to win
even after hard earning a Bishop in Middle game.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 16:45:20
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On 13, 2:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On 13, 12:31 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The fact is that Taylor Kingston has never beaten a master.
>
> Really, Sam? How much are you willing to bet on that?
For the record, beating the Master level
at GetClub does not count! That is just a
name, a moniker, for that particular level.
> Funny, I had not been paying any attention to this thread, thinking
> it was about the Truong/FSS matter, which does not interest me. Then I
> take a look for the first time today, and find you guys are talking
> about me. Well, that's not a subject that interests me much either,
> but I'll be happy to take Sam's money.
>
> Minimum bet is $10,000 American, Sam. Put up or shut up.
That's a lot of mullah. (Why is it that when
people are unable to provide anything of
substance, they always turn to hiding behind
big money demands?)
Mr. Sloan would be well advised to delay
taking this bet as long as possible; soon the
demand for "American" dollars will such that
even ten thousand of them will not amount to
a whole lot. You see, the U.S. government
is spending and printing billions and billions
of dollars almost every day. A couple of
trillion here, a couple of trillion there, and
pretty soon you're talking real money... .
-- help bot
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 16:33:02
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On 13, 12:31 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> If Taylor Kingston ever was a 2300 player or equivalent under any
> rating system, USCF, FIDE, Yahoo, ICC or FICS, he should be able to
> provide the scores of many games, not just one, where he defeated
> masters.
Maybe TK was so strong that all the Experts
and Masters ran from him, ducked him?
Let me tell you, I have seen players take a
bus at 7 am across town, only to enter and
then *withdraw* because they were afraid to
play me! This, in spite of the fact that I have
been playing poorly ever since I got old and
half-blind and forgot everything I ever knew
about the chess openings. It makes no
difference, for the fear of losing feeds upon
itself; it is not rational.
I went to the USCF Web site to check the
apparently idiotic claim that TK has never
been rated higher than SS is now; sure
enough, TK's OTB rating history was quite
limited; it fit on just one page, and he was
and still is a Class A player, at best. Mr.
Sloan is still higher rated OTB, and his
latest results were more recent than TK's.
My theory is that once SS wins his lawsuit
and collects all that money, he will finally be
able to take chess lessons and learn how to
play /real/ chess openings. Soon, he could
become a USCF Expert again, playing say,
the Queen's Gambit instead of the Grob;
Petroff's Defense instead of Damiano's. He
could fly (that's right, in a plane) to Reno
and take lessons from Larry Evans perhaps.
-- help bot
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 11:20:09
From:
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On 13, 12:31=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> The fact is that Taylor Kingston has never beaten a master.
Really, Sam? How much are you willing to bet on that?
Funny, I had not been paying any attention to this thread, thinking
it was about the Truong/FSS matter, which does not interest me. Then I
take a look for the first time today, and find you guys are talking
about me. Well, that's not a subject that interests me much either,
but I'll be happy to take Sam's money.
Minimum bet is $10,000 American, Sam. Put up or shut up.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 09:53:42
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Sloan's Dis Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On 13, 11:31=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 13, 12:09 pm, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > On 12, 12:58 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > >> A satire is something done in the general =A0style of the original.=
=A0Why
> > > >> would a satire deliberately do something out of character?
> > > >Actually, a satire 'sends-up' the original material - it is precisely=
not in
> > > >the style of, but consciously mocking the style of by exagerations an=
d
> > > >lampooing techniques.
>
> > > So to satirize one who doesn't swear, you'd put in a lot of cursing? I=
> > > see. =A0To satirize Whittier, one would write blank verse? =A0To satir=
ize
> > > Sloan's openings, one would play the orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined?=
>
> > P Innes does have a point here. One can argue that one can satirize
> > content instead of form. Still, this is far off the topic, which was P
> > Innes' blatant lie that Truong was accused of satire.
>
> I am right now calling upon Taylor Kingston to provide one game, just
> one, where he ever defeated even a moderately strong player. This game
> can be over-the-board or correspondence.
>
> The strong player does not have to be a master. He can even be a
> middle expert.
>
> If Taylor Kingston ever was a 2300 player or equivalent under any
> rating system, USCF, FIDE, Yahoo, ICC or FICS, he should be able to
> provide the scores of many games, not just one, where he defeated
> masters.
>
> I have issued this challenge before, but no response.
>
> The fact is that Taylor Kingston has never beaten a master.
>
> Sam Sloan
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 09:31:06
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On 13, 12:09 pm, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On 12, 12:58 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> A satire is something done in the general style of the original. Why
> > >> would a satire deliberately do something out of character?
> > >Actually, a satire 'sends-up' the original material - it is precisely not in
> > >the style of, but consciously mocking the style of by exagerations and
> > >lampooing techniques.
>
> > So to satirize one who doesn't swear, you'd put in a lot of cursing? I
> > see. To satirize Whittier, one would write blank verse? To satirize
> > Sloan's openings, one would play the orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined?
>
> P Innes does have a point here. One can argue that one can satirize
> content instead of form. Still, this is far off the topic, which was P
> Innes' blatant lie that Truong was accused of satire.
I am right now calling upon Taylor Kingston to provide one game, just
one, where he ever defeated even a moderately strong player. This game
can be over-the-board or correspondence.
The strong player does not have to be a master. He can even be a
middle expert.
If Taylor Kingston ever was a 2300 player or equivalent under any
rating system, USCF, FIDE, Yahoo, ICC or FICS, he should be able to
provide the scores of many games, not just one, where he defeated
masters.
I have issued this challenge before, but no response.
The fact is that Taylor Kingston has never beaten a master.
Sam Sloan
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 09:09:59
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On 12, 12:58 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> A satire is something done in the general style of the original. Why
> >> would a satire deliberately do something out of character?
> >Actually, a satire 'sends-up' the original material - it is precisely not in
> >the style of, but consciously mocking the style of by exagerations and
> >lampooing techniques.
>
> So to satirize one who doesn't swear, you'd put in a lot of cursing? I
> see. To satirize Whittier, one would write blank verse? To satirize
> Sloan's openings, one would play the orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined?
P Innes does have a point here. One can argue that one can satirize
content instead of form. Still, this is far off the topic, which was P
Innes' blatant lie that Truong was accused of satire.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Mar 2008 08:49:54
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 12, 12:58 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> A satire is something done in the general style of the original. Why
>> >> would a satire deliberately do something out of character?
>
>> >Actually, a satire 'sends-up' the original material - it is precisely
>> >not in
>> >the style of, but consciously mocking the style of by exagerations and
>> >lampooing techniques.
>>
>> So to satirize one who doesn't swear, you'd put in a lot of cursing? I
>> see. To satirize Whittier, one would write blank verse? To satirize
>> Sloan's openings, one would play the orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined?
>
> P Innes does have a point here. One can argue that one can satirize
> content instead of form. Still, this is far off the topic, which was P
> Innes' blatant lie that Truong was accused of satire.
The big lie is that if you can tell its satire, but then accuse someone of
straigh-up impersonation.
When the prosecution are asked if it /is/ satire to them, they go awfully
quiet or start dissembling and making further speculations on /why/ its
satire, or even self-satire [as Murray has done], or retreat into what all,
everybody and nobody thinks.
The lie in that approach is that all, everybody and nobody are not
conducting a prosecution here, and those who are cannot admit that they are,
or even if the personally will look at what evidence there is.
The examples I am asked to aver above are themselves a satire on
intelligence - arguments by scurrilous or elliptical analogy, when no
analogy is necessary - the simple and initial proposition is simply to
account for how many swear words are present in how many posts.
The FUNNY thing is that I have now written that 20 times here, and the
avoidance of a straightforward proposition which even Brennan can understand
is becoming very amusing! :))
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 11:23:51
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On Thu, 13 2008 09:09:59 -0700 (PDT), The Historian
<[email protected] > wrote:
>On 12, 12:58 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> A satire is something done in the general style of the original. Why
>> >> would a satire deliberately do something out of character?
>> >Actually, a satire 'sends-up' the original material - it is precisely not in
>> >the style of, but consciously mocking the style of by exagerations and
>> >lampooing techniques.
>> So to satirize one who doesn't swear, you'd put in a lot of cursing? I
>> see. To satirize Whittier, one would write blank verse? To satirize
>> Sloan's openings, one would play the orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined?
>P Innes does have a point here. One can argue that one can satirize
>content instead of form. Still, this is far off the topic, which was P
>Innes' blatant lie that Truong was accused of satire.
My view of what constitutes satire may be too restricted. Can you
gimme a couple examples of what's considered well-done satire of
content which disregards form?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 03:52:49
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
Chess One wrote:
>
>Mike Murray wrote
>
>> So, you can't cite a quote or provide a link. Why am I not surprised?
>
>Another lie from Murray, who thinks I can't be bothered to repeat the
>public obvious statement he made, means can't.
Rather than going on and on about this, It would have taken a lot
less effort to simply provide a quote or a link. You made a specific
claim about what was written. As to your present claim that you
"can't be bothered" to provide any evidence to back up your claims,
well I think we all know what *that* means.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 10:07:10
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> Chess One wrote:
>>
>>Mike Murray wrote
>>
>>> So, you can't cite a quote or provide a link. Why am I not surprised?
>>
>>Another lie from Murray, who thinks I can't be bothered to repeat the
>>public obvious statement he made, means can't.
>
> Rather than going on and on about this, It would have taken a lot
> less effort to simply provide a quote or a link. You made a specific
> claim about what was written. As to your present claim that you
> "can't be bothered" to provide any evidence to back up your claims,
> well I think we all know what *that* means.
"we" do?
but "we" are too lazy to look around ourselves?
the point guy is not to go chase murray, but to look at his diversion -
which was a vague one on 'some'
he admitted he could tell the fss from the rss 'some' of the time
psychic-murray could also tell that i could not tell the fss from the rss
/most/ of the time
he then changed that /most/ into 'all' [but that's the diversion, that's the
noise, which i don't think is innocent, but to keep pursuing it is to allow
the issue to escape - and these diversions always come up when something
significant is addressed <wink > ]
so was the fss material satire? that is the question
what i find offensive is when people won't answer for themselves and instead
say 'everybody knows' such as the real-Sloan nonsense uses [lol] and also
deny that others can't know more or even differently than themselves [lol]
they are also SHY of even looking at the subject before coming to a
conclusion - like for example, and just as preliminary examination of the
material itself, how much of the fss material contains swear words?
phil innes
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 10:32:42
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On Sun, 9 2008 10:07:10 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>so was the fss material satire? that is the question
No, that was NOT the question.
You said PT had been "accused" of satire. No one *accused* him of
satire. You may argue that what he wrote was satire. Even if you win
that argument (which you won't), it doesn't change the fact that he
has been accused of something very much more than satire.
"PT, you stand accused of....satire" -- that would truly be nonsense.
Your phrase, "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating, but
satirizing another Board member" dishonestly attempts to trivialize
the entire issue.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 14:35:19
From: Chess One
Subject: Two Questions was Re: 20 Questions
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 9 2008 10:07:10 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>so was the fss material satire? that is the question
>
> No, that was NOT the question.
Do you mean it was not THE question?
> You said PT had been "accused" of satire. No one *accused* him of
> satire. You may argue that what he wrote was satire.
I may /not/ argue it, I can plain say so! Its you who argue it Mike Murray -
and let's see how honestly you argue, shall we, and let's do it in front of
all the people here [see below]
> Even if you win
> that argument (which you won't), it doesn't change the fact that he
> has been accused of something very much more than satire.
> "PT, you stand accused of....satire" -- that would truly be nonsense.
> Your phrase, "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating, but
> satirizing another Board member" dishonestly attempts to trivialize
> the entire issue.
Does the matter of satire trivialize the entire issue? Mike Murray is very
strong on these grand statements, but look at how much comprehension and
candid response goes into them;-
ONE QUESTION
When asked if Murray himself could tell it was satire he replied
'sometimes'. And sometimes as we know is not never, and not always. That's
as close as Mike Murray could get to answering anything. Sometimes is 10% of
the time, and sometimes sometimes is 90%.
Now, who is trivializing anything here?
Murray denies that I could usually tell the difference between Sloan and the
FSS. He says I can 'argue' it, as if that means he is an auditor of if I can
tell or not [ROFL] while merrily snipping the other question put to him
previously.
T'OTHER QUESTION
That was, since Sloan doesn't swear, how often did swear words appear in the
FSS material? While Murray is content to repeat suppositions from yet other
people, I thought this would actually allow him to not suppose anything,
since he could review the actual material itself, and count em!
Even a sample count would be interesting, no?
But no - that would be work, and actually provide Answers to Questions,
whereas more accusations, argumentation and dismissals of other people's
intelligence is as easy as mouthing-off on usenet.
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 12:18:50
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Two Questions was Re: 20 Questions
|
On Tue, 11 2008 14:35:19 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>>>so was the fss material satire? that is the question
>> No, that was NOT the question.
>Do you mean it was not THE question?
It was just the first question. I said I wasn't going to let you
gambol off on more rabbit trails until we'd dealt with your first
untrue claim. So far, your attempts at ducking,dodging and
obfuscation haven't fooled anybody, AFAIK.
>> You said PT had been "accused" of satire. No one *accused* him of
>> satire. You may argue that what he wrote was satire.
>I may /not/ argue it, I can plain say so!
That you "plain say so" is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the
truth of what you say. Anyway, the particular untruth with which we
were dealing was your claim that PT had been *accused* of satire.
> ONE QUESTION
>When asked if Murray himself could tell it was satire he replied
>'sometimes'. And sometimes as we know is not never, and not always. That's
>as close as Mike Murray could get to answering anything. Sometimes is 10% of
>the time, and sometimes sometimes is 90%.
And sometimes "sometimes" is irrelevant. Example: some dude's been
accused of assault. His apologist twitters, "Sometimes he gave her
flowers". The accuser says, "Sometimes he hit her on the head with a
hammer. ". Think the judge will split hairs on percentages? 10%? 90%?
Who cares?
>Now, who is trivializing anything here?
Well, Phil Innes, of course.
> T'OTHER QUESTION
>That was, since Sloan doesn't swear, how often did swear words appear in the
>FSS material? While Murray is content to repeat suppositions from yet other
>people, I thought this would actually allow him to not suppose anything,
>since he could review the actual material itself, and count em!
Phil, it's not wise to keep bringing up this idiotic example of your
textual "analysis". It cuts whatever shred of credibility you might
have left. Don't you think a poster who is trying to fake out the
audience could add a little swearing to disguise himself? Or add some
grammatical or spelling errors to disguise himself?
>Even a sample count would be interesting, no?
No.
>But no - that would be work, and actually provide Answers to Questions,
Yes, it would be work, just as counting the grains of sand in an
hourglass would be work. And, if done thoroughly and well, it would
answer the question as to how many swear words were in the set of
posts commonly ascribed to the FSS.
And other than that, utterly without significance.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 20:24:20
From: Chess One
Subject: The Rash Attack, foiled again!
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 11 2008 14:35:19 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> T'OTHER QUESTION
>
>>That was, since Sloan doesn't swear, how often did swear words appear in
>>the
>>FSS material? While Murray is content to repeat suppositions from yet
>>other
>>people, I thought this would actually allow him to not suppose anything,
>>since he could review the actual material itself, and count em!
>
> Phil, it's not wise to keep bringing up this idiotic example of your
> textual "analysis". It cuts whatever shred of credibility you might
> have left. Don't you think a poster who is trying to fake out the
> audience could add a little swearing to disguise himself? Or add some
> grammatical or spelling errors to disguise himself?
Now, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Do you see the switch? The question asks if you can tell the FSS from the
real McSloan, and Murray answers that by adding swearing then the FSS is
disguising himself.
But the very point of the question is that by adding swearing we know its
not Sloan. So its satirizing Sloan.
Murray can't understand that this is about him. His understanding of things.
He refuses to look at what has been before his face.
>>Even a sample count would be interesting, no?
>
> No.
So if swear words occur 65% of the time Murray can't say publicly that he
can tell false Sloan from real Sloan most of the time on this issue alone,
because real Sloan does not swear!
And if you can tell on this basis alone you realize the material is
satirical, don't you Mike. And how awful to submit to straightforward logic
rather than suppositional obsessions at others expense.
"No"
<guffaw >
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 17:49:35
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Rash Attack, foiled again!
|
Rash attack foiled? Been taking Valacyclovir or something, Phil?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 11:44:52
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Rash Attack, foiled again!
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Rash attack foiled? Been taking Valacyclovir or something, Phil?
I don't do drugs, not even legal ones.
What I have needed to demonstrate here in these newsgroups, by drawing a few
people out, is that the 'questions' they raise or dismiss are entirely
insincere, and do not accord with any general view of things, with any
logic, are not based on what we do know [which they refuse to examine], and
merely insinuating on what is not currently knowable.
Murray resigns the issue and its Another Game over!
;)
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 10:34:57
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Rash Attack, foiled again!
|
On Wed, 12 2008 11:44:52 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
Having been banged about and dope-slapped repeatedly, Phil now
proclaims victory. What else is new?
>What I have needed to demonstrate here in these newsgroups, by drawing a few
>people out, is that the 'questions' they raise or dismiss are entirely
>insincere, and do not accord with any general view of things,
Well, yes, many of the questions I dismiss are "entirely insincere".
But what on earth can this phrase, "do not accord with any general
view of things" possibly mean?
> with any logic, are not based on what we do know [which they refuse to examine], and
>merely insinuating on what is not currently knowable.
Let's deconstruct this paragraph a little. It appears that Phil's
claims apply to himself!
"not based on what we do know [which they refuse to examine]"
Here Phil conveniently ignores the Mottershead and its evaluation by
experts, offering instead his simplistic claim that counting the swear
words in the set of posts generally attributed to the FSS gives us
more meaningful information than IP addresses.
"merely insinuating on what is not currently knowable"
Here Phil hints at secret evidence which the USCF suppresses (but
insinuates Phil Innes somehow has enough knowledge of the content to
proclaim it will clear PT), and continually drops hints that certain
*processes* are in motion which will really sock it to various folks
who have accused PT.
In addition, he makes the ridiculous claim that the FSS posts are all
satire, despite being many examples to the contrary.
Phil believes that his claim to be able to identify some / most / all
/ whatever of the FSS posts implies they don't involve impersonation.
This means no more than saying that because a trained bank teller
could identify a counterfeit bill, the bill was not a counterfeit but
a work of art mistakenly accepted as currency by the 7-11. (Despite
his boasting over having swotted up various classic texts, I am
continually amazed at Phil's inability to recognize simply analogy as
a valid way of reasoning about a problem, so this example is probably
wasted on him. Oh, well.)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 18:53:05
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Rash Attack, foiled again!
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 12 2008 11:44:52 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Having been banged about and dope-slapped repeatedly, Phil now
> proclaims victory. What else is new?
>
>>What I have needed to demonstrate here in these newsgroups, by drawing a
>>few
>>people out, is that the 'questions' they raise or dismiss are entirely
>>insincere, and do not accord with any general view of things,
>
> Well, yes, many of the questions I dismiss are "entirely insincere".
> But what on earth can this phrase, "do not accord with any general
> view of things" possibly mean?
>
>> with any logic, are not based on what we do know [which they refuse to
>> examine], and
>>merely insinuating on what is not currently knowable.
>
> Let's deconstruct this paragraph a little. It appears that Phil's
> claims apply to himself!
>
> "not based on what we do know [which they refuse to examine]"
>
> Here Phil conveniently ignores the Mottershead and its evaluation by
> experts,
I did not inconveniently 'not address' anything. Mike Murray is not at
liberty to make any assertions about other people, since he can't really
understand what they say! He avoids the issue he proposed to me, that the
FSS was satire, and can't admit even his OWN opinion, nevermind rabbit on
about those of other people!
> offering instead his simplistic claim that counting the swear
> words in the set of posts generally attributed to the FSS gives us
> more meaningful information than IP addresses.
I never said that.
I asked Murray if he could tell the difference. And Murray pretends he can't
understand the question.
> "merely insinuating on what is not currently knowable"
>
> Here Phil hints at secret evidence which the USCF suppresses (but
> insinuates Phil Innes somehow has enough knowledge of the content to
> proclaim it will clear PT), and continually drops hints that certain
> *processes* are in motion which will really sock it to various folks
> who have accused PT.
Murray continues to speculate on what I 'insinuate' rather than the topic he
himself raised, which he avoids.
> In addition, he makes the ridiculous claim that the FSS posts are all
> satire, despite being many examples to the contrary.
'Many'. This was the question to Murray, ie, how many?
> Phil believes
Pyschic Murray.
Look, Murray, you are called and bust! If you call me on satire, and make 15
vague 'many' and 'some' responses, then I think it really doesn't matter
whatever you conclude.
What is rather absurd is that you don't know you are bust by prosecuting
vagueries.
> that his claim to be able to identify some / most / all
> / whatever of the FSS posts implies they don't involve impersonation.
> This means no more than saying that because a trained bank teller
> could identify a counterfeit bill, the bill was not a counterfeit but
> a work of art mistakenly accepted as currency by the 7-11.
What? The question was can Murray tell? Not another analogy! Can Murray
tell, since Murray raised the issue of if it was satire.
> (Despite
> his boasting over having swotted up various classic texts, I am
> continually amazed at Phil's inability to recognize simply analogy as
> a valid way of reasoning about a problem, so this example is probably
> wasted on him. Oh, well.)
Don't be such an intellectual coward Murray, face the consequences of your
own persecution of 'satire'. So far you wimped out while whining about other
people who actually studied something.
So answer the question or be exposed as insincere.
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 20:12:34
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Two Questions was Re: 20 Questions
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 11 2008 14:35:19 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>so was the fss material satire? that is the question
>
>>> No, that was NOT the question.
>
>>Do you mean it was not THE question?
>
> It was just the first question. I said I wasn't going to let you
> gambol off on more rabbit trails until we'd dealt with your first
> untrue claim. So far, your attempts at ducking,dodging and
> obfuscation haven't fooled anybody, AFAIK.
I am not trying to 'fool' you, or 'anybody. You are merely a vague abusenik
who insists on their own point of view, having formally promulgated 47
reasons why other people's views are not worth any attention.
You have such a monumental ego that you fail to notice that not everyone is
behaving as you want, and you cannot stand it! Now, try the questions again,
in your own voice, they are simple enough.
>>> You said PT had been "accused" of satire. No one *accused* him of
>>> satire. You may argue that what he wrote was satire.
>
>>I may /not/ argue it, I can plain say so!
>
> That you "plain say so" is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the
> truth of what you say. Anyway, the particular untruth with which we
> were dealing was your claim that PT had been *accused* of satire.
>
>> ONE QUESTION
>
>>When asked if Murray himself could tell it was satire he replied
>>'sometimes'. And sometimes as we know is not never, and not always. That's
>>as close as Mike Murray could get to answering anything. Sometimes is 10%
>>of
>>the time, and sometimes sometimes is 90%.
>
> And sometimes "sometimes" is irrelevant. Example: some dude's been
> accused of assault. His apologist twitters, "Sometimes he gave her
> flowers". The accuser says, "Sometimes he hit her on the head with a
> hammer. ". Think the judge will split hairs on percentages? 10%? 90%?
> Who cares?
What is this? Mike doesn't care who did what? He can't answer the question
more than to say 'sometimes' he can tell, therefore, by analogy of someone
hitting a women on the head not always with a hammer...
pfft!!!!!
>>Now, who is trivializing anything here?
>
> Well, Phil Innes, of course.
>
>> T'OTHER QUESTION
>
>>That was, since Sloan doesn't swear, how often did swear words appear in
>>the
>>FSS material? While Murray is content to repeat suppositions from yet
>>other
>>people, I thought this would actually allow him to not suppose anything,
>>since he could review the actual material itself, and count em!
>
> Phil, it's not wise to keep bringing up this idiotic example of your
> textual "analysis".
I an asking you if you actually know anything at all. You have refused the
first question, and now wish to dismiss the second one which you trerm
idiotic.
I need not comment on this behavior, since the exercising of it is pretty
obvious display of your lights, such as they are.
> It cuts whatever shred of credibility you might
> have left. Don't you think a poster who is trying to fake out the
> audience could add a little swearing to disguise himself? Or add some
> grammatical or spelling errors to disguise himself?
DO /I? think?
Is this to say that this is what Murray promoses, or can't he admit his own
opinion?
>>Even a sample count would be interesting, no?
>
> No.
Not interesting to Murray, who doesn't like the evidence he doesn't like.
:)))
>>But no - that would be work, and actually provide Answers to Questions,
>
> Yes, it would be work, just as counting the grains of sand in an
> hourglass would be work. And, if done thoroughly and well, it would
> answer the question as to how many swear words were in the set of
> posts commonly ascribed to the FSS.
>
> And other than that, utterly without significance.
To Mike Murray? Or to Jesus? To Mao?
Who knows, 2 questions passed which actually /require intelligence and
diligence to answer/ and you're out ;)
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 17:43:44
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Two Questions was Re: 20 Questions
|
On Tue, 11 2008 20:12:34 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>I an asking you if you actually know anything at all.
A very clever man once answered the identical question. But, in the
interest of originality, maybe I can offer a variation: I know only
the fact of your own ignorance.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 11:41:12
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Two Questions was Re: 20 Questions
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 11 2008 20:12:34 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I an asking you if you actually know anything at all.
>
> A very clever man once answered the identical question. But, in the
> interest of originality, maybe I can offer a variation: I know only
> the fact of your own ignorance.
Okay. Investigator Murray will not look at the public evidence of the FSS
material.
I needn't chase him anymore on this issue, since I think his evasions and
diversions have made the point for me.
Tilt! Game Over.
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 16:00:46
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
Chess One wrote:
>
>"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote...
>>
>> Chess One wrote:
>>>
>>>Mike Murray wrote
>>>
>>>> So, you can't cite a quote or provide a link. Why am I not surprised?
>>>
>>>Another lie from Murray, who thinks I can't be bothered to repeat the
>>>public obvious statement he made, means can't.
>>
>> Rather than going on and on about this, It would have taken a lot
>> less effort to simply provide a quote or a link. You made a specific
>> claim about what was written. As to your present claim that you
>> "can't be bothered" to provide any evidence to back up your claims,
>> well I think we all know what *that* means.
>
>"we" do?
>but "we" are too lazy to look around ourselves?
>
>the point guy is not to go chase murray, but to look at his diversion -
>which was a vague one on 'some'
>
>he admitted he could tell the fss from the rss 'some' of the time
>
>psychic-murray could also tell that i could not tell the fss from the rss
>/most/ of the time
>
>he then changed that /most/ into 'all' [but that's the diversion, that's the
>noise, which i don't think is innocent, but to keep pursuing it is to allow
>the issue to escape - and these diversions always come up when something
>significant is addressed <wink> ]
>
>so was the fss material satire? that is the question
>
>what i find offensive is when people won't answer for themselves and instead
>say 'everybody knows' such as the real-Sloan nonsense uses [lol] and also
>deny that others can't know more or even differently than themselves [lol]
>
>they are also SHY of even looking at the subject before coming to a
>conclusion - like for example, and just as preliminary examination of the
>material itself, how much of the fss material contains swear words?
>
>phil innes
In the time you spent writing the above, you could have simply provided
a quote or a reference that backs up your claims. You made a specific
claim about what was written. Prove it or admit that you were wrong.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 17:03:26
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On Sat, 8 2008 19:21:10 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>>>> Ummmm, Phil, would you mind citing where I changed your "some to
>>>> 'all'" ??
>
>>>Was it some or most that you converted to all? And do you dare deny you
>>>did?
>>>You reprorbate! - you even cut the thing to which you reply in order to
>>>misrepresent others. The issue was, if you recall your own words, that you
>>>could detect satire 'some' o f the time in the FSS posts, whereas I
>>>remeber
>>>I said for myself, 'most'.
>> So, you can't cite a quote or provide a link. Why am I not surprised?
>Another lie from Murray, who thinks I can't be bothered to repeat the
>public obvious statement he made, means can't. And besides, Murray is not
>surprised ever about his own orientation to anything, certainly not to just
>a few days ago.
>Such numbskulls display their wit and integrity here on other people, at
>extraordinary length, while being obviously dishonest about even simple
>subject :)
>Phil Innes
So, you can't cite a quote or provide a link. Why am I not surprised?
Nice bluster, though. But it's like using the same opening every
game -- eventually we expect it and are prepared.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 09:14:09
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So, you can't cite a quote or provide a link. Why am I not surprised?
Who says "can't?"
Murray openly lies again. I said I couldn't be bothered, and to let people
who are really interested go find it [its only a few days ago!], and to
<terrifying phrase > make up their own minds!
If Murray doesn't like your opinion he makes it up for you, and here is
another example :))
RETURN TO DRY GULCH
Do you remember the issue? I said I could tell the FSS from the Sloan MOST
of the time. You said you could tell the FSS from the Sloan SOME of the
time. <right >?
So you challenged the FSS material is a satire on Sloan <right >?
If I detract all the swearing - which Sloan doesn't do, and the more ME ME
ME than Sloan himself does, then I come to MOST. I am not saying that to be
superior to anyone, just saying it because its true!
What I find absurd is that after so MANY posts by the FSS, which even Mike
Murray can tell SOME of the time, which are commented on by a large group of
posters here as evidently false-Sloan, that given the thousands of examples,
people say they can't tell MOST of the time.
I don't believe that. And since I don't and I respect the intelligence of
other posters here who can tell the difference, that is how I phrased my
question. It seems to be that the only people who can't tell the FSS from
the real Sloan MOST of the time are the Get-Truong gang.
Now, whether those people are not very bright or attentive, or whether they
are not very truthful, is the issue.
Murray and I are not even necessarily in dissagreement, since I too could
have said "some of the time" but I qualified by comment more than that, by
saying "most", whereas Murray does not admit if his some is the same as
most, or less - and I cannot logically argue with him on a point he hasn't
made.
But what he questions is my perception, not his, and inferentially this is
to say 'less than half the time' is his own perception.
Quite how that is possible given the RED ALERT material from the FSS is
extremely strange. For example, if posts with swear-words were eliminated,
what percentage would be left? Isn't that about half of all FSS posts right
there?
Phil Innes
> Nice bluster, though. But it's like using the same opening every
> game -- eventually we expect it and are prepared.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 14:51:29
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
I hate to enter this argument, which has morphed into a revival of an
old issue which I had hoped was long dead. However, I think there are
plenty of satires which take the original version and go completely
over the top with it, exaggerating the characteristics in a manner
that can completely change the writing style. They are often
satirizing the content, not the writing.
To take a particularly obscure example from my chess research, I wrote
an article (which cannot be published until an article it takes some
of its literary sources from is published) on a 19th century chess
player named Daniel Ottolengui. Ottolengui's claim to fame is a
particularly crude set of satires. These twist some (very boring, to
modern readers) famous works by black and/or female writers, and by
modifying things like the dialect and adding a bit of true crudity
twist boring moralistic tales into a parody of the original work. It
is definitely satire, often vile, and occasionally quite funny.
Therefore, I think it is possible to have satire that changes the
style by adding swear words.
Call me back when someone has anything new to say about the Truong
case, which I believe this thread discussed at one time.
Jerry Spinrad
On 13, 1:23=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 13 2008 09:09:59 -0700 (PDT), The Historian
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 12, 12:58 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> A satire is something done in the general =A0style of the original. =
=A0Why
> >> >> would a satire deliberately do something out of character?
> >> >Actually, a satire 'sends-up' the original material - it is precisely =
not in
> >> >the style of, but consciously mocking the style of by exagerations and=
> >> >lampooing techniques.
> >> So to satirize one who doesn't swear, you'd put in a lot of cursing? I
> >> see. =A0To satirize Whittier, one would write blank verse? =A0To satiri=
ze
> >> Sloan's openings, one would play the orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined?
> >P Innes does have a point here. One can argue that one can satirize
> >content instead of form. Still, this is far off the topic, which was P
> >Innes' blatant lie that Truong was accused of satire.
>
> My view of what constitutes satire may be too restricted. =A0Can you
> gimme a couple examples of what's considered well-done satire of
> content which disregards form?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Mar 2008 09:16:52
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:26f3507b-c691-4b14-9be8-cc77e9378262@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I hate to enter this argument, which has morphed into a revival of an
old issue which I had hoped was long dead. However, I think there are
plenty of satires which take the original version and go completely
over the top with it, exaggerating the characteristics in a manner
that can completely change the writing style. They are often
satirizing the content, not the writing.
**But Jerry Spinrad - you confound this simple issue of arithmetic, with a
metaphysical approach. The only question I asked is if /you/ can tell the
difference between the FSS and the Real Sloan? If you cannot tell by virtue
of your learning, here displayed, then that itself is a form of answer*. But
to be fair to my question, I think you must make a direct answer, rather
than infer the matter as I said in my previous sentence. The effect of your
message is to want to invigilate the "Truong case" while you cannot even
admit your own attention to the Truong case when it is presented to you ~ in
case it does not turn our to be the "Truong case" after all, and become the
"FSS case." And as I have said before your PRESCRITIVELY metaphysical
address to this subject cannot possibly recommend your historical
researches - neither would it reflect well at Princeton, where epistemology
is yet a celebrated method of investigation understood to be distinct from
what is ontological. *Please tell us you understand the difference in these
two words, and the fundaments of inquiry. Phil Innes
To take a particularly obscure example from my chess research, I wrote
an article (which cannot be published until an article it takes some
of its literary sources from is published) on a 19th century chess
player named Daniel Ottolengui. Ottolengui's claim to fame is a
particularly crude set of satires. These twist some (very boring, to
modern readers) famous works by black and/or female writers, and by
modifying things like the dialect and adding a bit of true crudity
twist boring moralistic tales into a parody of the original work. It
is definitely satire, often vile, and occasionally quite funny.
Therefore, I think it is possible to have satire that changes the
style by adding swear words.
Call me back when someone has anything new to say about the Truong
case, which I believe this thread discussed at one time.
Jerry Spinrad
On 13, 1:23 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 13 2008 09:09:59 -0700 (PDT), The Historian
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 12, 12:58 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> A satire is something done in the general style of the original. Why
> >> >> would a satire deliberately do something out of character?
> >> >Actually, a satire 'sends-up' the original material - it is precisely
> >> >not in
> >> >the style of, but consciously mocking the style of by exagerations and
> >> >lampooing techniques.
> >> So to satirize one who doesn't swear, you'd put in a lot of cursing? I
> >> see. To satirize Whittier, one would write blank verse? To satirize
> >> Sloan's openings, one would play the orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined?
> >P Innes does have a point here. One can argue that one can satirize
> >content instead of form. Still, this is far off the topic, which was P
> >Innes' blatant lie that Truong was accused of satire.
>
> My view of what constitutes satire may be too restricted. Can you
> gimme a couple examples of what's considered well-done satire of
> content which disregards form?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 15:08:43
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On Thu, 13 2008 14:51:29 -0700 (PDT),
"[email protected]" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Therefore, I think it is possible to have satire that changes the
>style by adding swear words.
>Jerry Spinrad
I think was erroneously blurring the distinction between satire and
parody.
I found this useful:
"A satire is a piece of writing in which the subject is exposed to
ridicule of some kind, usually in attempts to provoke or prevent a
change. Satire can use any point of view.
A parody is a form of satire that mimics another piece of work in
order to ridicule it. Parodies exist in all forms of media, including
music and movies. A parody is generally written in a humorous manner,
for the effect of comedy."
http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1016378
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Mar 2008 11:21:07
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On Sun, 9 2008 09:14:09 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Do you remember the issue? I said I could tell the FSS from the Sloan MOST
>of the time. You said you could tell the FSS from the Sloan SOME of the
>time. <right>?
>So you challenged the FSS material is a satire on Sloan <right>?
>If I detract all the swearing - which Sloan doesn't do, and the more ME ME
>ME than Sloan himself does, then I come to MOST. I am not saying that to be
>superior to anyone, just saying it because its true!
As "analysis", this is pathetic.
So, if as some of the anonymice claim, the RSS is actually the FSS,
all he'd have to have done was add a bit of swearing to his FSS
persona and no one could tell? Get real, Phil.
>What I find absurd is that after so MANY posts by the FSS, which even Mike
>Murray can tell SOME of the time, which are commented on by a large group of
>posters here as evidently false-Sloan, that given the thousands of examples,
>people say they can't tell MOST of the time.
This has been the subject of many, many comments, Phil, but I'll do it
one more time for your sake.
Whether a regular and diligent reader of the rec.games.chess.* forum
could make a well-founded guess as to the legitimacy of many of the
posts claiming to be from Sloan, Gordon and others is not the big
issue.
The big issue is that these Usenet posts don't stay in the groups in
which they originate. Many web sites collect the posts from these
groups and archive them, so they become available though common search
engine (e.g., Google) queries outside of Usenet. They thus become
available out of context (and pretty much forever) to people who are
not regular readers of these groups, and who lack the deep background
knowledge of the players you claim for yourself.
So, if somebody is evaluating a well known chess school, and they
enter " ****** chess credit card" into Google, they get this piece of
slander, falsely attributed to Ray Gordon:
"Is it possible for these 2 crooks to hack into the USCF computers?
Does this mean that *** ****** will do the same with customers of
******School.com? Can they steal members' credit card information
and rob them?"
[I've asterisked out the actual names, so this post doesn't replicate
the problem].
>I don't believe that. And since I don't and I respect the intelligence of
>other posters here who can tell the difference, that is how I phrased my
>question. It seems to be that the only people who can't tell the FSS from
>the real Sloan MOST of the time are the Get-Truong gang.
>Now, whether those people are not very bright or attentive, or whether they
>are not very truthful, is the issue.
>Murray and I are not even necessarily in dissagreement, since I too could
>have said "some of the time" but I qualified by comment more than that, by
>saying "most", whereas Murray does not admit if his some is the same as
>most, or less - and I cannot logically argue with him on a point he hasn't
>made.
>But what he questions is my perception, not his, and inferentially this is
>to say 'less than half the time' is his own perception.
>Quite how that is possible given the RED ALERT material from the FSS is
>extremely strange. For example, if posts with swear-words were eliminated,
>what percentage would be left? Isn't that about half of all FSS posts right
>there?
>Phil Innes
>
>> Nice bluster, though. But it's like using the same opening every
>> game -- eventually we expect it and are prepared.
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 16:40:36
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 9 2008 09:14:09 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Do you remember the issue? I said I could tell the FSS from the Sloan MOST
>>of the time. You said you could tell the FSS from the Sloan SOME of the
>>time. <right>?
>
>>So you challenged the FSS material is a satire on Sloan <right>?
>
>>If I detract all the swearing - which Sloan doesn't do, and the more ME ME
>>ME than Sloan himself does, then I come to MOST. I am not saying that to
>>be
>>superior to anyone, just saying it because its true!
>
> As "analysis", this is pathetic.
How so?
> So, if as some of the anonymice claim,
O! that way. Not what you think yourself, if any.
> the RSS is actually the FSS,
> all he'd have to have done was add a bit of swearing to his FSS
> persona and no one could tell? Get real, Phil.
Look Murray, if you don't have any intelligence you can bring to bear on
this subject, why don't you shut up?
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 20:07:09
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On 13, 5:08 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 13 2008 14:51:29 -0700 (PDT),
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Therefore, I think it is possible to have satire that changes the
> >style by adding swear words.
> >Jerry Spinrad
>
> I think was erroneously blurring the distinction between satire and
> parody.
>
> I found this useful:
>
> "A satire is a piece of writing in which the subject is exposed to
> ridicule of some kind, usually in attempts to provoke or prevent a
> change. Satire can use any point of view.
>
> A parody is a form of satire that mimics another piece of work in
> order to ridicule it. Parodies exist in all forms of media, including
> music and movies. A parody is generally written in a humorous manner,
> for the effect of comedy."
>
> http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1016378
An example of satire of content might be Candide. The whole novella
mocks Leibniz and his philosophy through the figure of Dr. Pangloss.
Another 18th century novella, Shamela by Henry Fielding, is a good
example of satire of form as well as content, because it is modeled
after Richardson's Pamela, imitating the plot and plot devices of
Richardson's sentimental tale as it mocks the subject.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 16:28:09
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On Tue, 11 2008 16:40:36 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>>>If I detract all the swearing - which Sloan doesn't do, and the more ME ME
>>>ME than Sloan himself does, then I come to MOST. I am not saying that to
>>>be superior to anyone, just saying it because its true!
>> As "analysis", this is pathetic.
>How so?
Because the pattern is so easily faked. It doesn't prove anything.
How many times do I have to tell you that before it sinks in?
>> So, if as some of the anonymice claim,
>O! that way. Not what you think yourself, if any.
See, Phil, to weigh alternatives effectively, one must consider ideas
other than one's own. I realize this is a foreign concept to you, but
it would be worth exploring for the sake of your own personal growth.
Why not make "Less Reading, More Thinking" your mantra for the next
year or so? You'll be so glad you did. The classics only take you
so far.
>> the RSS is actually the FSS,
>> all he'd have to have done was add a bit of swearing to his FSS
>> persona and no one could tell? Get real, Phil.
>Look Murray, if you don't have any intelligence you can bring to bear on
>this subject, why don't you shut up?
I realize that shooting holes in your "arguments" doesn't require much
intelligence, but, to paraphrase General Hershey, Professor James
Moriarty isn't posting on rgcp these days. So, I gotta make do with
giving you the intellectual dope-slap until someone of his caliber
shows up. You'll thank me some day.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 20:42:53
From: Chess One
Subject: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 11 2008 16:40:36 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>If I detract all the swearing - which Sloan doesn't do, and the more ME
>>>>ME
>>>>ME than Sloan himself does, then I come to MOST. I am not saying that to
>>>>be superior to anyone, just saying it because its true!
>
>>> As "analysis", this is pathetic.
>
>>How so?
>
> Because the pattern is so easily faked. It doesn't prove anything.
> How many times do I have to tell you that before it sinks in?
I don't know how much you have to 'tell' anyone Murray. Is that the way you
usually get your way. You 'tell' people a lot? And they all fall down before
the Great Tyrant Murray?
See if you can understand this,
You can tell by inclusion of swear words that its not Sloan <right? >
If its not Sloan, then its a satire of Sloan <right? >
RIGHT MURRAY? Go ahead, 'tell' me your answer.
Don't divert the issue more - you called me on satire, and here you are
evading it. And what I make of your intelligence of the whole issue is just
like this ;)
That is, you refuse to provide it.
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2008 18:15:25
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On Tue, 11 2008 20:42:53 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>I don't know how much you have to 'tell' anyone Murray. Is that the way you
>usually get your way. You 'tell' people a lot? And they all fall down before
>the Great Tyrant Murray?
First they present fresh vegetables and the newly killed body of a
young lamb.
> You can tell by inclusion of swear words that its not Sloan <right?>
Wrong! Sloan may choose to swear in his false persona.
> If its not Sloan, then its a satire of Sloan <right?>
Wrong! There are many other possibilities. Here's a couple: It may
be someone who didn't notice that Sloan doesn't swear. It may be
someone who believes few other people will notice that Sloan doesn't
swear.
A satire is something done in the general style of the original. Why
would a satire deliberately do something out of character? Oh, I get
it -- so people would KNOW it wasn't really Sloan. Not.
And, you forget, Phil, that Sloan and Gordon weren't the only ones
faked. The "FSS" has been used as a convenient shorthand for this set
of forgeries.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 13:27:02
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 11 2008 20:42:53 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't know how much you have to 'tell' anyone Murray. Is that the way
>>you
>>usually get your way. You 'tell' people a lot? And they all fall down
>>before
>>the Great Tyrant Murray?
>
> First they present fresh vegetables and the newly killed body of a
> young lamb.
>
>> You can tell by inclusion of swear words that its not Sloan <right?>
>
> Wrong! Sloan may choose to swear in his false persona.
Mike - because you write so metaphsically, [do you understand what that
means?*] you fail to answer the question.
That is if MIKE MURRAY can tell the FSS material from straight Sloanisms.
>> If its not Sloan, then its a satire of Sloan <right?>
>
> Wrong! There are many other possibilities. Here's a couple: It may
> be someone who didn't notice that Sloan doesn't swear.
Another metaphysic*
> It may be
> someone who believes few other people will notice that Sloan doesn't
> swear.
Failure to understand a simple question.
> A satire is something done in the general style of the original. Why
> would a satire deliberately do something out of character?
Actually, a satire 'sends-up' the original material - it is precisely not in
the style of, but consciously mocking the style of by exagerations and
lampooing techniques.
> Oh, I get
> it -- so people would KNOW it wasn't really Sloan. Not.
>
> And, you forget, Phil, that Sloan and Gordon weren't the only ones
> faked. The "FSS" has been used as a convenient shorthand for this set
> of forgeries.
I don't forget anything important.
Phil Innes
*Metaphysical in a technical sense relates to people who do not own their
own experience, and reply for others, or suppositionally, 'as if' they had
no experience of their own. The questions here were pointedly to Mike
Murray, who said the material was not satire, and I had misled others. But
all is forgiven - Mike Murray doesn't know what satire means! Though now
that he does, it will quite evidently make no difference to his
'investigation' which avoids any normal criteria, preferring to be a tad
selective, and if that means discarding what is irrefutably true to the
experience of others, so be it.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 10:58:14
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On Wed, 12 2008 13:27:02 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>>> You can tell by inclusion of swear words that its not Sloan <right?>
>> Wrong! Sloan may choose to swear in his false persona.
>Mike - because you write so metaphsically, [do you understand what that
>means?*] you fail to answer the question.
Before we get too deep into metaphysics, Phil, let's try a simple
syllogism. Here's your argument:
No posts by the RSS contain swearing.
Some posts by the FSS contain swearing.
Therefore, no FSS posts were written by the RSS.
Hmmm, help me out, Phil, how would this look on a Venn Diagram ?
>> A satire is something done in the general style of the original. Why
>> would a satire deliberately do something out of character?
>Actually, a satire 'sends-up' the original material - it is precisely not in
>the style of, but consciously mocking the style of by exagerations and
>lampooing techniques.
So to satirize one who doesn't swear, you'd put in a lot of cursing? I
see. To satirize Whittier, one would write blank verse? To satirize
Sloan's openings, one would play the orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined?
Phil, is this an Andean custom? Who are some famous satirists who
wrote this way?
>> And, you forget, Phil, that Sloan and Gordon weren't the only ones
>> faked. The "FSS" has been used as a convenient shorthand for this set
>> of forgeries.
>I don't forget anything important.
Says the man who one argued with his own post.
>*Metaphysical in a technical sense relates to people who do not own their
>own experience, and reply for others, or suppositionally, 'as if' they had
>no experience of their own.
So that's what "metaphysical", in a technical sense, means. All those
dumb philosophers. They should have consulted Phil's source before
writing that nonsense. Uh... just for the record Phil, what IS your
source for this technical definition of "Metaphysical" ??
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 19:01:25
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 12 2008 13:27:02 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>>> You can tell by inclusion of swear words that its not Sloan <right?>
>
>>> Wrong! Sloan may choose to swear in his false persona.
>
>>Mike - because you write so metaphsically, [do you understand what that
>>means?*] you fail to answer the question.
>
> Before we get too deep into metaphysics, Phil, let's try a simple
> syllogism. Here's your argument:
>
> No posts by the RSS contain swearing.
>
> Some posts by the FSS contain swearing.
>
> Therefore, no FSS posts were written by the RSS.
Are you truly stupid Murray? Or is this just perversity. I have asked you 10
times if YOU can tell the difference. That is the only reason I entertain
your speculations at all, and you can't answer.
More talk makes you confused, and your entire camapign is so willfully
biased as to be absurd. You illustrate it by your misunderstand of this
issue of satire -and you perhaps misunderstand all by the wit you bring to
this question.
I am not interested in all that. You raised this issue, which you can't
understand still. I think that is an apt metaphor for your entire level of
appreciation of this subject.
You are so obsessed you cannot even say what the question is that I address
to you. pfft!~ And that is nuttier than a fruitcake.
Phil Innes
>
> Hmmm, help me out, Phil, how would this look on a Venn Diagram ?
>
>
>>> A satire is something done in the general style of the original. Why
>>> would a satire deliberately do something out of character?
>
>>Actually, a satire 'sends-up' the original material - it is precisely not
>>in
>>the style of, but consciously mocking the style of by exagerations and
>>lampooing techniques.
>
> So to satirize one who doesn't swear, you'd put in a lot of cursing? I
> see. To satirize Whittier, one would write blank verse? To satirize
> Sloan's openings, one would play the orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined?
>
> Phil, is this an Andean custom? Who are some famous satirists who
> wrote this way?
>
>>> And, you forget, Phil, that Sloan and Gordon weren't the only ones
>>> faked. The "FSS" has been used as a convenient shorthand for this set
>>> of forgeries.
>
>>I don't forget anything important.
>
> Says the man who one argued with his own post.
>
>>*Metaphysical in a technical sense relates to people who do not own their
>>own experience, and reply for others, or suppositionally, 'as if' they had
>>no experience of their own.
>
> So that's what "metaphysical", in a technical sense, means. All those
> dumb philosophers. They should have consulted Phil's source before
> writing that nonsense. Uh... just for the record Phil, what IS your
> source for this technical definition of "Metaphysical" ??
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 16:37:41
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
On Wed, 12 2008 19:01:25 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Are you truly stupid Murray? Or is this just perversity. I have asked you 10
>times if YOU can tell the difference [between FSS posts and RSS posts].
>That is the only reason I entertain your speculations at all, and you can't answer.
I've answered the question multiple times.
The question reflects a dishonest approach to the issue.
Here's why:
I've been participating in this group since early 2003. For the
threads in question, I know most of the players. For the threads in
question, I've a pretty good handle on the context and background,
I've followed the discussions about the headers, IP addresses and
related technologies. Most of the time, I use a real newsreader
(rather than Google) which makes the metadata a bit more readable.
Given any specific post and a bit of time to inspect headers, etc, I
can make a pretty good guess about whether it's FSS or not.
THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE.
That's like asking whether a bank teller can identify a counterfeit
bill.
The real question is whether someone who is not a Usenet regular,
someone using a search engine, querying on one of the terms in the
fake posts' text, will falsely ascribe the post to the person (whether
Sloan, Gordon, Lafferty, me or whoever) whose name and ISP were
forged.
And this doesn't even *touch* the question of slander, which, believe
it or not, calling something "satire" after the fact affords no
protection.
I think you understand all this Phil. As happens so often in this
group, you've been caught lying and are now trying to bluster your way
out of it.
And now, let's get back to your lie that started all this: your
claim that Truong had been accused of satire.
He was accused of identity theft and slander (note that I didn't say
he was *guilty* of identity theft and slander). Nobody accused him
of "satire". You lied in your question in order to trivialize the
offense.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2008 15:05:37
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Murray, Honesty, DaVinci Code
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 12 2008 19:01:25 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Are you truly stupid Murray? Or is this just perversity. I have asked you
>>10
>>times if YOU can tell the difference [between FSS posts and RSS posts].
>>That is the only reason I entertain your speculations at all, and you
>>can't answer.
>
> I've answered the question multiple times.
You seem to have issued one word on the subject 'some'. And you have avoided
the question of what that means to you a dozen times.
> The question reflects a dishonest approach to the issue.
Your English language expression is insufficient to say /what/ issue, since
what follows is your device in it, not what 'issue' I
raised.
And the issue I raised can be assessed by anyone - can they tell the FSS by
its swear word content? Whereas everything you write below is your
ideosyncratic version of things, more or less referenced, that is to say,
very vague.
But the fatuity of Mike Murray is that he CHALLENGED the idea of satire, but
admits it 'some' of the time. Can't say if some is 10% or 90%, and can't be
bothered to actually look at the FSS material to establish anything.
Murray doesn't like 47 other approaches to his, [this being only 1] and if
challenged just a little intensely, as in this case, still cannot do more
than admit 'some' as a vaguery, while demanding that some attention continue
to be paid to his meanderings, which presumably are only appreciable if
unexamined.
Phil Innes
> Here's why:
>
> I've been participating in this group since early 2003. For the
> threads in question, I know most of the players. For the threads in
> question, I've a pretty good handle on the context and background,
> I've followed the discussions about the headers, IP addresses and
> related technologies. Most of the time, I use a real newsreader
> (rather than Google) which makes the metadata a bit more readable.
>
> Given any specific post and a bit of time to inspect headers, etc, I
> can make a pretty good guess about whether it's FSS or not.
>
> THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE.
>
> That's like asking whether a bank teller can identify a counterfeit
> bill.
>
> The real question is whether someone who is not a Usenet regular,
> someone using a search engine, querying on one of the terms in the
> fake posts' text, will falsely ascribe the post to the person (whether
> Sloan, Gordon, Lafferty, me or whoever) whose name and ISP were
> forged.
>
> And this doesn't even *touch* the question of slander, which, believe
> it or not, calling something "satire" after the fact affords no
> protection.
>
> I think you understand all this Phil. As happens so often in this
> group, you've been caught lying and are now trying to bluster your way
> out of it.
>
> And now, let's get back to your lie that started all this: your
> claim that Truong had been accused of satire.
>
> He was accused of identity theft and slander (note that I didn't say
> he was *guilty* of identity theft and slander). Nobody accused him
> of "satire". You lied in your question in order to trivialize the
> offense.
|
| |
Date: 06 Mar 2008 19:07:15
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 6, 5:37 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Journalism is a little understood practice,
You are certainly one person who does not understand it.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 07 Mar 2008 07:49:53
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:741beaf7-eff3-4b97-8619-5f36b87b72bf@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 6, 5:37 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Journalism is a little understood practice,
>
> You are certainly one person who does not understand it.
Sam Sloan, you confuse topic with celebrity and personality-politics
Journalism is, for example:-
a) not about you
b) not about scandals
c) not about being better than others
because none of those further chess in society, even though they comprise
95% of your own output, they of themselves amount to nothing to other
people. In fact they are what in science is termed 'noise' rather than
signal.
I do not ask you to believe me, only to look at the evidence of your own
life's activities. But if you want to be interviewed maybe, like Ray here,
we should restrict the extent of the interview to 1 Question:
What have you ever done for anyone else in chess?
If indeed there is any answer to that, then along the same lines a second
question might be what you intend to do for others in chess and how you will
achieve that?
As far as any greater public is concerned, that's about their level of
interest in you as an individual.
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 06 Mar 2008 15:44:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
On 6, 5:37 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> My job as journalist is not to change anyone's opinion.
>
> It is to, at genius level of operation*, shift everyone from their
> certainties for as much as 10 minutes of thought. Where people land from
> that is not my business, not should it be.
>
> The practice of journalism is to act as catalyst, not consultant. To
> activate the reader, not anticipate them. To stimulate the topic, not whore
> after any trophies.
It's a shame that many of those who /call
themselves/ journalists do just the opposite.
For instance, Larry Evans is one of the most
opinionated writers I've ever seen. He not only
fails the above test regarding shifting away from
"certainties", but he sets the standard by which
other writers can be judged in that respect. Far
from promoting discussion of various ideas, this
type of writer has already made up his mind, and
is anything BUT open to "stimulating" intelligent
discussion.
Be that as it may, I suppose we can differ as
to what makes someone a journalist, as opposed
to some other term. What annoys me is these
nutters who will say they are conducting an
"interview", but who deliberately muck things up
by taking their own opinions, and not-so-cleverly
trying to shoehorn them into the mouthes of their
victims, the interviewees. I think it demonstrates
a lack of self-respect; the nut-cases believe that
their opinions have no real merit, unless they can
somehow foist them onto someone with more of
a celebrity status. Both Taylor Kingston and
nearly-IMnes have done this, and it comes
across as an underhanded, lowdown attempt to
manipulate the interviewees and make sock-
puppets out of them. Please-- get help! There
are 1-800 numbers you guys can dial, and if you
can't afford a psychologist, one will be appointed
for you at public expense. You have the right to
remain silent--- and please do!
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 19:08:27
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 3, 4:02 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> I can see how you may not see the connections. Let me state for the
> record, I do not know who is or is not the FSS. It is my opinion and
> belief it is not Paul Truong.
Even if the FSS was not PT, you still have the
fact that SP's Web site is filled to overflowing
with lies and fabrications. Mr. Truong brags
about his "keting" experience, and the
finger points directly his way.
Every time Dr. Phil IMnes asked a (very)
complicated question, PT responded by just
ignoring the question and saying what a low
scum politician might say: some generality
to the effect that he (or SP) was a great
whatever who was going to do great things
for chess. But then he turned around and
admitted that all his suggestions were
dismissed outright, because BG and his
cronies run the show. In sum, all blow and
no go.
> In this case of the FSS we have a "perfect storm". You have someone
> who made money off the USCF, this person authorized a contractor to
> the USCF to violate their NDA, the same person/persons colluded to
> leak information to damage their intended targets, next these same
> persons attempted to deny their targets due process.
Okay, but you have not presented *any*
evidence to support this; you need to
demonstrate that the FSS was BG or
Mr. Mot.
> Lest too much be made of things there are many reasons other law firms
> may be involved in defending the board and Mr Truong. Not the least of
> which may be the insurance companies determination that the Mr. Truong
> may have a ligitimate claim that can be filed against the other
> members of the board for impropriaty which would mean that there would
> be a conflict of interest.
>
> Why is all of this important? Because Mr. Truong was interested in
> cleaning up the nepotism and illegal funding activities in the USCF.
> Thats something that the powers that be could not allow to continue.
According to PT himself, he was powerless
to get anything passed thru the USCF due to
BG's Queen-advantage in the voting.
> This is the line in the law that could undo the USCF:
>
> "a nonprofit organization is not precluded from making a profit
> or engaging in profit-making activities. It is prohibited from
> passing
> along any profits to those individuals who control it, like founders,
> directors, officers, employees, and members."
That line never stopped anybody in the
USCF before. Why are things different
now? Is PT /talking/ about bringing the
whole thing down, /singlehandedly/? Is
this real, or is it Memorex? I see a whole
lotta *talk*, but then, that's what keters
do, isn't it.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 16:32:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: National Inquiry was Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 5, 5:57 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Already an example of this was hammered away
> > at by Mike Murray; the nearly-IMnes tweaked his
> > questions to slant toward "satire", which of course
> > is no crime worthy of any lawsuit by the sinister
> > Sam Sloan.
>
> Help-bot, who can't write his own name
Nearly-IMness feels a need to change the
subject, for some reason.
> can't even write his own assessment.
Two seconds ago, the creature known as
Poor Innes complained it could not grok my
meaning without a magic decoder ring; now it
complains that I have given an example,
rather than an overall assessment of some
sort. I am left wondering if the creature has
any intelligence at all, beyond emulating the
human ability to write.
> Can he tell the FSS for the real Sloan, will anyone ever know?
Interesting aside; aside from what we had
been discussing, that is. Once again, a
desperate need to change the subject
appears from out of nowhere.
> But Help-not is not here for that, he justs wants to mouth off at other
> people's expence
Expense. Ex pence is the Andean term for
"from money", as in "ex pence non derrivido
lotsasex" (literally, from money is not derived
happiness).
Anyway, back to the subject the creature
is desperately trying to avoid discussing; I
believe we were talking about the tweaking
of interview questions such as to avoid
getting tough with the interviewee. Now, as
I see it, there is nothing wrong with Nearly's
easy-does-it approach, apart from its very
obvious contrast to the approach formerly
preached by Dr. IMnes to Taylor Kingston.
You know, where the creature expounded
on how TK was so horrible to not crack the
whip and make the interviewee pay for
some past crimes of which he had been
accused. Apart from this titanic hypocrisy
on nearly-IMnes' part, I see nothing wrong
with his soft, mushy approach.
But where I do see a problem is in these
two (both nearly-IMnes and Taylor Kingston)
dishonestly attempting to pry and force
words and ideas into the mouthes of their
victims-- ah, interviewees. This sort of
nonsense needs to stop; just learn to be a
man, and write your opinions in an op ed
piece, under your own name, taking upon
yourselves the manly responsibility for what
you think. It's not that hard, really. Give
decency a try; who knows-- you might even
like it.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 15:05:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 5, 5:32 pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> > BTW, I have no problem with that interpretation,
> > insofar as the FSS postings were humorous. But
> > some folks interpreted them as more-- much more.
>
> "some folks" = folks who were actually impersonated.
>
> In my case, the FRG made threats to third parties in my name, and targeted
> others, with an aim to getting the others to retaliate.
Well, I can think of worse things; for instance, an
insane fellow called Skippy Repa has repeatedly
"threatened" to travel from his asylum down to the
USA, to beat everybody who posts here up. Now,
after waiting um-teen months (years?) for him to
finally show up, I find that my kung fu lessons are
nothing but a waste of time (which could have been
spent, say, learning the Two Knights Tango
opening). (Oh well-- at least I can now walk on
rice paper without leaving any trace... .)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 12:22:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 5, 2:24 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > First of all, nearly-IMnes seemed to tweak many
> > of his questions to slant in favor of the PT/SP duo,
> > deliberately.
>
> O dear! I need my own decoder ring.
Already an example of this was hammered away
at by Mike Murray; the nearly-IMnes tweaked his
questions to slant toward "satire", which of course
is no crime worthy of any lawsuit by the sinister
Sam Sloan.
BTW, I have no problem with that interpretation,
insofar as the FSS postings were humorous. But
some folks interpreted them as more-- much more.
> > Secondly, I seriously doubt that while
> > Larry Evans was interviewing FC, he stopped to
> > allow the latter to rant and rave much, the way PT
> > was allowed -- even encouraged -- to regarding
> > Sam Sloan (the unnamed sex maniac).
>
> I don't seem to remember asking any questions about sex mania, or maniacs.
Can the fibrous mass of tissue calling itself
nearly-IMnes' brain recognize or recall the
ranting and raving itself? While not allowed
to actually name the sex-crazy loon, PT had
plenty to say and was allowed plenty of
opportunity to say it regarding his adversary.
I somehow doubt that Larry Evans managed
to "edit in" any such ravings by his interviewee.
Space is limited, you know (especially when
convenient).
> Everyone can judge Mr. Sloan's credibility for themselves. This was one of
> his statements in his filing: "Prior to the start of this disinformation
> campaign, Sam Sloan enjoyed a sterling reputation as an investigative
> reporter and was held in the highest regard by the World Chess Community."
>
> And readers here can assess if Sam Sloan has actually a sterling reputation,
> and is also held not just in high regard, but the highest by the World Chess
> Community.
>
> I suppose that anyone who actually cared to read what my interviewee said,
> they could also comment on that
Apparently, the nearly-IMnes has not been
paying attention; I myself have written much
the same criticism -- right here in rgc -- long
ago. I also preempted PT's commentary
regarding the duo's inability to get things
done (or to get their own way) with only two
votes. It's all in the archives, dude! This was
back when Mr. Sloan was whining about BG
seemingly having control on every vote, via
his drones; he wanted a second "helper" vote,
which, again, would not be nearly enough.
Here-- call this number; Bill Goichberg will
explain how /he/ runs things... .
> > Another thing I noted was the many attempts by
> > the "interviewer" to put words -- even ideas -- into
> > the mouthes of his interviewees; for instance, where
> > Dr. IMnes whiffed in trying to get PT to take up
> > the cause of ousting the current FIDE president.
>
> I will let Kennedy explain his own comment there, since deposing Kirsan
> doesn't seem to be any question I asked.
I think this statement reveals a lot about the
um, state of Dr. Phil IMnes' mind; if he can't
even recall what he wrote -- and published --,
how can such a man be expected to have a
/rational/ discussion of it? A: Obviously, he
can't.
> > This is rekably similar to the many idiocies of
> > Taylor Kingston, in his interviews. (Why are such
> > attempts disguised as such, as "interviews", I
> > wonder.)
>
> You would wonder - but there is a reason for that. [hint] its not about
> other people.
Personally, I would prefer such nonsense to be
presented as the opinion of the authors them-
selves; you know-- /honestly/. I don't like these
sneaky attempts to foist words and ideas into
the unsuspecting mouthes of others, in a vain
attempt to lend them some sort of credibility
they are sorely lacking otherwise. The method
tells us what sort of evil scum we are dealing
with, it is true; but why mix /that/ up with ideas
which may warrant real examination? I just wish
these buffoons had the guts to stand behind their
own ideas, behind what they pretend to believe in;
like in the movie High Noon, where Gary Cooper
has to stand alone. Courage seems to be in very
short supply with these interviewer types.
> > One similarity, perhaps, is that both
> > interviewees were born in the Philippines.
>
> Foriegn boogers?
Nonsense; the USA invaded that country,
just like all the others. Right now there is a
set limit of fifty states, but just you wait... .
> Which is, to any newcomer to chess, much better than almost a c player.
Technically speaking, a nearly-a-C-player
is a Class D player. That's why I still don't
understand why you nearly-IMs can't grok
that you are nothing more than ego-maniac
FMs, who just happen to be rated 2450.
Until you can *earn* the IM title by defeating
a real IM in a match, just accept what you
are, like I do. May I suggest playing Ed
Formanek? (Stay away from IMs like that
Gata whatsisname-- they are still improving.)
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 17:57:40
From: Chess One
Subject: National Inquiry was Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 5, 2:24 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > First of all, nearly-IMnes seemed to tweak many
>> > of his questions to slant in favor of the PT/SP duo,
>> > deliberately.
>>
>> O dear! I need my own decoder ring.
>
> Already an example of this was hammered away
> at by Mike Murray; the nearly-IMnes tweaked his
> questions to slant toward "satire", which of course
> is no crime worthy of any lawsuit by the sinister
> Sam Sloan.
Help-bot, who can't write his own name, can't even write his own assessment.
Can he tell the FSS for the real Sloan, will anyone ever know? The
soap-erama continues!
But Help-not is not here for that, he justs wants to mouth off at other
people's expence [any exceptions?] - in fact, at most other people's
expense, especially better players than himself, or peolpe who inform
themselves.
Help-sot should call the National Inquirer and make his views plain. They
like people like him, pay them for their views! And thank their stars there
are people out there who will entertain their readers, cheaper than you
could make it up.
Excuse me while others talk of 'tweaking' whatever that means. Maybe it
means the same as Murray's 'some'. Like I can tell some and not some, doh!
Phil Innes
> BTW, I have no problem with that interpretation,
> insofar as the FSS postings were humorous. But
> some folks interpreted them as more-- much more.
>
>
>> > Secondly, I seriously doubt that while
>> > Larry Evans was interviewing FC, he stopped to
>> > allow the latter to rant and rave much, the way PT
>> > was allowed -- even encouraged -- to regarding
>> > Sam Sloan (the unnamed sex maniac).
>>
>> I don't seem to remember asking any questions about sex mania, or
>> maniacs.
>
>
> Can the fibrous mass of tissue calling itself
> nearly-IMnes' brain recognize or recall the
> ranting and raving itself? While not allowed
> to actually name the sex-crazy loon, PT had
> plenty to say and was allowed plenty of
> opportunity to say it regarding his adversary.
>
> I somehow doubt that Larry Evans managed
> to "edit in" any such ravings by his interviewee.
> Space is limited, you know (especially when
> convenient).
>
>
>> Everyone can judge Mr. Sloan's credibility for themselves. This was one
>> of
>> his statements in his filing: "Prior to the start of this disinformation
>> campaign, Sam Sloan enjoyed a sterling reputation as an investigative
>> reporter and was held in the highest regard by the World Chess
>> Community."
>>
>> And readers here can assess if Sam Sloan has actually a sterling
>> reputation,
>> and is also held not just in high regard, but the highest by the World
>> Chess
>> Community.
>>
>> I suppose that anyone who actually cared to read what my interviewee
>> said,
>> they could also comment on that
>
>
> Apparently, the nearly-IMnes has not been
> paying attention; I myself have written much
> the same criticism -- right here in rgc -- long
> ago. I also preempted PT's commentary
> regarding the duo's inability to get things
> done (or to get their own way) with only two
> votes. It's all in the archives, dude! This was
> back when Mr. Sloan was whining about BG
> seemingly having control on every vote, via
> his drones; he wanted a second "helper" vote,
> which, again, would not be nearly enough.
> Here-- call this number; Bill Goichberg will
> explain how /he/ runs things... .
>
>
>> > Another thing I noted was the many attempts by
>> > the "interviewer" to put words -- even ideas -- into
>> > the mouthes of his interviewees; for instance, where
>> > Dr. IMnes whiffed in trying to get PT to take up
>> > the cause of ousting the current FIDE president.
>>
>> I will let Kennedy explain his own comment there, since deposing Kirsan
>> doesn't seem to be any question I asked.
>
>
> I think this statement reveals a lot about the
> um, state of Dr. Phil IMnes' mind; if he can't
> even recall what he wrote -- and published --,
> how can such a man be expected to have a
> /rational/ discussion of it? A: Obviously, he
> can't.
>
>
>> > This is rekably similar to the many idiocies of
>> > Taylor Kingston, in his interviews. (Why are such
>> > attempts disguised as such, as "interviews", I
>> > wonder.)
>>
>> You would wonder - but there is a reason for that. [hint] its not about
>> other people.
>
>
> Personally, I would prefer such nonsense to be
> presented as the opinion of the authors them-
> selves; you know-- /honestly/. I don't like these
> sneaky attempts to foist words and ideas into
> the unsuspecting mouthes of others, in a vain
> attempt to lend them some sort of credibility
> they are sorely lacking otherwise. The method
> tells us what sort of evil scum we are dealing
> with, it is true; but why mix /that/ up with ideas
> which may warrant real examination? I just wish
> these buffoons had the guts to stand behind their
> own ideas, behind what they pretend to believe in;
> like in the movie High Noon, where Gary Cooper
> has to stand alone. Courage seems to be in very
> short supply with these interviewer types.
>
>
>> > One similarity, perhaps, is that both
>> > interviewees were born in the Philippines.
>>
>> Foriegn boogers?
>
>
> Nonsense; the USA invaded that country,
> just like all the others. Right now there is a
> set limit of fifty states, but just you wait... .
>
>
>> Which is, to any newcomer to chess, much better than almost a c player.
>
>
> Technically speaking, a nearly-a-C-player
> is a Class D player. That's why I still don't
> understand why you nearly-IMs can't grok
> that you are nothing more than ego-maniac
> FMs, who just happen to be rated 2450.
> Until you can *earn* the IM title by defeating
> a real IM in a match, just accept what you
> are, like I do. May I suggest playing Ed
> Formanek? (Stay away from IMs like that
> Gata whatsisname-- they are still improving.)
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 16:01:27
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: National Inquiry was Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On Wed, 5 2008 17:57:40 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Excuse me while others talk of 'tweaking' whatever that means. Maybe it
>means the same as Murray's 'some'. Like I can tell some and not some, doh!
In the case of your interview, Phil, it's flotsam and jetsam.
And it's spelled "duh", not "doh", unless you meant "dough" and were
trying to get a rise out of us... or 'fessing up to accepting a bribe
or something.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 17:09:19
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: National Inquiry was Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Wed, 5 2008 17:57:40 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Excuse me while others talk of 'tweaking' whatever that means. Maybe it
>> means the same as Murray's 'some'. Like I can tell some and not some, doh!
>
> In the case of your interview, Phil, it's flotsam and jetsam.
>
> And it's spelled "duh", not "doh", unless you meant "dough" and were
> trying to get a rise out of us... or 'fessing up to accepting a bribe
> or something.
Bad gram flame. Doh is a widely accepted and understood exclamation...
See
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Doh
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 17:27:53
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: National Inquiry was Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On Wed, 05 2008 17:09:19 -0800, johnny_t <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> And it's spelled "duh", not "doh", unless you meant "dough" and were
>> trying to get a rise out of us... or 'fessing up to accepting a bribe
>> or something.
>Bad gram flame. Doh is a widely accepted and understood exclamation...
>See
>http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Doh
I stand corrected. Need to update my Homer Simpson repertoire.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Mar 2008 17:13:48
From:
Subject: Re: National Inquiry was Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
Mike Murray wrote:
>
>johnny_t <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Doh is a widely accepted and understood exclamation...
>
>>See
>
>>http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Doh
>
>I stand corrected. Need to update my Homer Simpson repertoire.
I prefer to use it this way:
D'oh!
This is, IMO, more Homer-Simpon-like. The exclamation
point, of course, because homer uses it as an exclamation.
The apostraphe because such exclamations are usually a
modification of a dirty word.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Mar 2008 09:58:09
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: National Inquiry was Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 05 2008 17:09:19 -0800, johnny_t <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> And it's spelled "duh", not "doh", unless you meant "dough" and were
>>> trying to get a rise out of us... or 'fessing up to accepting a bribe
>>> or something.
>
>>Bad gram flame. Doh is a widely accepted and understood exclamation...
>
>>See
>
>>http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Doh
>
> I stand corrected. Need to update my Homer Simpson repertoire.
And also to believe that I can identify more righteous American cant than
you can. PI
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2008 13:22:57
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: National Inquiry was Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On Thu, 6 2008 09:58:09 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> I stand corrected. Need to update my Homer Simpson repertoire.
>And also to believe that I can identify more righteous American cant than
>you can. PI
Phil, I readily acknowledge your greater conversance with the argot of
the Simpson cartoon family.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2008 19:10:10
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: National Inquiry was Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 6 2008 09:58:09 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> I stand corrected. Need to update my Homer Simpson repertoire.
>
>>And also to believe that I can identify more righteous American cant than
>>you can. PI
>
> Phil, I readily acknowledge your greater conversance with the argot of
> the Simpson cartoon family.
Which is no doubt of more benefit to you than behaving like a sentient human
being. But why protest, as if, to me? You parade you dumbth here before all
readers, of what you are content to investigate and what not, and of your
prescription.
PI
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2008 17:53:27
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: National Inquiry was Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On Mon, 17 2008 19:10:10 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>>>> I stand corrected. Need to update my Homer Simpson repertoire.
>>>And also to believe that I can identify more righteous American cant than
>>>you can. PI
>> Phil, I readily acknowledge your greater conversance with the argot of
>> the Simpson cartoon family.
>Which is no doubt of more benefit to you than behaving like a sentient human
>being. But why protest, as if, to me? You parade you dumbth here before all
>readers, of what you are content to investigate and what not, and of your
>prescription.
Phil, with which of the Simpson family members do you most closely
identify ?
|
| | |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 17:32:38
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
> BTW, I have no problem with that interpretation,
> insofar as the FSS postings were humorous. But
> some folks interpreted them as more-- much more.
"some folks" = folks who were actually impersonated.
In my case, the FRG made threats to third parties in my name, and targeted
others, with an aim to getting the others to retaliate.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 16:13:18
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 4, 6:00 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> THE TOUGHEST INTERVIEW
There is a BIG difference between interviewing
an arch-enemy and what our Dr. Phil IMnes did.
(Also, at that time, CL had a real editor, whereas
Dr. IM Innes cannot spell to save his own life.)
First of all, nearly-IMnes seemed to tweak many
of his questions to slant in favor of the PT/SP duo,
deliberately. Secondly, I seriously doubt that while
Larry Evans was interviewing FC, he stopped to
allow the latter to rant and rave much, the way PT
was allowed -- even encouraged -- to regarding
Sam Sloan (the unnamed sex maniac).
What I noticed was the many inconsistencies;
for instance, where PT boldly stated that SP
*always* put chess first-- after having just finished
telling us that she put chess aside in favor of
being a good mother-- that sort of thing.
Another thing I noted was the many attempts by
the "interviewer" to put words -- even ideas -- into
the mouthes of his interviewees; for instance, where
Dr. IMnes whiffed in trying to get PT to take up
the cause of ousting the current FIDE president.
This is rekably similar to the many idiocies of
Taylor Kingston, in his interviews. (Why are such
attempts disguised as such, as "interviews", I
wonder.)
At one point, keter/promoter Paul Truong
tossed out a claim to do something "150%", and
this struck a familiar chord; the Susan Polgar
Web site appears to exaggerate just about every
thing she ever did (and some things she has not
done) by at least that much! I suppose that to
some people, this sort of thing is just routine
"keting"; to me, it shows an appalling lack of
integrity. Amazingly, PT had the gall to boast
about the integrity of the dynamic duo, in spite of
the obvious lack thereof.
In sum, what Larry Evans did is not comparable
to whatever it was that Phillip IMnes was trying
to do. One similarity, perhaps, is that both
interviewees were born in the Philippines. And
another is that both PT and Mr. Campomanes
were/are FIDE masters.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 14:24:55
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:16651615-870d-43c9-ab80-8586a98a3d48@e31g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 4, 6:00 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> THE TOUGHEST INTERVIEW
>
> There is a BIG difference between interviewing
> an arch-enemy and what our Dr. Phil IMnes did.
> (Also, at that time, CL had a real editor, whereas
> Dr. IM Innes cannot spell to save his own life.)
Great start by 'objective' Kennedy. I wonder where he is going with this?
> First of all, nearly-IMnes seemed to tweak many
> of his questions to slant in favor of the PT/SP duo,
> deliberately.
O dear! I need my own decoder ring.
> Secondly, I seriously doubt that while
> Larry Evans was interviewing FC, he stopped to
> allow the latter to rant and rave much, the way PT
> was allowed -- even encouraged -- to regarding
> Sam Sloan (the unnamed sex maniac).
I don't seem to remember asking any questions about sex mania, or maniacs.
Neither did my Interviewee. Perhaps Greg Kennedy has paraphrased something?
The point of referencing Sloan's character seems to follow this comment:-
Everyone can judge Mr. Sloan's credibility for themselves. This was one of
his statements in his filing: "Prior to the start of this disinformation
campaign, Sam Sloan enjoyed a sterling reputation as an investigative
reporter and was held in the highest regard by the World Chess Community."
And readers here can assess if Sam Sloan has actually a sterling reputation,
and is also held not just in high regard, but the highest by the World Chess
Community.
I suppose that anyone who actually cared to read what my interviewee said,
they could also comment on that - but seems to me that Kennedy is proposing
to readers here that my encouragment came from this, rather anodyne,
questions
"Several things then happened all at once in the Summer of 2007, including
you becoming accused of not as much impersonating, but satirizing another
Board member, Mr. Sam Sloan, resulting in a civil suit brought against you
and fellow Board members by Mr. Sloan."
> What I noticed was the many inconsistencies;
> for instance, where PT boldly stated that SP
> *always* put chess first-- after having just finished
> telling us that she put chess aside in favor of
> being a good mother-- that sort of thing.
Kennedy cannot grasp something here about the context of a rek, ie, that
it is personal gain and political power that is not seconded to chess.
> Another thing I noted was the many attempts by
> the "interviewer" to put words -- even ideas -- into
> the mouthes of his interviewees; for instance, where
> Dr. IMnes whiffed in trying to get PT to take up
> the cause of ousting the current FIDE president.
I will let Kennedy explain his own comment there, since deposing Kirsan
doesn't seem to be any question I asked.
> This is rekably similar to the many idiocies of
> Taylor Kingston, in his interviews. (Why are such
> attempts disguised as such, as "interviews", I
> wonder.)
You would wonder - but there is a reason for that. [hint] its not about
other people.
> At one point, keter/promoter Paul Truong
> tossed out a claim to do something "150%", and
> this struck a familiar chord; the Susan Polgar
> Web site appears to exaggerate just about every
> thing she ever did (and some things she has not
> done) by at least that much! I suppose that to
> some people, this sort of thing is just routine
> "keting"; to me, it shows an appalling lack of
> integrity. Amazingly, PT had the gall to boast
> about the integrity of the dynamic duo, in spite of
> the obvious lack thereof.
In spite of hyperbole? What a source for such a criticism. This is the guy
who can't even write his own name, and always sends others up, doesn't
matter if he knows better or not. He is a bitter creature, who cudda bin a c
player. And, in sympathy, that is a bloody awful state indeed. Though, if he
didn't write here, and actually played the game against all the cheats out
there, he actually could become a c player!
But he is too pround to learn. Argue for your limitations, and they shall be
yours!
> In sum, what Larry Evans did is not comparable
> to whatever it was that Phillip IMnes was trying
> to do.
I don't think so either!
> One similarity, perhaps, is that both
> interviewees were born in the Philippines.
Foriegn boogers?
> And
> another is that both PT and Mr. Campomanes
> were/are FIDE masters.
Which is, to any newcomer to chess, much better than almost a c player.
Phil Innes
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2008 21:10:25
From: Rob
Subject: Re: National Inquiry was Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 17, 7:53 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 2008 19:10:10 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >>>> I stand corrected. Need to update my Homer Simpson repertoire.
> >>>And also to believe that I can identify more righteous American cant than
> >>>you can. PI
> >> Phil, I readily acknowledge your greater conversance with the argot of
> >> the Simpson cartoon family.
> >Which is no doubt of more benefit to you than behaving like a sentient human
> >being. But why protest, as if, to me? You parade you dumbth here before all
> >readers, of what you are content to investigate and what not, and of your
> >prescription.
>
> Phil, with which of the Simpson family members do you most closely
> identify ?
My favorite is Willie,
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 15:00:36
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
THE TOUGHEST INTERVIEW
In February, ch and April 1988 of Chess Life, Larry Evans' long 3-
part interview called MY DINNER WITH CAMPO was the toughest one I ever
published during my tenure. At one point Campo howled, "Did Parr put
you up to asking THAT question?!"
In began on page 40 of Chess Life, February 1988: "Since I am a
frequent critic of FIDE and its president Florencio Campomanes,
imagine my surprise upon hearing this message on my telephone
answering machine: "This is Campomanes, I am in Los Angeles, and I
thought I'd go over to Reno and have a chat with you, if that's
possible." It was. And on the evening of September 22, 1987, he
bravely defended his record in a three hour tape-recorded interview,
which has of necessity been edited down to a manageable length.
In the January and February issues of Chess Life several politicians
and journalists have gone at each other -- with the FIDE president
serving as one of their bones of chess contention. Here the reader may
judge for himself whether Mr. Campomanes answers my questions
straightforwardly or whether he equivocates and evades those
questions.
Evans: Some of these questions I've been asked to put to you by the
editor of Chess Life. I hope that you don't take offense at any of
them.
Campo: Oh, you told him that you were going to see me?
Evans: Yes. I told him that you were coming to see me. Do you have any
objections?
Campo:You must tell me which of the questions he asked. Can you do
that?
Evans: Well, I'll try as we go along....
help bot wrote:
> On 3, 7:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now
> > published athttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
>
>
> One curious rek by PT is that he is a USCF
> Life Master; checking at the official Web site of
> that organization, I found that his rating floor is
> 2100. How can this be? Should not a lifer be
> supported by a floor of 2200? I know that as a
> life Class C player, I can never drop lower than
> 1400, because if I did, I would then be a Class
> D player, right?
>
>
> So, I am reading along, noting a few (not many)
> spelling errors, when all of a sudden in breaks
> this guy claiming to be the editor! Huh? Where
> was he when the spelling mistakes sneaked by?
> Where was he then, eh? (See below.)
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 10) You, and Susan Polgar, have also questioned
> the basis of relationships surrounding USCF in
> terms of contractual responsibilities, and
> performance issues by contractors. [Editor: see,
> e.g., USCF's Book & Equipment Deal with Chess
> Cafe.] Can you describe what concerns you most
> in these respects?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Unsurprisingly, the dynamic duo of PT and SP
> complain of not having sufficient votes to get
> things done, to overcome the powers that be in
> the USCF. How many times did I mention this
> with regard to Sam Sloan already? Mr. Sloan
> complained of not being able to overcome the
> evil henchmen of BG or whoever, and wanted a
> fellow officer to "help him"; this was quickly met
> by me pointing out that even with *two* votes,
> the Sloan duo would be vastly outnumbered.
> Some folks are just slow learners, I guess... .
>
>
> A bit further down, PT is called "arguably the
> best chess promoter the USCF ever had"; what
> is the source of this claim? On what is it based?
> Has Dr. Phil IMnes forgotten about the work
> done by Ed Edmondson, by chance? The man
> who got BF the world title. Here is what PT
> himself has stated: "Even when I proposed
> keting and PR ideas, no one cared." Does
> that sound like the /best/ the USCF has ever
> had? Or more like the worst?
>
>
> At the bottom, PT himself raises the question
> of integrity; all one can say is that the SP Web
> site indicates a complete and utter lack thereof;
> it is filled to overflowing with ridiculous lies and
> false pretensions. To match the ludicrous
> claims on that site, Bobby Fischer would have
> to undergo a sex-change operation and then
> enter numerous competitions-- and stay in top
> form!
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 14:34:54
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 3, 7:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now
> published athttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
One curious rek by PT is that he is a USCF
Life Master; checking at the official Web site of
that organization, I found that his rating floor is
2100. How can this be? Should not a lifer be
supported by a floor of 2200? I know that as a
life Class C player, I can never drop lower than
1400, because if I did, I would then be a Class
D player, right?
So, I am reading along, noting a few (not many)
spelling errors, when all of a sudden in breaks
this guy claiming to be the editor! Huh? Where
was he when the spelling mistakes sneaked by?
Where was he then, eh? (See below.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10) You, and Susan Polgar, have also questioned
the basis of relationships surrounding USCF in
terms of contractual responsibilities, and
performance issues by contractors. [Editor: see,
e.g., USCF's Book & Equipment Deal with Chess
Cafe.] Can you describe what concerns you most
in these respects?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsurprisingly, the dynamic duo of PT and SP
complain of not having sufficient votes to get
things done, to overcome the powers that be in
the USCF. How many times did I mention this
with regard to Sam Sloan already? Mr. Sloan
complained of not being able to overcome the
evil henchmen of BG or whoever, and wanted a
fellow officer to "help him"; this was quickly met
by me pointing out that even with *two* votes,
the Sloan duo would be vastly outnumbered.
Some folks are just slow learners, I guess... .
A bit further down, PT is called "arguably the
best chess promoter the USCF ever had"; what
is the source of this claim? On what is it based?
Has Dr. Phil IMnes forgotten about the work
done by Ed Edmondson, by chance? The man
who got BF the world title. Here is what PT
himself has stated: "Even when I proposed
keting and PR ideas, no one cared." Does
that sound like the /best/ the USCF has ever
had? Or more like the worst?
At the bottom, PT himself raises the question
of integrity; all one can say is that the SP Web
site indicates a complete and utter lack thereof;
it is filled to overflowing with ridiculous lies and
false pretensions. To match the ludicrous
claims on that site, Bobby Fischer would have
to undergo a sex-change operation and then
enter numerous competitions-- and stay in top
form!
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 17 Mar 2008 08:43:59
From: Rob
Subject: Re: National Inquiry was Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 6, 9:58=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Wed, 05 2008 17:09:19 -0800, johnny_t <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >>> And it's spelled "duh", not "doh", unless you meant "dough" and were
> >>> trying to get a rise out of us... or 'fessing up to accepting a bribe
> >>> or something.
>
> >>Bad gram flame. =A0Doh is a widely accepted and understood exclamatio=
n...
>
> >>See
>
> >>http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=3DDoh
>
> > I stand corrected. =A0Need to update my Homer Simpson repertoire.
>
> And also to believe that I can identify more righteous American cant than
> you can. PI
I am glad we have resolved Paul's innocence. ANd since the recall
petition probably wouldn't stand up to a court challenge because the
recall proceedures do not coincide with the change to OMOV, it's all a
waste of what little money the USCF has left to purdue it.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 15:47:42
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On Tue, 4 2008 14:34:54 -0800 (PST), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:
>On 3, 7:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now
>> published athttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
> One curious rek by PT is that he is a USCF
>Life Master; checking at the official Web site of
>that organization, I found that his rating floor is
>2100. How can this be? Should not a lifer be
>supported by a floor of 2200?
Your comment inspired me to look at the crosstable for the Spice Cup
tournament that was played in November of 2007. It shows PT equal
First with 5-0. I don't understand this tournament.. After beating
a 1429 in the first round and a 1739 in the second, PT evidently got
full point byes in rounds 3 and 4, then finished round 5 paired with
an unrated who had 2 wins, 1 loss and a draw. After winning, PT had a
5-0 score.
Mr. Bot, drawing on your depth of GetClub experience, maybe you can
clarify this for me.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200711110231-12123950
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 13:35:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 4, 4:25 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
Our Dr. Phil nearly-IMnes seems to have gotten
lost somewhere along his merry way; the above
observations related to his cowardly avoidance in
not sticking it to his *interviewee*; nothing was
stated with regard to his propensity to wallow in
ad hominem, which is a different matter entirely.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 13:20:52
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 4, 1:50=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> <Snipped for clarity>
>
> > (frankly, I do not see why the USCF was named at all in the suit), I thi=
nk the >USCF
> > was completely correct to try to separate itself from Truong with
> > regard to the lawsuit when he did not give immediate and full
> > cooperation.
>
> Hi Jerry,
> from my point of view the reason to mane the organization is two fold:
> 1. to punish the USCF board who would not do what Sloan wanted
> 2. because thats where the big insurance money is
>
> Sue everyone and hope that some insurance company simply settles.
Actually, I wonder whether Sam would comment on why the USCF is named.
I cannot always guess his motivations; they mix what seems very
reasonable and what seems very strange.
>
> The reason the insurance company has not probably offered a settlement
> is the feel the suit isn't winable by Sloan; and they arrive at that
> conclusion because he cannot find councel to represent him even on a
> contingency basis.
> Rob
Here I think you misinterpret what was happened. Sam never sought a
lawyer, nor would he. He has great belief in his own legal ability,
whether or not this is justified.
As to reasons for lack of settlements, it depends on the party. I
don't think anyone except for Truong is really worried about the suit,
because they are not culpable for the fact that someone else was
sending messages.
As for Truong, if he is innocent, he wouldn't want to settle; he would
want his name cleared. If he is guilty, he wouldn't want to settle; he
would want the suit thrown out on technical grounds (which remains a
serious possibility) without ever having to make any admission of
guilt which Sloan would demand as part of any settlement.
I am sure that Sloan could get a lawyer on this if he wanted. No
matter whether you believe in Truong's guilt or innocence, the reports
by experts make a strong case. The real question is what damages he
could expect, but I think that some lawyer would like to take a fling
on it, as there are some interesting legal points.
Of course, if he were willing to actually pay a lawyer, it would be
easy to get one. I am sad to say that I know of cases of lawyers
taking money from a paranoid schizophrenic to pursue the "case"
against mysterious persecutors. Having actual expert reports
supporting his side is much more than you would need to get a lawyer
to file suits.
Jerry Spinrad
>
>
>
> > Jerry Spinrad- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 11:50:54
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
<Snipped for clarity >
> (frankly, I do not see why the USCF was named at all in the suit), I think the >USCF
> was completely correct to try to separate itself from Truong with
> regard to the lawsuit when he did not give immediate and full
> cooperation.
Hi Jerry,
from my point of view the reason to mane the organization is two fold:
1. to punish the USCF board who would not do what Sloan wanted
2. because thats where the big insurance money is
Sue everyone and hope that some insurance company simply settles.
The reason the insurance company has not probably offered a settlement
is the feel the suit isn't winable by Sloan; and they arrive at that
conclusion because he cannot find councel to represent him even on a
contingency basis.
Rob
> Jerry Spinrad
>
>
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 08:26:02
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 4, 9:31=A0am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >around this time, Truong started attacking the
> >USCF board. By this time, it is very clear that
> >the interests of the USCF and Truong are not
> >the same.
>
> Not necessarily. It is possible for the board of an
> organization to not be working for the best interests
> of that organization and for someone attacking that
> board to be doing so in the best interests of the
> organization. =A0
The statement that the interests of the USCF and Truong were different
by this time follows from the whole previous history, not just the
final straw of Truong attacking the board. It comes from the fact that
the lawyers for the USCF felt that there was a strong case against
Truong, and that instead of cooperating with the lawyers to try to
make the case that he was innocent, he started attacking the process.
Truong continued to treat the case as if it was a frivolous suit that
he did not have to answer seriously. Since the serious allegations in
the suit are against Truong rather than the USCF itself (frankly, I do
not see why the USCF was named at all in the suit), I think the USCF
was completely correct to try to separate itself from Truong with
regard to the lawsuit when he did not give immediate and full
cooperation.
Jerry Spinrad
>
> I am expressing no opinion about this particular
> case, merely pointing out that attacking the board
> of an organization is not the same as attacking
> the organization itself.
>
> There is a presumption that whoever got the most
> votes best represents the wishes of the membership,
> but in reality the vote reflects what a politician
> promised to do during the campaign, not what he
> actually does once elected. =A0That's why there is
> always another election on the schedule.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 14:12:06
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On Tue, 4 2008 08:26:02 -0800 (PST),
"[email protected]" <[email protected] >
wrote:
> (frankly, I do not see why the USCF was named at all in the suit),
My guess is that Sam believes the FSS posts cost him his re-election,
and going after PT alone wouldn't do much about forcing a rerun. He
may also have believed the only way to goad the rest of the USCF board
out of inaction was to include 'em in the suit. A former in-law of
mine used this technique in pursuing medical malpractice suits, back
in the bad old days when doctors had a code of omerta against
testifying against other doctors. He sued *everybody*, nurses,
orderlies, administrators, janitors, connected with the patient --
they'd testify against the quacks when their own assets were on the
line.
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 23:58:06
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
Mike Murray wrote:
>
>"[email protected]" wrote:
>
>My guess is that Sam believes the FSS posts cost him his re-election,
I am the one who cost him his re-election. I posted my opinion
that his repeated crossposting of material that has nothing to
do with computer chess to a rec.games.chess.computer showed a
blatant disregard for others that I felt would carry over to
his activities on the board. As everybody knows, I am hugely
influential around here, and so, on my advice, a bunch of people
who otherwise had noticed nothing bad about Sam Sloan suddenly
saw the light and voted him out.
That's my story, and I am sticking to it! :)
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 08:16:27
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 4, 9:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > <Who will you ask about Truong's PhD claims? Paul was asked and denied
> > ever making claims of a PhD, and that what was on his website was
> > mysteriously hacked into it. Other people then volunteered that Paul
> > had presented himself as having a PhD, completely independent from the
> > website claims. What do you hope to ask Paul that would settle the
> > issue?> -- Jerry Spinrad
>
> I asked him a question he could answer, which was what education he had. I
> am SO SORRY that that is not a scandalous way to ask the question - but you
> know, I don't get off on it as much as some evidently do.
You know, it's funny how for years, Dr. Phil IM Innes
carried on about Tyler Kingstone's inability to get tough
in an interview, about his lacking the courage to stick
it to an interviewee... And now this! Having been
requested *in advance* to clear up the matter regarding
holding of PhDs, our Dr. Phil nearly-an-IM Innes has not
the guts to slam-dunk the matter himself. Are we now
supposed to be surprised? Is this supposed to come
off as a black swan, a crazy fluke of an inconsistency?
Um, no. It is, in fact, a perfect match to the overall
pattern we have seen in nearly-IMnes' behavior here
(not to mention elsewhere, forsooth!).
As with so many other wannabees, the man /talks/ a
good game, but he cannot really /play/.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 16:25:12
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:58050ea4-9c74-4567-8b82-3b5209873823@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 4, 9:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> > <Who will you ask about Truong's PhD claims? Paul was asked and denied
>> > ever making claims of a PhD, and that what was on his website was
>> > mysteriously hacked into it. Other people then volunteered that Paul
>> > had presented himself as having a PhD, completely independent from the
>> > website claims. What do you hope to ask Paul that would settle the
>> > issue?> -- Jerry Spinrad
>>
>> I asked him a question he could answer, which was what education he had.
>> I
>> am SO SORRY that that is not a scandalous way to ask the question - but
>> you
>> know, I don't get off on it as much as some evidently do.
>
>
> You know, it's funny how for years, Dr. Phil IM Innes
> carried on about Tyler Kingstone's inability to get tough
> in an interview, about his lacking the courage to stick
> it to an interviewee... And now this! Having been
> requested *in advance* to clear up the matter regarding
> holding of PhDs, our Dr. Phil nearly-an-IM Innes has not
> the guts to slam-dunk the matter himself.
Greg Kennedy who has not the guts to sign his own name, nor even admit his
name, regrets that I asked precisely what educational and business level
achievements Paul Truong held.
In his own corn-cob way, asking the question and obtaining an answer, is not
to have 'guts', in his own gutless opinion.
Except now the answer is clearly established. There is no spin present, and
a straight question obtained a straight answer. What a novelty!
Kennedy, the cudda bin a C player! Doesn't like questions which simple bring
forth the truth - and he should join those others who prefer a National
Inquirer kinda approach, which is to laud a few, blame many, speculate very
much. But truth?
<guffaw >
De nada of truth. I do not apologise for not following that standard, and so
it seems to me, and my mailbag, neither does the general public. That is,
those with the balls to sign their names and own their opinions.
> Are we now
> supposed to be surprised?
"We"?
> Is this supposed to come
> off as a black swan, a crazy fluke of an inconsistency?
> Um, no. It is, in fact, a perfect match to the overall
> pattern we have seen in nearly-IMnes' behavior here
> (not to mention elsewhere, forsooth!).
>
> As with so many other wannabees, the man /talks/ a
> good game, but he cannot really /play/.
If you want to play at truth I suggest to you that you do not indulge your
cowardly self in sniping and blaming. If, of course, you want to play chess,
shut your huge mouth and do it. <shrug >
That is the state of play, corn-fed, and just a few people think otherwise,
and they write here, sometimes signing their own names, since nowhere else
do their completely indecent speculations appear. Nowhere at all since all
other people rejected them.
Phil Innes
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 15:31:02
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
[email protected] wrote:
>around this time, Truong started attacking the
>USCF board. By this time, it is very clear that
>the interests of the USCF and Truong are not
>the same.
Not necessarily. It is possible for the board of an
organization to not be working for the best interests
of that organization and for someone attacking that
board to be doing so in the best interests of the
organization.
I am expressing no opinion about this particular
case, merely pointing out that attacking the board
of an organization is not the same as attacking
the organization itself.
There is a presumption that whoever got the most
votes best represents the wishes of the membership,
but in reality the vote reflects what a politician
promised to do during the campaign, not what he
actually does once elected. That's why there is
always another election on the schedule.
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 00:52:38
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 3, 11:56 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Mr. Truong:
>
> > "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
>
> Truong couldn't carry Kolty's gymbag.
... nor Maxim Dlugy's - neither as a chess player,
nor as a businessman.
-- Wlod
|
| | |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 09:22:33
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:1508abfa-519e-4934-a9a9-579e7201886f@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On 3, 11:56 am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Mr. Truong:
>>
>> > "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
>>
>> Truong couldn't carry Kolty's gymbag.
>
> ... nor Maxim Dlugy's - neither as a chess player,
> nor as a businessman.
and not for long! Wlod may not know that Max didn't exactly have a great
time aboard. Anyway, I see my request for any measure or benchks for
these statements has also gone overboard, but won't chase it up because i am
toobored... Phil
> -- Wlod
|
| |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 19:25:07
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 3, 5:32 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 3 2008 13:02:25 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
Hi Mike,
I will try to answer below to your points. Please forgive any faulty
logic I may display.
> >The natural inclination of someone when they feel their livlihood is
> >being threatened is to defend it. They have to do it in such a way
> >that it not only solidifies their position or draws attention away
> >from their abuses or and including removes a threat from someone who
> >would clean up those abuses.
> >In this case of the FSS we have a "perfect storm". You have someone
> >who made money off the USCF, this person authorized a contractor to
> >the USCF to violate their NDA, the same person/persons colluded to
> >leak information to damage their intended targets, next these same
> >persons attempted to deny their targets due process.
> Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant all your speculations
> about impure motive, the Mottershead Report can be examined
> independently of all that. It's either well-founded or it's not, and
> this isn't a function of whether its author and his sponsor were
> saints or scoundrels. It's already been vetted by two experts. PT
> has produced no experts, but he and his apologists have relied
> priily on ad hominem attacks, diversions, and vague threats about
> actions down the road. We'll see.
I have heard this often repeated but have seen no proof of the
positive vetting of his report that corroborates the claims. They may
exist, but they are obvious due to their absence . I have seen nothing
sacred that doesn't find itself onto the web via the sieve of USCF
confidentiality.
> Your claim that the targets were denied due process is simply false.
> They are enmeshed in due process right now. They are represented by
> counsel, paid for by our USCF, even though they failed to cooperate
> with the original attorneys assigned to represent them and others.
They were made the targets of an internal investigation without proper
due process being served. That may be the wrong term in this context.
I'll grant that. But who in the USCF has the authority without
consulting the board in advance, can order an investigation? I don't
know. Then there was an attempt to remove Paul from office, without
following the proscribed proceedures. Then there was an attempt to
deny them equal protection under an insurance policy.
> Now, if you mean "they didn't get to dictate the form of the due
> process", I could agree with that. If they follow through with their
> vague (and often proxy threats, e.g., via Innes), I suspect they'll be
> treated to a few more forms of process very uncomfortable to them.
No. Thats not what I mean.
> >Lest too much be made of things there are many reasons other law firms
> >may be involved in defending the board and Mr Truong. Not the least of
> >which may be the insurance companies determination that the Mr. Truong
> >may have a legitimate claim that can be filed against the other
> >members of the board for impropriety which would mean that there would
> >be a conflict of interest.
> Isn't it the same insurance company paying for both sets of legal
> beagles?
Yes it is the same company. The only reason different council would be
required is if there looked to be a case of conflict of interest. If
Paul decided to press a case against the other board members for not
following USCF rules and regulations concerning this matter... then
that insurance company is obligated to get alternative council. I
don't know much more than that as I have seen it first hand in the
past from a professional point of view. Bottom line.. I believe the
insurance company thinks Paul will sue the USCF board over this and
they need to separate council because the insurance company feels
there is a conflict of interest.
> >Why is all of this important? Because Mr. Truong was interested in
> >cleaning up the nepotism and illegal funding activities in the USCF.
> >Thats something that the powers that be could not allow to continue.
>
> That's one interpretation / possibility. Another is simply that he
> has a dark and irresponsible side and let it control things for too
> long simply because he believed he could get away with it. We can
> hope the truth will be revealed in the proper forum.
Possible but also not probable. But I will grant you it is possible.
> >This is the line in the law that could undo the USCF:
> >"a nonprofit organization is not precluded from making a profit
> >or engaging in profit-making activities. It is prohibited from
> >passing
> >along any profits to those individuals who control it, like founders,
> >directors, officers, employees, and members."
> I'd have to defer to the lawyers on this, but it seems to me that
> clause might refer to something like "dividends".
No. II know from first hand experience from being on non profit boards
myself. I can have no business where I make money from the non
profit . So long as I am on the board I cannot sell any type of
insurance or financial product to the organization where I would
receive anything of value in return. On this one point I am certain.
What amazes me is that the USCF has not been challenged on this
subject before.
> >Rob
Thanks for the civil discussion Mike. It is refreshing to coolly
discuss a topic without making it a personal attack.
Rob
|
| |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 17:47:31
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
AN INTERESTING INTERVIEW
I, for one, would also like to see Paul's answer to this question
posed a few months ago.
<Who will you ask about Truong's PhD claims? Paul was asked and denied
ever making claims of a PhD, and that what was on his website was
mysteriously hacked into it. Other people then volunteered that Paul
had presented himself as having a PhD, completely independent from the
website claims. What do you hope to ask Paul that would settle the
issue? > -- Jerry Spinrad
Chess One wrote:
> Dear Reader,
>
> 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now
> published at
> http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
>
> There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 20 questions
> session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry brought about
> by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCafe.
>
> Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive detail, to
> illustrate the context of reks made in the current interview.
>
> There are also a few not-before-released pictures of Mr. Truong and his
> wife, from their wedding.
>
> Phil Innes
> for Chessville
>
> ---
> [aside] 20 Questions with Mickey Adams will be published next week as
> previously stated - the above interview being more timely.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 09:17:29
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:29e339e9-6abc-4df5-95a0-21c534761d5b@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> AN INTERESTING INTERVIEW
>
> I, for one, would also like to see Paul's answer to this question
> posed a few months ago.
>
> <Who will you ask about Truong's PhD claims? Paul was asked and denied
> ever making claims of a PhD, and that what was on his website was
> mysteriously hacked into it. Other people then volunteered that Paul
> had presented himself as having a PhD, completely independent from the
> website claims. What do you hope to ask Paul that would settle the
> issue?> -- Jerry Spinrad
I asked him a question he could answer, which was what education he had. I
am SO SORRY that that is not a scandalous way to ask the question - but you
know, I don't get off on it as much as some evidently do.
I have asked Jerry Spinrad several questions here about what evidence he has
for his own views, and as suspected, he is much better at asking rather than
answering, since one requires work. Jerry would have a much better basis to
criticise me if he himself answered even ordinary questions ~ but as a
kangaroo-court tribunalist, he is rather above such decencies.
Phil Innes.
>
> Chess One wrote:
>> Dear Reader,
>>
>> 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now
>> published at
>> http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
>>
>> There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 20
>> questions
>> session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry brought
>> about
>> by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCafe.
>>
>> Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive detail, to
>> illustrate the context of reks made in the current interview.
>>
>> There are also a few not-before-released pictures of Mr. Truong and his
>> wife, from their wedding.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>> for Chessville
>>
>> ---
>> [aside] 20 Questions with Mickey Adams will be published next week as
>> previously stated - the above interview being more timely.
|
| |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 15:56:40
From:
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 3, 4:58=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:8356b63a-26e2-4fa5-b863-6ebe902f0916@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 3, 7:06 am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Mr. Truong:
>
> > "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
>
> Truong couldn't carry Kolty's gymbag.
>
> --
>
> **Thank you Steven Dowd =A0for this deep appraisal. Now, I much admire Kol=
ty,
> have said so in public. You care to discuss this, or gymbag it? In other
> words, is this an actual measure of something you would discuss? If so, wh=
at
> is your measure of it in your own terms?
>
> Come on! Look at what is dying in this country! Left to itself USCF will
> kill chess. If you don't like Paul Troung then try to engage him, harness
> him, because for sure, Susan Polgar is doing more than Kolty ever did, to
> more people and more often, and with more sensibitity, as becomes our age.=
>
> If you are content to write so ... what shall I say? In hero-worship vein,=
> about a person =A0no-one knows much of anything anymore, then you are (a) =
on
> your own and (b) obscure to a fault.
>
> You have often been a sour-puss in the past. And if you wish to decline wi=
th
> Kolty, 90% of USCF members or active chessplayers do not know to whom we
> refer or what he did in this country. Believe me, brother, I get the
> letters, and they ain't often informed!
>
> Come on, you are better than this, much better than to pitch a past-pionee=
r
> to a current one - as a contest. If you care for chess, harness those who
> promote it to what is to the common good. Or give that up and reside with
> dreams of the past, which you must admit, were not appreciable in terms of=
> chess players.
>
> Most of all, do not write one sentence shite in public since that also
> qualifies your wit.
>
> Now cheer up or fuck-off back to 1960, when USCF had 5,000 members - even =
if
> every single one was to the credit of Kolty.
>
> Phil Innes
Phil Innes, I perfer 0 members. Bankruptcy.
cus Roberts
|
| |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 13:02:25
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 3, 12:55=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 3 2008 10:22:51 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> Wlod, the who thing was little more than a press release for Trolgar.
> >> Nothing new. =A0Innes and his friends at Chessville aren't interested i=
n
> >> facts lets alone digging for them. =A0They're really little more than P=
R
> >> flacks.-
> >Dear BL,
> >What you posted above is an unsubstantiated opinion thinly veiled as a
> >fact
>
> Probably appropriate since the thread topic was a puff-piece
> masquerading as an interview.
>
> >What is more disturbing is that there is absolutly no control over
> >attacks and accusations.
> >What I think should be directly and more importantly addressed is the
> >issue of directors compensation. =A0This is what the Federal Tax code
> >states: <snip>
>
> Rob, this has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of the Fake Sam
> Sloan or the Mottershead Report. =A0It may well be something that should
> be addressed but in this context, it's just a distraction, a decoy
> from =A0more immediate issues.
Hi Mike,
I can see how you may not see the connections. Let me state for the
record, I do not know who is or is not the FSS. It is my opinion and
belief it is not Paul Truong.
Now that I am NOT going to debate that point right now let me also say
the atmosphere at the USCF permitted and even encouraged this to
happen. Why? It happened because the USCF has been operated for years,
In my opinion, as a way for ginal businesspeople to make a living.
The lack of oversite and interest in the organization allowed this
behaivor to not only flourish but encouraged it.
The natural inclination of someone when they feel their livlihood is
being threatened is to defend it. They have to do it in such a way
that it not only solidifies their position or draws attention away
from their abuses or and including removes a threat from someone who
would clean up those abuses.
In this case of the FSS we have a "perfect storm". You have someone
who made money off the USCF, this person authorized a contractor to
the USCF to violate their NDA, the same person/persons colluded to
leak information to damage their intended targets, next these same
persons attempted to deny their targets due process.
Lest too much be made of things there are many reasons other law firms
may be involved in defending the board and Mr Truong. Not the least of
which may be the insurance companies determination that the Mr. Truong
may have a ligitimate claim that can be filed against the other
members of the board for impropriaty which would mean that there would
be a conflict of interest.
Why is all of this important? Because Mr. Truong was interested in
cleaning up the nepotism and illegal funding activities in the USCF.
Thats something that the powers that be could not allow to continue.
This is the line in the law that could undo the USCF:
"a nonprofit organization is not precluded from making a profit
or engaging in profit-making activities. It is prohibited from
passing
along any profits to those individuals who control it, like founders,
directors, officers, employees, and members."
Rob
|
| | |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 15:32:03
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On Mon, 3 2008 13:02:25 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:
>The natural inclination of someone when they feel their livlihood is
>being threatened is to defend it. They have to do it in such a way
>that it not only solidifies their position or draws attention away
>from their abuses or and including removes a threat from someone who
>would clean up those abuses.
>In this case of the FSS we have a "perfect storm". You have someone
>who made money off the USCF, this person authorized a contractor to
>the USCF to violate their NDA, the same person/persons colluded to
>leak information to damage their intended targets, next these same
>persons attempted to deny their targets due process.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant all your speculations
about impure motive, the Mottershead Report can be examined
independently of all that. It's either well-founded or it's not, and
this isn't a function of whether its author and his sponsor were
saints or scoundrels. It's already been vetted by two experts. PT
has produced no experts, but he and his apologists have relied
priily on ad hominem attacks, diversions, and vague threats about
actions down the road. We'll see.
Your claim that the targets were denied due process is simply false.
They are enmeshed in due process right now. They are represented by
counsel, paid for by our USCF, even though they failed to cooperate
with the original attorneys assigned to represent them and others.
Now, if you mean "they didn't get to dictate the form of the due
process", I could agree with that. If they follow through with their
vague (and often proxy threats, e.g., via Innes), I suspect they'll be
treated to a few more forms of process very uncomfortable to them.
>Lest too much be made of things there are many reasons other law firms
>may be involved in defending the board and Mr Truong. Not the least of
>which may be the insurance companies determination that the Mr. Truong
>may have a ligitimate claim that can be filed against the other
>members of the board for impropriaty which would mean that there would
>be a conflict of interest.
Isn't it the same insurance company paying for both sets of legal
beagles?
>Why is all of this important? Because Mr. Truong was interested in
>cleaning up the nepotism and illegal funding activities in the USCF.
>Thats something that the powers that be could not allow to continue.
That's one interpretation / possibility. Another is simply that he
has a dark and irresponsible side and let it control things for too
long simply because he believed he could get away with it. We can
hope the truth will be revealed in the proper forum.
>This is the line in the law that could undo the USCF:
>"a nonprofit organization is not precluded from making a profit
>or engaging in profit-making activities. It is prohibited from
>passing
>along any profits to those individuals who control it, like founders,
>directors, officers, employees, and members."
I'd have to defer to the lawyers on this, but it seems to me that
clause might refer to something like "dividends".
>Rob
|
| |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 11:59:17
From: SBD
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 3, 1:14=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
=2E =A0Why would the lack of money in chess be
> traced to some Usenet postings? =A0
The real reason is hidden from him: people do not want to invest in
chess. This old chestnut has been around for years that someone's
chess' bad image offends sponsosrs. Yeah, tell that to the WWF.
|
| |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 11:56:54
From: SBD
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 3, 7:06=A0am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Mr. Truong:
>
> "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
>
Truong couldn't carry Kolty's gymbag.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 17:58:39
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:8356b63a-26e2-4fa5-b863-6ebe902f0916@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 3, 7:06 am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Mr. Truong:
>
> "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
>
Truong couldn't carry Kolty's gymbag.
--
**Thank you Steven Dowd for this deep appraisal. Now, I much admire Kolty,
have said so in public. You care to discuss this, or gymbag it? In other
words, is this an actual measure of something you would discuss? If so, what
is your measure of it in your own terms?
Come on! Look at what is dying in this country! Left to itself USCF will
kill chess. If you don't like Paul Troung then try to engage him, harness
him, because for sure, Susan Polgar is doing more than Kolty ever did, to
more people and more often, and with more sensibitity, as becomes our age.
If you are content to write so ... what shall I say? In hero-worship vein,
about a person no-one knows much of anything anymore, then you are (a) on
your own and (b) obscure to a fault.
You have often been a sour-puss in the past. And if you wish to decline with
Kolty, 90% of USCF members or active chessplayers do not know to whom we
refer or what he did in this country. Believe me, brother, I get the
letters, and they ain't often informed!
Come on, you are better than this, much better than to pitch a past-pioneer
to a current one - as a contest. If you care for chess, harness those who
promote it to what is to the common good. Or give that up and reside with
dreams of the past, which you must admit, were not appreciable in terms of
chess players.
Most of all, do not write one sentence shite in public since that also
qualifies your wit.
Now cheer up or fuck-off back to 1960, when USCF had 5,000 members - even if
every single one was to the credit of Kolty.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 10:59:38
From:
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
We should be applauding Phil Innes and the folks at Chessville for
trying to present the other side of the story. I will be linking to
this same article on my blog later today ( http://www.twchesssafari.blogspot.com
). In a few days (or weeks), I will follow up with my own candid view
of the situation to the extent that I have any personal knowledge.
Some people seem to want Sam's nonsense to become reality. That's
truly a shame. It is also quite impossible.
The most significant comments in the Truong interview, in my opinion,
relate to the legal fees incurred by the USCF over this mess. One way
or the other, those fees will ultimately be picked up by USCF members.
For what purpose, I ask? Additionally, I can attest to hundreds of
thousands of dollars of potential donations that were lost from would-
be USCF benefactors because of the stuff written on
rec.games.chess.politics in the past. Nothing has changed.
Sadly,
Frank
|
| | |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 12:37:56
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> We should be applauding Phil Innes and the folks at Chessville for
> trying to present the other side of the story. I will be linking to
> this same article on my blog later today (
> http://www.twchesssafari.blogspot.com
> ). In a few days (or weeks), I will follow up with my own candid view
> of the situation to the extent that I have any personal knowledge.
> Some people seem to want Sam's nonsense to become reality. That's
> truly a shame. It is also quite impossible.
>
> The most significant comments in the Truong interview, in my opinion,
> relate to the legal fees incurred by the USCF over this mess. One way
> or the other, those fees will ultimately be picked up by USCF members.
USCF members made a mistake when they put somebody of
low character like Paul Truong in a position of importance. In the real
world there are consequences for making poor choices.
> For what purpose, I ask? Additionally, I can attest to hundreds of
> thousands of dollars of potential donations that were lost from would-
> be USCF benefactors because of the stuff written on
> rec.games.chess.politics in the past. Nothing has changed.
And the USCF's history of being apologists for wrongdoers
like Truong no doubt contributes as well.
Do you really think you are helping chess by rationalizing
Truong's decision to post 1000s of obscene messages
while posing as others? If so, could explain that logic
in a little more detail?
>
> Sadly,
> Frank
>
|
| | |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 11:14:52
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On Mon, 3 2008 10:59:38 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>We should be applauding Phil Innes and the folks at Chessville for
>trying to present the other side of the story. I will be linking to
>this same article on my blog later today ( http://www.twchesssafari.blogspot.com
>). In a few days (or weeks), I will follow up with my own candid view
>of the situation to the extent that I have any personal knowledge.
>Some people seem to want Sam's nonsense to become reality. That's
>truly a shame. It is also quite impossible.
Have you actually read the Mottershead Report ?
>The most significant comments in the Truong interview, in my opinion,
>relate to the legal fees incurred by the USCF over this mess. One way
>or the other, those fees will ultimately be picked up by USCF members.
>For what purpose, I ask? Additionally, I can attest to hundreds of
>thousands of dollars of potential donations that were lost from would-
>be USCF benefactors because of the stuff written on
>rec.games.chess.politics in the past. Nothing has changed.
Money continues to pour into baseball, football, basketball and other
professional sports despite documented instances of cheating, drug use
and other nefarious behavior. Why would the lack of money in chess be
traced to some Usenet postings?
>Sadly,
>Frank
|
| |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 10:22:51
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 3, 10:25 am, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote:
> Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
> > On 3, 4:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Dear Reader,
>
> >> 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now
> >> published athttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
>
> >> There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 20 questions
> >> session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry brought about
> >> by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCafe.
>
> >> Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive detail, to
> >> illustrate the context of reks made in the current interview.
>
> > Mr. Truong:
>
> > "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
>
> > What kind of bs is that?!
>
> > But yes, nobody in past had this kind of experience
> > in criminal Internet behavior as Mr. Truong - in this
> > respect he's unique.
>
> > Phil:
>
> > "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
> > but satirizing another Board member,"
>
> > Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
> > (Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
> > but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
> > you write like this).
>
> > Wlod
> Wlod, the who thing was little more than a press release for Trolgar.
> Nothing new. Innes and his friends at Chessville aren't interested in
> facts lets alone digging for them. They're really little more than PR
> flacks.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear BL,
What you posted above is an unsubstantiated opinion thinly veiled as a
fact.
What is more disturbing is that there is absolutly no control over
attacks and accusations.
What I think should be directly and more importantly addressed is the
issue of directors compensation. This is what the Federal Tax code
states:
" Nonprofit Organization
Surprisingly, there is no legal definition of a nonprofit
organization. In general, a nonprofit organization is one that is
organized to achieve a purpose other than generating profit. Despite
this, a nonprofit organization is not precluded from making a profit
or engaging in profit-making activities. It is prohibited from passing
along any profits to those individuals who control it, like founders,
directors, officers, employees, and members. Nothing, however,
prevents a nonprofit from paying reasonable
Liability
Like other corporate entities, nonprofit organizations can be sued for
any number of reasons, including:
* publishing defamatory statements
* neglecting to pay taxes (tax exemptions under 501(c)(3) only cover
federal corporate income tax; the nonprofit is still responsible for
other taxes)
* violating state charitable solicitation laws, antitrust laws, or the
tax code by engaging in prohibited political activity or substantial
lobbying
* lawsuits common to any business: wrongful termination, employment
discrimination, personal injury, and breach of contract
Management Structure
Like other corporations, a nonprofit corporation consists of the
following classes of people:
* Incorporators:Incorporators form the nonprofit corporation.
* Board of Directors:The board of directors makes major strategic and
financial decisions for the organization and ensures compliance with
relevant legal and accounting requirements.
* Officers: Officers oversee day-to-day affairs; usually officers
consist of the president, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer.
* Employees: Employees execute the decisions made by the directors and
officers.
Note that any or all of these people may be volunteers and that the
categories bleed into each other. Especially in nonprofit settings,
force of personality becomes the key to the identity of the decision
makers.
Operation
Operating a nonprofit organization is often burdensome and costly.
There are reporting requirements and operating restrictions that you
need to keep in mind in order to to comply with the law and maintain
501(c)(3) exempt status. Expect increased paperwork and red tape in
order to comply with:
* state corporate laws' formalities for corporate governance
* state laws on charitable organizations' record-keeping requirements
* IRS regulations on tax exemptions (do not underestimate the time and
energy that you will need to spend organizing the fundraising arm of
your nonprofit corporation in order to solicit and accept donations
and remain a publicly supported public charity)
* the public's right to inspect your nonprofit organization's
corporate records book
Note that the operating restrictions and requirements are even more
stringent if your organization qualifies as a private foundation and
not as a public charity.
Additionally, you will also be responsible for the tax and other
regulatory obligations imposed on all small businesses. For more on
the tax obligations of small businesses, see the Tax Obligations of
Small Businesses section and the IRS's informational guide,
Publication 583 (1/2007), Starting a Business and keeping Records.
Ownership of Assets/Distribution of Profits
Despite its name, a nonprofit organization is not precluded from
making a profit or engaging in profit-making activities. However, a
nonprofit is prohibited from passing along any profits to those
individuals who control them, like founders, directors, officers, key
employees, and members. (A handful of states allow a nonprofit
corporation to issue stock as a mechanism of control, but no dividend
rights accompany the issued stock.) Instead, a nonprofit organization
must use any profits to further its program activities or "exempt
functions." It may also invest profits in another tax-exempt
organization.
Although a nonprofit organization may not distribute profits to its
directors, officers, key employees, or members, a nonprofit
organization may pay its employees a salary and give them benefits. A
nonprofit organization may also pay directors for their expenses and
time spent attending director meetings. The key is that the salaries
and payments must be reasonable. Excessive payments or exorbitant
amounts posturing as salaries or compensation violate the tax code and
may lead to penalties and a loss of tax-exempt status.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 14:11:31
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
> " Nonprofit Organization
> Surprisingly, there is no legal definition of a nonprofit
> organization.
501 c(3-4)?
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 10:55:12
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On Mon, 3 2008 10:22:51 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> Wlod, the who thing was little more than a press release for Trolgar.
>> Nothing new. Innes and his friends at Chessville aren't interested in
>> facts lets alone digging for them. They're really little more than PR
>> flacks.-
>Dear BL,
>What you posted above is an unsubstantiated opinion thinly veiled as a
>fact
Probably appropriate since the thread topic was a puff-piece
masquerading as an interview.
>What is more disturbing is that there is absolutly no control over
>attacks and accusations.
>What I think should be directly and more importantly addressed is the
>issue of directors compensation. This is what the Federal Tax code
>states: <snip>
Rob, this has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of the Fake Sam
Sloan or the Mottershead Report. It may well be something that should
be addressed but in this context, it's just a distraction, a decoy
from more immediate issues.
|
| |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 10:13:19
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
Did you actually think there was anything new in the interview? I was
hoping we would get at least some idea of what type of evidence Truong
claimed to have that might clear him, but saw absolutely nothing.
Truong seems to have the entirely wrong idea about obligations of the
USCF towards him. The USCF interests are not automatically bound to or
against the interests of Truong. They were presented with convincing
evidence of Truong's guilt, in the form of Motterhead's report which
was backed by two expert reports. Thus, their first obligation was to
try to determine whether Truong was innocent, in which case they would
tie their interests to his, or guilty, in which case they would try to
separate themselves from Truong as much as possible.
Therefore, the USCF asked him for a legally binding declaration of
innocence. Truong did not provide this; he did not at the time,
claiming a misunderstanding, but he could easily have provided one
since to try to mend fences. He claimed that he had convincing proof
of innocence. The USCF wisely sent it to their lawyers rather than
judge this themselves; the lawyers did not feel that the evidence was
at all convincing.
The timing is not exactly clear; around this time, Truong started
attacking the USCF board. By this time, it is very clear that the
interests of the USCF and Truong are not the same. Therefore, rather
than turn over records which Truong requested (and I am convinced they
would have done this had Truong given a sworn statement of innocence
plus rock-solid evidence of innocence which he claims), they came to
the conclusion that his interests must be separate from those of the
USCF. Negotiating settlements on behalf of the USCF without Truong
became obvious practical policy rather than a notorious plot. If
Truong wants access to the records, let his lawyers talk to the USCF
lawyers, but by not cooperating on his part he brought on himself the
decision that he would not automatically get access.
The USCF lawyers have undoubtedly told the USCF that there is strong
evidence of Truong's guilt, and that they must look out for their own
interests.
Truong claims that he has leads which might indicate guilty parties.
Why should they believe him? They have the expert reports, and Truong
himself does not give any reason to believe that these so-called leads
have any basis; instead he claims he has no idea who did it.
This does not even deal with previous behavior of Truong which might
cast doubt on his innocence; the PhD claims and the Bob Bennett
postings. Truong's credibility is very low; if he wants to convince
anyone, he had better show some vidence rather than dwell on Sam
Sloan's traits or USCF policies. Sam Sloan is the one who filed suit,
but nobody took notice when Sam made any earlier accusations. The
credibility this times comes from Motterhead and the two expert
reports; Sloan himself is irrelevant to the question of whether Truong
has been lying on this issue.
Jerry Spinrad
On 3, 9:45=A0am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 3, 8:00=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected]> wrote in messagen=
ews:214fc4e0-0244-4761-9a1f-f73f66e7baa0@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On 3, 4:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Dear Reader,
>
> > >> 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is n=
ow
> > >> published
> > >> athttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2=
.htm
>
> > >> There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 20
> > >> questions
> > >> session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry brought=
> > >> about
> > >> by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCafe.
>
> > >> Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive detail, =
to
> > >> illustrate the context of reks made in the current interview.
>
> > > Mr. Truong:
>
> > > "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
>
> > > What kind of bs is that?!
>
> > > But yes, nobody in past had this kind of experience
> > > in criminal Internet behavior as Mr. Truong - in this
> > > respect he's unique.
>
> > > Phil:
>
> > > =A0 =A0"you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
> > > =A0 =A0 but satirizing another Board member,"
>
> > > Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
> > > (Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
> > > but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
> > > you write like this).
>
> > > Wlod
>
> > I'm sorry Wlod, but I could [almost] always tell the difference between =
the
> > false-Sloan and the real one. I find it difficult to believe any native
> > English speaker could not. But perhaps people will now write in to say h=
ow
> > dumb they are?
>
> > What I found encouraging about the interview was a determination to purs=
ue
> > this matter so that all the information could come out, and so all peopl=
e
> > could review it. If I did not think that way I would lose respect for
> > myself.
>
> > As to your first point, surely keting expertise is contestable! - but=
50
> > mainstream mentions in 2006 compared with USCF's 2, makes for a contest,=
no?
> > A couple or 3 films on chess now in the offing, an Institute for chess
> > established within mainstream media... meanwhile
>
> > In the Parrot this week I had to take note in a sidebar that USCF's
> > financial advisor got it wrong by a mere $94,000 dollars, putting ChessH=
ut
> > even further into the hole. And that is uncontestable. Now, 94k is nothi=
ng
> > to you and me, but its probably 3 or 4 jobs to other people - and this i=
s
> > after Bill Goichberg and Bill Hall have prepared the scene by mentioning=
> > letting people go...
>
> > And therefore, the Parrot extrapolates what this can all mean in the nex=
t 12
> > months - and if we will see a bare bones 'Small Tent' organisation of a
> > dozen or so people employed on maintencance activities. Did I answer you=
r
> > keting question yet?
>
> > I think post-Fischer boom that USCF membership has grown only to the sam=
e
> > extent as the US population. But anyway, you tell me what you think of a=
ll
> > that, and what your own measures are - then we could actually discuss
> > something.
>
> > I =A0have respect for myself in attempting dialog based on actually look=
ing at
> > what is going on, not on vague propaganda and partialities. The ship is
> > almost sunk Wlod, and no one seems to be in control nor responsible.
> > Certainly not the USCF board or Ex Director, who have declined to talk a=
bout
> > it.
>
> > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Great Interview.
> Enjoy the temporary lull today. Since Sam is in court we will be
> spared his diluge of cross-posting nonsense for at least 24 more
> hours!
> Rob- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 15:00:42
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Did you actually think there was anything new in the interview? I was
hoping we would get at least some idea of what type of evidence Truong
claimed to have that might clear him, but saw absolutely nothing.
**And yet you DARE write about chess history - and can't understand or admit
that the inhibition to telling all, is Sloan's suit, added to which is the
majority of the board's will NOT to tell all.
Pfft! What kind of joke outfit do you write for? O! Do you work for one of
these 'questionable relationship' companies with USCF? I think so :)
**What a hack who cannot declare his monetary interest in this affair - who
does he think he is, Jerry Hanken?
Truong seems to have the entirely wrong idea about obligations of the
USCF towards him.
**No quotes about this proposed relationship? Only 'seems' zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
The USCF interests are not automatically bound to or
against the interests of Truong. They were presented with convincing
evidence of Truong's guilt, in the form of Motterhead's report which
was backed by two expert reports. Thus, their
**Their? Who is they, Spinrad? Come on! You are a journalist, have a bash at
NAMING your NOUNS. Or is that not to your taste as an historical
writer/specualtor on chess subjects? Is this editorial policy where you are?
first obligation was to
try to determine whether Truong was innocent, in which case they would
tie their interests to his, or guilty, in which case they would try to
separate themselves from Truong as much as possible.
**Except of course if 'they' themselves were complicit :)))
** I wonder if Jerry Spinrad read the article - since he has not yet noticed
that Truong says he asked USCF for their information, and they declined to
provide it to him or their lawyers. But maybe this one-sided account is
enough for the historical journalist who works for USCF's client, ChessCafe?
This indeed, is my 5th offer to Spinrad to fess up to if he wishes to hear
all sides, or like the whine-judge, prosecution will do? He has been
previously faint on this issue, and only brave in accusations [LOL]. I
wonder anyone can pay this guy for his hack-notes.
**What resides below, is in the words of Chesscafe's historical journalist,
"not exactly clear", but from the onset, the historical journalist's
orientation has been absolutely clear.
**One should take care for posterity to even appear as an historical
recorder, rather than the commom mucky mucky here, who are merely
/hysterical/ recorders.
**ChessCafe and Spinrad stand accused in this interview. They are interested
parties, and they admit it not! Personally Spinrad has never even everred
that all should be put in the open, before the chess public, and continues
his ah... well, how seriously shall we take his orientation to any objective
view of what went on?
**Phil Innes
Therefore, the USCF asked him for a legally binding declaration of
innocence. Truong did not provide this; he did not at the time,
claiming a misunderstanding, but he could easily have provided one
since to try to mend fences. He claimed that he had convincing proof
of innocence. The USCF wisely sent it to their lawyers rather than
judge this themselves; the lawyers did not feel that the evidence was
at all convincing.
The timing is not exactly clear; around this time, Truong started
attacking the USCF board. By this time, it is very clear that the
interests of the USCF and Truong are not the same. Therefore, rather
than turn over records which Truong requested (and I am convinced they
would have done this had Truong given a sworn statement of innocence
plus rock-solid evidence of innocence which he claims), they came to
the conclusion that his interests must be separate from those of the
USCF. Negotiating settlements on behalf of the USCF without Truong
became obvious practical policy rather than a notorious plot. If
Truong wants access to the records, let his lawyers talk to the USCF
lawyers, but by not cooperating on his part he brought on himself the
decision that he would not automatically get access.
The USCF lawyers have undoubtedly told the USCF that there is strong
evidence of Truong's guilt, and that they must look out for their own
interests.
Truong claims that he has leads which might indicate guilty parties.
Why should they believe him? They have the expert reports, and Truong
himself does not give any reason to believe that these so-called leads
have any basis; instead he claims he has no idea who did it.
This does not even deal with previous behavior of Truong which might
cast doubt on his innocence; the PhD claims and the Bob Bennett
postings. Truong's credibility is very low; if he wants to convince
anyone, he had better show some vidence rather than dwell on Sam
Sloan's traits or USCF policies. Sam Sloan is the one who filed suit,
but nobody took notice when Sam made any earlier accusations. The
credibility this times comes from Motterhead and the two expert
reports; Sloan himself is irrelevant to the question of whether Truong
has been lying on this issue.
Jerry Spinrad
On 3, 9:45 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 3, 8:00 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > messagenews:214fc4e0-0244-4761-9a1f-f73f66e7baa0@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On 3, 4:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Dear Reader,
>
> > >> 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is
> > >> now
> > >> published
> > >> athttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
>
> > >> There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 20
> > >> questions
> > >> session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry brought
> > >> about
> > >> by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCafe.
>
> > >> Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive detail,
> > >> to
> > >> illustrate the context of reks made in the current interview.
>
> > > Mr. Truong:
>
> > > "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
>
> > > What kind of bs is that?!
>
> > > But yes, nobody in past had this kind of experience
> > > in criminal Internet behavior as Mr. Truong - in this
> > > respect he's unique.
>
> > > Phil:
>
> > > "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
> > > but satirizing another Board member,"
>
> > > Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
> > > (Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
> > > but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
> > > you write like this).
>
> > > Wlod
>
> > I'm sorry Wlod, but I could [almost] always tell the difference between
> > the
> > false-Sloan and the real one. I find it difficult to believe any native
> > English speaker could not. But perhaps people will now write in to say
> > how
> > dumb they are?
>
> > What I found encouraging about the interview was a determination to
> > pursue
> > this matter so that all the information could come out, and so all
> > people
> > could review it. If I did not think that way I would lose respect for
> > myself.
>
> > As to your first point, surely keting expertise is contestable! - but
> > 50
> > mainstream mentions in 2006 compared with USCF's 2, makes for a contest,
> > no?
> > A couple or 3 films on chess now in the offing, an Institute for chess
> > established within mainstream media... meanwhile
>
> > In the Parrot this week I had to take note in a sidebar that USCF's
> > financial advisor got it wrong by a mere $94,000 dollars, putting
> > ChessHut
> > even further into the hole. And that is uncontestable. Now, 94k is
> > nothing
> > to you and me, but its probably 3 or 4 jobs to other people - and this
> > is
> > after Bill Goichberg and Bill Hall have prepared the scene by mentioning
> > letting people go...
>
> > And therefore, the Parrot extrapolates what this can all mean in the
> > next 12
> > months - and if we will see a bare bones 'Small Tent' organisation of a
> > dozen or so people employed on maintencance activities. Did I answer
> > your
> > keting question yet?
>
> > I think post-Fischer boom that USCF membership has grown only to the
> > same
> > extent as the US population. But anyway, you tell me what you think of
> > all
> > that, and what your own measures are - then we could actually discuss
> > something.
>
> > I have respect for myself in attempting dialog based on actually looking
> > at
> > what is going on, not on vague propaganda and partialities. The ship is
> > almost sunk Wlod, and no one seems to be in control nor responsible.
> > Certainly not the USCF board or Ex Director, who have declined to talk
> > about
> > it.
>
> > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Great Interview.
> Enjoy the temporary lull today. Since Sam is in court we will be
> spared his diluge of cross-posting nonsense for at least 24 more
> hours!
> Rob- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 07:45:06
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 3, 8:00=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenew=
s:214fc4e0-0244-4761-9a1f-f73f66e7baa0@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3, 4:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Dear Reader,
>
> >> 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now=
> >> published
> >> athttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.h=
tm
>
> >> There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 20
> >> questions
> >> session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry brought
> >> about
> >> by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCafe.
>
> >> Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive detail, to=
> >> illustrate the context of reks made in the current interview.
>
> > Mr. Truong:
>
> > "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
>
> > What kind of bs is that?!
>
> > But yes, nobody in past had this kind of experience
> > in criminal Internet behavior as Mr. Truong - in this
> > respect he's unique.
>
> > Phil:
>
> > =A0 =A0"you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
> > =A0 =A0 but satirizing another Board member,"
>
> > Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
> > (Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
> > but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
> > you write like this).
>
> > Wlod
>
> I'm sorry Wlod, but I could [almost] always tell the difference between th=
e
> false-Sloan and the real one. I find it difficult to believe any native
> English speaker could not. But perhaps people will now write in to say how=
> dumb they are?
>
> What I found encouraging about the interview was a determination to pursue=
> this matter so that all the information could come out, and so all people
> could review it. If I did not think that way I would lose respect for
> myself.
>
> As to your first point, surely keting expertise is contestable! - but 5=
0
> mainstream mentions in 2006 compared with USCF's 2, makes for a contest, n=
o?
> A couple or 3 films on chess now in the offing, an Institute for chess
> established within mainstream media... meanwhile
>
> In the Parrot this week I had to take note in a sidebar that USCF's
> financial advisor got it wrong by a mere $94,000 dollars, putting ChessHut=
> even further into the hole. And that is uncontestable. Now, 94k is nothing=
> to you and me, but its probably 3 or 4 jobs to other people - and this is
> after Bill Goichberg and Bill Hall have prepared the scene by mentioning
> letting people go...
>
> And therefore, the Parrot extrapolates what this can all mean in the next =
12
> months - and if we will see a bare bones 'Small Tent' organisation of a
> dozen or so people employed on maintencance activities. Did I answer your
> keting question yet?
>
> I think post-Fischer boom that USCF membership has grown only to the same
> extent as the US population. But anyway, you tell me what you think of all=
> that, and what your own measures are - then we could actually discuss
> something.
>
> I =A0have respect for myself in attempting dialog based on actually lookin=
g at
> what is going on, not on vague propaganda and partialities. The ship is
> almost sunk Wlod, and no one seems to be in control nor responsible.
> Certainly not the USCF board or Ex Director, who have declined to talk abo=
ut
> it.
>
> Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Great Interview.
Enjoy the temporary lull today. Since Sam is in court we will be
spared his diluge of cross-posting nonsense for at least 24 more
hours!
Rob
|
| | |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 11:26:56
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:1fb96bc7-11de-4856-b021-1a81c40bd78c@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Great Interview.
Enjoy the temporary lull today. Since Sam is in court we will be
spared his diluge of cross-posting nonsense for at least 24 more
hours!
Rob
--
Dear Rob "The Lexer" Mitchell
Who knows, maybe a real conversation could break out of the gloom, like how
will USCF /avoid/ employing just a dozen people by next Christmas, and what
the board could possible then find to discuss, except getting the ratings up
to speed [usual topic] and what to put in ChessLife [without surveying
anyone, as usual]. How much do 8-balls cost these days?
Is that an absurd scenario? Given the rejection of Polgar and Truong's charm
with the public, then its maintenance, maintenance and more maintenance,
just like in bygone years. And surely, 7 people sitting around organising
'policy' for 12 people is tad top heavy.
The other problem will be about what to do if anyone dies? I can't imagine
anyone applying to work a maintenance job at ChessHut, especially when the
application itself is made public. Perhaps jobs will continue to be awarded
the good-old-way by the good-old-boys, or offered directly to school
dropouts happy to find any work? Things were so much simpler before! I blame
these uppity wimmin and foreigners with their 'ideas' verve and energy!
Give these people an inch and the next thing they will be catawallin' for is
more democracy, transparency in business relationships and such fancy new
daft ideas which will wreck the current PolitBuro Model - maybe even
breaking up the safe-ward system for board and delegate seats, surveying
people for what they actually want the Federation to do in the C21st, and
even [ROFL] addressing USCF's mission.
Cordially, Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 05:06:36
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 3, 4:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Dear Reader,
>
> 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now
> published athttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
>
> There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 20 questions
> session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry brought about
> by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCafe.
>
> Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive detail, to
> illustrate the context of reks made in the current interview.
Mr. Truong:
"the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
What kind of bs is that?!
But yes, nobody in past had this kind of experience
in criminal Internet behavior as Mr. Truong - in this
respect he's unique.
Phil:
"you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
but satirizing another Board member,"
Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
(Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
you write like this).
Wlod
|
| | |
Date: 28 Mar 2008 08:45:20
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
> > This seems a reasonable speculation. =A0Any evidence for it, beyond it
> > being a possibility and a decent Machiavellian strategy?
> Hi Mike!
> I personally have no proof of anything. This whole thing to me seems
> very "Zimmerman Note" -ish.
> And I still can'tfigure out why noone has compared the IP the Louis
> Blair and Guy Macon produced and linked to Sam against the Mottershead
> report. Louis is nothing if not methodical and meticulous in his
> research ability. I doubt he would have lobbed it out there for people
> to ponder if there was not some connection.
> Rob- Hide quoted text -
>
Still, there is no response on this from Sloan and Lafferty. Why?
|
| | |
Date: 27 Mar 2008 12:34:41
From: Rob
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On 27, 2:21=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 27 2008 08:35:49 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't know. It was just odd to me that once Louis Blair and Guy
> >Macon made this IP public the discussions about IP's went away. I
> >fully believe that there are folks with a lot of computer talent that
> >can spoof IP's.
>
> IMO, there's been less discussion about IP addresses for several
> reasons. =A0First, and most importantly, several credentialed experts
> have evaluated the Mottershead report and found its methodology and
> conclusions sound. =A0So, from the perspective of those who tentatively
> accept the truth of the accusations against PT, there's not much more
> to say, =A0relative to IP addresses. =A0And from the perspective of those
> who dogmatically refuse to entertain the possibility that PT was
> responsible for all/many/most/some of the FSS posts, IP addresses are
> something they don't want to discuss, unless it's in the context of
> some complex spoofing scheme spanning several years. =A0The more
> definitive the weight of technical evidence, such as IP addresses, the
> more fanciful grow the conspiracy spoofing theories crafted by PT's
> defenders to account for that physical evidence.
>
> >For an example(and this will probably be on the Monkey list next), if
> >I visited Guy's website every day, he could capture my IP and the
> >spoof a post. I am sure there is a bit more technically to it than
> >that. Point being is all that is needed is a way of catching a current
> >IP from a poster.
>
> The admin of any website you visit could probably capture your IP
> address. =A0Spoofing it is one thing. =A0But this is hardly the meat of
> the Mottershead Report, which analyzes multiple IPs in specific
> locations and time-frames and the context in which they'd have to be
> spoofed. =A0
>
> BTW, your example is too late to make the List of the Blind Monkey --
> I think it was covered quite early in the game by numbers 5 and 6. :-)
> >Politically if you have rivals the most effective way of removing them
> >is to have them kill each other first. So someone plays Sloan against
> >Paul and Susan. They stay safely out of the fray while the others are
> >forced to defend themselves.
> This seems a reasonable speculation. =A0Any evidence for it, beyond it
> being a possibility and a decent Machiavellian strategy?
Hi Mike!
I personally have no proof of anything. This whole thing to me seems
very "Zimmerman Note" -ish.
And I still can'tfigure out why noone has compared the IP the Louis
Blair and Guy Macon produced and linked to Sam against the Mottershead
report. Louis is nothing if not methodical and meticulous in his
research ability. I doubt he would have lobbed it out there for people
to ponder if there was not some connection.
Rob
|
| | |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 11:06:47
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On Mon, 3 2008 05:06:36 -0800 (PST), "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
(Wlod)" <[email protected] > wrote:
>Phil:
> "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
> but satirizing another Board member,"
Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been accused
of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director of
the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
although various apologists have tried unsuccessfully to argue that
all the FSS filth was satire. Some posts *could* be categorized as
satire, of course, but hundreds of the FSS posts were just
misogynistic, racist, slanderous filth. Phil knows this, of course,
as would anybody who has followed this forum for the last few years.
Makes me think Phil is trying to cover some bases in case Truong is
unable to shake the accusations in the Mottershead Report.
Especially ironic after Phil's stubborn refusal to recognize The List
of the Blind Monkey as satire!!
>Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
>(Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
>but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
>you write like this).
I agree. Phil should be ashamed of presenting this cream puff as a
hard-hitting, pull-no-punches interview,especially after he flogged it
for several weeks on this forum.
>Wlod
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 15:35:55
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 3 2008 05:06:36 -0800 (PST), "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
> (Wlod)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Phil:
>
>> "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>> but satirizing another Board member,"
>
> Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been accused
> of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director of
> the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
> although various apologists have tried unsuccessfully to argue that
> all the FSS filth was satire.
And even after I wrote that I could tell it was satire, who actually says
the FSS is NOT word-perfect american diction, without error? WHO Murray? You
can't tell? In my own edit of the reply I corrected dozens of errors ;) I
never saw any single idiomatic syntactically error by the FSS, did you?
That's not nothing considering 3,500 messages.
Don't protest abstractly to the air and reserve your wit. Other people have
written in to state the same opinion as mine - that they can tell the
difference - maybe you can't? Or don't like this idea? You say I 'apologise'
for this stuff, but do you apologise for being an ignoramus? Come on Murray,
speak up :) Wasn't all the FSS material alien to Sloan's own diction? Or
don't you know? Can't you tell? Should you offer your opinion or rubbish
those who can tell?
> Some posts *could* be categorized as
> satire, of course, but hundreds of the FSS posts were just
> misogynistic, racist, slanderous filth.
And Sloan doesn't do that. He doesn't curse, is very careful of any
mysogonistic views he has, and is not any notable rascist. I can tell this,
while not even liking Sloan. What's Murray's problem?
> Phil knows this, of course,
> as would anybody who has followed this forum for the last few years.
"this"? Ker-ist! You sound like Spinrad-vague.
> Makes me think Phil is trying to cover some bases in case Truong is
> unable to shake the accusations in the Mottershead Report.
Listen. I can ask the guy some questions, but cannot account for public
paranoia - if that is what this is.
> Especially ironic after Phil's stubborn refusal to recognize The List
> of the Blind Monkey as satire!!
You were rather insistent on your satire, Murray, like it wasn't reallya
joke, who are you kidding? You really stuffed it to anyone who said anything
about your 'joke'.
And you happily colluded with the worst abusenik on chess newsgroups to
compile your list. You yourself think your are joking, but you ain't! You
dig the 'irony' of things - especially the one-sided approach you took,
immediately trashing any other point of view - and this you now declare a
'joke'. You delude yourself on what's funny, and your own motivation, of
which you are merely ignorant.
But it don't seem to anyone else like any joke - like 'irony' and such
nonsense. It seems willfully crass trashing of someone else. That is what
you did Murray, and before everyone here.
>>Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
>>(Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
>>but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
>>you write like this).
>
> I agree. Phil should be ashamed of presenting this cream puff as a
> hard-hitting, pull-no-punches interview,especially after he flogged it
> for several weeks on this forum.
Wlod decided early who was to blame, and resides with those others who do
so. Wlod forgot I knew more about the Polish "Enigma" heroes than he did -
and celebrated them more.
And I did so with great justice to their heroism, and their neglect in
official histories..
After study and evaluation of those people they deserved what I said about
them, indeed, it was not nearly enough said, but a corrective, asking for a
re-evaluation.
I am the same person now as then.
Phil Innes
>>Wlod
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2008 06:59:27
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On Mon, 3 2008 15:35:55 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
Is this what's been confusing you Phil??
Your interview question to PT:
"you becoming accused of not as much impersonating, but satirizing
another Board member,"
My critique:
"Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been accused
of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director of
the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
although various apologists have tried unsuccessfully to argue that
all the FSS filth was satire."
Had I intended to include Phil Innes among the "various apologists",
in this paragraph, believe me, I would have been specific about it.
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 15:48:03
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On Mon, 3 2008 15:35:55 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>>> "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>>> but satirizing another Board member,"
>> Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been accused
>> of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director of
>> the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
>> although various apologists have tried unsuccessfully to argue that
>> all the FSS filth was satire.
>And even after I wrote that I could tell it was satire, who actually says
>the FSS is NOT word-perfect american diction, without error? WHO Murray? You
>can't tell? In my own edit of the reply I corrected dozens of errors ;) I
>never saw any single idiomatic syntactically error by the FSS, did you?
>That's not nothing considering 3,500 messages.
Besides it not making a great deal of sense, here's a couple things
wrong with your paragraph.
First, even if what the FSS wrote was intended as satire, even if you
and other cognoscenti can tell it was satire, he was not ACCUSED of
satire. He was ACCUSED of impersonation, slander and other acts. Get
it now?
Second, "word-perfect american diction, without error" is simply not
relevant. The FSS posts were FAKE. Many of the longer posts were
word for word copies of posts from other venues, with maybe a word or
sentence altered. Errors could have been deliberately inserted. Care
could have been taken to maintain any style. You can't tell. Maybe a
very sophisticated computer program could detect some stylistic
consistencies. Neither of us could do that. You're blowing smoke.
>Don't protest abstractly to the air and reserve your wit. Other people have
>written in to state the same opinion as mine - that they can tell the
>difference - maybe you can't? Or don't like this idea?
This from a man who once argued with his own post!! Some fake posts
are easy to identify, some not. I couldn't identify them all without
inspecting the headers. You say *you* could, but I doubt very many
people believe you. I don't.
Well, I've already violated Ken Sloan's rule for replying to your
posts, so I'll sign off here.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 09:10:40
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 3 2008 15:35:55 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>>> "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>>>> but satirizing another Board member,"
>
>>> Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been accused
>>> of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director of
>>> the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
>>> although various apologists have tried unsuccessfully to argue that
>>> all the FSS filth was satire.
>
>>And even after I wrote that I could tell it was satire, who actually says
>>the FSS is NOT word-perfect american diction, without error? WHO Murray?
>>You
>>can't tell? In my own edit of the reply I corrected dozens of errors ;)
>>I
>>never saw any single idiomatic syntactically error by the FSS, did you?
>>That's not nothing considering 3,500 messages.
>
> Besides it not making a great deal of sense, here's a couple things
> wrong with your paragraph.
>
> First, even if what the FSS wrote was intended as satire, even if you
> and other cognoscenti can tell it was satire, he was not ACCUSED of
> satire. He was ACCUSED of impersonation, slander and other acts. Get
> it now?
Are you asking me to agree with some point I didn't make above, Mike? I said
I could usually tell the FSS from the real Sloan. And I believe you are
making another point on the nature of the accusation.<shrug >.
> Second, "word-perfect american diction, without error" is simply not
> relevant.
Not relevant to whom? The falsity of your writing is that it avoids sentence
structure, like subject, verb, object. I do not mind what you chose to
believe, but in order to write as you do, you must need own your own
comments! If you can't do that, then who silly you seem telling other people
what is or is not relevant for them.
> The FSS posts were FAKE. Many of the longer posts were
> word for word copies of posts from other venues, with maybe a word or
> sentence altered. Errors could have been deliberately inserted. Care
> could have been taken to maintain any style. You can't tell. Maybe a
> very sophisticated computer program could detect some stylistic
> consistencies. Neither of us could do that. You're blowing smoke.
>
>>Don't protest abstractly to the air and reserve your wit. Other people
>>have
>>written in to state the same opinion as mine - that they can tell the
>>difference - maybe you can't? Or don't like this idea?
>
> This from a man who once argued with his own post!! Some fake posts
> are easy to identify, some not. I couldn't identify them all without
> inspecting the headers. You say *you* could, but I doubt very many
> people believe you. I don't.
A lie. I didn't say all. You say some are easy to identify, some not. Some
prosecution!
> Well, I've already violated Ken Sloan's rule for replying to your
> posts, so I'll sign off here.
You have done your normal thing - which is to take a couple of
straightforward questions and avoid answering them - instead you fling
around your comments about other people and have a lovely hissy fit. That is
indeed school-of-Ken.
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 11:20:20
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On Tue, 4 2008 09:10:40 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
Phil Innes said (in the interview):
>>>>> "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>>>>> but satirizing another Board member,"
Mike Murray commented:
>>>> Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been accused
>>>> of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director of
>>>> the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
Since Phil didn't seem to get it, patient Mike spelled it out
>> First, even if what the FSS wrote was intended as satire, even if you
>> and other cognoscenti can tell it was satire, he was not ACCUSED of
>> satire. He was ACCUSED of impersonation, slander and other acts. Get
>> it now?
And, now, Phil helplessly "shrugs",
>Are you asking me to agree with some point I didn't make above, Mike? I said
>I could usually tell the FSS from the real Sloan. And I believe you are
>making another point on the nature of the accusation.<shrug>.
Mike made another comment
>> Second, "word-perfect american diction, without error" is simply not
>> relevant.
And Phil complained
>Not relevant to whom? The falsity of your writing is that it avoids sentence
>structure, like subject, verb, object.
Now this refuge in gram is about as secure as the home of the First
Little Pig. But then, maybe Phil's been spending too much time
reading Andean. The object is evident from context, the same way it
would be if I said, "The FSS is not nice", or "Neil is not fat". Would
Phil then complain about a missing object?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 16:40:10
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 4 2008 09:10:40 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Phil Innes said (in the interview):
>
>>>>>> "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>>>>>> but satirizing another Board member,"
>
> Mike Murray commented:
>
>>>>> Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been accused
>>>>> of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director of
>>>>> the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
>
> Since Phil didn't seem to get it, patient Mike spelled it out
Patient Mike? Mike Murray is a hot-headed judgemental sort of bloke who does
not need to hear all of anything to make his pronouncements - like Spinrad
and the whine-Judge - and who cannot own his own opinions, but is all to
ready to tells others what theirs should be, or mocks them, 50 times.
Patient Mike?
Murray can't even understand English and in his previous post converted
'mostly' to 'all' without a blush and with no apology - in fact, with this
level of open lying and self-deceit, is it any wonder he is confused?
This dunce of a person thinks he should be telling other people their
opinions all the time or he has some right to do so - whereas I say let it
all out and let people make up their own minds. Murray's problem is that he
doesn't understand much, and thinks that is other people's problem. <wink >
Meanwhile he will trash whoever he wants, using directly perceivable lies,
as in the above, because 'patient' Mike is hooter than hell! He even sais
that "sometimes" /he/ can tell the FSS from the real Sloan, he denies I can
do it more than he, therefore I don't exist or my opinion is less than his
or "something", and this is my problem... :)))
The most interesting thing about the whole affair is yet to be written, but
for damn sure it won't be written by those people who continue to argue
without admitting they want to know all of it. It is on-its-face idiocy,
small minded, mean, and truly stupid.
These people don't want to know everything. They continuously and despertely
deny and put down any other point of view. And they are so certain of
themselves they have to do so all the time.
ROFL!
Phil Innes
>>> First, even if what the FSS wrote was intended as satire, even if you
>>> and other cognoscenti can tell it was satire, he was not ACCUSED of
>>> satire. He was ACCUSED of impersonation, slander and other acts. Get
>>> it now?
>
> And, now, Phil helplessly "shrugs",
>
>>Are you asking me to agree with some point I didn't make above, Mike? I
>>said
>>I could usually tell the FSS from the real Sloan. And I believe you are
>>making another point on the nature of the accusation.<shrug>.
>
> Mike made another comment
>
>>> Second, "word-perfect american diction, without error" is simply not
>>> relevant.
>
> And Phil complained
>
>>Not relevant to whom? The falsity of your writing is that it avoids
>>sentence
>>structure, like subject, verb, object.
>
> Now this refuge in gram is about as secure as the home of the First
> Little Pig. But then, maybe Phil's been spending too much time
> reading Andean. The object is evident from context, the same way it
> would be if I said, "The FSS is not nice", or "Neil is not fat". Would
> Phil then complain about a missing object?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 14:24:46
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On Tue, 4 2008 16:40:10 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> Phil Innes said (in the interview):
>>>>>>> "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>>>>>>> but satirizing another Board member,"
>> Mike Murray commented:
>>>>>> Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been accused
>>>>>> of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director of
>>>>>> the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
>> Since Phil didn't seem to get it, patient Mike spelled it out
>Patient Mike? Mike Murray is a hot-headed judgemental sort of bloke who does
>not need to hear all of anything to make his pronouncements - like Spinrad
>and the whine-Judge - and who cannot own his own opinions, but is all to
>ready to tells others what theirs should be, or mocks them, 50 times...
<remaining blather snipped >
As is his usual practice when caught in a falsehood, Phil tries a
smokescreen.
Again, Phil, you said "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much
impersonating, but satirizing another Board member," which is
patently untrue. He has not been accused of satirizing. You were
caught, and now you're ducking and dodging.
Let's have you admit your error on this point before we address other
issues, shall we? Come on, Phil, 'fess up. It would be good for
your soul (and, Lord knows, it needs some goodness after that
miserable excuse for an "interview" -- maybe the Reverend Walker will
sell you an indulgence -- better make it a double plenary).
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 14:01:51
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 4 2008 16:40:10 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> Phil Innes said (in the interview):
>
>>>>>>>> "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>>>>>>>> but satirizing another Board member,"
>
>>> Mike Murray commented:
>
>>>>>>> Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been accused
>>>>>>> of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director of
>>>>>>> the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
>
>>> Since Phil didn't seem to get it, patient Mike spelled it out
>
>>Patient Mike? Mike Murray is a hot-headed judgemental sort of bloke who
>>does
>>not need to hear all of anything to make his pronouncements - like Spinrad
>>and the whine-Judge - and who cannot own his own opinions, but is all to
>>ready to tells others what theirs should be, or mocks them, 50 times...
>
> <remaining blather snipped>
>
> As is his usual practice when caught in a falsehood, Phil tries a
> smokescreen.
A 'smokescreen' so important, it has to be snipped! ROFL! You would almost
think Mike was avoiding the fact that I just caught him making up my opinion
for me, which was plainly different than the thing I wrote. ;)
As to the degree that you can tell the FSS from Sloan, you yourself said
'some'. I can tell 'some' too. Not 'all' as /you/ wrote - since otherwise
there would be nothing to whine about for you would there?
And when I catch you lying yet again about what I wrote you say that is
blather.
Let me not detain myself further on what you continue to suppose about
people, when you are content to lie in public as you have, then dismiss
noticing your own behavior as 'blather' while pretending you are after some
truth.
I DO understand that /your/ point is about what my interviewee is 'accused
of', and you must pardon me for mention what I personally could tell of the
FSS material and for saying so since I raised this topic.
That you wish to change the topic, and of course you do, then let people
understand that /you/ write about accusations and I write what is evident,
which I think is rather how any courtroom will assess things.
Phil Innes
> Again, Phil, you said "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much
> impersonating, but satirizing another Board member," which is
> patently untrue. He has not been accused of satirizing. You were
> caught, and now you're ducking and dodging.
>
> Let's have you admit your error on this point before we address other
> issues, shall we? Come on, Phil, 'fess up. It would be good for
> your soul (and, Lord knows, it needs some goodness after that
> miserable excuse for an "interview" -- maybe the Reverend Walker will
> sell you an indulgence -- better make it a double plenary).
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 14:29:54
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
HEY PHIL,
Do you think your posts make me *MORE* or *LESS* likely to ever consider any
kind of settlement over what happened to ME?
I'll help you out: if your goal is to help the defense, you're failing.
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 4 2008 16:40:10 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Phil Innes said (in the interview):
>>
>>>>>>>>> "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>>>>>>>>> but satirizing another Board member,"
>>
>>>> Mike Murray commented:
>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been
>>>>>>>> accused
>>>>>>>> of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
>>
>>>> Since Phil didn't seem to get it, patient Mike spelled it out
>>
>>>Patient Mike? Mike Murray is a hot-headed judgemental sort of bloke who
>>>does
>>>not need to hear all of anything to make his pronouncements - like
>>>Spinrad
>>>and the whine-Judge - and who cannot own his own opinions, but is all to
>>>ready to tells others what theirs should be, or mocks them, 50 times...
>>
>> <remaining blather snipped>
>>
>> As is his usual practice when caught in a falsehood, Phil tries a
>> smokescreen.
>
> A 'smokescreen' so important, it has to be snipped! ROFL! You would almost
> think Mike was avoiding the fact that I just caught him making up my
> opinion for me, which was plainly different than the thing I wrote. ;)
>
> As to the degree that you can tell the FSS from Sloan, you yourself said
> 'some'. I can tell 'some' too. Not 'all' as /you/ wrote - since otherwise
> there would be nothing to whine about for you would there?
>
> And when I catch you lying yet again about what I wrote you say that is
> blather.
>
> Let me not detain myself further on what you continue to suppose about
> people, when you are content to lie in public as you have, then dismiss
> noticing your own behavior as 'blather' while pretending you are after
> some truth.
>
> I DO understand that /your/ point is about what my interviewee is 'accused
> of', and you must pardon me for mention what I personally could tell of
> the FSS material and for saying so since I raised this topic.
>
> That you wish to change the topic, and of course you do, then let people
> understand that /you/ write about accusations and I write what is evident,
> which I think is rather how any courtroom will assess things.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>> Again, Phil, you said "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much
>> impersonating, but satirizing another Board member," which is
>> patently untrue. He has not been accused of satirizing. You were
>> caught, and now you're ducking and dodging.
>>
>> Let's have you admit your error on this point before we address other
>> issues, shall we? Come on, Phil, 'fess up. It would be good for
>> your soul (and, Lord knows, it needs some goodness after that
>> miserable excuse for an "interview" -- maybe the Reverend Walker will
>> sell you an indulgence -- better make it a double plenary).
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 17:47:59
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
HEY GORDON,
Do you think your questions make any sense to me?
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
You don't even write about chess, but you think I am trying to impress
/you?/
R
O
F
L
!
You are rather litigious sort of person, no? Are you scared of some
consequence so that you suggest [to me] some 'settlement'?
What a prima-donna thou art!
Phil Innes
> HEY PHIL,
>
> Do you think your posts make me *MORE* or *LESS* likely to ever consider
> any kind of settlement over what happened to ME?
>
> I'll help you out: if your goal is to help the defense, you're failing.
>
>
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Tue, 4 2008 16:40:10 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Phil Innes said (in the interview):
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>>>>>>>>>> but satirizing another Board member,"
>>>
>>>>> Mike Murray commented:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been
>>>>>>>>> accused
>>>>>>>>> of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
>>>
>>>>> Since Phil didn't seem to get it, patient Mike spelled it out
>>>
>>>>Patient Mike? Mike Murray is a hot-headed judgemental sort of bloke who
>>>>does
>>>>not need to hear all of anything to make his pronouncements - like
>>>>Spinrad
>>>>and the whine-Judge - and who cannot own his own opinions, but is all to
>>>>ready to tells others what theirs should be, or mocks them, 50 times...
>>>
>>> <remaining blather snipped>
>>>
>>> As is his usual practice when caught in a falsehood, Phil tries a
>>> smokescreen.
>>
>> A 'smokescreen' so important, it has to be snipped! ROFL! You would
>> almost think Mike was avoiding the fact that I just caught him making up
>> my opinion for me, which was plainly different than the thing I wrote.
>> ;)
>>
>> As to the degree that you can tell the FSS from Sloan, you yourself said
>> 'some'. I can tell 'some' too. Not 'all' as /you/ wrote - since otherwise
>> there would be nothing to whine about for you would there?
>>
>> And when I catch you lying yet again about what I wrote you say that is
>> blather.
>>
>> Let me not detain myself further on what you continue to suppose about
>> people, when you are content to lie in public as you have, then dismiss
>> noticing your own behavior as 'blather' while pretending you are after
>> some truth.
>>
>> I DO understand that /your/ point is about what my interviewee is
>> 'accused of', and you must pardon me for mention what I personally could
>> tell of the FSS material and for saying so since I raised this topic.
>>
>> That you wish to change the topic, and of course you do, then let people
>> understand that /you/ write about accusations and I write what is
>> evident, which I think is rather how any courtroom will assess things.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>>
>>> Again, Phil, you said "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much
>>> impersonating, but satirizing another Board member," which is
>>> patently untrue. He has not been accused of satirizing. You were
>>> caught, and now you're ducking and dodging.
>>>
>>> Let's have you admit your error on this point before we address other
>>> issues, shall we? Come on, Phil, 'fess up. It would be good for
>>> your soul (and, Lord knows, it needs some goodness after that
>>> miserable excuse for an "interview" -- maybe the Reverend Walker will
>>> sell you an indulgence -- better make it a double plenary).
>>
>>
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 21:02:18
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
> Do you think your questions make any sense to me?
Depends on the intelligence of the reader.
> You don't even write about chess,
That's a lie.
>but you think I am trying to impress /you?/
Please tell me he's not THAT far down the food chain that he doesn't
undertand that the more he attacks or trivializes what happens, the LESS
likely I become to being willing to mitigate it.
Perhaps he doesn't give a shit about that, or simply doesn't understand how
counterproductive he's being towards his rather obvious goal, assuming (and
that may be a lot) that his behavior is in fact goal-oriented.
In other words, in the course of defending the HOT, he's making statements
which increase the need for me to see this through to a trial
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Mar 2008 10:06:56
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Do you think your questions make any sense to me?
>>but you think I am trying to impress /you?/
>
> Please tell me he's not THAT far down the food chain that he doesn't
> undertand that the more he attacks or trivializes what happens, the LESS
> likely I become to being willing to mitigate it.
Is that an ANSWER to the question? You see Ray, I am starting to understand
how people are so angry and confused about these issues. I make a suggestion
below*, but there is no obligation to do anythng about it.
I said that I wondered if you thought that I was writing to convince you?
And ridicuously, you can't even understand that simple 9-word question ~ so!
I think that, by other means, you sort of answered anyway.
> Perhaps he doesn't give a shit about that, or simply doesn't understand
> how counterproductive he's being towards his rather obvious goal, assuming
> (and that may be a lot) that his behavior is in fact goal-oriented.
You talking about Capablanca or Obama?
> In other words, in the course of defending the HOT, he's making statements
> which increase the need for me to see this through to a trial
Thank you for sharing these interesting opinions, albeit a propos of
nothing.
I wonder a title called *29 Reasons Not To Be An Intelligent Guy would sell?
Man, if we ever interview I'll cut the normal 20 questions down to... maybe
just 1?
Phil Innes
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
> http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
> Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
>
> Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
>
> Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods
> which no longer work.
>
> Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
> http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
>
> Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
> contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
> targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and
> ruined their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
>
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Mar 2008 17:37:48
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
Ray,
Do not e-mail me about business which is public. Just speak your piece here
as you did before.
Journalism is a little understood practice, but it is a public one. If you
wish to make your views public evident, as your wrote to me in private,
re-state them here.
My job as journalist is not to change anyone's opinion.
It is to, at genius level of operation*, shift everyone from their
certainties for as much as 10 minutes of thought. Where people land from
that is not my business, not should it be.
The practice of journalism is to act as catalyst, not consultant. To
activate the reader, not anticipate them. To stimulate the topic, not whore
after any trophies.
Phil Innes
*so said Bron Waugh
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 08:11:59
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
> Ray,
>
> Do not e-mail me about business which is public. Just speak your piece
> here as you did before.
I didn't e-mail you.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2008 09:36:18
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions
|
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Ray,
>>
>> Do not e-mail me about business which is public. Just speak your piece
>> here as you did before.
>
> I didn't e-mail you.
That's true. Someone else did responding to a question I asked you, but that
person didn't sign their name. I don't think it was an impersonation, and is
the just usual fiddle-faddle. Phil
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
> http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
> Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
>
> Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
>
> Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods
> which no longer work.
>
> Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
> http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
>
> Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
> contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
> targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and
> ruined their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
>
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 11:18:16
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On Wed, 5 2008 14:01:51 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> As is his usual practice when caught in a falsehood, Phil tries a
>> smokescreen.
>A 'smokescreen' so important, it has to be snipped! ROFL! You would almost
>think Mike was avoiding the fact that I just caught him making up my opinion
>for me, which was plainly different than the thing I wrote. ;)
>As to the degree that you can tell the FSS from Sloan, you yourself said
>'some'. I can tell 'some' too. Not 'all' as /you/ wrote - since otherwise
>there would be nothing to whine about for you would there?
We will address this in due time, Phil.
But, first, I want you to admit your error in declaring that Truong
was (and I quote) "accused of not as much impersonating, but
satirizing another Board member".
Do you agree that he was NOT accused of satirizing another Board
member?
Baby steps, Phil. Baby steps. Admitting fallibility is not all that
frightening. Ask the Pope....uh, well, OK, ask the Archbishop of
Canterbury.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 17:42:16
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 5 2008 14:01:51 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> As is his usual practice when caught in a falsehood, Phil tries a
>>> smokescreen.
>
>>A 'smokescreen' so important, it has to be snipped! ROFL! You would almost
>>think Mike was avoiding the fact that I just caught him making up my
>>opinion
>>for me, which was plainly different than the thing I wrote. ;)
>
>>As to the degree that you can tell the FSS from Sloan, you yourself said
>>'some'. I can tell 'some' too. Not 'all' as /you/ wrote - since otherwise
>>there would be nothing to whine about for you would there?
>
> We will address this in due time, Phil.
Something wrong with admitting you lied, right now? Did I say all or not?
And how come you say I said all, as if mere lying without apology or any
sense that that is amiss, is just OK stuff in your investigation?
You see, if you cannot even understand plain English, and willingly twist
it, what "We" [ROFL] will address in time is utter nonsense. You are exposed
here Murray. Nothing else needs be declared to you since you are patently
insincere. [that means; dishonest]
> But, first, I want you to admit your error in declaring that Truong
> was (and I quote) "accused of not as much impersonating, but
> satirizing another Board member".
>
> Do you agree that he was NOT accused of satirizing another Board
> member?
I already stated that that was /your/ accusation. I also stated it was not
what I asked, and I could tell the difference not 'some' but 'most' of the
time. But you cut that, didn't you Murray, as if I had not said it. What an
honest broker! [lol]
So attend to your self Murray, and stop asking people about what they didn't
say, or making it up for them.
What an arrogant cod's piece you are to try to gloss your self this way -
and cut away such comments as if no one notices! Gawd!
Phil Innes
> Baby steps, Phil. Baby steps. Admitting fallibility is not all that
> frightening. Ask the Pope....uh, well, OK, ask the Archbishop of
> Canterbury.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 15:52:50
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On Wed, 5 2008 17:42:16 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>>>>> As is his usual practice when caught in a falsehood, Phil tries a
>>>> smokescreen.
>>>A 'smokescreen' so important, it has to be snipped! ROFL! You would almost
>>>think Mike was avoiding the fact that I just caught him making up my
>>>opinion for me, which was plainly different than the thing I wrote. ;)
Maybe your opinion was different than the thing you wrote. We'd
accept that, I suppose.
>>>As to the degree that you can tell the FSS from Sloan, you yourself said
>>>'some'. I can tell 'some' too. Not 'all' as /you/ wrote - since otherwise
>>>there would be nothing to whine about for you would there?
>
>> We will address this in due time, Phil.
>... Did I say all or not?
We're not talking about telling the FSS from the RSS right now, Phil.
First, you have to fess up about your error on "satirizing". One
thing at a time.
You see, Phil, when you get caught, you start flinging about issue
after issue, trying to obscure things. We're not going to let you get
away with it this time.
>> But, first, I want you to admit your error in declaring that Truong
>> was (and I quote) "accused of not as much impersonating, but
>> satirizing another Board member".
>> Do you agree that he was NOT accused of satirizing another Board
>> member?
>I already stated that that was /your/ accusation. I also stated it was not
>what I asked, and I could tell the difference not 'some' but 'most' of the
>time. But you cut that, didn't you Murray, as if I had not said it. What an
>honest broker! [lol]
We weren't talking about telling the FSS from the RSS "all of the
time" or "most of the time. We're talking satire. I know it's
confusing for you to stay on topic. Here's what you said:
>>>>>>> "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>>>>>>> but satirizing another Board member,"
Phil, this was what you said about satirizing. I don't see anything
in the question about "most of the time" or "some of the time". Do
you?
>What an arrogant cod's piece you are to try to gloss your self this way -
>and cut away such comments as if no one notices! Gawd!
Some named "P Innes" calling another person a codpiece! Gawd!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Mar 2008 09:56:28
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 5 2008 17:42:16 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
a to e, and back again
>>I already stated that that was /your/ accusation. I also stated it was not
>>what I asked, and I could tell the difference not 'some' but 'most' of the
>>time. But you cut that, didn't you Murray, as if I had not said it. What
>>an
>>honest broker! [lol]
>
> We weren't talking about telling the FSS from the RSS "all of the
> time" or "most of the time. We're talking satire. I know it's
> confusing for you to stay on topic. Here's what you said:
>
>>>>>>>> "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>>>>>>>> but satirizing another Board member,"
>
> Phil, this was what you said about satirizing. I don't see anything
> in the question about "most of the time" or "some of the time". Do
> you?
That was in reply to YOU. Do you see that - or are you confused again, and
making smoke? Just take it slow
a) I can tell satire from Sloan
b) most of the time
c) that is my topic
d) i don't who who 'we' are
e) you can tell the satire 'some' of the time
Did anything else happen?
Phil Innes
>>What an arrogant cod's piece you are to try to gloss your self this way -
>>and cut away such comments as if no one notices! Gawd!
>
> Some named "P Innes" calling another person a codpiece! Gawd!
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 23:35:27
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Tue, 4 2008 16:40:10 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> Phil Innes said (in the interview):
>
>>>>>>>> "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>>>>>>>> but satirizing another Board member,"
>
>>> Mike Murray commented:
>
>>>>>>> Of course, this is an outright lie by Phil. Truong has been accused
>>>>>>> of impersonation, slander, and other acts unfitting of a director of
>>>>>>> the national chess federation. He's NOT been attacked for satire,
>
>>> Since Phil didn't seem to get it, patient Mike spelled it out
>
>> Patient Mike? Mike Murray is a hot-headed judgemental sort of bloke who does
>> not need to hear all of anything to make his pronouncements - like Spinrad
>> and the whine-Judge - and who cannot own his own opinions, but is all to
>> ready to tells others what theirs should be, or mocks them, 50 times...
>
> <remaining blather snipped>
>
> As is his usual practice when caught in a falsehood, Phil tries a
> smokescreen.
>
> Again, Phil, you said "you [Truong] becoming accused of not as much
> impersonating, but satirizing another Board member," which is
> patently untrue. He has not been accused of satirizing. You were
> caught, and now you're ducking and dodging.
>
> Let's have you admit your error on this point before we address other
> issues, shall we? Come on, Phil, 'fess up. It would be good for
> your soul (and, Lord knows, it needs some goodness after that
> miserable excuse for an "interview" -- maybe the Reverend Walker will
> sell you an indulgence -- better make it a double plenary).
Better to nail him to a church door like tin Luther did with his thesis.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Mar 2008 15:55:13
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
On Tue, 04 2008 23:35:27 GMT, Brian Lafferty
<[email protected] > wrote:
>> Come on, Phil, 'fess up. It would be good for
>> your soul (and, Lord knows, it needs some goodness after that
>> miserable excuse for an "interview" -- maybe the Reverend Walker will
>> sell you an indulgence -- better make it a double plenary).
>Better to nail him to a church door like tin Luther did with his thesis.
Reconsecrating a building is expensive these days. Anyway, a wooden
door might catch fire.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 16:25:59
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
> On 3, 4:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dear Reader,
>>
>> 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now
>> published athttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
>>
>> There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 20 questions
>> session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry brought about
>> by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCafe.
>>
>> Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive detail, to
>> illustrate the context of reks made in the current interview.
>
> Mr. Truong:
>
> "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
>
> What kind of bs is that?!
>
> But yes, nobody in past had this kind of experience
> in criminal Internet behavior as Mr. Truong - in this
> respect he's unique.
>
> Phil:
>
> "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
> but satirizing another Board member,"
>
> Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
> (Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
> but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
> you write like this).
>
> Wlod
Wlod, the who thing was little more than a press release for Trolgar.
Nothing new. Innes and his friends at Chessville aren't interested in
facts lets alone digging for them. They're really little more than PR
flacks.
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 14:01:41
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:rEVyj.398$x93.126@trndny03...
> Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
>> On 3, 4:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Dear Reader,
>>>
>>> 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now
>>> published
>>> athttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
>>>
>>> There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 20
>>> questions
>>> session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry brought
>>> about
>>> by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCafe.
>>>
>>> Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive detail, to
>>> illustrate the context of reks made in the current interview.
>>
>> Mr. Truong:
>>
>> "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
>>
>> What kind of bs is that?!
>>
>> But yes, nobody in past had this kind of experience
>> in criminal Internet behavior as Mr. Truong - in this
>> respect he's unique.
>>
>> Phil:
>>
>> "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>> but satirizing another Board member,"
>>
>> Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
>> (Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
>> but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
>> you write like this).
>>
>> Wlod
> Wlod, the who thing was little more than a press release for Trolgar.
> Nothing new. Innes and his friends at Chessville aren't interested in
> facts lets alone digging for them. They're really little more than PR
> flacks.
Golly gosh! The line-judge had turned into the whine-judge. The absurdity of
people posting anon at Chessville's Forum after receiving a rebuke from the
moderator to observe rules - and this person being a 'judge' who cannot
appreciate social rules... <grin > And no regular poster at Chessville's
forum makes any protest... <grin > who then has to create another anon
moniker, and encourage his buddies to do same <grin >
And such a fold being banned everywhere else on moderated forums... for lack
of respect for its populace, for hectoring opposition, for denying any
desire to hear the whole thing... <grin >
Well... after a 3,500 word interview, ain't it interesting that NO MATTER of
FAST is addressed by the whine-judge, who apparently doesn't need to hear
the all of it to make his JUDGEMENTS! and thus colludes with Wlod and
Spinrad, Murray and Brennan and others who don't need to hear the all of to
make up their mind, [as such] either. At least, this is what they say of
themselves.
Any other appreciation of thing, according to the whine-judge, is "PR".
What I say is that these folks are shit-scared of the whole thing coming
out, and letting members make up their own minds on it - since that would be
true democratic procedure, true transparency, and truly revealing of the
state of US chess.
I am encouraged to read from Paul Truong that he intends to pursue this
issue, in the proper 'forum' which I think is not any reference to
Chessville, and such people may have due reason to be 'shit-scared'. And
that Paul Truong will pursue it with a will. And he bloody well will ;))
Good!
It is necessary to explode all this nonsense, then we can get on with what
was always a difficult task - to progress chess in the country by open
dialog, and discard those people's opinions who gave up already.
Phil Innes
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 20:33:06
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:rEVyj.398$x93.126@trndny03...
>> Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
>>> On 3, 4:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Dear Reader,
>>>>
>>>> 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now
>>>> published
>>>> athttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
>>>>
>>>> There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 20
>>>> questions
>>>> session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry brought
>>>> about
>>>> by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCafe.
>>>>
>>>> Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive detail, to
>>>> illustrate the context of reks made in the current interview.
>>> Mr. Truong:
>>>
>>> "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
>>>
>>> What kind of bs is that?!
>>>
>>> But yes, nobody in past had this kind of experience
>>> in criminal Internet behavior as Mr. Truong - in this
>>> respect he's unique.
>>>
>>> Phil:
>>>
>>> "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
>>> but satirizing another Board member,"
>>>
>>> Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
>>> (Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
>>> but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
>>> you write like this).
>>>
>>> Wlod
>> Wlod, the who thing was little more than a press release for Trolgar.
>> Nothing new. Innes and his friends at Chessville aren't interested in
>> facts lets alone digging for them. They're really little more than PR
>> flacks.
>
> Golly gosh! The line-judge had turned into the whine-judge. The absurdity of
> people posting anon at Chessville's Forum after receiving a rebuke from the
> moderator to observe rules - and this person being a 'judge' who cannot
> appreciate social rules... <grin> And no regular poster at Chessville's
> forum makes any protest... <grin> who then has to create another anon
> moniker, and encourage his buddies to do same <grin>
>
> And such a fold being banned everywhere else on moderated forums... for lack
> of respect for its populace, for hectoring opposition, for denying any
> desire to hear the whole thing... <grin>
Getting rather sensitive there Bowel Boy. You and your friends at
Chessville are just shills hoping for droppings from the Trolgar pastry
wagon. Enjoy it while you can.
>
> Well... after a 3,500 word interview, ain't it interesting that NO MATTER of
> FAST is addressed by the whine-judge, who apparently doesn't need to hear
> the all of it to make his JUDGEMENTS! and thus colludes with Wlod and
> Spinrad, Murray and Brennan and others who don't need to hear the all of to
> make up their mind, [as such] either. At least, this is what they say of
> themselves.
>
> Any other appreciation of thing, according to the whine-judge, is "PR".
Nothing in the piece is new. Your utterly disingenuous statement about
what Truong did being satire is pitiful. That position isn't getting
any traction.
>
> What I say is that these folks are shit-scared of the whole thing coming
> out, and letting members make up their own minds on it - since that would be
> true democratic procedure, true transparency, and truly revealing of the
> state of US chess.
>
> I am encouraged to read from Paul Truong that he intends to pursue this
> issue, in the proper 'forum' which I think is not any reference to
> Chessville, and such people may have due reason to be 'shit-scared'. And
> that Paul Truong will pursue it with a will. And he bloody well will ;))
A number of us look forward to putting Mr. Truong and his wife under
oath to ask all the questions the shills haven't had the motivation to
ask. And at trial, they'll be subpoenaed as hostile witnesses. Fun
times ahead, if that's what Trolgar wants.
>
> Good!
>
> It is necessary to explode all this nonsense, then we can get on with what
> was always a difficult task - to progress chess in the country by open
> dialog, and discard those people's opinions who gave up already.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 09:00:43
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:214fc4e0-0244-4761-9a1f-f73f66e7baa0@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 3, 4:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dear Reader,
>>
>> 20 or so Questions and Answers with board member Mr. Paul Truong is now
>> published
>> athttp://www.chessville.com/Editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Truong2.htm
>>
>> There are two links within this interview - one to a previous 20
>> questions
>> session on Mr. Truong's background, and another to an inquiry brought
>> about
>> by a Larry Parr letter concerning USCF's relations with ChessCafe.
>>
>> Both inclusions provide a necessary background, or extensive detail, to
>> illustrate the context of reks made in the current interview.
>
> Mr. Truong:
>
> "the USCF has never had anyone with our experience and expertise."
>
> What kind of bs is that?!
>
> But yes, nobody in past had this kind of experience
> in criminal Internet behavior as Mr. Truong - in this
> respect he's unique.
>
> Phil:
>
> "you becoming accused of not as much impersonating,
> but satirizing another Board member,"
>
> Sorry, Phil, but you have lost my respect for you.
> (Perhaps my opinion doesn't mean much to you,
> but I am still sorry, I mean it. It's a shame that
> you write like this).
>
> Wlod
I'm sorry Wlod, but I could [almost] always tell the difference between the
false-Sloan and the real one. I find it difficult to believe any native
English speaker could not. But perhaps people will now write in to say how
dumb they are?
What I found encouraging about the interview was a determination to pursue
this matter so that all the information could come out, and so all people
could review it. If I did not think that way I would lose respect for
myself.
As to your first point, surely keting expertise is contestable! - but 50
mainstream mentions in 2006 compared with USCF's 2, makes for a contest, no?
A couple or 3 films on chess now in the offing, an Institute for chess
established within mainstream media... meanwhile
In the Parrot this week I had to take note in a sidebar that USCF's
financial advisor got it wrong by a mere $94,000 dollars, putting ChessHut
even further into the hole. And that is uncontestable. Now, 94k is nothing
to you and me, but its probably 3 or 4 jobs to other people - and this is
after Bill Goichberg and Bill Hall have prepared the scene by mentioning
letting people go...
And therefore, the Parrot extrapolates what this can all mean in the next 12
months - and if we will see a bare bones 'Small Tent' organisation of a
dozen or so people employed on maintencance activities. Did I answer your
keting question yet?
I think post-Fischer boom that USCF membership has grown only to the same
extent as the US population. But anyway, you tell me what you think of all
that, and what your own measures are - then we could actually discuss
something.
I have respect for myself in attempting dialog based on actually looking at
what is going on, not on vague propaganda and partialities. The ship is
almost sunk Wlod, and no one seems to be in control nor responsible.
Certainly not the USCF board or Ex Director, who have declined to talk about
it.
Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2008 18:44:08
From: BESSIE TILLEY
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
what r u talking about?
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Mar 2008 13:11:18
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: 20 Questions with Paul Truong
|
> I'm sorry Wlod, but I could [almost] always tell the difference between
> the false-Sloan and the real one. I find it difficult to believe any
> native English speaker could not.
What's Joel Channing's native language?
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
|
